"Who do you think you are?" Topic

YouTube link

In a wargame that is.

As a player, you take a role. But in my experience, those roles do not strongly correlate with a single person from the milieu of the game. Most often I see players taking parts of multiple roles, and all of none.

(In professional military wargames, it takes a huge amount of effort to get a player close to a specific role. And even then, it's never perfect.)

I find that the player interfaces with a command surface much more than taking on the role of a commander.

Advanced Squad Leader is a great example. You think the name tells you what you will be doing. But in play, ASL swings among:

* squad-level initiative,
* platoon coordination,
* company fire planning,
* individual weapon employment,
* and omniscient replay-level awareness.

The player is effectively:
* every junior leader simultaneously
* plus an external analyst.

Not that that mix isn't good for "realism" or even for training – in training a lot of what we do is to help individuals understand better what other people are doing (and why) to help them with their contribution.

Harpoon is another great example of mixed roles. And it's a great game (for me). I've done that in real life, and would say the multi-role player – focused on the important stuff and glossing over some "stuff you gotta do" – is pretty realistic and useful.

I think I am a guy moving miniature figs. I cannot role play and believe myself.

Not roleplaying, taking a role.

In Harpoon, the player takes part of the role of the Anti-Air Warfare Commander. And part of the role of the Anti-Surface Warfare Commander. (As well as others.)

Many officers are trained in both roles. But in real life, if you're the AAWC, you don't do ASUWC tasks. You might have the skills, but you don't have the authority … or the bandwidth … to do both jobs.

In the game, roleplaying as the AAWC would probably be detrimental, unless you were instantly switching among the six or seven partial roles the player has many, many times during each turn and ignoring the things that role does but the game doesn't task to the player.

Likewise, in the game you may have Tactical Action Officer tasks to do, but you don't pretend you're the TAO on a specific ship AND the AAWC for the battlegroup.

For most Modern/WW-II games I aim to play a Battalion or Brigade commander.

Horse and Nusket, usually a Corps Commander or equivalent.

SF, smaller forces on the ground, Fleet Admiral in Space.

These roles shape what rules I look at

Company commander. I then am the platoon leader trying to execute the orders. I don't have to be the squad leaders as they have their own initiative.
In air combat I am the element leaders.

Joe

"Advanced Squad Leader is a great example. You think the name tells you what you will be doing. But in play, ASL swings among:"

John Hill said he specifically designed Squad Leader to put the player in the role of a company commander, manouvering platoons and with some awareness of what each section was doing.

I WW2 games I generally prefer being a brigade or corps commander.

I anything 19th century or earlier, army commander. Lee, Napoleon, Hannibal or whatever.

Special forces in an armored car.
We don't care.
We don't care.

There's a lot to say on this topic, but I don't have time now. I'll just job in with the comment that POV (role-based) gaming is my favorite approach, imperfect as it is.

I prefer rules that at least make an attempt to build a sense of the perspective and decision cycle appropriate to the command level I (the player) am supposed to be adopting.

With the roles listed above, do you find games that actually do that?

For example:

John Hill said he specifically designed Squad Leader to put the player in the role of a company commander, manouvering platoons and with some awareness of what each section was doing.

An ASL player may decide:
* exactly which squad fires
* order of weapons fire
* specific rate of fire (conserve ammo, etc.)
* whether to risk breakdown
* who throws smoke
* which hexside gets covered

Those are not company commander decisions. The company commander may be aware of those things happening, but doesn't have direct control.

Specific sequencing of weapons fire isn't always under direct control of the company commander. Sometimes it is an emergent property under no coordinated human decision control.

But for people who said they are looking for a specific role, do you find it?

Brigade commander in WW2, Corps/Army commander horse & musket, Army commander further back. Lower in RPG/skirmish with individually mounted 28mm.

But yes, most successful rules give me a little more ability to reach down than my historical counterpart. It balances off the many things a historical commander could or should do which someone pushing toy soldiers does not.

I almost exclusively play skirmish games and solo at that. Not that I am against company, battalion or bigger, I just don't have the miniatures for that.

