"You love command and control restrictions!" Topic

You were asked – TMP link

Favorite Game Mechanic?

And in the final round of voting:

21% said "Command and control restrictions"
14% [TIE] said "Simultaneous combat in a firefight" OR "Use of one dice type throughout the rules"

No, I don't.

Nor to I. One in five of us, evidently, is "you."

Not me

Nothing in Real War is simultaneous. Don't let clever rules fool you.

+1

I vote for +1

Nothing in Real War is simultaneous.

Spoken like someone who has never been in a real war.

"The boches are charging our trench!"
"Calm down, we have to wait our turn to fire back."

As some often what does that mean, what restrictions? In RL there are restrictions, the issue for most rules is they don't represent them well.

Life is simultaneous because time is moving for us all. But it isnt a binary, things can be simultaneous and it can move toward IGYG.

The problems arise when we try to shift reality to the restrictions of the tabletop.

This is further exacerbated, for me, by the mechanics that are used.

IRL there are as many decision makers as there are soldiers on the battlefield. Like wise as many movers and shooters, and fighters. On the tabletop there are often only two decision makers, movers, and fighters for the whole affair.

With only two players doing everything it is impossible for the swirling melee on the right flank, the advance in the centre, and the exchange of missile fire on the left to all unfold simultaneously. Each player can only resolve one "thing" at a time.

I don't. Most of them are silly and artificially restrictive.

I played a game once when I sent a unit of grenadiers to hit the flank of the Bad Guy line. Unfortunately, in the march to outflank the line, they moved out of my command radius and promptly forgot why they were out there. I didn't roll enough PIPs to remind them why they were out there.

I don't. Most of them are silly and artificially restrictive.

Don't even think of telling that to whoever wrote them. They think it's genius.
Also, don't try to say that to someone who paid good money for them. "But it's in the rules!"

In another dumb game. I was guarding my flank with a pitiful militia regiment. He was pitifully standing there to block a full Hessian brigade from entering. But the British CinC was too busy with what was in front of him to give the Hessians a single Pip. Or whatever they were called.

Dudes. Just because you think it's a clever rule doesn't make it a good one. It's like a boxing match where you have one leg in a cast.

Didn't we do a poll on LEAST favorite mechanism not too long ago? I bet C&C restrictions finished in the money in that one too?

(It's not just us. Someone used to do polls on the top ten best-dressed and worst-dressed man and woman, and most and least-admired. You'd generally find two or three people who made both "best-dressed" and "worst-dressed" and the same on most and least admired. Not that many well-known people. And not that many common mechanisms at this level.)

I like to think that so many "well thought out stupid rules" were only play tested by the group, or person, who wrote them.
Any negative feedback was simply ignored.

I'm surprised at the result. First, I try to understand why the designer put C&C radius rules in and what the result was supposed to be. I think some designers include them because someone else was using them and it's somewhat of a "best practice" (which there is none) to put them in. But as OFM said, I don't think the end result is portrayed historically.

C&C range restrictions can be to keep player from doing unhistorical actions like having their units moving off in different directions on missions of their own, especially new players unfamiliar with real tactics.

I think command and control radius or restrictions are historical as there are many examples of delays in radio contact, messengers, etc. However, in most games they do not seem to not take into account the historical way commands are issued at the higher levels and executed at the lower levels, training and immediate action drills units execute at the lowest tactical level automatically (leader initiative).

The frag orders, as they are passed down the command echelon, can dictate the action to take in certain circumstances depending on the commanders intent. It could be avoid contact/observe, execute immediate assault/ambush, etc. When they arrive at their objective, there may be another order to execute or must wait for higher level command for the next action. This is another delay and C&C range may come into play.

Units do not need to be ordered or reminded to do something every turn as it is entirely unhistorical

Example: An early war T-34/76 company without any radios is told to move down a road 5km to a road junction to take and defend it. The CO tells the other commanders the intent. No matter what happens, they are to move as quickly as possible to the objective and screw the C&C aspect because there won't be any. That actually simplifies the game.

