"Update/Status: Historical Wargaming in Michigan" Topic

My esteemed TMP colleagues,

My sincere apologies for the long delay (since 1 Sept '21) in providing you with any follow up on Historical Wargaming and the status of my own Historically Valid Wargame Design project, 'Coup d'Oeil'. I was originally shooting for 2 December 2021 (i.e., the 216th anniversary of the Battle of Austerlitz), but several long running Computer/SW issues (27 Sept – 4 Jan '22) with Windows 10 (to include several encounters with Microsoft's; 'Blue Screen of Death'), my new MSI computer and the Minitab 21 Statistical Analysis SW running on it, quickly thwarted that goal and moved it all back a month to 8 Jan. 2022. I'm finally clear of it,..Praise the Lord! ;^)

Moreover, allot of what I intend to present over the next couple of days/weeks, is going to challenge many of you and/or debunk quite a few of the Wargame Community's sacred paradigms, and with any luck, serve as a catalyst to finally overhaul and establish our own "Historical Wargame Lexicon" of terminology, definitions and their use.

In the long run, it is my hope that we may even be able to topple a few generally accepted wargame design 'wives tales' about True Historical Wargaiming. Beliefs which from my perspective, have only served to hinder, rather than to help objectively evaluate and assess the impact and value of any new wargame design developments.

My own historical prototype, 'Coup d'Oeil' (Cd'O)* was played by the public for the 1st Time, at The SPARTACON Wargame Convention in Lansing, MI. on 8 January 2022. Its debut was part of an event called, "The Gateway to the Goldbach, Austerlitz 1805." This event recreated the Austro-Russian Army's efforts to force a crossing of the Goldbach river in the vicinity of Telnitz/Sokolnitz, thus placing the Austro-Russian Army's 1st & 2nd Columns in a position to turn Napoleon's Right Flank. It envolved Five (5) NEW Wargamers (i.e., they had No Knowledge of either Me or Cd'O, prior to playing in this game on 8 Jan '22.

The 2nd public playing of Cd'O will take place at the "HAVOC XXXVI (2022) Convention near Boston, MA. that is scheduled for 8-10 April 2022. Event Info: TBD. If you are anywhere near the Boston area during that timeframe, I welcome you to come by say Hello and make Your Own Assessment.

*Note: Coup d'Oeil (e.g., French pronunciation: [ku dœj]) is a term taken from French, that more or less corresponds to the words glimpse or glance in English. The literal meaning is "stroke of [the] eye". It is mostly used (in English) in a military context, where Coup d'Oeil refers to the ability to discern at one glance, the tactical advantages and disadvantages of the terrain.

My HISTORICAL DESIGN Philosophy & Methodology. My overarching design philosophy is focused on 'Historical Validity'. Which means that ALL the internal Models, BOS and System Architecture have to be vetted, evaluated and verified using primary authoritative & empirical sources, such as the restricted Historical and DOD battlefield data, which is exactly what I am actually doing right now. The genesis of this philosophy/methodology is the same as what Lord Kelvin (i.e. 19th century UK Scientist) expressed in these two (2) quotes he made, over 100 years ago:

1. "I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind." -- Lord Kelvin

2. "Accurate and minute measurement seems to the Non-Scientific imagination, a less lofty and dignified work than looking for something new. But nearly all the grandest discoveries of science have been but the rewards of 'accurate measurement' and 'patient long-continued labor in the minute sifting of numerical results'." -- Lord Kelvin

NUMBERS EXAMPLE(i.e., Historical Data): Living within my own methodology's requirements, Cd'O's own combat model is based upon the painstaking historical data collection, analysis and final assessment of over 800+ historical Napoleonic tactical engagements that occurred between 1800 & 1812. The resulting Minitab 21 Napoleonic Engagement database (that contains all these historical records), has over 64,000 separate pieces of combat information about each of these engagements, to include the individual engagement Commanders (i.e. from BDE up to ARMY level in each engagement), the individual Combatant Units (i.e. CO.,BN, & RGT), Strength, Posture, Weather, Terrain, Obscuration, Tactical Outcomes, Unit Type, Cohesion, Duration and a host of others (i.e., 82 total engagement factors & variables for each and every historical record in this database).

