I twice played a PBEM hex and counter simulation of WW2. Each country was divided into a number of commands. For instance, our team played France, and we had a Political Leader, two army leaders, a navy leader, and a minor allies leader.

We used to get together in a War Room constructed for that purpose and go over strategy. Because of the compartmentalization of commands, each had their unique focus and mindset. It was really cool, actually.

I think the best games lend themselves to that kind of break-down of command. Larger counter-pushers are good for that as you can have different generals run different groups. We used to do that at our weekly wargames where we'd split into 2 vs. 2 teams.

As for games which allow a single player that dynamic... some Arab-Israeli wargames include an element of morale which sort of fills that role. Games like Frederick the Great make you roll to see how far your generals can spur the troops into action, and you're always stuck using the highest rank general in a stack, regardless of his ability.

Does that help?

The Last Grenadier ran a Napoleonics minis game at a LA con once (or maybe more than once). The leading general sent a note to his corps commanders, the cc sent to the division commanders, the dc sent to the brigade commanders, (I can't remember how far down it went). Turns out it just wasn't very fun, even for those at the lowest rank who actually got to move the minis around. I think the majority at the table eventually snuck away to play other games.
Sometimes too much "Reality" isn't very fun.

I think Neopieus makes some great points.

I think most wargames could be very simple. mechanically, if they had multiple players assigned roles and divided into teams, as described, and also have a judge or several so that all sides play double-blind.

Managing resources, communicating information, formulating plans, executing them...Just the friction among the players alone would go a long way to showing what real problems the higher commanders face.

Ok, I'm not a veteran, but I have discussed this with many men and women who ARE, in various conversations. So this is kind of a rant that goes slightly OT.

If you want a one word answer to what I feel is KEY in any good Wargame, it would be this.

FRICTION

Friction- A word Clauswitz uses to describe the simple truth that, in war, when you get into contact with the enemy, poop happens.

Don't care what scale the game is. Don't care what the period is. The simple truth is that games without friction are just variations of Chess- you tell your piece to move, it kills the other unit, and so forth.

That said, I think that there are three types of ways that games have dealt with friction in wargaming.

1). The 'command Distance' idea. This version basically says "Do whatever you want so long as you keep this ONE unit next to all the subgroups." You don't get any restrictions on your movment/combat/morale UNLESS you move to far away from the commander. Then stuff happens. This was common in a lot of older games that started to have SOME form of CiC in games- Terrible Swift Sword had it, you see it in East Front, you see it in Squad Leader. It's also a common riff in miniatures games- everything from Warhammer to Flames of War uses this concept. Sometimes a 'Good' leader will also give a bonus to unit- sometimes not. But invariably, you're able to do what you want, so long as you stay within 'range' of the leader. This is the most basic and standard method of dealing with 'command friction' in wargames. Its workable, but, in my opinion, not that satisfying- Friction is something that you deal with, rather than a frustrating reality.

2). The 'Sometimes things don't move' Idea. This is a new idea, that has just started in the last 10 years to really take off. The game design idea is that in combat, the 'best' plan (that you implement later) is worse than a worse plan that you can implement RIGHT NOW. Memoir '44 uses it, with cards being the limiting factor on what you can do. So does Combat Commander- the cards are REQUIRED to do ANYTHING in that game. Don't have a move card? Well, don't move- what DO you have in your hand that you can do RIGHT NOW?

Some miniatures games that use this idea include Blitzkrieg Commander and Cold War Commander, as well Warmaster. The riff in these games is that your commanders have to make a die roll check to move/fire/assault AT ALL. Roll bunch of snake eyes- you're golden. Roll box cars- you're screwed.

This idea is one that sounds good in concept- Games SHOULD have more friction, in my opinion. But in some cases, this might make a good 'simulation' but can be terribly frustrating as a game. In addition, some of these 'artificial' limitations of friction can seem to be a bit gamey- I'm not convinced by the very 'linear' set up of Memoir '44, for instance. However, at their best (Combat Commander, in my opinion), you really get the sense of trying to do SOMETHING- ANYTHING, out of your guys.