If a game designer wanted to develop historical C&C rules he'd read the manuals and see how the HQ does planning (could be a pre-game activity) and then the commanders issue frag orders to the level lower to them.

So the Brigade CO does not give order to the individual soldiers. So if a Company is ordered to move to an objective 2 miles away the Company Commander and Platoon Commander meet and decide how they will move. There are many tactical issues I won't go into the minute details but the platoon commander determines his march order, jump off time, movement (column, bounding over watch, route recon, etc).

Once he starts on his mission, he does not need to be reminded. He may move out of comm range which could be a bad thing.

If along the way he runs into an ambush, his unit knows how to immediately respond without being ordered. He'd send a Sit Rep by radio or messenger along the way to inform the CO of his status.

It's been said that when the SHTF you fall back on your training. That should be reflected in the rules with C&C restrictions playing a secondary role. If your mission objective is interrupted and you need reinforcements or arty that's a different C&C issue. That's when things can get interesting.

The problem with C&C occurs when the mission is interrupted and in danger of being stopped. If the unit is out of radio range he needs to send a messenger (runners at the platoon/company level) which generates a delay, delays are deadly and allow the enemy to seize the initiative (initiative is not random).

My opinion: C&C restrictions are not necessarily stupid, they just seem to be used the wrong way.

Wolfhag

Nothing in Real War is simultaneous.

I tend to NOT agree based on my personal, military experience and 1:1 engagements I've been involved in. However, OFM is a pretty smart guy so lets let him explain why and what his personal experience in the military, MMA or combat made him post that comment. I try to respect everyone's opinion and not call people names. OK, so sometime I've failed <grin>.

Wolfhag

Action, followed by reaction.

Many commecial (not all) rules have dire command and control systems (by my judgement) which are pointless and destroy enjoyment. Decent rules limit instant reponce in a plausable and credible way which enhances enjoyment.

Most examples maentimned here fall into what I consider the dire section, but even that is a matter of opinion and may in part be very Gamer Vs simulation player divide issue.

Action, followed by reaction

That's clearly the observation in a game and in some circumstances in a battle too. However, you (and many others) are missing the most important part of any action a human is performing 100% of the time unless he's blinded or unconscious. Observation.

Observation is the first part of the OODA Loop and while going through the other three you are still observing. So everyone in the battle is observing or should be.

You need to be observing to react, right? Suppression decreases Observation taking longer to Act. When you Act (shoot, execute an order, etc.) you immediately "Loop Back" to Observe the results and issue your next order. It's a continuous action loop that every unit on the battle is performing. The fact that it difficult to portray in a game does not mean it's not really happening.

When a unit "activates" or in an IGYG game I'm assuming it was observing and getting ready to perform the action the player performs. Not sitting there with his eyes closed and his thumb up his a$$.

If you use Action Timing through a unit's OODA Loop you can simulate it just like a military grade computer simulator.

So the default order for a unit is always observe/over watch.

There are ways to portray playable simultaneous movement in a table top game too.

Also, in a firefight shooting from both side is simultaneous, there is no initiative other than who triggers it and shot first.

Does that make sense?

Wolfhag

Gamesman,
This is further exacerbated, for me, by the mechanics that are used.

The problems arise when we try to shift reality to the restrictions of the tabletop.

Reality is the OODA Loop or any one of several variations. It's about observation, evaluation, decision making and executing. Traditional game mechanics cannot portray that in a fluid playable manner, I know as I tried.

Wolfhag

To be honest observation is critical but is not the only primary parameter. Speed of respoce is critical also.
It takes time to organise troops to move in an orderly sequence. This is often not well represented in commecial games. Instant respose, say two units on opposite flanks withot radios are not able to immediately co-ordinate a significant change in posture to an event only observed by one of them. Many games require writing orders and allowing a reansmission time. This is effective, realistic in many ways but can be unwieldy. We do it diffrently as does say DBM.

However such time delays, part of command and control systems, at least for me turn a game from pure uninteresting fantasy to something I can relate to and enjoy.