This data centric approach, coupled with two (2) design development methodologies that have always produced results for me in the past, which are: a) Model-->Test-->Model-->Test *AND* b) Using the: Crawl-->Walk-->Run approach to establish performance thresholds/milestones, while allowing key sub-system to evolve independently, while still being available for use within the current design phase, enabling updating the system, as they mature.

Finally, I have asked and received the willing assistance of Mr. Norm Gibson, who was the Small Arms & Artillery Technical Advisor on the Movie: "Masters and Commanders, The Far Side of the World". Using his own historical weapons (e.g., his own 'full scale' 12 lbs. Napoleon Cannons) and Small Arms, he provided the movie film production crew with all the Sound Tracks and Weapon Special Effects and recreations that you seen and heard in that movie. The movie won an Oscar for this aspect of production thanks to Norm's professional support.

NEW HISTORICAL WARGAME DESIGN SYSTEMS & FEATURES. Here is a list of the Top 6 'NEW Wargame Design Features' that my Cd'O project will bring to historical miniature wargaming:

1. ASYMETRICAL TIME. A radically new approach to miniature wargame design that replaces traditional, "Turns, Moves, Phases, Bounds, and oh yes, even VLB! " with an "Asymmetrical Time System" that treats 'Time' as a 'Dependent Variable', which is Not set at a fixed value. Instead it is treated as an 'Independent Variable', which is embedded within the 'Synthetic Battlefield System*'. Thus, 'Asymmetrical Time' relies upon time segments that do not correspond to one another in terms of: shape, duration, arrangement and any other major features that are associated with symmetry.

Essentially, asymmetrical time relates to the tracking of Time by each individual Player (i.e., that mainly exists in 'Your Own Head') and then correlating it with all the other Players. There is an official Game Clock, (an actual analog clock, with hands, that displays current game time) but its main purpose is to perform the 'Synchronization Functions' which aligns, controls and correlates ALL Player activity at different reference points during the battle. It's really not that complicated or involved and is easily assimilated in 2-minutes, once actual game play begins.

*Note: In Cd'O the 'Synthetic Battlefield System' act as the independent variable, which is the 'cause'. Thus, 'Time', as the dependent variable, is part of the 'quantifiable 'effect' (i.e. product). Its value depends on changes in the independent variable (i.e. changes/actions occurring on the Cd'O Synthetic Battlefield).

2. THE SYNTHETIC BATTLEFIELD ENVIRONMENT. The Synthetic Battlefield Environment seeks to provide the platform to integrate together, all the 'live-physical' components with the 'constructive modeling & simulation elements' into one common historical simulation. Coup d'Oeil requires the synthetic battlefield to manage, provide and reflect all battlefield environmental and operational effects that will be inputted into simulation, and used to provide output to the Players. The resulting influence that this "Synthetic Battlefield Environment" has on each Player is the same as Nature! That is, the Player can only "See, Know and Act Upon" physical and sensory information that is available to him within the constraints of the current SBE. Example: Smoke & Fog impacts, LOS, SA, Movement & Limit Combat.

3. Cd'O BATTLEFIELD ENGAGEMENT System & Criteria. In order to harvest the full capability of combat statistical models, sub-systems & analysis, you have to establish and leverage several constants, such as this Napoleonic Engagement definition and its controlling algorithm below:

A Napoleonic Engagement is a combat between two (2) opposing forces, neither larger than a Division (i.e., 10,000 or < Soldiers) and not smaller than a Company (i.e., 100 or > Soldiers), in which each force has an assigned or perceived Mission.

An Engagement begins when the attacking force initiates combat in pursuit of its Mission, and ends when any of these engagement conditions are met:
1) The attacker has accomplished the Mission, or
2) Ceases to try to accomplish the Mission, or
3) When one or both sides receive sufficient reinforcements to alter the ‘Original Combat Force Ratio', thus initiating a ‘New Engagement'.

By doing this You ensure that ALL Engagements have a known 'starting and ending point' (i.e., Apples to Apples approach), and that the evaluation criteria are the same and timelines used are accurate. Moreover, that all inputs/outputs are uniformly applied across the entire Cd'O wargame system architecture.

