"rules with realistic command and control" Topic

Hi! I am just interested in finding rules that would have the most realistic ocmmand and control aspect in them – i like games where orders may fail to be received or acted upon or ma turn up late – is this something that napoleonic wargaming rules offer. I like what i read about Et Sans Resultat and how orders may fail to be received, and there any others like this.

basically if anyone is familiar with the Scourge of War Waterloo and Campaigns on the Danube pc games , something like their mechanics but for tabletop rules

Hi Georg,

For an already published ruleset, you can have a look at "Grand Manoeuvre Napoleonic Miniatures Wargames Rules" By Michael Collins. it is available in PDF and has a solo module. the order(s) aspect is just one element, Mike has designed a very interesting system in that area.

link

best regards

PS: i would change your "C.2" question with "C.D", command and direction of troops !
; )

thank you – that sounds very good, i will check that out!

I think Et Sans Resultat (ESR) does an excellent job with that issue.

Black Powder is not a Napoleonic rule set per se, but it has a rule that can result in a Blunder. I love it. I have thought about incorporating it into other rules.

Tom

Hi Garry,

i don't have ESR > how is it working exactly for command and direction of troops ?
can you give some details on the elements and sub elements in play in that area, is is just about "orders" to be implemented / executed/ delayed etc. ?
i see there is a 3rd ed ..

thanks & best regards : )

If your focus is command control you need a reasonable high scale set of rules, possibly something which allows you to recreate an entire historical battle.

These rules support smaller battles, such as Marengo.
youtu.be/MhCOCWaeyxM

These rules support anything up to Leipzig
youtu.be/MhCOCWaeyxM

But most don't support "order" rules, mainly focusing on command radius, command points and other rules which simulate the inability to command stuff. Shako may come the closest to a set of rules which specifically uses orders.

General d'Armee has excellent command and control rules, and also models the skirmish battle well

All good suggestions.

Corps d'Armée is an older set that handles orders well. Describes itself as commanders having to "move through the gears" when it comes to issuing and changing orders.

March Attack is also worth a look.
Black Powder is too random for me. Works well for fantasy, not so much for historicals.

thanks for the suggestions – i have not heard of Corps d'Armee, only General d'Armee

March Attack i have been wondering about

yes to be more precise it is that concept of orders having some role – i have heard of shako often but never actually much about its contents and i dont come across folks playing it, but if it has orders playng a role i am curious abou it now

Cdr Luppo, I regret not having the time to describe the command and control aspects of ESR.

However, here is a link to downloads. Scroll down to 2nd Edition and click on Overview. That should be of some help.

link

Then you m ight want to scroll down from there to the Quick Reference Guides. Click on any one as the ground scale does not matter.

Tom

Shako has orders as arrows on a map for attacking divisions. Works well and is nice and simple. General d'Armee has a much more granular system where you can decide where to focus your command effort

General de Brigade has been my rule set for over 10 years. Command and Control are perfect for my gaming temperment

ESR handles orders at three levels: objectives dictate where the parts of a corps have to go like a destination or a waypoint, directives control how each division or brigade act – move, attack, support, etc, then leader actions are sorta more tactical things like committing or relocating artillery. There are five directives to pick from, it looks like the new edition adds a sixth: withdraw, which should make rearguards work better.

The command system gives players options but requires thinking ahead and it makes it difficult to change plans immediately. Some of the orders can ‘convert' to others, so if you think ahead you can be more flexible.

Leader actions are pass/fail. Objectives and directives can be delayed or fail outright depending on how much they miss their roll by, but both continue in effect until after they are activated, so if you activate an attack directive for a division, it will attack until you activate something else for it, or it reaches its corps' objective. The modifiers are mostly for how good the commanders are and how busted up division is, lastly if either is close to the enemy.

The condition of divisions is measured in ‘fatigue'. It looks like the new version coming our in spring changes this a little. If you look at the new quick reference there's a lot less modifiers for activating orders. There's also now a ‘cohesion' value that you compare to fatigue to see how worn out a division is.

They talk about the new stuff being added here: link

A page on things that are changing here: link

The new and the old quick reference PDFs can be downloaded too: link

Additional thoughts on ESR per questions raised -

The Command and Leadership is integrated into most phases, it is very robust system. When a formation is moving between Deploy and Ploy, the Leadership will be a factor. Beyond the information posted on Orders, there are ten 'Leader Actions' that can be taken, an example being commit Engineers to an attack.
In Combat a Commander's Tactical Rating will be considered, but also will be 'Leader Fate' with some Charmed and some having a date with death.
Finally, with a formation/Division in battle taking losses, taking 'Fatique', with the Combat Assessment the Commander's leadership will factor in to hold his formation together.
Key in all of this discussion is what saddle to you want to ride in? We are blessed with many good rule systems and deal with much white noise due to all the bad sets. ESR is about mounting higher command, the grand scope of movement with Napoleonic battles. Will you be ordering more lights out into your skirmish screen, well NO as that command is at a lower level. Does this mean it is not represented in the game, Well No it is there. That light battalion will be putting more force into the skirmish attack as formations close.
What ever rules you use, enjoy.

I think ESR is a pretty good rule set if you want to be a corps commander. You have to be careful with smaller battles though, it really isn't designed for that. Stands are battalions, maneuver units are divisions.

I don't think you can beat the old school Charge! 'fog of war' rule for regiment-based games. Command and control is what happens between players and their miniatures. After orders are written, a die is rolled per unit with a '1' resulting in that unit pursuing the previous order (or remaining inactive if no previous order had been issued). So very simple, but essentially accurate. Many times I have played in multi-player games where all the c and c problems of an historical army are replicated among the personalities playing. I don't need to paint up a general figure to be told by the rules that to make the points total, John Bell Hood or Murat or Attila has to be rated 'cautious.'