If I understand your question correctly: I say I am the squad leader and enjoy directing my limited resources.

The curse of most wargames. "I want to command the battalion and the division and the corps all at once." It is more fun and few games are written to stop that. As far as who I am, a melomaniac based on the amount of figures and periods.

As MB said having a lot of control and wearing multiple hats is fun if not that realistic. Most gamers say they want command challenges but they want fun more and a chance to control their destiny. It is a hobby after all.
I play solo so my goals for fun are different. They are closer to simulation but still not perfect. A perfect simulation would be issuing orders than wondering why my platoon leaders can't do anything right as I call for artillery and reinforcements!

Joe

Most games dont allow uou to a be a role. They just set the parameters of what the highest link in the chain of command and the lowest.you will be operating.

As a Sl I have to move the members of my squad so slipping in to that role. Scale that to whatever level you play.

Because wargamera tend to not role play, then its not acting like that subunit would but more as an extention of the players will in the higher role.

Then most games dont have a satisfactory ways to solve this. They can inhibit action by c and c or activation mechanics but ive not seen a good way to control what sub units can or would do in situ

Those that have come to somethjng tend to leave players feeling passive with no agency.

Ive found the information model of 1 up 2 down, works, so as the player I can "move" units 2 levels below my role postion. As Co CO is such around platoons and squads, and can call on assets attached to the Bn.

I finally solved, for me, a way to have my subunit having their own "persknality" while allowing me to not just feel like an observer.

It also make units feel more real and not just a collection of numeric stats.

I like relatively large games and prefer to be brigade/naval squadron or up.

But for people who said they are looking for a specific role, do you find it?

Not exactly.

I get a decent feel for the brigadier's POV from the RF&F system, if the player is limited to one brigade. There are violations of the fiction, parts of the decision cycle missing, and parts inserted because miniatures are inert and don't do what they're told of their own volition. OTOH, and I find commanding multiple brigades feels more like having multiple brigadiers' POVs with perfect communications between them, not so much like the division commander's POV.

I've been looking for a WWII game of the colonel's or brigadier general's POV for a long time. O Group is a fun game and an attempt at getting this level on the table, but has a lot of mechanics that are representing processes and activities well outside the commander's POV and control, so it's not quite a POV game. Most WWII games are microtactical or operational and kind of ignore the in-between levels.

The only naval game that makes me feel somewhat like a captain is one I wrote, because that's how I wrote it – each player gets one ship, and all his concerns internal shipboard operations or choosing targets for the gunners & torpedomen. I know a few games that make me feel like an admiral (and even wrote one in the 1990s), but never play any of them; naval gaming is generally about the details and decisions far below the admiral's POV and just not as much fun if that is all abstracted away.

I have played aerial dogfight games where the player gets one plane and a pilot's POV, but most games (including the ones I prefer) let the player command a section or flight of multiple planes, which isn't anybody's POV. Still, I like a multiplayer dogfight to feel more chaotic with more planes and more players, which does give a little bit of the feeling of a furball.

because miniatures are inert and don't do what they're told of their own volition.

Many people gloss over how complex a set of rules would be if it enacted your orders on the tabletop without you (or someone else) as a human taking care of the details. I feel this is the main part of why you don't really get "a role" in most games.

I had an AI generate some cursory (simplified, not accounting for everything) pseudo code on what implementing one order would look like:

ORDER: OVERWATCH road_segment_X
1. Identify candidate firing positions:
    – LOS to road_segment_X
    – cover/concealment preferred
    – avoid known enemy LOS
    – maintain cohesion radius
    – preserve retreat path
2. Rank candidate positions:
    score =
        LOS_quality +
        cover_value +
        flank_security +
        command_link +
        withdrawal_access -
        exposure_risk -
        congestion
3. Select movement mode:
    IF under observed fire:
        use covered movement
    ELSE IF enemy proximity high:
        use bounding movement
    ELSE:
        use fastest safe movement
4. Assign sectors:
    – primary sector = road_segment_X
    – secondary sector = likely enemy approach
    – avoid overlapping friendly fire lanes
5. Allocate weapons:
    IF MG available:
        orient MG to longest LOS
    IF AT weapon available:
        prioritize vehicle choke point
    IF limited ammo:
        establish fire discipline threshold
6. Establish engagement rules:
    IF target class = recon:
        hold fire unless detected
    IF target class = armored:
        delay until kill probability acceptable
    IF ambush order active:
        wait for trigger condition
7. React to battlefield change:
    IF incoming fire exceeds suppression threshold:
        reposition OR return fire
    IF adjacent unit retreats:
        evaluate fallback
    IF road becomes irrelevant:
        request new orders OR self-reassign sector