4. HISTORICAL BATTLEFIELD DECISION MAKING is defined as: "Making tactical/operational decisions under conditions of uncertainty, risk, stress and real time constraints." Tactical/Operational decision making occurs in environments characterized by high uncertainty, risk and considerable stress which is directly associated with retaining the initiative and winning critical, high-stakes combats and coping with all the possible adverse events & outcomes. Add to this the time stress/constraint/finality associated with the need to make a quick tactical decision (i.e., based upon imperfect or non-existing information) and You can start to see and understand the role that 'Risk & Stress' play in respect to battlefield decision making.

Decision makers gather information (observe), form their hypotheses about enemy activity and their intentions (orient), make decisions, and act on them. This is essentially the familiar Boyd OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide and Act) loop. In this process every Commander observes the situation, orients himself, decides what to do, and does it. Thus:
- Observe means to know what is happening through any of your five senses, not just sight.
- Orient means to understand the meaning of what you observed.
- Decide is weighing the options available to you and picking one.
- Act is carrying out the decision.

Both Commander and Wargamer use these same common procedures. They observe the battlefield to assess how their operations are progressing against their Army's overall plan. Their ability to act is constrained by what they can directly observe and what is being reported to them and finally by how much Time is available for them to act upon these observations and/or reports. When it comes to decision making, deciding what to do is not always very easy.

5. HISTORICAL 'BATTLEFIELD IMMERSION' (i.e. establishing a 'Historical Symbiotic relationship between History & Wargame'). Because Cd'O design focuses directly upon the same Physical & Psychological factors such as: "TIME--SPACE--MOTION--SITUATIONAL AWARENESS" that Historical Commanders had to deal with themselves, it can faithfully replicate these same relationships, factors and variables (i.e. Command Environment) on the wargame tabletop. Thus, requiring the Player to work within the very same Battle Command conditions that existed "On the Ground" that his Historical Counterpart did, thus immersing the Player onto that Battlefield (i.e., Synthetic). Remember, all the Players actions, effects, decisions and outcomes are in Cd'O are performed in 'Real Time', which has the overall effect of shrinking the Player down to the size of his own 6mm to 30mm figures.

6. HISTORICAL 'REAL TIME' PLAY. This essentially means that that 'Game Time' and 'Historical Time' are one in the same. Thus, if it's 0835hrs on the wargame tabletop, then YOU, the Player, are also at 0835hrs on the Battle's actual Historical Timeline. Yes, the Player decisions will often differ from their historical counterparts, but, that's a 'Personal Choice' as to how a certain amount of time will be used, not its exact purpose (historical or otherwise). Thus, your main focus and perspective is on overall Time Management, not 'Turn Management'.

During play testing, it was entertaining to watch Player metamorphosis as this simple Time management factor started to impact Player decisions. Especially, the notion that now, "HE" the Player Commander was responsible for identifying and backward engineering operational timelines, control measures, synchronization of forces and combined arms operations, with his colleagues on the flanks and rear, and his very own senior Commander above.

The Path Forward. Because, I am truly interested in receiving your feedback, I endeavored to provide you with as much information as I could in this relatively short summary of Cd'O and my Historical Wargaming Goals. Hopefully, this is enough to enable you to understand the main concepts and dynamics and to help you formulate and pose your questions and/or comments.

Secondly, I am interested in recruiting several 'Historically Minded Play Testers' to help provide the final system feedback in order to identify areas needing 'tweaking' to complete the system. I am only looking to find about 6-12 local wargamers,.. local as in willing to drive the distance from their homes to Detroit, Michigan to perform 'face to face' play testing at my home. Send me a personal email if you are interested.

Finally, I will do my best to respond to everyone's comments. But given the fact that there is only one of me, cut me some slack if I group a couple of similar responses together, before addressing some of the comments.
Regards,
James (aka: Analsim)

Post is too long and detailed without me being able to get much out of it. Tell us how the scenario went: did it get finished; did the players enjoy the experience; and did it feel right to you?

?????????? WOW!
I just never made my hobby this complex?

Wish I was in Boston 8 April. Wish best of luck to you.

It sounds like a solution in search of a problem. It doesn't look like something that I am interested in.

advocate & Old Glory,

Thanks for your responses.

YES, it looks very complicated on the surface. However, the vast majority of the apparent complexity goes into defining, describing and applying the Synthetic Battlefield parameters. Such as Movement, Situational Awareness, LOS and Obscuration (i.e., smoke, dust, rain & ect.) and other 'Physical Realities' that shape, control and portray the host of Human Factors that affect both Player & Historical Battlefield Commanders. The majority of these battlefield factors were taken from DOD & US Army reports.

