Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Greetings Designers,

Most games try to simulate the Command and Control functions of leaders on the table top. This is true in any scale of conflict from Army vs Army to Squad on Squad actions. There have been a number of different ways to represent this.

1. An Officer Command radius where orders can be given to a unit within the radius
2. The General being within a certain distance provides benefits to the nearby troops stats, especially morale
3. Being able to provide re-rolls to different units

Everyone agrees that Command and Control is a fundamental element of Military practice int he real-world, but how does this get translated tot eh tabletop? What are some different approaches you have encounter? What is your preferred method to see Command and Control on the tabletop?

Discuss.

Yes, but, most C&C get translated in a really medieval way, not taking into account the possibilities of a modern or futuristic warfare scenario.

Tell me more!

For any squad-level game, Command and Control is absolute. Morale should be assumed as automatic / fearless / ignored.

i am experimenting with the Command value setting the squad coherency radius.
Rather than having a model to model coherency in a unit.The unit sits on an 'invisible base' of the radius of the command value.

This is just a simple way to show how units with better commanders can spread out more and remain effective, in more modern war games.

I think a simple suppression mechanic works better in modern sci fi games, than the 'all OK,or run away' morale of lots of ancient type war games.

I think we need to try and define the term and the problem before we go on to possible solutions.

C3 (Command, Control and Communications) has more than one ‘official’ definition. In outline it means the system by which information is conveyed to a commander, allowing him to allocate the correct assets to each problem, create and transmit orders to those units, and check that they are implemented.

The C3 process occurs at various levels, since high level staff orders must be broken down to divisional level and eventually reach front-line squad leaders who have to implement them on the micro level and have a C3 process which probably consists of shouting and thinking in real time.

C3 is a crucial part of real war. There are many examples of mis-communication or unclear orders dramatically affecting the course of a battle. So it is a good topic for discussion.

It’s worth noting that there are war games that consist entirely of the command process in C3. Such a game often comprises a command committee, with umpires supplying the information and carrying out the resulting orders.

In these games players explore the process of making decisions and transforming them into operational orders. However they usually do not involve any tabletop materials except for maps, diagrams and other data. So perhaps we can ignore these.

To return to the tabletop, the commander is usually but not always a single player. He has usually a perfect overview of the battle area, with easily identifiable terrain and units on both sides. He has unlimited time to formulate orders and they often can be implemented instantly and perfectly by his units.

This is the model of the helicopter borne general with an army of telepathic heroes. It’s unrealistic of course and may define the ‘game’ end of the spectrum that runs from simulation to game.

The point of this thread is to identify rule mechanisms that allow the game to move as far towards the simulation pole as we want it to.

These mechanisms can affect the C3 part of the game in four areas:

Limit the information the player receives.
Constraints on the formulation of orders.
Communication of the orders to units.
Acceptance and implementation of the orders.

There can easily be overlaps between the last three areas of concern.

One way to approach this is to abstract the whole process to a great degree. In WRG’s De Bellis Antiquitatis, the player rolls a die at the start of his round and that is the number of units he can move. This has the virtue of simplicity but it lets the player always concentrate on whatever is the most crucial unit that turn, while in real war it often doesn’t work like that.

Anyway, at this point I’m just going to throw out a bunch of general ideas I’ve seen in different games over the years.


Limited information

Hidden units/hidden movement -- these can be implemented several ways.
Blips in Space Hulk
Blank or grey units that aren’t revealed until you get into sighting range.
Off-board flank marches in WRG rules. They come on the table after a semi-random delay.
Deep Strike units in 40K
Umpire controlled movement, often using a map until the units need to be placed on table.


Formulation of orders

Time limit (Space Hulk)
Written orders (many games)
Standardised order codes or chits (many games)
Length limit for each order, and/order a limited number of orders per turn (various games)


Communication

Couriers, availability, their movement across the field (various games -- it can be abstracted or a real figure that you move across the table.)
Other signalling methods, e.g. radio has limited channels and might be jammed. Flags/semaphore/heliograph/telegraph.
Time needed.
These factors are often randomised.