Wolfhag, indeed… the goal for you and me is to look to simulate thag on the table. Too.mjch of game design os tied to game models, that weve always used… because they are games.

Ushcha. Speed is fine, accuracy is final.

Speed if response is great, if you know what you need to respond to, that means,
Observe it
Orientated it
Decide on the the response.
Act on that. Speed of response is doing all of those things more rapidly than they do.

Whatever the issues with the OODA cycle its a great model thr meta of designing things, especially for games.

To be honest the observe bit of most games is done about to 80% 20% standards. LOS, restricted view and basic spotting rules do this quite well particularly if hidden units at the start of the game are mapped not put on table. The attacker generally can be placed on table as it is him who generally need to try and spot hidden units. So many commercial games get much of this, some don't of course and putting all units on regardless of position is a very poor approach from the simulation standpoint, but for some too much of compromise on artistic merit, I'm not one of those.

So again best mechanic for a simulation may not be the best for a more "gamey" style plaid by mant unfamiliar with the details of the period.

However relatively modest levels of hidden units can cause analysis paralysis in beginners, again not all rules are suitable to all standards of players.

Many gams get the physical response rates to command massively wrong. Tanks in the later WW2 move far faster (of the order of 10 times the rate of infantry on the road. Many rules don't reelect this at all well as they want vehicles to fight in all modes. Things like like telegraph poles ect at the side of the road are only seconds apart so tanks generally need turrets facing forward or back at these speeds. Again potentially too many variables for a beginner to grasp quickly.

So … from the tank people … how often did WWII tanks drive fast down roads and engage an enemy?

I am really only familiar with this in Villers-Bocage and the Ardennes, where roads were a death funnel for the tanks. In the current Ukraine war, the death funnel is stronger.

I have read some armor doctrine, but am not an expert. Driving fast shooting with a tank seems like either a desperate act, or an awesome video game premise…

So again best mechanic for a simulation may not be the best for a more "gamey" style plaid by mant unfamiliar with the details of the period.

Arguably so… the question and discussion was about C3I and systems to impliment them.

The issue is not whether something a game, sim, representstion etc. The issue, is for me, whether those things use approaches that do what I need them to do.

Part of that is knowing where im pitching the player at. Knowing where the turret and barrel are facing because of telephone poles, is setting the resolution and necessary and a specifc level, where systems representing more conventional C3I doesnt apply.

etotheipi,

Basically, in a tank the faster you go the better the chance of something going wrong or breaking. The Germans determined armor speed at 20kph on a road march but a Tiger I might be 12-15kph. Torsion bars gave a smoother ride.

British tanks in the desert (flat ground) were trained to fire on the move because hey needed to close the distance to get close enough the German Panzer IIIs to do damage. The shoulder mounted 40mm gun could compensate somewhat as a gun stabilizer. I read accounts in the desert of German tanks moving slowly and firing while attacking. Most tanks did halt fire.

American Sherman's would fired on the move performing Recon by Fire into suspected tree lines or defensive positions as it did not need to be accurate. HE rounds that went high exploded in the trees as an air burst. Rounds that hit low could ricochet off the ground and explode 30 feet away as an air burst.

Normally, burst or top speed might be used for initial breakthroughs, flanking, crossing danger zones, etc. The bottom line is that tanks normally travelled only as fast as they needed to. So in our games it will mostly be at top speed.

Wolfhag

Here is how I view C&C rules as they are not all the same.
There is a variety to select from depending on what you like or want to represent in a game:

Command dice/points: The ideas is that you as the commander cannot do everything you want because of combat, suppression, poor intel, FOW, etc. Part of the skill/tactic is for the player to plan out exactly what will happen each turn. Many times one or more units will not perform an action for a turn because there is not enough to go around.

C&C range: The entire unit must remain a certain distance from their HQ. Cannot be ordered if too far away. It's a very abstracted way to keep units in a more historical and tactical formation. Keeps new players from performing non-historical tactics.