However, the actual playing of Cd'O itself, is rather simple and comes down to understanding and applying these three (3) simple terms: 'MOVE-SHOOT-COMMUNICATE'.

Which at Spartacon, only took new players about 20-30 minutes of game play for them to forget about all the other wargames they've played in the past, focus instead on understanding and assimilating the historical nature of their roles and actions and,…then Commanding. Note: Transitioning to a competent Player was accomplished WITHOUT ever referring to or reading the Cd'O rule book.

But what I am really after,…is the notion of being able to drop YOU down onto the Napoleonic Battlefield and have YOU use your own senses, to see and act in real time, in order to Command, Control and Communicate with your forces and all the other Player Commanders on your side. I'm really close to completing this task, which I know you will find very satisfying once you've had your own opportunity to Command on this synthetic Napoleonic Battlefield yourself.

Moreover, I am in the process of preparing an After Action Report (AAR) on that 1st Spartacon Convention Event (w/pictures) by the end of this week 4 Feb 2022. Spoiler Alert! – All five (5) of these first Players said it was "the best Napoleonic Wargame they had ever played."

The Austro-Russian 1st Column Commander (Ben) did comment afterwards that his biggest challenge (amidst the chaos on the battlefield) during the game, was the need to find locations, where he could "better 'See and Control' his forces, while pursuing his assigned objectives in the Battle". Especially, when he never seem to have enough 'real time' to all the things he needed to do. He had to force himself to focus on the most important items/actions, which often had him riding upfront with his lead Brigades.

Down the road, I am planning on making a YouTube Video to better Demo this wargame design for you. As you know, pictures make ALL the difference in the world.

For now, I need Wargamer Feedback and Play Testers.

Regards,

James

Gonna say that this is a fairly complicated way of saying a simple-ish concept that is tough to execute.

I like the idea of managing time commitment versus a IGO-UGO system.

Sounds like it requires a ref, but I'd love to see it in action.

I was going to write TL:DR, but I did read it, all of it. So now I'll write TL:hardly understood any of it. You don't appear to have explained how the players actually 'play' the game. Do they hand you written orders? Do they make inputs via their own terminal or tablet? Do they move miniatures on a table?

And finally, does any of this generate fun and enjoyment? Because at the moment it sounds like a Napoleonic version of that dreadful Manoeuvre Group set of rules.

TMP'ers,

I deliberately "Front Loaded" this 1st message with several definitions and concepts, because I knew that YOU & I would need to circle back and refer to them in order to understand and/or explain how Cd'O actually works. Thus, I wanted you to have these references upfront before we actually started to discuss and dissect any of the systems or concepts and their mechanics.

Cd'O is all about replicating the historical "Napoleonic Command Experience" on the Battlefield. That Command Experience revolves solely around "YOU, the Player".

Thus, in order for me to 'Drop you onto this Historical (i.e., synthetic) Battlefield', I have to create it first.

It goes without saying that this synthetic battlefield has to be "Believable!" So, that you can accept it as reality and focus on doing Your main job, Commanding on that Battlefield.

In order for it to be believable to You, it has to faithfully replicate 'YOUR OWN' ability to: SEE, SENSE, MOVE and UNDERSTAND (in Real Time), the nature and significance of the events surroundings you at any given moment.

The intent here is two (2) fold; 1) I want to enable You to "Role Play" with confidence, once you are placed in this synthetic battlefield environment and 2) I want You to be able to accept and depend on this synthetic "State of Nature", as if were REAL LIFE. So, that you can leverage it with what you 'See & Know', in order to create windows of opportunity (i.e., in Time & Space) and act upon them to accomplish Your Tactical/Operational Missions.

Impossible You Say!

Well thanks to all your US Tax Dollars, DOD and the US Army have already spent a fortune $$$ over the last 60+ years on measuring, analyzing and characterizing the very same Human Factors that I am using in Cd'O. During my military career I was directly involved in creating and conducting several Battlefield Experiments that help to define these characteristics. Plus, I have access to the majority of the reports and studies that other DOD agencies have created too.

Thus, the results and metrics from ALL these battlefield reports and studies are built into and serve as the foundation for Cd'O's Synthetic Battlefield Environment. Which includes; Observation, Situational Awareness, Movement, Shooting and managing the flow of Time.