Now imagine that expanded to not be grossly oversimplified and a new one for each of dozens of different order types with dozens of other custom conditions (what if I wanted overwatch on airspace instead? different bucket of longer rules).

Mister Big Stuff?

Personally, I've never understood the concept of playing a commander with the POV of 2+ levels above the maneuver units on the board but still being maneuvered and decision making by the same player.

According to the manual, here is how it works for the battalion commander

US infantry battalion commander, typically a Lieutenant Colonel, commands 800 to 1,000 soldiers. Their core role is to understand the higher commander's vision, issue clear mission orders, allocate combat assets, and empower subordinates to act decisively while retaining absolute responsibility for the unit's actions and welfare.

Battalion Commander: Before a battle:
Preparation focuses on readiness, planning, and rehearsal to ensure subordinates can execute the mission autonomously.

Mission Analysis (METT-T): Analyzes the Mission, Enemy, Terrain and weather, Troops and support available, and Time (METT-T). Follows the military decision-making process alongside the battalion staff.

Commander's Intent: Establishes a clear, focused goal and the required end-state so subordinates can make on-the-spot decisions if the plan falls apart.

Issuing Orders: Delivers succinct, clear mission orders to subordinate company commanders and special staff.

Rehearsals: Oversees large-scale rehearsals, often utilizing terrain models, to verify that all subordinate leaders—down to the squad level—understand their roles, timelines, and contingencies.

Logistics and Intelligence: Coordinates with the battalion Executive Officer (XO) and S-2/S-3 (intelligence and operations officers) to ensure troops have the necessary ammunition, medical supplies, and updated enemy locations before stepping off.

During a Battle:
The focus shifts to battle tracking, managing the flow of battle, controlling supporting assets, and decisive risk-taking.

Command and Control: The commander generally operates from a Tactical Operations Center (TOC) or a Mobile Command Post (MCP) to maintain communication with higher brigade command and subordinate units.

Managing Subordinate Initiative: Guides current operations but allows company commanders to exercise initiative, avoiding micromanagement while ensuring actions remain aligned with the overall intent.

Allocating Combat Power: Manages reserves, directs artillery, close-air support, and logistical resupply to the main effort based on how the battle unfolds.

Risk Mitigation & Casualty Management: Monitors the battlefield's progress and enemy behavior, anticipates operational challenges, and ensures the rapid evacuation of casualties.

Throughout the Command
Regardless of the tactical phase, the battalion commander handles continuous administrative, disciplinary, and welfare responsibilities to build unit culture.

Let me know if I'm missing something.

Wolfhag

So, you think a commander is …

… not …

The model is about information, as I understand it, IRL. A company CO. Can have information about what their platoons and squads are doing, their positions etc.even if they are not specifically placing all the time.

Given we as table top players need to do things (and not do things) the actial wouldn't, then we have to make a decison.

One I made from the 1 up 2 down model was that I would close the Information flow model as the way I would decide which units I would be moving on the table.

As I sakd before my issue was with how those sub units behave which is a nother aspect of C3I.

Ultimately we cant as table top gamers be A.single role because we dont have the people.

Electronic games allow a chance as tbe machine takes the roles under, laterally and above the player. Though again commercial gamea they tend to make other compromises. Too many computer wargames feels likw table too or board wargames…. on a computer.

Tactical games like Arma allow 100 plus people play various roles from their PoV with other humans. But again due to what servers van handle one is not able to play something above an Under strength comapny and some supporting assets.