C&C unit integrity range: Each unit must remain within a maximum distance of each other. Abstracted but somewhat historical to keep units tactically together.

Unit Activation: Uses various combinations of dice, cards and/or command points to get a unit to perform an action for a turn. It can be random, players choice, or IGYG. Failure to activate could mean no actions for 1+ turns simulating suppression, SNAFU, out of comm, etc..

OODA Loop: The entire unit has an objective or order to accomplish which they will attempt to carry out even if not in communication. Must use radio, flags or messengers to communicate with HQ to get new orders. This can cause command delays.

With the OODA Loop individual units are always "active", the standing order is observation/over watch to react to enemy movement and issue a new move, observe (hold fire & track to initiate an ambush) or shoot order and how long it takes to execute (most orders take time to execute). Individual units can react to new threats to cancel their current order and issue a new one without asking permission from their commander.

When an order is executed, the next order is immediately issued (no orders phase). A game clock parses the action from turn to turn. Players pause the game to maneuver or execute an order. There is no need for IGYG move/shoot, unit activation or initiative rules.

Small Arms Fire is simultaneous (unless it was an ambush) with the result determined every so many game turns depending on the scale of the game.

Wolfhag

My favour is to use reality as my guide primarily rather than previous gane mechanics/systems.

That's not to say I won't use them, nut ill pick and choose based on how they work representing the reality im looking at.

Thats why I use the OODA cycle as a reference model, because like most models, its not perfect but its a useful way to think about the subject that had the benifit from coming, a military context.

Also most so called C&C systems in games are ways to inhibit thr players ability to get their units to react how they the player wants, rather than modelling C3I purposes in actuality.

The solution I finally landed on was to devise away to have the units follow the order that were initially issued, batman filter how they respond,
That way the unit is n5 psychiclly connected to the player so acts as an entity, is always "active" and also allowing the player a degree of engagement and self agency.

Gamesman,
On Tuesday night our club did a WWII game using one of the more popular rule sets that center around C&C with four players and three infantry squads per side.

The leader could activate units not in his LOS and without a radio. Mental Telepathy? But then he may not be able to activate one right next to him because he didn't roll the right dice and had to choose only one unit.

We spent more time deciding what we could do or not do to activate units depending on the die roll than moving and shooting. In a 2 hour game I moved twice (that was on the first turn of the game) and my squad fired twice.

I can understand limitations being put on units under fire but using the same limits for units not under fire does not seem correct.

The shooting was done rolling a handful of dice 2-3 times. The targets could not react and may not be able to shoot back on their next turn.

I did bring a team on as a reinforcement but was out of the leader C&C range (he had retreated) so I needed to roll a "1" on a D6 to activate him. Never happened.

IIRC shooting resulted in suppression markers which in turn could limit what you wanted to do.
I was fairly new to the game IGYG random activation mechanics and was overly aggressive at the start of the game and basically got ambushed even though my unit was in defense and he was moving and shooting in the same turn without my ability to react. Realistically, the ambush should have been the other way around but it was not my turn.

However, everyone enjoyed the game because they immersed themselves in the mechanics of the game which gave you limited choices more based on the die roll than what a real unit would do which is the point of the game.

I think if you modeled the system on the manual where upper command passes down Frag Orders leaving the details to the subordinate units and the maneuver units attempting to carry out their order or objective mostly using their own initiative or falling back on their training you'd get more action and fewer gamey mechanics.

Rather than the dice artificially limiting what you can and cannot do the enemy actions and fire suppress you and delay your units from carrying out their orders or receiving updates or new orders from their superiors.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag – sound like a game I would give up on, poking your eyes out would be more fun. Not my idea of a nights entertaoinment,. However as you noted folk enjoyed themselves, good on them each to their own.

Yep… doesn't sound fun… and ive never been a rules lawyer, been co founded by them too often, rules should be invisible to me, so they sit within the decisions.e5c the player would make as the person they represent.

Though ive been equally irritated by rules where subunits activate on info they would not have… but the player does.