Which means that at any point in Time, as You move about on this battlefield, Cd'O can provide You with an accurate depiction of What you can actually See, Know and Understand based upon the Terrain, LOS, Obscuration, Enemy actions and several other Human Factors that are present at that point in time.

Again, I want you to understand that "YOU are the Center of the Universe" in Cd'O. Not, Turns, Sequences of Play, Combat Units or any other artificial abstractions like Initiative & Command Radius & etc.

In order to Command, Control and Communicate effectively on this battlefield, YOU have to be able to constantly determine; 1) What You need to do?, 2) Where You need to be?, and 3) When You need to be there?,..BUT!, not before You have tried to communicated ALL these desires to Your Subordinate Units, contacted some of the other Players who are affected by Your actions and let Your own Chain of Command, know what you plan to do. Because, You will quickly find out in combat, that SUCCESS requires a TEAM EFFORT!

So, in Cd'O the 'Fun and Enjoyment' revolves around YOU and how well you do your Job, in a world where ALL the other Players (friendly & enemy Players) are in the exact same Boat as you, and are running about trying to carry out their orders, just like you. However, their actions are totally independent of YOU and not tied to any Wargame mechanics either.

Once you are comfortable (i.e., meaning you understand and have assimilated the simple environmental mechanics) with the nature of the Synthetic Battlefield Environment and how you 'the Player' are able to function in it, You'll quickly see that your main function in life is to manage these basic battlefield tasks: MOVE-SHOOT-COMMUNICATE!

This assimilation process is the 20-30 minute 'Player transition' period that I alluded to above. However, once that Light comes on, You'll quickly recognize that You are in the very same 'Time, Space & Motion' realm and that everything in this wargame centers around each Player independently pursuing activities tied to those same three (3) entities.

What will surprise you, is that You will be able to watch events as they unfold and more importantly, recognize that You have to anticipate and gauge when and how you need to act, react or better yet,.."Take the INITIATIVE!"

It is this 'Player Experience' I am after and the very same experience that caused these 1st Players at Spartacon to claim that it was the best experience (i.e., Wargame) they had ever played in.

YES, I can demonstrate and show you the reality of this capacity in the Austerlitz Battle AAR. I'm working on that now.

But, for right now, it is absolutely critical for you to understand, that YOU, the Player are actually 'Role Playing History' and NOT merely PLAYING a conventional Wargame about a Historical Battle.

I think that's enough for now. ;^)

Regards,

James

Interesting,
after we "Circle Back"
Will we "Build Back"
?

So the same concepts that helped us defeat the Afgans?
Nice, but no thanks.

Computer controlled Kriegspiel? Will I need to wear a mask to play?

Dear John,

I fully expected that overcoming many of today's accepted Wargame Paradigms, would be some of the hardest challenges I would have to face as I complete my own wargame design work.

Because true 'Historical Wargaming', which is based upon Factual Representation that can be quantified, and for which you can provide a traceable path (audit trail) back to its historical origins. That's what makes it Historical.

That statement alone, goes to the 'root issue' of Historical Wargaming itself. Something that these days, seems to only exist outside the subjective whims, opinions and desires that are at the heart of most recreational wargame designs and their historical claims.

Remember this message board is called "Historical Wargaming" and I am here for the sole purpose of making and proving my own Historical Wargame's case, to all the members of this august Forum. Which includes You too.

Thus, I encourage you to keep an open mind about what I am presenting and what is or is not historically possible, wargame wise. I might also suggest that you might want to hold off forming an opinion until you can see how Cd'O performs in action via this 1st AAR on the Battle of Austerlitz, that I mentioned above. But that's entirely your call.

Finally, It wasn't sound Military concepts & advice that led to our defeat Afghanistan, it was the act of "the ignoring it", by our present Commander in Chief, that lead to our Defeat.

Regards,

James

Here is my opinion:

One of the first rules of PR in selling a project is to cut out the jargon and find common ground with your audience., So a synthetic battlefield environment goes back to being a table with scenery and objectives – use simpler language when you can.
I get that the concepts are what matters, but maybe look for someone who has played a ton of rules over time and can write to assist you in making your ideas easier to access.
I dont know about the five senses. If I smell anything burning or gunpowder, I am outta there!