Who am I? I'm the guy (POV platoon and Squad Leader) rolling the dice and moving units using tactics to carry out the commanders intent outlined in the scenario. If I were the battalion commander I'd be in another room and someone else would be moving the units.

The command above me are basically NPCs. The game I play are up to a reinforced company per side in an engagement that historically last a short time, normally under an hour per attack wave. If I run into problems I contact the company commander who I then assume his POV. As Gamesman6 said, we can't assume a single role unless maybe you roll a die to see what the other commanders do.

Of course the battalion commander could go down to the team level if need be but then someone else like his XO and staff are commanding the rest of the battalion. His POV can change as can any commanders.

If the game rules call for a battalion or company commander to have a limited number of commands or command points to move units below the platoon level I think it pretty unhistorical but can make for interesting game and tactics. It may also ignore initiative at the lower levels. Realistically, you don't need someone telling you what to do every second or minute in a battle.

Like Gamesman said, we can't be a single role

Personally, I'm not so much concerned about the command POV as I am in using the tactics at the platoon level in a way I was trained for. I'm not going to make a claim on historical realism regarding the command structure because that is not the main emphasis of the game. It's about platoon and squad tactics in carrying out the commanders intent and objective.

My experience at the squad and platoon level is that there is not much of a command delay because everyone is close enough to hear, send a messenger or get a hand signal but it can happen.

Wolfhag

Realistically, you don't need someone telling you what to do every second or minute in a battle.

I think this is in the same domain as having a single role in a wargame.

It can be done. Interestingly, it either requires great abstraction or tons of fiddly detail.

Risk!: 2210 (to avoid a bunch of objections not relevant to the point). You are commanding movement and engagement of numbers of units at an aggregate level. Combat is very abstracted. Decisions map reasonably to an individual role (national level military command) decision space.

If you move to a lower level of granularity in the game, When your order is attack New Avalon with half the forces from Warsaw Republic, you end up with what I indicated in the above post – tons of pages of rules required to execut the single order.

I think this is why it isn't seen much – one role doesn't play well in the middle ground where you have interesting tactical and operational decisions with low outside of decision administration.

"Repeat orders" are an artifact of multi level of command. The battalion command orders a group of forces to maneuver into position. You are maneuvering at company level. It will take three turns to get all of them into position.

Turn one: Everyone moves out in a reasonable direction.

Turn two: When you "reissue orders", you are not representing the BatCom sending another set of orders to do the same thing. You are representing the company commanders' discretion in interpretation and their ability to react to the situation as it develops.

To not do this, you would either be the BatCom and need an automated system (big book of rules) to script (i.e. no input from the player) the execution of the three moves for each element … or … be a company commander, and need an automated system to generate the battalion level orders.

I believe the last two posts are circling the same core issue from slightly different angles, and they're actually helpful in clarifying what I've been trying to solve in the WWII rules I am developing.

One way I've come to think about battalion-level games is that the real constraint isn't "can units act without constant orders," but rather what level of command attention the player is actually being asked to operate at.

If the player is personally making decisions for every platoon-level interaction – movement, fire, reactions, etc. – then regardless of what the rules says, the player is functionally operating at a much lower command level. That isn't necessarily wrong or bad, but it does mean the "battalion commander" role becomes more of a label than an actual decision space.

On the other hand, if you move fully into abstraction and automation, you risk the opposite problem: the player stops feeling connected to the battlefield and becomes detached from outcomes.

A lot of command-point / activation systems try to solve this by limiting player intervention – essentially putting a governor on how much the player can directly influence each turn. That does help with pacing, but it also creates a side effect many players recognize: parts of the battlefield feel like they stall unless directly "activated," even though in reality subordinate units wouldn't simply stop functioning.

Eto's comment gets closer to the historical tension: real command is not about constantly issuing micro-orders, nor is it about total detachment. It sits in between – higher HQ sets intent, subordinate echelons interpret and execute, and the situation evolves continuously whether or not the commander is personally intervening.

