"Orders Aren't Friendly!" Topic

You were asked – TMP link

Writing in Slingshot 330, David Kay remarks that a game system which involves players issuing orders to units relies on a "high degree of integrity and trust" which should work in friendly games "but probably less so in competitive environments." Would you agree?

51% said "yes, I agree"
24% said "no, I do not agree"

What is the objective of orders? In the real world it is the only way of maintaining control of an army. No orders often means no plan so nothing does anything. Now many games with restricted movement allow players to operate with no plan, he can do little each move and the opponent equally can do little so no real plan is necessary so players don't have to give themselves 'orders'. Now being in a correctly set up DBM game a plan becomes vital, What you do now depends on the players to ability to plan. Ho,w to exploit a large move that the enemy, will as in reality will not be able be able to respond too quickly so in essence it works well.
Personally I have found DBM's system is not open to abuse. Some will see it as not orders, but in a way it is its about being able to plan and get things moving to get inside the opponents decision loop. Orders are a part of that decision loop. Now you could argue that the DBM 'Orders system' can be changed by the players whim. However the adage "Order Counter order equals disorder" still applies.

Our own game uses a model though different achieves similar goals. The players needs to write orders in his/her head, they are private and cannot be revealed BUT not having them or changing them in your head at a whim is as bad as having them on paper, wanton changes will result in disorder.

So a system that clearly accounts for the delays in the system of the real world can force a player to "write orders in his head" to avoid disorder. However a high level of trust is not required as the system police's the players just as it does all other rules.

There are potential drawbacks to such systems for some, "luck" is minimized and there is need for planning and thought and planning, without these losing is almost inevitable. Many mainstream games are highly random in part I suspect that better players are handicapped such that in a mixed ability game the less able stand a limited a chance of winning. How this rates good or bad depends on your point of view.

Back when writing down orders for your units were in vogue in some rulesets. I found a lot of people (myself included) would soon forget them or which units had what orders in the heat of battle. The other option was to use counters but then your opponent knew what you were up to and I find lots of counters distracts from the look of a game.

Best way to use orders in a game imo would probably be as a multi player game. You could have a commander and chief sat back from the gaming table giving out orders based on info fed back to him by umpires. While players at the table command brigades or divisions using the orders given to them by the c-in-c through the umpires.

I think for completion games your better off using a system like DBA or black powder which condense orders down to some of dice rolling command system just becuase it's less open to abuse.

Dbm is not really orders. More a mix of control and ups and down in activity.
An order for a wide flanking move to a cavalry wing would launch them beyond your (general cinc) ability to recall or change in time for something else. Their speed / ability to do has no connection with your problems on the other wing "swallowing" your pips. It works better than nothong but it should barely be called orders. Chaos and control?

I like orders. They frustrate everybody equally.

Written orders are just reflective of an era in the hobby. Very 1970's when rules had simultaneous movement. They immediately elevated the stress and tension of the game and made everything much more competitive--and ultimately less fun. I don't miss 'em at all.

"…that a game system which involves players issuing orders to units relies on a "high degree of integrity and trust."

Considering how many different ways game systems have players 'issue orders,' this would seem to be a fairly vague description and depending on the system, wouldn't require much more integrity and trust than the normal amount expected in either friendly or 'unfriendly' games.

I *think* this is referring to written orders of some kind, which requires far more than just integrity and trust to work in a 'less than friendly'[?] circumstances or tournament situation.

The main purpose of orders is to force something to occur. This is especially critical in games where both sides are equal size, which in reality would result in an initial probe and then both sides hunkering down in a defensive position until reinforcements arrive (assuming 20th century conflicts, and probably 19th century as well). This is a bad game.

In some cases what is about to occur as a result of orders will result in one side getting hammered, but as the order say attack, attack they must. In summary, if you wish a charge of the light brigade, orders will allow this to occur. On the other hand we need to ask ourselves if we wish to fight such a conflict. This is a bad game.

Even if we have unbalanced force mixes, a set of rules may be designed in such a manner than players do not wish to do anything. Complex rules are a classic example of this, but even if the rules are playable, victory conditions can cause this as well. The classic example is if victory is based on eliminating enemy elements, which means the easiest way to avoid losing is to avoid losing any elements. The result is a very boring game.

If the rules are playable and the victory conditions are structured correctly, orders are not necessary, although in some rules the orders and victory conditions are linked and both are required. I suspect spearhead fits into to this.