The federal government, including the military, is infamous for creating jargon and long documents that take forever to get familiar with unless you work there and have no choice. Your time concept sounds very interesting. You just need some new language to free up you expertise and enthusiasm a bit.

Final suggestion? Avoid the politics. It works like this: Previous guy good and/or Current guy no good. And then we lose the whole topic in a couple of posts.

Tortorella,

Well, Thanks for the sound advice, to include politics.

I'm glad you picked up on the significance of the Time Concept. Because Time management is one of the key factors in evaluating how your own 'Time, Space and Motion' perspective will impact and effect your future decisions.

For the most part, using 'military jargon' (i.e., military terminology & concepts) is a necessary evil for me right now. Because I need the meaning and use of these terms to remain constant, and Not be open to any individual's personal interpretation.

Here's an example of MY Own Wargame 'Jargon' dilemma from an authoritative report I'm using titled: "Developing Situation Awareness Metrics in a Synthetic Battlespace Environment" written by J.J. Curiel, J.J. Tran and K-T Yao in 2005.

It states:
"The need to objectively measure the effectiveness of human
players and their interaction within the simulation battlespace environment requires quantitative metrics to supplement more qualitative observer-based judgments. Situation awareness (SA), a cognitive behavior captured in HITL experiments, involves the perception and comprehension of forces and events in a situation, and a prediction of their future status, Endsley (1995). Objectively measuring SA is drawing intense interest because this knowledge is
crucial to successful decision-making processes (C2)."

Hopefully, you can appreciate from the excerpt above, that some of this 'Military Jargon' is important in order to for me to maintain Cd'O design consistency and compliance with these overarching Authoritative DOD & US Army sources. Thus, using specific terminology like the word "Apples", helps you keep 'Apples with the all the other Apples'.

Thus the significance of using the term Synthetic Battlefield Environment, is important to me because I am leveraging these DOD sources to help design my own 'stand alone module' that incorporate and integrate: a) the Player Command Model, b) the Situational Awareness (SA) Model and c) the Napoleonic Combat Model together. Which plays a major role in helping me to simplifying game play down to just these three (3) words: MOVE, SHOOT and COMMUNICATE.

Granted it is not apparent by anything that I have posted so far, however, one of my Major wargame design goal is to significantly "Reduce the Overhead, Burden and Complexity" of running the wargame itself.

I'm talking about getting rid of extensive flow charts, modifier tables, turns, sequence of play, multiple phases, conditional (opportunity) Movement & Fire and all the rest of these Non-value added devices and distractions.

The main way you can accomplish 'Game Load Reductions' is by using mathematical models. However, don't think for a moment that any of the Players actually have to deal with working with math directly, they don't. The math simply makes Design, Play and Admin easier and less burdensome for both of Us.

Final Comment. Consider this,…If I am able to deliver the ultimate Napoleonic Battlefield Wargame to you, that is FUN!, FUN!, FUN! and is very simple to play, then what differences does it make what terminology I use, as long as it delivers the Goods! ;^)

Keep the faith. Because the fun has only just begun.

Regards,

James

Don't misunderstand me James! Use what ever terms you like of course, especially when you are work on this.

I am talking about PR public relations and communicating with an audience. Who is the audience? What do they know? What do they want? Why should they listen? Etc. you are obviously a smart, well trained and experienced guy.

I worked for the government. Not in an office. In the field we spoke with inside terms and acronyms, our own slang, all the time. We used technical terms, often abbreviated. Nobody would know what we were talking about.
Good luck!

In regards to your playtesting, is there a way to contract you if we are not TMP members and are unable to send PM's?

Tortorella & Todd636,

1. Tortorella, No misunderstanding at all. I sincerely appreciate the PR advice you have kindly offered me so far.
a.) I also would add, that I think that you are smart enough to appreciate & recognize that there is allot more to this historical discussion than what I have presented above.
b.) Part of the PR dilemma that I am experiencing is that this TMP Forum doesn't have a feature like a 'Document Upload Capability', that would enable me to upload 'pictures & diagrams' that would help me, to help You make sense of ALL THOSE WORDS above.
c.) Additionally, I'm planning on attending HAVOC XXXVI 2022 Convention as a Gamemaster during its 8-10 April 2022 run.
d.) Given that You and it are both located in Massachusetts, I propose that we could link up at, before or after this event. Just contact me via the email I provided to Todd363 below.