That is the problem I'm grappling with in my rules.

The player is not intended to be a platoon leader or squad leader. The ground scale and structure simply don't support that level of decision-making. At the same time, the player is also not a distant theater-level commander issuing purely abstract directives.

Instead, the intent is that the player operates at the battalion level: setting priorities, shaping focus of effort, and deciding where attention and resources are applied. Once that intent is established, subordinate formations are expected to continue operating within that framework rather than waiting for constant reinforcement of orders.

Where this becomes interesting, and where both of these comments help sharpen the discussion, is that real command effectiveness is not primarily about "how many orders can be issued," but about how well intent is maintained through time under friction, delay, and changing conditions.

So, mechanics like limited command bandwidth or delayed execution are not there to simulate inactivity, but to represent the reality that command attention is a scarce resource, and not every situation can be actively managed at once. The challenge is not to keep units from acting – it is to decide which parts of the battlefield can be actively shaped, and which must be allowed to run under previously established intent.

I think the issue often comes down to what a player expects the "unit default behavior" to be. In some games, nothing meaningful happens unless directly driven by the player. In others, everything is continuously driven by the player. My game is trying to sit in a middle space where units continue to function, but the commander's ability to intervene and redirect is inherently constrained and must be prioritized.

The posts highlight valid concerns about abstraction and command layering. Where my rules try to differ is in treating subordinate formation behavior as persistent and partially autonomous, while keeping the player's role focused on intent, prioritization, and the timing of intervention rather than constant tactical steering.

That balance has been difficult to achieve and playtesting has been the proving ground, but battalion command should feel like a distinct decision problem rather than just a scaled-up version of platoon tactics.

Sounds like you're trying to find a balance between automata and abstraction.

Do you have something like a command flow chart showing player decisions (in a traditional flow chart, the diamonds) and autonomous actions (the boxes)?

One thing that helps in the type of design you are looking at is deciding (or at least mulling over) what things you are leaving out. Not abstracting away (when you change an ISR profile, you roll a die and apply modifiers for how long it takes to start reporting on the new tasking) but just leaving out (econommy of force – we just don't model the different distribution of logistics and tactical assets across the battalion so the diffrences between Company A and Company B are reduced to a few abstracted parameters).

I'm speaking about a game with a player handling up to a reinforced infantry company in WWII.

These are the things I consider in a game with units always active and ready to react (no IGYG, activation or initiative rules) and attempting to carry out their current order until a new order is issued or they make contact. I use 4-6 man sections/fire teams as main maneuver elements. So you are mostly the squad leader POV and sometimes the platoon leader POV. If things go wrong or get bogged down assume the company commander POV. That's the best I can do regarding POV.

Movement: formation types, fire & movement, patrolling, falling back, breaching obstacles, movement to contact, fire control, bounding, infiltration

Tactics: immediate action drills, ambush, assaults, firefights, urban combat, cover and concealment, defensive, FPF, over watch, delay, rally

Leadership: command & control, initiative, independent action, tactical knowledge, motivation, fire support planning, fire distribution and control. Leadership level influences how well units can perform.

Support: crew served weapons at the company level and above

There are many more but I'm listing the important ones to consider in a company level or skirmish game.

Battalion: I think the only things to consider is his intention/objective for the player to carry out, ability to deliver support/indirect fire or attach himself to a lower level unit. Remember, he's responsible for coordination of 3+ companies getting reports from the company commanders.

For me, what is most important from the Grunts Eye view. Do you have something like a command flow chart showing player decisions (in a traditional flow chart, the diamonds) and autonomous actions (the boxes)?:

Movement: formation type determines speed, security and how you'll be able to respond to contact. Use point men.

Immediate Action Drill/React to Contact: Ambush: far or near, drop into cover (Improved Position) and return fire, drop into full cover (Hunker Down) and not return fire (less chance of being hit, fall back into cover or get out of enemy LOS. Move Under Fire/Assault: Should not be automatic unless caught in a close ambush. Leaders can influence and/or take direct individual action.

These should be the players choice or roll a die and determine action based on training/morale and level of enemy fire.