3). The leader as a 'force multiplier' idea. Right, this is a fairly new concept- I've only really see it implemented well in the new Osprey Ancients rules set "Fields of Glory". The idea is that units, without a leader, can do somethings. But they can do a LOT better if they have a leader attached to them. Since leaders are a scarce commodity, (and difficult to move about once you engage in combat) you have to decide where you are going to best utilize this scarce resource.

For me, this is a nice balance. You have friction represented, in that without leadership, everything is pretty sluggish. Units are VERY hard to just wheel around without a leader- and when you get close- almost impossible. But with a leader, its more likely that your units will be able to wheel, meet the charge, counterattack, etc. Other games that implement this well, in my opinion, are the Great Battles of History series (especially the later ones, like Game 12- RAN).

Your idea, of multiple commanders, also works well. Nothing like a Committee to screw things up. The problem is, of course, how do you model that into your game balance? Can you?

So, to sum up-
I think that the key ideas that you have to have in mind about a wargame are-
1) How are you implementing Friction?
2) How can you, as the player, use leadership to overcome Friction?

The rest of the game design, after that, is just tactics and weapons. Its LEADERSHIP, in my opinion, that makes a game (Or an Army!) truly great.

The Night before the battle of Gaugemela, Alexander's advisors recommended that they use their troops to make a sneak attack at night- they were so outnumbered by Darius. But Alexander replied- "I did not march to Babylon to STEAL a victory."

Without Alexander, the Macedonians would have been good- but overrun at Gaugemela. With Alexander, they conquered the known world....

Darilian
(Edited to make this SLIGHTLY more ON Topic than before)

Ah - a subject close to my heart as far as wargames are concerned. I certainly think that most wargames do a bad job of modelling this vital aspect of conflict.

In your post you have alluded to one key problem with emulating command and control - that subordinates make their own decisions. The second key factor that you didn't mention is imperfect information. Put the two together and the problem of C&C becomes further magnified.

Taking the questions in turn:

A) Many games try to simulate distance of command by using a CP roll, which yields a number of points which can be used to activate units. I find this to be too random for reasonable simulation, and at the same time it fails to address imperfect information.

Some games require orders to be defined beforehand (i.e. advance, hold ground, assualt etc) and then the units within that command must act upon the orders they currently have, rather than what the player would have them do at that instant in time. However the mechanics for dealing with this can become rather clumsy.

I have alse come accross some miniatures rules which require commanders to take 'doubt' tests when assigned new orders (e.g. assualt) which conflict with the commanders 'temperament' (e.g. Cautious).

For a board game example:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/17651

This game at least has pre-defined orders but does not deal with imperfect information.

B) The best example of properly simulated command structure is a well run Kriegspiel game - a map based, umpire moderated wargame in which the umpire decides what information is available to the player and interprets the players orders, perhaps with the help of some dice rolling. The umpire also resolves combat, but only reports back to the player details in accordance with what his actual persona would have had access to.

Having run such a game, I found it very striking how differently players behave when compared to how they behave when playing a perfect information hex'n'counter or miniatures game - they generally get very cautious, and miss many excellent opportunities for victory they would never have passed up in a perfect information game!

In the absense of an umpire, you get various levels of detail for simulating of command structure limitations. In Command and Colours:Ancients for example, as in so many other games the problems of command and control are simulated by randomisation (whether it be card draws or dice). I find this very unsatisfactory since this explicit randomisation is the opposite to 'control'. While control may be imperfect, excessive randomisation in the simulation of control makes planning ahead impossible, which I feel is also bad simulation.