2. Todd636, You can contact me directly via this email address below: Analsim1805@Gmail.com
a.) I also see that you are located in Ohio, I'm perfectly willing to set up a Cd'O Demo wargame for you and any of your local wargamers that are interested in playing it too.
Contact me and we can discuss that too.

Regards,

James

James,

With utmost respect, after reading all of the above and taking your user name into consideration, I remain a bit unsure if you're on the level or trying your hand at deadpan ironic comedy in the historical wargaming genre.

Still, I feel obliged to inform you that despite not having, "Document Upload Capability," you can indeed upload however many pages you like here. Just take a desktop photo of the page(s) in question on your computer or tablet or phone or other digital device. Or if you happen to be more old school when it comes to documents, snap a pic or pics with your phone camera. Then LOAD said pic(s) into a new comment while you are writing/posting it.

It's true you can't load the photos directly from a device, first they must be "hosted" someplace else on the web. It's not a perfect system and even when you use it correctly the TMP image software suffers the occasional glitch, but it works most of the time. So if you want to share a page or more of your revolutionary new historical wargaming/RPG system, I hope you'll give it a try.

Mad Guru & Co.,

I sincerely appreciate your help with the document upload issue. However, what I decided to do is simply provide my wargame email address: <Analsim1805@Gmail.com> and just simply let any interested TMP members know that I am willing to provide them with more details, documents, diagrams & pictures, & etc. offline.

Secondly, I have two (2) main goals for Cd'O, the 1st was to provide the means by which Napoleonic Wargamers could simulate the challenge and experience of Commanding on the Napoleonic Battlefield in a first person manner. The second goal was to design the first Napoleonic Wargame Miniature System that could be Historically Verified & Validated. No easy task, and infinitely more intellectually challenging then simply writing another rulebook. Because YOU have to PROVE the Historical Fidelity of the wargame design and all its major system inputs/outputs, and then ACTUALLY be able to demonstrate that it conforms to the Historical record in 'Black & White'. Which indirectly means, that I also have to show, prove and provide you with the Historical supporting documentation that makes my case for 'Historical Fidelity'. There are NO Free Lunches!

So, I'm not just after designing yet another Napoleonic Miniature Ruleset. What I am after is completing a "Napoleonic Model of Combat" that can be used as a valid "Historical Analysis Tool" to enable the Historical Wargamer to better understand Napoleonic warfare and to provide an authoritative means to explore Historical Battle "What If variables" on a "Historically 'LEVEL', Playing Field" between Wargamer and History.

The main reason that I'm on this website right now, is because I am confident that the current design is mature enough, that I can start making the case for both the Napoleonic Combat Model Cd'O and its Historical Validity, because I have already done the majority of my historical analysis and homework prior to showing up on TMP, to include the part about proving to myself that it works. It does!

I'm sure that there are going to be lots of skeptics out there. PERFECT! I encourage those folks to come forward and give it their best shot at trying to poke holes in my claims (i.e. professionally of course). ;^)

I'm very 'thick skinned' and am actually looking forward to addressing everyone's issues and concerns (slings & arrows).

Finally, In respect to the genesis of my user name, 'Analsim', it was the result of some friendly kidding by several members of this TMP website and wargame friends that started about 25 years ago. Back then I was using 'Simanal', which stood for "Simulation and Analysis" which was the name of the US Army agency that I was working for back then.

My friends and colleagues told me that I "Had the name backwards, and that it should be 'Analsim' because I was so 'Anal' about Simulations". Since, they were probably right, I decided to keep the name. ;^)

Regards,

James

Analsim,
Interesting reading but I'm not in the Napoleonic Era of gaming.

I think the disconnect many players get when seeing additional detail is that they immediately equate that with complexity because that's been their and my experience. More detail equals more rules and exceptions that start colliding with each other and quick reference charts get larger and the game bogs down, mainly because of additional artificial and abstracted rules and die roll modifiers. Stuff you won't find in a military training or tactics manual.

It's interesting the way you are introducing "time" and their variables into the game. I don't think players are able to appreciate it as they mostly relate to time as a finite measurement in a turn where the action is parsed within that time using rules like activation's, initiative, command points, etc. When you introduce time, even in a somewhat abstracted way, you immediately put the player into a time management mindset rather than an IGYG/unit activation time set. Real timing, not a set time for a turn, automatically involves players going through their personal command decision OODA Loop without really even knowing what it is because it comes natural to any action you'll take in daily life. It does not need to be taught.