Sustained Firefights: Exchange of the volume of fire is simultaneous with results determined over a set number of turns. Orders to fall back are automatically obeyed but they must attempt to move out of the enemy LOS.

Suppression: When in cover and being fired at by another unit in cover (Improved Position) your firepower is reduced 50% because of poor observation, changing positions, etc. Firepower superiority versus defender training determines further suppression and morale checks. Personally, I like to see suppression force units to fall back rather than attrition.

For more detailed Immediate Action Drills: PDF link

Good discussion.

Wolfhag

So you are mostly the squad leader POV and sometimes the platoon leader POV. If things go wrong or get bogged down assume the company commander POV. That's the best I can do regarding POV.

That is an excellent breakdown.

My point in asking the question is that rarely in a wargame, especially ttwg with minis, does a player equate to a single role from the milieu being represented.

That is not a "problem", but discussing the rules as if that were happening dilutes, if not destroyes, the discussion.

You can very clearly answer the question "What am I trying to represent?" not "What is reality?". Then realism is enclosed within what you are building, not some abirtray, external (and impossible) standard.

I like the outline of actions you provided. That will lead very cleanly to a great implementaiton.

I don't lean into the tactical specifics you do. However, I do like to focus on the political and civ-mil interactions you outlined.

I usually put those effects into scenario specific victory conditions rather than the rules. This shifts those concerns from the blue force view (what do we do in this situation) to the aftermath view (what happens after the battle). It's a choice. I'd love to see how your approach plays out.

This has been a genuinely useful exchange, and reading both posts together has helped clarify something I've been wrestling with for a long time.

Wolfhag's company-level list is about as clear a definition of the grunt's eye view as I've seen written down – formation types, immediate action drills, react to contact, suppression forcing fallback. That's authentic and comprehensive. What strikes me is that his description of the battalion commander – setting intention, delivering support, coordinating three companies – is precisely the decision space my game assigns to the player.

We're not disagreeing. We're describing adjacent levels of the same command hierarchy.

Etotheipi's abstraction versus omission distinction helps explain why. Everything on Wolfhag's list is real and historically important – but in the game I'm developing, those behaviors sit below the player's decision boundary rather than inside it. They aren't abstracted away with dice and modifiers. They're left out deliberately, because they don't generate battalion-level command decisions. Their effects reach the players as battlefield friction – suppression states, formation cohesion, threshold collapse – without requiring them to personally manage the mechanics that produced them.

The Action Order system carries most of that weight. Subordinate formations execute persistent orders autonomously. The player's intervention points are limited to changing priorities, redirecting effort, committing reserves, and crisis response. The diamonds on etotheipi's flowchart are almost entirely decisions about intent and attention allocation, not tactical execution.

Etotheipi's point about ‘what am I trying to represent' rather than ‘what is reality' is probably the most useful design principle in this entire discussion.

My answer to that question is specific: it is trying to represent the decision problem of a battalion commander managing intent across formations already in contact. Everything else follows from that.

What both posts reinforce for me is that the hardest design problem isn't creating command friction. It's building a battlefield that keeps functioning without constant player input while still making the player feel that his decisions matter. Wolfhag's system solves that at company scale. That's the space I'm trying to occupy at battalion scale.

Good discussion – this thread has been worth the time.

Once orders are issued units will act upon them until they are completed or something changes.

At which point they sre likely to contact higher command. The question is. If somethjng changes, what is that, a sub unit leader with a can do attitdue might not contact unless things are very bad. A caustious sub leader, may be conactiing Higher Higher so many reasons.

Equally comms will only happen is the higher command spends time asking so information from the subunit or the sub unit contacts them, see above.

Command is about filtering and processing information and facilities your units ability to complete they orders,
As TT gamers we end up having to run then mechanics of the battle system, do that at several levels, and deal with the turn by turn (i mean the management of actions over time) by the nature of what is possible in that context.

Also we like scenery and models etc which leads to a way of playing that doesnt lend itself to a way of playing the role of a company or Bn CO.