Acceptance and activation

Unit postures limiting the orders that can be accepted (Stars N Bars) If the unit is already enforcing a previous order to “Defend” sub-units can only be ordered to counter-attack within a short distance. You first have to change the unit order to Attack (takes time.)
Unit morale (many games) means the unit might take an order and either refuse to carry it out or do so too enthusiastically. Sometimes units will attack or retreat of their own accord. This usually has a random component.
Unit view of the battle field -- may affect morale or tie back into limited information (various games) -- units can only “see” and react to enemy units within their range of sight.
Logistics (WRG Ancients) -- A unit may not have the ammunition to carry out an order.

 Easy E wrote:
Tell me more!

Most of the C3 systems are based on old models mostly used by antiquated armies, sure there can be failures in technology but these will be the rare exceptions rather than the normal to model on and the more advanced the technology the faster the solution to a breakdown will happen.

In a sci fi environment were satellites, UAV's, short and long communication devices and live feed cameras are more than a possibility (and HUDs and holoprojections and many other things) command of a unit and each individual soldier can be quite direct, feeding the soldier with more information than it is at the moment imaginable (lets get aside information overload for a second).

Aliens and mech commander had a nice illustration of the situation were the commanding officer was behind the lines and directing each soldier directly I would say a squad leader could do so while on the battlefield, this can create a really different concept of what a squad is how coherent they are on the battlefield and maybe alter the squad multiplier ideology, not sure about the later though, mass firepower has a quality that accurate firepower may never get.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
For any squad-level game, Command and Control is absolute. Morale should be assumed as automatic / fearless / ignored.

I would really like to hear more about this.

Also, good post Killkrazy!

 Easy E wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
For any squad-level game, Command and Control is absolute. Morale should be assumed as automatic / fearless / ignored.

I would really like to hear more about this.

There really isn't that much to say:

1. Players dislike loss of control. Particularly punishing random loss of control. That isn't fun, so people are less apt to play it.

2. Skirmish games tend to be about Elites and such with excellent Leadership and Training. Modern Training emphasizes the ability for Troopers to think and act on their feet, without the need for continuous tactical command. Modern equipment has secure radio communications built in each Trooper's basic equipment. In such an environment, breakdowns should be rare.

3. Modern Rules streamline. Creating a large, complex set of morale-based exceptions that get used but rarely to punishing effect is undesirable.

I ended up taking (Ancients-based) Morale out of KOG Light (setting is near-future 2030s) because it got in the way of the sort of gameplay I wanted. It's not like I don't already have dice for randomness. If the fluff reason that the shot missed is because he was thinking about his dead buddy, that's just fine.

I suppose there are alternatives that are non-clunky and suitable for streamlined skirmish play. I just haven't seen anything that works for my purposes.


I might break up the activation from Igo-Ugo, but it's not been a priority.

Even suppression in a modern or futuristic skirmish would have a different effect than in a WW1 or 2 era (or earlier) game.

Because the solders are better trained well connected on the battlefield network and been in such situations is not alien to them.

I have always viewed 'suppression' in modern sci fi games to be more of a 're-evaluation of tactical choices' .Than soldiers diving for cover/vehicles buttoning up.

IMO, the simplest way to model this in the game is to reduce the actions taken by suppressed units.To show the unit solving the tactical situation at hand.
EG working out if its is better to change their approach, or to return fire on the suppressing unit etc.

In essence suppression is just a comparison or units confidence , to the threat level of incoming fire.As soon as the level of incomming fire is great enough the unit will re --evaluate their tactical position /choices.

What does suppression mean in itself?

In history it means the attacking unit has come under fire and ceased forward movement. It might be firing back, more or less effectively, or just hugging the dirt. The main point is that it isn't moving anywhere and once a unit gets into this position it is often difficult to persuade the men to get moving again.

Suppression isn't the only response to incoming fire. Paddy Griffiths identifies the "flight to the front" in which attacking troops speed up their movement through the beaten zone because they paradoxically will get safer by being closer to the enemy they want to attack.

He also identifies cases in the Peninsular War where the attackers -- British in this case -- stopped moving forwards and got into a long-drawn out firefight that only produced more casualties on both sides and did not come to a decision. The attacker wasn't suppressed in the sense of stopping him fighting, but the nature of his fighting was changed from the bayonet attack the officers wanted to an expensive and inconclusive shooting match, and he was effectively bogged down.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What does suppression mean in itself?.

Suppression isn't the only response to incoming fire. Paddy Griffiths identifies the "flight to the front" in which attacking troops speed up their movement through the beaten zone because they paradoxically will get safer by being closer to the enemy they want to attack.