As mentikned before the idea I hit on was a collation of good but from other rules of the last 40 years guve its final part by miss understanding how activation. Worked in a currently very popular ww2 rules… genius k thought… then realised id misunderstood… it was my interpretation that was genius…
😉😀😃

Great discussion. I enjoy command and control restrictions, but only if they make sense. As others have pointed out, restrictions that are gamey and/or non sensical ruin the experience. For me commander points to represent limited attention work well but you have to realize there are other thinking characters on the board. As several folks have pointed out:
Troops once ordered will continue to move unless interrupted
Troops will fire if fired upon
Unless playing very modern commanders can't shout orders very far. You need horses, runners ect. Yet another reason to have a reserve.
You also need to have a mechanic for lower level initiative.
Given these parameters c +c restrictions can be good in my opinion. They can simulate and teach us something about command.
Great discussion. Thanks
Joe

Initiative/reactions: Ideally, troops fall back on their training and immediate action drills with a minimum of command needed. These will be in their manuals.

You could let the player decide or roll a die to see if they hit the deck and Hunker Down no return fire but fewer causalities, hit the deck in an Improved Position and return fire or Fall Back out of the LOS and risk getting cut down. Decisions, not game mechanics.

Unfortunately, most games they just stand in the open and get shot at until it is their turn. When coming under fire most troops will hit the deck seeking available cover (Improved Position) within 2 seconds.

Moving under fire: This should not be automatic. I have troops do an Aggressiveness Check to move under fire. If they fail they are pinned down for that turn but can try again later. The greater the enemy fire the less chance they have of moving. It's different than a morale check.

Also, the fewer the # of guys attempting move move increases the chance. So team rushes have a better chance than the entire squad. You may end up having to send one guy with a demo charge to take out a bunker which was often the case in WWII.

Fire & Maneuver: The team that will maneuver stays Hunkered Down out of sight (does not shoot) so will not have to take an Aggressiveness Check to assault but an enemy unit can react to it.

Squad C&C: In a squad we were normally all close enough to get an order or update. Squad leaders are normally observing and moving up and down the line and should not be shooting. Platoon Leaders are moving around and coordinating with the squad leaders and can talk to the Captain on a radio.

Squad Leader C&C: In the offense he establishes a base of fire and the maneuver group. When the assault team is in place they signal to lift fire on the objective so they can do their final assault. The squad leader is the one who watches for this and signals the cease or lift fire. In the defense he makes sure the frontage is covered, observes and IDs targets and controls the rate of fire. There is normally a minimum of delay as long as you are within visual (hand signals) or voice range.

Point Men: When the point guy sees something he may react in various ways. If he's spotted first he'll be shot at. If he spots first he may shoot or signal a halt and the SL will come forward to assess the situation or he may signal for an immediate hasty ambush and point the direction of the enemy. Yes, even PFCs can issue orders if trained and experienced.

In my system, leaders can only be targeted in certain situations like when shooting or exposing themselves using their leadership modifier to "motivate" the troopies.

When in doubt use Common Sense and/or RTFM <grin>

Wolfhag

Wolfhag makes a good point that trained troops and subordinate leaders should continue functioning without requiring constant direction from higher headquarters. Where game design becomes interesting is deciding where to place the abstraction boundary. Some games focus on the decisions of squad and platoon leaders, while others try to focus on the decisions of battalion commanders. Both approaches are valid – they're just examining different command problems.

Personally, I'm increasingly interested in the latter. The question I find most compelling is not whether a fire team hits the dirt when fired upon, but how a battalion commander allocates attention, priorities, and intent across multiple subordinate formations that are already carrying out their missions. The lower-level actions still matter, but they become part of the battlefield friction that the higher commander experiences rather than decisions he personally makes.

Mister H:

Google: how a battalion commander allocates attention, priorities, and intent across multiple subordinate formations that are already carrying out their missions.

Pre-battle the commander meets with his subordinates and communicates his intent. Ideally, this can be covered in the scenario description. The three company commanders are given their frag order which would include if they are the main effort, reserve, etc. Support assets from battalion and above are assigned (also in the scenario). The intent is communicated to the platoon leaders via frag order and assets assigned depending on their mission or posture (assault, reserve, etc.).