Ive long toyed with ideas to allow a more real feeling Co Bn or Bgde level game, but again it lends itself to a solo or co-op style game with a GM.

Ive done it with PBemail and play by WhatsApp games from LRRP Patrol to Reinforced Bgd sized games.

The tipping point was realising that I needed to stop trying to make a conventional wargame better and start.from scratch and give the players experiences of being in their role.

G6

Do you have something like a command flow chart showing player decisions (in a traditional flow chart, the diamonds) and autonomous actions (the boxes)?

etotheipi,

I took your flowchart suggestion and created one focused specifically on identifying player decision points rather than simply mapping the turn sequence.

What surprised me was how few true decisions remained once I separated them from the procedural parts of the system. Most of the chart turned out to be autonomous battlefield processes, while the decision diamonds clustered around a handful of areas: allocating priorities, committing support/intervention resources, and choosing how to respond when events force a command decision.

The exercise was clarifying because it highlighted the distinction between things the player is actually deciding and things the system is resolving on the player's behalf.

One question it raised for me is whether battalion-level games should naturally produce that kind of structure—a relatively small number of consequential decisions embedded within a much larger process framework—or whether that suggests I've pushed autonomy too far.

I'm curious what you would look for in a flowchart like that. Are there particular categories of decisions you would expect to see represented if the goal is to model battalion command rather than company or platoon command?

A flow chart is just a partitioning and categorization of activity. The standard way they are taught is with the little symbols identifying different types of activity. For a lot of things, decision/reaction is very insightful.

They don't teach this, but you can augment the symbology however you want.

A battalion commander really doesn't make many detailed tactical decisions. Most of the activity happens lower. Depending on the level of representation, you get a proportionate number of boxes.

Also, the battalion commander does a lot of things that don't directly affect maneuver and engagement of units on the board. If those things are left out, the decision space becomes pretty sparse.

For example, in addition to the units on the board, you might have a deck of cards and tasks that represent ISR tasking and management. That process gets affected by board state and can inform decisions or affect automated processes.

I have had people complain, "I don't want to play a card game. I want to play a wargame!" Well, if you don't want to manage ISR, you don't want to be a battalion commander. Which is fine. That goes back to "what do we want to represent"? That answer is never identical for a designer and a group of players (or across that group of players).

A simple extension is you could "color code" your boxes by properties like deterministic/stochastic. You can also draw an arrow along a critical path to see how it flows relative to the rest of the game.

I think what you are seeing is that maneuver and engagement (the things that manifest easily on the board) are high density activities for a squad leader and low density activites for a battalion commander. Scope really doesn't take the place of depth of decision – at higher levels you issue orders to large groups of people, so the decision scope usually stays fairly constant.

A lot of what a higher eschelon deals with is friction among units. That doesn't visualize easily. But it's why we see lots of "state markers" in games. They are an attempt to represent more of what higher levels of command deal with on the board.

You can start looking into that by what I call "dotting" the flowchart. Put different colored dots in or near the diamonds denoting what things influence the current decisions. Then decide whether managing those thing deserves its own process or not. At all comes back to "what do I want to represent?"

The tipping point was realising that I needed to stop trying to make a conventional wargame better and start.from scratch and give the players experiences of being in their role.

I usually take a hybrid approach. I start from the top down based on what I want the decision space for the players to be, then I see if there are existing mechanisms that fit the bill, or almost do with a little concession or modification.

This is why I settled on a pretty sparse set of rules.

link

I have found that for me most of the interesting decision space stems from the scenario design, not the rules themselves.

In our computer game, the design has the army commander issuing orders. They are carried to subordinate hq and from there to the specific unit they are intended for. Routing calculates the route and time a messenger would take across terrain types and elevation.

I was a bit concerned about this. What would happen if we have fog of war turned on, long turns and two units previously unsighted head towards each other? Could they just walk past each other?
I thought we'd need some sort of decision tree so the units decided to do stuff on their own accord.

Early adopters play tested and decided they wanted instant orders. So that's now a toggle. When you start a game you choose instant or delayed orders.