Another element that is missing from most games is the plan of battle. Whether the conflict being simulated is tactical (e.g. an ancient field battle of romans vs gauls) or strategic (european WWII theatre), there was always a plan in place, detailed or sketchy, which was communicated to subordinates at the beginning of the battle and only changed thereafter with difficulty. Few games simulate this up front planning, and impose sufficient penalty if the planner gets his initial plan wrong. Many such games have the player re-evaluating and reforming his plan on a turn by turn basis. In reality this does not happen, although of course a plan may be tweaked according to circumstances, it is rarely re-written, and only the very best commanders achieved this kind of on-the-fly thinking, and they still had to deal with the fact that their troops and subordinates reacted far more slowly than the C-in-C s mind could concieve new ideas.

C) Again I would point to the Kriegspiel game, which is run by a team of umpires moderating two teams of players and was used in the past to train staff officers (originally conceived by the Prussian strategist von Klauswitz in the mid 19th century and the forerunner to the modern wargame). Such simulation is very difficult to achieve in a moderate compexity, non-moderated boardgame, however I do think current wargames could achieve alot more than they do in this regard. This might need to be achieved at some sacrifce to the minute details of troop characteristics, arms & armour and morale factors however I think from the POV of the C-in-C (the player) there is more to be gained in overall historical accuracy of outcome by simulating command and control aspects in preference to detailed troop and ordnance differences.

A couple years ago, we had a "Total War in (18)'64" Volley & Bayonet miniatures campaign. Basically, the powers of Europe, the Ottomans, Japan, the USA, the CSA, and a couple South American tin pots were duking it out for world domination.

Problem was, it was a bit of a monster game. We had a team of about a dozen players that pieced together a world map, economic and political components for the game, naval and other movement rules...all to drive a campaign so that players could fight some miniatures battles!

It was way too cumbersome and complex and collapsed under its own weight in just a few turns. Most players were happy to beat up native armies, but were loathe to fight other players. Even players with large armies didn't want to tangle with another player whose army was small but was a wiz at fighting the tabletop battles.

We decided that if we attempted anything similar in the future, we would have a team of players running each country.

Sounds very interesting, and PBEM might be a nice way to do something like that, while keeping interest up.



Interesting. I believe I recall the "highest rank commands" bit before in some ACW games. I also seem to recall that it tends to result in the bad commanders running off to odd, out of the way hexes.

Yes, I fear this is often the case. I know, on a tangent, I had always thought it would be interesting to do a space ship combat game, ala Star Trek, where several player took various bridge positions. In practice, I think it would just result it some players being bored a majority of the time, and some (say, the communications officer) being bored all the time.

I think they key is to make sure that the players are at the top of the command structure. The mistake is to try and combine a strong simulation of command and control with a detailed simulation of the combat resolution. One wonders what the point of this is if the players don't have access to all the detail used during the combat resoltuions. One should pick one or the other and not try and do both.

That way everyone gets to be a general as opposed to a captain or major.

Cool way to express it.



I've seen this in some older games as well, and agree that it only goes a very short way to simulating things.



I do like this one a bit, but it is an bit of an all or nothing solution. Certainly the card draw (or lack thereof) can seem a bit gamey. Still, even in SCA battles (loosely simulated live medieval combat), I've seen troops just sit around when they could have turned the tide by attacking, and there's not even the threat of death. Perhaps it's not quite that gamey!



This does seem to do a decent job of it, but still falls short in some ways in my mind. Don't all units at least start with a leader, not just a few? Of course, perhaps only a few have effective leaders. Also, I tend to think of a good leader as giving the unit direction and action, but not directly multiplying it's strength. Then again, if you think of lower level stuff being abstracted (the leader getting the troops to flank the enemy, take advantage of timing and local terrain), the effect can be much the same, so not so bad. Doesn't simulate different leaders conflicting ideas, leadership styles, etc, however.

Nice thought out reply, very interesting. Thanks!

Thanks for restating that, and of course, imperfect information (fog of war) is also a large part.