The battalion commander has to coordinate three companies, his weapons company and report to regiment. He can be at TOC n the rear or closer to the front lines which can have an effect on communication delays.

During the battle, as he receives reports, he can commit reserves, reallocate resources, change main effort, relay the new intention, etc. All of this is generally outside the skirmish games we mostly play but can have some interesting impact if things go wrong for a company like getting cut off, overrun, forced to pull back, etc.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag,

That's an interesting way of looking at it, and I think we're actually closer in perspective than it might first appear.

The pre-battle briefing, task organization, assignment of support assets, designation of the main effort, and communication of intent are certainly part of a battalion commander's job. Historically, much of that work happened before the first shot was fired.

What interests me from a game design standpoint is what happens after the plan encounters reality.

At that point the battalion commander is not deciding whether a squad executes fire and maneuver correctly or whether a platoon takes cover when engaged. Those things are expected to happen based on training, leadership, and standing procedures, as you've said.

The command problem becomes one of attention and priorities. Which company receives the reserve? Does the main effort remain the main effort? Should supporting fires be shifted? Is a local setback significant enough to justify intervention, or should subordinate leaders handle it themselves? How much information is reaching headquarters, and how quickly can headquarters respond?

To me, that's where battalion command becomes interesting as a game. Not because the commander is personally directing every action, but because he is continually deciding where to focus limited attention while multiple subordinate formations continue carrying out their missions.

The question then is, at the level we playing a very different set up.

We either need to be focused on passing information to the player. Or finding a way to have the sub units to operate "indpendantly" so they present the player need to parse and deal with the sorts of informstion that level would.

The ways games normally work dont allow for this. At least without adding extra hassle

The way systems operate, function well enough for the way most games playout… they just don't work outside that.

G6, your point about sub-units operating independently ties directly onto what the Action Order system in my game is trying to do – the player primarily wears a battalion commander's cap. Most of the meaningful decisions involve intent, priorities, reserves, support allocation, and determining where command attention should be focused. In that sense, the game is at its best when it asks the player to think about the battle as a whole rather than the actions of any one platoon or squad.

At the same time, the player inevitably wears several company commander's helmets as well. He still exercises discretion over how subordinate formations are arranged and employed on the battlefield. A historical battalion commander would normally delegate much of that authority.

What I try to avoid is pushing the player further down the chain of command. Once the player is deciding individual squad actions, immediate action drills, fire-and-maneuver techniques, or how a team reacts to contact, he has effectively stepped into the role of a platoon leader or squad leader rather than a battalion commander.

Or finding a way to have the sub units to operate "indpendantly" so they present the player need to parse and deal with the sorts of informstion that level would.

The ways games normally work dont allow for this. At least without adding extra hassle

I talked a little about those methods, abstraction and automation, on this thread:

TMP link

As for hassle, if a game is trying to present an uncontrolled dynammic to the player, that representational requirement comes with overhead.

If the player is interested in how that dynamic manifests, and trying to work with or against it, it's not percieved as hassle.

Example:

I have a set of age of sail rules that present some hardcore shiphandling. If you like that challenge, calculating advance and transfer between turns is fun (or at least engaging). If you are not interested in it, calculating advance and transfer is algebra class*.

* – Example based on the stereotype that everybody hated algebra class. I didn't. I think a lot of the problem is I never saw anybody telling you why you would want to be able to do algebra.

Indeed.
If the.playe4 issues orders asm say Bn CO. They expect those orders to be acted upon

Then issue is the player is then being those subunits, as such why wouldnt they do what their commander wants.
Most C&C systems just put obstacles in the way of that direct control rather than making the sub unita feels autonomous entities.

My current approach gives the players a set of actions for the subunit, per activation, that they use to "follow" their orders and respond to their current situation.

Im.generally happy with it as it makes the units feel like entities, it works well enough and importantly works simply…