Battlefield communications

[martin goddard]

Battle field communications are crucial for success.

In RFCM rules there are several mechanisms used.
All of these mechanisms give a hint/nod at battlefield communication but cannot fully simulate it. Mainly because we are playing challenging games rather than challenging activities with real life stress attached.

There needs to be the potential for communication problems. The reasoning being, that good or poor communication affected many/most historical battles.

In massed ancient battles communication often affected what the units did, rather than being the difference in them doing nothing or something.  Similar in ACW and ECW. 
Most unit commanders know and can carry out the general plan.
Communication problems might cause them to be slower or faster in doing their part of the battle.
Most sub commanders will not deliberately go against the general's wishes. There are some notable exceptions.

This leads to the question of what should  communication do in a miniatures game?

1. Create minor hiccups in units carrying out their tasks (APs).
2. Force players to carry communications without knowing how well the communications for the rest of the turn/units are. (motivate a unit and that unit  must do their actions now without being allowed to "rewind" if some other action goes wrong.).  (Also right to left).
3.Allow players to improve communication (or the effect of) at specific game points. This is for players who can make a plan, rather than help out clueless players with cue cards.To influence the battle.(Tokens, +1 general, exceptional leader, re-rolls).
4. Allow players better communication outcomes with closer proximity. The position of the command element must matter.(higher scores needed for distant motivation, re-rolls for commander present).
5. Scenery should affect communication (CWB) but is often ignored due to complexity (PBI).
6. Games need to reflect player's ability at battle planning and implementation rather than ascribe "you are Napoleon and able to be a better commander than the opponent" when they are probably not.
7.Allow players to carry out short term exertions but suffer later because of them.(Applying the bonus at the right time).
8. Bad communication consequences should not be easily remedied." you can move across the entire table length in a turn".


Most of the above accepts/knows that a game is being played which we all want to be intellectually challenging rather than slow and predictable or wild card driven.

Just some thoughts.
Your thoughts?

Some personal preferences.
1. I am not keen on written/writing orders during a game. Very popular once.
2. Not keen on random cards drivers, which players wait for, so they don't need a plan. Just see what comes up.
3.Vague communication consequences, such as "cannot advance towards the enemy this turn".
4. Random events that  cancel out any communication error consequences. "Any deads suffered by being ambushed this turn are ignored"


martin

[Leman (Andy)]

As a solo player I find random cards generate unpredictability, which I need if my games are going to be fun.

[mellis1644]

I must admit I tend to like games where either:

* A dice roll gives you a number of commands/actions which you have to allocate to unit and they do stuff. But you can't predict that everything will go as you want. Then if not given orders some units do their own thing - charge towards the enemy or stand in place etc. A typical example I think comes from the DBx style games (this likely was around before) but means you are managing the chaos of battlefield. There are many examples of this though - some RFCM have this. You could even argue the SAGA system works this way. This tends to work IMO for larger scale games where we are commanding large groups of units - so big battle games.

* A dice roll to do your next action and if you fail you 'side out' and initiative goes to the opponent. Again lots of varieties of this - from Blood Bowl & Crossfire through to Black Powder and the Rampant as well as various skirmish rules. These are easier to add random events into and often have a risk reward choice built into the system. They also can have factors for terrain and distance from commanders etc. These can work better for smaller units and skirmish games (but can do larger scale as well).

I play but am not as much of a fan of the pure random systems (cards/dice pulls from a bag) - which are common in many of the older TFL rules and say bolt action. These have the player reacting to the random order of events all the time. From my experience this can work but really is best for skirmish games. Some systems have a more managed card randomness - you have a hand of random cards and choose which to use next.

I think the key for me is do I feel I am managing the battle in the chaos of command and control or just reacting to random activations?

It all depends on the type and style of game as to which is best and what feel I want. Reacting to who goes first in a sword fight is good - the whole fight may take a minute or two of real time so makes sense. You should not be able to plan at that level and randomness makes sense. who goes next is an aspect and concern for the game as in the end a lot of the other things will be based on just die rolls vs. player decisions.

But on a larger battlefield things go slower so there should be more of a feel of control, even though there is still a lot of 'friction'. In these cases I want to have a better ability to plan/control some aspects but not have Warhammer perfect command of everything.

Hope this helps.

[Nick]

I like the RFCM mechanisms where "unit" commanders activate 3 squares. Also the mechanism used in the Vietnam rules where the number of dice used reduce after each action.
Outside of RFCM, I do enjoy the command rules in Hail Caesar/Black Powder for their unpredictability.
Would never touch anything requiring written orders.

regards,
Nick

[Sean Clark]

I dislike cards/chits/bags of dice to create random activations.

[martin goddard]

I might re-use the Abteilung order idea.

Each player selects a number of order cards.
Not enough to cover all eventualities but instead limited mostly to 1 particular battle theme. attack, defend, react.
An army with attack order theme will be forced to apply at least some attack orders each turn without recourse to defend orders.

The problem is that the orders cannot be too restrictive,  but also not so loose as to allow wide/abusive interpretation.
Best for bigger battles rather than skirmish type situations wherein men change their minds more easily

martin

[Colonel Kilgore]

... skirmish type situations wherein men change their minds more easily

Does that make me a "skirmish wargamer", regardless of what type of game I'm actually playing, then? 

Simon

[Moggy]

There are some games where written orders work well. 

I used to run mid-large Napoleonic Naval games where written rules were used. Sometime I would be even more cruel and make the orders have to be written 2 turns ahead.  This sorts out those who can't tell their port from their starboard (Port is left side of the ship if facing forwards -Port/Left both have 4 letters).  This tries to replicate the plain simple fact that although a captain may have decided to change direction he still has to give the orders, then the men have to scramble to the right ropes/sails to carry them out and then the ship itself has to overcome inertia and start turning speeding up or slowing down.

However, it does make the game slow down as people need the time to decide what to do and write simplistic orders.  Then spend the next few minutes cursing the fates when the wind changes or they end up with ships hitting each other or turning away from the battle. (Its at times like these that its nice to be running the game)

Overall I am happy to keep with the PP ethos of KISS.

Derek

[Sean Clark]

I might re-use the Abteilung order idea.

Each player selects a number of order cards.
Not enough to cover all eventualities but instead limited mostly to 1 particular battle theme. attack, defend, react.
An army with attack order theme will be forced to apply at least some attack orders each turn without recourse to defend orders.

The problem is that the orders cannot be too restrictive,  but also not so loose as to allow wide/abusive interpretation.
Best for bigger battles rather than skirmish type situations wherein men change their minds more easily

martin

This is also similar to Hmerin Iron where the majority of your orders fit either movement or shooting, but some order cards are of less use, but still some use.

[martin goddard]

Yes agreed Sean. A "theme" order selection

martin

[sukhe_bator (Neil)]

Situations where things go awry should prompt a command and control issue. If there is a mechanism for allocating objectives to specific units to reach, capture or hold and those criteria are not met, then perhaps they should generate morale consequences...?
Just a thought

Neil
 

[martin goddard]

Good logic Neil.
Agreed.


martin