I think I recall Fifth Frontier War did this. A leader with a rating of "1" got to write orders 1 turn ahead, a "12" had to plot them out 12 turns in advance. Very interesting, and alas, cumbersome.



I think that's very likely true, and how I imagine I would react. I think some computer games might/can make good use of this, what with the computer taking over the perhaps less interesting role of ump



An excellent point. I wonder if one could simulate this in a C&C like card draw system, by making a command attempt hand consisting of some selected cards (what you want them to do), combined with some random cards (what they might end up doing). I could see that a leader's value could reflect in how many "desired" cards they got, and/or how many random ones they got. More complex could be selecting the "random" cards by the situation (if adjacent to the enemy, perhaps cards that have you flee - or cards who's action varies depending on your situation).



Another excellent point. It's one I see play out in SCA medieval war "games" all the time.

Great comments, keep 'em coming.

Actually the role of umpire in the game I'm running is very interesting! I can't help laughing to myself as I see the players make mistake after mistake. Not to take anything away from the players - they do what they can with the info I give them (even if they are rather cautious) but my omniscient view makes my job very interesting.

It will also make writing up the after-battle report a fun task, although I'll need to be careful not to offend the players, who have all made good decisions as well as bad ones!



An upfront plan could easily be simulated by a prior selection of certain command cards/chits (perhaps which have a lower cost to 'activate' them), single use 'special abilities' or perhaps even terrain (if you are playing the commander who gets to choose the battlefield) for example. This seems like a rather simple mechanic to me - it's a wonder more games don't support this concept.

WRT computer wargames, everytime I get the itch for WW2 command structure any of the PC games utilizing the Airborne Assault engine (namely its last iteration Conquest of the Aegean) works for me.

The game models giving orders at any level of the organization, and models the chain of command (and disruptions to it) and AI from that point. You can detach/reattach pieces of the tree at any time and feel its effects.

I'm in agreement with a review from The Wargamer: "The Airborne Assault engine offers one of the most effective, and educational, simulations of command structure to be found in wargaming."

My apologies if this sort of post is improper etiquette. I'm loving my exposure to tabletop wargaming/boardgaming, but with limited access to regular opponents I've had to resort to this medium for gaming as well.

Excellent discussion.

"If you want a one word answer to what I feel is KEY in any good Wargame, it would be this.

FRICTION

Friction- A word Clauswitz uses to describe the simple truth that, in war, when you get into contact with the enemy, poop happens."

Friction can develop before soldiers even get near the enemy.

Lost orders, supply breakdowns, command disputes, etc. can make a military operation grind to a slow crawl before a shot is ever fired.

As you mentioned Clauswitz said that no plan survives contact with the enemy, which is another important part of the friction pantheon.

Fog of war is one of the most important elements in wargame command rules: many a would-be Rommel will turn into a Monty when he is deprived of the benefits of total information availability.

This is something I think would be really fun to model in a boardgame. I call this concept 'command focus'. Rather than put the player firmly in the shoes of the C-in-C, how about letting the player roam about the battlefield, taking up the 'command focus' of the C-in-C, or the division commander, or even the brigade or company commander?

The idea would be that at the lowest levels of focus, one can apply positive modifiers to a specific, crucial action such as the storming of a key position. At the highest levels of focus, one has better ability to activate units etc at all levels of command, and to respond to the actions of your opponent, however the outcome of detailed combats is totally beyond your control (and perhaps in the ideal game, beyond your information horizon).

This would allow a player to 'experience' the different levels of command (perhaps with rules/cards specific to the current level of command focus). It should also generate a good level of tension, as well as the ability to enact a specific pre-ordained plan (e.g. Alexander the Great charging the Persian commander (Darius?) with his Companions).

The rules for such a game would need to impose a penalty for changing command focus, so that comitting yourself to a given focus at a crucial moment is not easily undone.

