"Less Control?" Topic

If 'historical limits' mean I can't see most of the figures on the table, and rely on reports from runners, then as a rule, no. But not being able to predict in three turns where my army will be? Of course, and many of the rules I play meet that test.
Also, whilst I would be interested, I might not buy them; and if I bought them, they might not get played.

"Pre-twentieth Century" is not where I would have drawn the line, and a lot depends on the game level. But I agree that the ability of an Ancients general to modify his plan once the battle starts was quite limited, and rules should reflect this. It's (a) why I don't play a lot of Ancients, and (b) why I favor quick-resolution rules so there's more emphasis on the set-up and less on subsequent decisions.

Isn't that the point of die rolls?
Having to roll a die (dice) to charge means you don't have complete control. Ditto rolling dice for movement.

This is so dependent on other factors as to be impossible for me to rank.

Would I be persuaded to buy or use rules based on whether or not they had "historical limits" (whatever the heck those are)? No.

Would I be persuaded not to buy or use rules based on whether or not they had "historical limits"? No.

My standards are different— are the rules fun to play? Do they reflect the general period "feel" (as I interpret such)? Are they relatively easy to understand and use? Then I'll play those rules, C&C limits or not.

Answer: "Other."

+1 to all of the previous comments.

Rick

Other = all the pre-20th century games I play seem to cover this pretty well: command dice for pips, card activation, etc.

Why would you want less control? It's a game. The fun is controlling your army. It's an exercise in the theory and practice of military tactics. There are already enough variables added to most games such as unit morale and training; and many games already have complex command & control systems. And as John the OFM points out, you are rolling dice which is going to creat lots of variance and is all part of the "fog and friction" of warfare. No need for extra limitations. Don't take the fun out of being in control of your forces. Put me down as a zero for this idea.

I already lived through the IGO/UGO period where many games could boil down to math exercises to determine your chance of success.

Now I prefer games that have more unpredictability. That doesn't mean countless rolls to determine every variable but not knowing exactly what happens next is more appealing.

All of the above: 'historical' is a judgement – let's see the article/book first, and see if we agree with the interpretation.

Wargaming is a construct of war (historical) and game (playbility). Through the former (I believe) I can get some sort of understanding of the period. Through the later, I can imagine some of the confusion and limitations … and hopefully enjoy the experience!

Inevitably, I'm not thinking of fantasy/fiction, and I don't pretend to speak for everyone

Phil

Most pre-20th Century rulesets give players more control over their troops than their historical counterparts would have had.

Who are these historical players who didn't have control over their troops on the wargame board?

I don't play historical war-games reenactments per se. I can lose just as easily via my dice rolls and poor deployment without the help of any rules based assistance.

I do like a game where there is a chance your troops won't in fact perform that mathematically correct well thought out flanking maneuver – historically troops often didn't do exactly what the big brass wanted; this is one of the things I like about Black Powder (and the fact that there is not a lot of math)

I think the poll is based on a faulty premise. Who says historical commanders didn't have control over their troops? I hear players say it all the lime. But, where's the evidence that is in fact true?

Anecdotally, I'm sure there may have been some instances in the history of warfare of commanders not being in complete control of their troops during a battle, but I have seen very few reports of such instances in real life. Being in control of your troops still doesn't mean you'll win the fight. You might just not be quite the military genius you believe yourself to be.

A commander who can't control his staff so that the troops under his command perform as they are ordered, is soon relieved of his responsibilities. Or dead.
As most troops would prefer NOT to fight and get killed, if they are not under the control of their commanders there would be no reason for them to stick around.

Any artificial "historical" game rule limits that interfere with a player's command decisions just remove the player from any responsibility for his losing and are not necessarily "historic".

I gave the idea a 3 because there could be a way to play the game without including the arbitrary limits. Otherwise nah!

Considering all players are sitting in a helicopter viewing the entire battlefield with very limited exceptions, I do not see how limiting troop movements does anything but take away the fun and playability. Unless we find a way to prevent players from seeing everything, then what exactly do we accomplish by restrictions?

Considering all players are sitting in a helicopter

Invisible, invulnerable, and intangible helicopter.

You kind of make my point, but the other way around. I do not believe that a player equals a specific general or commander. A player in a game makes decisions and takes actions that span multiple levels of command in real life. Trying to jam the player concept into the exact equivalent of a specific person is the artificiality.

It can be done, but it ends up enormously complex and is best done in wargaming venues other than tabletop.

Other:

When needed, I just put it in a special scenario rule. Do that all the time.