Command points and PIP's have a different purpose; they are designed to stop things happening. Some game systems are highly playable and volatile, this you need "friction" to avoid the game resulting in a highly unrealistic activities. In chess, which is very volatile, this is achieved by each player only moving one piece per player turn, for example.

pfmodel That is an interesting definition of Chess as volatile, and I have to agree that it has significant merit. It is volatile in that a lot can happen over a considerable depth.
I am less sure that the one piece at a time movement in chess in of itself reduces volatility.

To me its the one element at a time system that generates the volatility. How would you program all the pieces to move at once. This is not a real question but aimed at thought provoking like the "The sound of one hand clapping". to me the volatility is due to the pieces having the capability of wide ranging movement in some cases without let or hindrance from the other player.

I do have to disagree about command points and PIP's. A generals plan is in his head, orders are part of the friction of war; they prevent him doing what he wants instantly without let or hindrance.

Game volatility is a function of movement, if you have a system which gives each element a large movement rate and if all units could move unhindered, then you would have a highly volatile and dynamic system, which may still give you a game, but to duplicate historical conflict, unrealistic.

Using my chess example, allowing a player to move all his pieces would result in a lot of volatility, thus the limit of one piece a player turn. You can say each player spins a 1 PIP each player turn.

The "US Army FM 105 dash 5 manual" provides a description of a related impact. At 5000m+ metres a formation is unimpeded, but when within 5000 to 1000 metres the forward movement of a unit dramatically decreases, by a factor of 5, and so on. ( youtu.be/aDa7lg4pYGE ) When actually under fire the rate of advance slows to a crawl, as you would expect it, but even when you think enemy are close by there is an effect. You could reduce movement as you get closer to an enemy, but a PIP or command control system is simpler.

If the movement rate was low, the game system has a low volatility and consequently the effect of fire combat increases, which discourages forward movement. Orders can overcome this as this ratio is a game design feature, not a historical simulation ratio.

Thus if a player could move all elements unhindered then high volatility = high movement, which allows a player in a player turn to force an advantageous combat situation, low volatility = low movement, which increases the effect of fire combat and makes its harder to form up an attack. The best solution is a well-balanced game system, but that is harder said than done.

Orders and PIP's each have a historical basis, as you indicated, I was only describing the game system outcome of the two rules concept. One is to force activity; the other is to restrict it.

Intersting, The description of movement is worth looking at. Underlying the rate of movement is really a risk analysis in the real world. If you thought the enemy was not close you would be tempted to move faster. Wolfhag forgive me pinching your words but they suit well its a case of risk and reward being set correctly.

In our own rules we allow very fast movement but at high risk, the random element is relatively small so get it wrong and you will get 'Hurt', some games encourage unrealistic gambles and risk taking, we do not.

On that basis we allow the speed of movement to be at the discretion of the commander, he will decide on the circumstances when to reduce speed based on his "risk reward" analysis. Faster means high er risk. Driving fast close (1500m or less) to the enemy is suicidal in most cases.

This allows certainly for the modern player, the ability as to when he deploys from column of march to combat to be under his control. As combat starts things get slower. The excessive slow movement in many "Featherstone Clones" actually can make the system more unrealistic.

The attacks in waves favored in the real world seems to work in our system. The front wave tends to be engaged first and gets to a position where it is very difficult to deploy "under fire". The wave behind is less/not engaged so can respond much faster to the situation developing round the front wave.

So volatility in a reasonable measure is important. DBM was probably one of the first attempts get to grips with this issue, certainly in my experience. It dis perhaps do it too much by "regulation" rather than by Risk reward but it was a massive advance over previous rules.

Writing orders was an early attempt but to be honest it was difficult to invoke well and short form orders were too bland to be very credible and lets face it none of us wants to spend too long writing our plan down and all the caveats that would be in real orders, conditions, RV points if it goes wrong etc.

Thanks UshCha – prompting me to dig out W P BAXTER "Soviet AirLand Battle Tactics" again.

In my mind – battle drills.

Stoppage – you might say standing orders or lessons learnt the hard way and written down to stop others making the same mistakes.

Writing orders was an early attempt but to be honest it was difficult to invoke well and short form orders were too bland to be very credible and lets face it none of us wants to spend too long writing our plan down and all the caveats that would be in real orders, conditions, RV points if it goes wrong etc.

This sums up the issue with orders very well. Still I have to admit in spearhead it works, but I still don't like it.