Obviously this concept does not chime well with a single-POV simulation where the player is supposed to be the C-in-C at all times, however since most games allow players perfect information (and often near perfect control), I don't see that it would be a significant factor of 'innaccuracy' in the simulation. In fact, as long as the penalty for changing focus is significant enough, I think it might actually enhance the 'reality factor'.

It is good, but I caution you--such a game *requires* two GMs. Don't join (or start) a game with just one GM. It will bog down and die.

BTW, conforming to a similar concept is a game I run once a year which simulates the Space Race. Two teams of five, Russian and American, compete against each other to build a better space program. The game is conducted in six month turns and each player has a separate role, i.e. Political leader, civilian manned, civilian unmanned, espionage, defense.

Each player only knows his/her intel and is both competing with teammates and also trying to help the team beat the other side. We've played six times and gone through ten years of game time so far.

Another application of fog of war deals with how we play Star Fleet Battles. We put navigators at the board, each with an SSD and a walkie-talkie or cel phone. They report to a Captain in another room who only knows what the navigators tell them. That's resulted in some awesome games.

Hmm, sounds interesting. Perhaps flying in the face of my own discussion idea, I sometimes find chit style computer games intimidatingly complex. Might have to give it a try anyway.



AFAIK, there's nothing improper about bringing up computer games here, especially in a discussion like this. I do think they are well suited to take care of certain areas that board games don't do as well. Mind you, I find board games - and wargames - have their own level or areas of appeal that computer games fail to fulfill.

I think the last very wargamey computer game I played was Combat Mission. It did a good job of fog of war. Units could break and cower or flee in it, but otherwise do exactly what they are told, and you are still ordering each unit.

Requires for redundancy (in case one isn't around or quits), or requires two for other reasons?

I believe I recall the "highest rank commands" bit before in some ACW games. I also seem to recall that it tends to result in the bad commanders running off to odd, out of the way hexes.

Your memory is accurate. This is historically correct for the American Civil War because high-ranking generals that failed to perform (especially in the Union army) were often sent to command less critical sectors. This happened because many of these unsuccessful generals had strong political connections.

A fine example of a relatively simple command rule that works both as a game mechanic and as history.

True, I had thought a little about that aspect. It's by no means perfect (in that sometimes, I imagine, due to those political connections, you couldn't send that dog of commander out of the way).

As someone else pointed out, some games refined that aspect by a rank-has-it's-privileges rule requiring that the bigger stacks go to the higher ranked commanders.

I'm sure there must be ways to simulate a bad general, who has connections, who you can't dispose of (or even put in an out of the way sector) until he really messes up. I'm just not sure there are elegant and easy ways to do that.

Because it's too much work for one person. That person will get bogged down, start making mistakes or short-shrifting players. The more GMs, the better, so long as they're all good and on the same page.

In Jerusalem, you have leaders of varying capabilities--Kaukji actually halves the strength of whomever he's stacked with, but since leaders are the only way you can move units around, you end up using him because you have to.

"I'm sure there must be ways to simulate a bad general, who has connections, who you can't dispose of (or even put in an out of the way sector) until he really messes up. I'm just not sure there are elegant and easy ways to do that."

There was a unique command rule in SPI's Tannenberg. The two Russian army commanders hated each other; they had actually gotten into a fist-fight in Manchuria during the Russo-Japanese War. The tsar assigned these two paragons to lead separate armies in 1914... armies that were expected to cooperate with each other as they advanced into East Prussia.

It was a fiasco.

The game featured a special three player version where the two Russian players had to take on the German player without talking to each other!

Actually this is better simulated in Computer Wargames.
Problem with board games boils down to players.
Do you have enough players that are willing to form a chain of command? And the most minor subordinate gets the job of counter pusher. :D
Most of the time, you don't have enough. You don't even have enough to play 2 players.
In computer games, you play the commander, and the computer AI acts as your subordinates.

A nice civil war game called Take Command 2nd Manassas simulates the chain of command pretty well.
http://www.madminutegames.com/