With decision OODA Loops the initiative is "seized" by being quicker than your opponent, there is very little random about it. You get through your loop to Act (execute your order) before he can. Now the decision he made at a previous earlier time is now the wrong one because the enemy disposition and objectives have changed. He needs to get an intel report on the update and start a new decision OODA Loop in response. It can be cascading effect of the wrong order at the wrong time because your opponent is always one step ahead of you. However, you might be able to rely on a lower unit commander initiative to see his commanders order is wrong and make a decision on the spot to counteract it and do the right thing. That's what real "Battlefield Initiative" is all about.

The only way you can use a "Historical Analysis Tool" is to interject the timing and decision OODA Loop concept and maybe to a level at the lower tactical level (time to change formations, march a certain distance, rates of fire, etc). A commander may put himself in the front like Alexander the Great and greatly shorten his command OODA Loop timing in the area he can see visually but then must depend on the initiative of his other commanders in the rest of the battlefield.

Commander Decision Loop and Indecisive Delays: An area I think is overlooked in most games is recon and battlefield intelligence, that was one of my jobs in the military so it's near and dear to me. In an ACW scenario the commander is going to be at his HQ getting recon and intel updates and reports, mostly from dispatch riders or units routing through his HQ with the enemy close behind.

Players have a god's eye view of the battle and can make unrealistically quick decisions as if they had a real time drone feed. My thinking is that your cavalry and scouts can be divided to screen your forces preventing enemy intel and to attempt to gain information. These reports and reports from sub-commanders are assigned a point value at the HQ. Player commanders need a certain point level of intel to issue and change orders to their sub-units and commit reserves. Historically poor commanders would need a higher level of intel points to issue a command, good commanders a lower level. This would go along with the Time Management concept and simulate poor commanders taking additional time for being indecisive or freezing because they don't feel they have a good enough picture of the battle. A false report might be a negative point value. Your opponent does not know your intel level. That aspect of the game could be somewhat abstracted as much of it may take place outside the playing table. Having telegraphs set up and balloon observation would help.

I catch on to what you are doing as I've been playing and developing a Time Competitive game using action and decision OODA Loops for a 1:1 WWII combined arms game. Players need to make what I call "Risk-Reward Tactical Decisions" trading decreased accuracy for increased speed to shoot first (seize the initiative) just as real crews and commanders did. Suppression increases your time through your loop giving your opponent an initiative advantage. Good crews are quicker than poor crews. Poor Situational Awareness and Suppression increase's reaction time.

At the 1:1 level seconds count, just like in real combat. Units are always active with varying levels of Situational Awareness to react. They can choose to do almost anything they want. However, orders are not magically executed immediately, they take time. That's where the player Time Management comes in and his decisions, not a die roll, decide the outcome.

Game play revolves players making a decision and deciding how long it will take to execute (a D6 roll with 1 to 3 modifiers based on historical research for engagement time, rates of fire, etc.). As soon as he executes his order he "loops back" to Observe the results and do it all over again (issue a new move or shoot order) and enemy units can immediately react because they are always active and observing. You are not sitting helpless as the enemy shoots or moves like many IGYG games or cannot do anything because all of your units have already been "activated".

While waiting for a command to execute he is always active and observing and can cancel an order to engage a new and more dangerous threat. It's actually easier to play because the OODA Loop is natural and intuitive and traditional rules like orders phase, initiative determination, unit activation, command points, etc. are not used. The game is always moving to the next time that a unit "Acts" without using traditional initiative rules. Players are not waiting for their "turn" like an IGYG game because all of his units are under some type of move or shoot order and always observing to react to new threats. Movement is quicker and easier and takes less time in multi-player games.

I think we're both on the same page but yours is a different level and historical time frame. I'll leave you with a quote that appears the Marines agree with you:

US Marine Corps Doctrinal Publication 1, Tactical Decision Making: "Whoever can make and implement his decisions consistently faster gains a tremendous, often decisive advantage. Decision-making thus becomes a time competitive process and timeliness of decisions (OODA Decision Loop) becomes essential to generating tempo.

Good luck,
Wolfhag