But then it's true that as you get older, you incline towards the simple things again.

Interesting discussion. As an old grognard, I recall George Jeffries often brilliant notions. Unfortunately, his approach only worked if he was available as a judge. With newly opened eyes I too tried to create a simultaneous movement "realistic" game system. While it works for me and some of my friends, others hate it! Quite simply, many gamers want a make 'pefect' moves and object if they cannot. My simple test of a rule systems command and control approach is how often do flank attacks occur. Historically, throughout eras, they were often decisive. On most tabletops, they seldom occur. With all of that in mind, below is the overview for my Generalship Napoleonics (please note, I do not sell these, I merely mention them in connection with this thread in hopes they might help someone) and here is my description of what I call subordinate initiative.

Cheers from James
Napoleon Books

Command Control Game

A command game is an attempt to compensate for the helicopter-gamer who sees all. The gamer watches the battle unfold. When he wants to intervene, he plays the role of either a subordinate or a CIC. If the former, then he puts himself in the subordinate's position and considers what can that commander see and know. To justify the intervention, the player follows the chain of command. Likewise, a CIC must be either able to see a change of situation from his vantage point or to have received a report informing him of a change of situation. Again, follow the chain of command.

When to Roll Subordinate Initiative

1. When receiving new orders via courier.

2. When reacting to threats the subordinate can see, e.g. a force is moving to attack the subordinate's flank and the command figure has a clear line of sight to the enemy force.

3. When perfecting a deployment, e.g. changing formation for attack or defense; reinforcing the skirmish line; positioning foot batteries to provide better support.

4. When a foreseen tactical event transpires (-4). e.g. a second line has standing orders to counter-attack to recapture lost front line or cavalry has standing orders to charge in support of some other unit. Resuming a movement that is in accord with game length orders is also a "foreseen" roll.

5. When the subordinate is operating under a conditional game length order. e.g. if the enemy crosses the stream, charge! If there is doubt whether a conditional order is a conditional order, it is!

6. Cavalry charge if charged. Use foreseen roll (-4). This often requires colonel initiative.
Colonels, like other subordinates, roll to determine rating.

All failures cause 15 minute delay. Then execute order.

thanks Regicide1649 AND James

- @Regicide1649 are you talking about Charge Eagles Rising? i like the system you described there very much! it is elegantly simple but could work very well

and to James – wow, great to hear your input, as a fan of your books as i am sure all others are. I like youl rules there for rolling for suborb initiative, that is your own creation? have you released a larger ruleset that this fits within?

I have always liked there to be spanners thrown in the works when it comes to units carrying out orders, and especially systems which my increase the difficulties as the disorder and and chaos of battle itself reaches its crescendo

something else that i wonder about and perhaps it is not something any game can represent albeit only abstractly perhaps – cannon and musket fire smoke reducing the visibility on the battlefield – did this kind of thing ever actually impact on decisions made in any historical battles?

I have read about how bad the visibility was reduced at Borodino. Perhaps its really only a marginal factor and would only be relevant in large scale battles

I wish I was young enough to have played Charge: Eagles Rising! Thank you, sir. Instead I refer to the rules written by Lawford and Young called 'Charge!, first published in the 1960s but still popular among 18th Century gamers. It strikes a plausible balance between playablility and what we might imagine as realism.('Charge!' is stil available, I think; I'm sure the TMP community would know from where.)

To modern tastes it is probably too simplistic overall, but the 'fog of war' rule and one or two others always struck me as – as you say, GeorgBuchner – elegant. Young served as a commando in Normandy in 1944 and Lawford was (I think) a Guard's officer. They knew what they were talking about, those gentlemen.

As for gunsmoke/smog influencing a battle, the example that springs to mind is Lutzen in 1632, when the Swedish king was slain during a flank attack which came out of thick fog. A painting by Carl Wahlbom of this incident gives a pretty good idea of atmospheric conditions. I am told that 'Lutzen dimma' (the last being 'fog'), is still an expression in Swedish equivalent to a 'pea-souper' in modern English.

For ordinary gunsmoke on the field, I have assumed pretty much that it would be the same for both sides. Previous generations of rules used to take into account weather and ground conditions which in specific scenarios might be vitally important. But generally, reducing visibility and all movement by 25%, for example, just slows up play.

But please experiment with 'house rules' and report back. I don't think I've ever played a ruleset entirely as written.

Thank you Georg for your kind comments. Yes, the subordinate initiative rule is my own creation and yes it fits into my house rules, Generalship Napoleonics (never published). For what it is worth, here are two more sections relevant to command and control:

Game Length Orders

Write game length orders for all maneuver units, i.e. Brigades for the Tactical Game; Corps, Divisions, and detached units for the Grand Tactical Game.

These orders can be changed only when a messenger arrives with a new order or the Commander in Chief arrives to change the order. Game length orders that have a conditional instruction (i.e. if this then do that) require a leader to roll initiative using the foreseen modifier (-4).

A unit that has a game length order to do something, e.g. "advance", and for whatever reason interrupts that maneuver, requires subordinate initiative to resume its maneuver, rolling as a foreseen event.

All subordinates are given a value on a D12 called the initiative rating. The values can be historic or randomly generated depending upon the scenario. These leaders are then assigned to the maneuver units; either randomly or by gamer's decision, again depending on the scenario.

Roll six-sided to determine rating and then roll to determine value.

1= Mediocre 2-4
2-4= Average 4-6
5=Skilled 7-9
6=Exceptional 10-11

Cheers, James

thanks Jame – again so great rules there too!. i hope you get Generalship published one day! :)