Players don't like loss of control of the sort that army simulations have. Not our players anyhow.

Could they just walk past each other?

It's happened, so it must be realistic. How representative it is depends on how you bound the situation.

If you mean the two units would have high probability of detection (mutual or one-way), and should react you are talking about the same issue in table top games that results in "reissuing orders" – interrupts.

That type of reaction has a much more robust decision space than unopposed maneuver.

One option for a computer game is to do the interrupt, and switch to a reactionary order input (which would change the player level of command), then proceed.

A middle ground would be to interrupt and provide the player an menu list of options (not full command options) determined by fog and friction of war things like: how "surprised" they were to detect, how different engagement formation is from transit formation, morale of the unit, aggressiveness of the subordinate commanders. Maybe only a few of those; maybe some other things.

etotheipi,

Your ISR point is making me re-examine how explicitly I'm representing uncertainty and information arrival in CUF. I've been treating those elements as largely embedded in other systems rather than as ISR in their own right, but your framing makes the coupling with command decisions much clearer.

The "dotting" approach you suggested—mapping what influences each decision node—feels like a useful next step to test whether ISR is properly distributed across the system or whether there are gaps where assumptions are doing too much work.

I appreciate the push toward being more explicit about what is actually being modeled versus what I've implicitly assumed is handled off-stage. It's helping clarify where the real decision pressure in the system actually sits.

Thanks!

Command Decision Points:

You can't make a decision unless you have the data, intel/ISR, HUMINT and reports from subordinates (sensor fusion). Many times reports must be confirmed by another source before it can be considered increasing the decision time (actionable intel). Let's call it Command Situational Awareness.

It is a Risk-Reward Decision by the commander to make a "rash" decision (audacious commander?) without all of the confirmed intel needed risking a wrong decision but shortening the command loop. If it works you could seize the initiative from the enemy by getting inside his command decision loop and you are a battlefield genius. If it fails you get people needlessly killed and could lose.

Confirming the intel could involve visiting the front lines yourself but that can increase the time but help make the right decision or it could allow your opponent the get inside your loop because you took too long and he seizes the initiative from you. If you take command of the unit engaged in battle your command loop is shortened but then you could get killed. Choose wisely.

Incompetent, overly cautious or untrained HQ staff will take longer to come to a decision. This could mean when their order eventually reaches the front lines the situation has changed and the order is no longer valid for the situation. Now you've put the enemy on the defensive and all he can do is react to your initiative which is the ideal situation on a battlefield.

Try implementing that in a game and you'll see players walking away from the table. Reality sucks.

When you feel you have gathered enough intel, you and your staff attempt to orient and analyze the situation to understand it and see what your options and tactics are based on training and experience.

After evaluating the intel and input from your staff, you will decide to make a decision and issue an order.

Depending on the level of the unit/person, it could take a split second or days for the order to be acted on and executed.

Now the commander is back to gathering intel and status reports on progress. Depending on the updated intel, he can change or modify the orders, commit reserves, visit the front lines, etc. Once the subordinates execute their order they report to HQ, the intel and ISR is updated and command goes through the loop again to give the unit their next order or mission.

Creating friction at every command level (H&I fire, EW jamming, PSYOP, etc.) increases the decision time, it's not just about attrition.

Immediate Action Drills (mostly at the tactical level) shorten the decision loop as do IF/THEN/ELSE orders such as when making contact: fall back, observe and report only, ambush, etc. Subordinate units should not need micro management from their commander unless they are untrained.

Does that make sense? It should because I just outlined the OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) Decision Loop we all use without knowing it.

It works from the individual to global strategy. The trick is how or if you want to implement it in a game. I've found it is much easier up to the company level because platoons and squads need to react quickly so use the Immediate Action Drills and fall back on their training without asking for orders from above. The platoon leader could accompany the lead squad to shorten the loop but it is more dangerous for him. Leaders lead, commanders command.

Above the company level, the decision loop gets more complicated. The bottom line is that it is all about timing which is why units train executing over and over again so it becomes second nature and learn initiative.

Wolfhag