Speaking from experience, this was US Army doctrine in the late 1980s. I assume it to be true today, to assault forward rather than be pinned down.

Are we talking about suppression at the man level or as a unit/company/etc.? Roughly speaking, suppression is when a unit no longer behaves as desired due to application of enemy force. Generally, it stops forward motion, pushes the unit to cover and causes them to react at reduced effectiveness. I think the key word is react- it is a powerful tool to seize, or maintain, initiative. The suppressed unit is no longer acting on it's initiative/order/whatever but responding. Better disciplined troops are more likely to regroup quickly and regain initiative or effect instead of losing all resolve, panicking, etc. So instead of cowering behind cover or fleeing, they might move to cover then move to get better angles/flank/deploy alternate weapons/etc. Still likely stops a direct advance, but far less effective overall.

That was what I was thinking more or less.

Suppression must include the idea of forcing the enemy to do something they don't want to (stop moving) or not to do something they do want to (firing defensively, perhaps.)

If a unit decides of its own will to stop moving and think out a new plan, that to me is not suppression as such. It should be within the control of the player, as allowed by possible random effects of C3, to decide his current movement is too risky and stop.

That is why "retreat" flags work so well in BattleLore, whereas morale is so stupid in 40k.

40K has the Pinning rule, which a form of Suppression, and the Falling Back rule. These aren't bad ideas in themselves but of course so many armies get Ld 10 or Fearless or similar buffs that they don't often play a part in the game.

Which brings us back to my original point - that Morale is unnecessary in skirmish games...

Infinity has guts roll that fits the scale it can have some limited effect pushing critical models out of sight or out of control zones, but otherwise does not take away much of control from the player.

Morale is only necessary in any game at all if you want the game to incorporate the effects of morale.


Morale is a factor in real warfare so the more of a simulation you want to make, the more morale effects you ought to include. However this in no way invalidates a game like Space Hulk in which morale is completely ignored.

Most people don't want to play "simulations" - consider how well AH / SPI sells today compared to light games like Flames of War and even lighter stuff like M'44.

Meh, I reiterate that what sells != good design. Sometimes it correlates, sometimes not. Regardless, even if most players don't like simulationism, it doesn't really matter if you are aiming for those that do.

Why do you feel morale is unnecessary? Would you say it does not have an effect at that scale? I would argue that it is a crucial component if you really want to distinguish the mooks from the heroes.

M'44 is a good game, well-designed, and incorporates morale in a seamless way via the C&C flag mechanic.

FoW handles morale in a far more intrusive way, one that should be handled via custom dice.

Both of those games are large scale games at the platoon / company / battalion level for which morale is appropriate.


However, at the skirmish level, the overwhelming majority of games (esp. 40k) do not handle morale well at all. They are clunky and intrusive and narrowly punitive. Based on experience, such games are generally better off without morale systems as currently implemented.

While morale is a good concept in theory (like Communism), who do you believe actually does a good job of it in a squad skirmish of 3 to 5 models per side?

Depends on many variables, but on principle the combatants of skirmish games are depicted as at least well trained and motivated soldiers, or a mix that on average can be described as such so widespread and persistent moral effects are not in spirit each individual could be affected by minor moral effects.

Exactly. These little skirmishes are typically mythologized as Ranger / SAS / Spetsnaz -level elites... Not the greenies who suddenly start cowering because somebody died.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Most people don't want to play "simulations" - consider how well AH / SPI sells today compared to light games like Flames of War and even lighter stuff like M'44.

That doesn't mean that one size fits all.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jmurph wrote:
Meh, I reiterate that what sells != good design. Sometimes it correlates, sometimes not. Regardless, even if most players don't like simulationism, it doesn't really matter if you are aiming for those that do.

Why do you feel morale is unnecessary? Would you say it does not have an effect at that scale? I would argue that it is a crucial component if you really want to distinguish the mooks from the heroes.

Given how popular 40K is one could make the argument that what sells is absolutely gakky design.

40K was a clunky old-fashioned second rate system in the early 1980s, and it's only got worse.

From one angle that's irrelevant if people like it -- it's still probably the most popular single rulebook in the world. Just let's not con ourselves that it's a masterpiece of rational design.

Nobody is saying 40k is good design.

But nobody is giving an example of good morale rules for a moderns - SF squad-level game, either.

But we cannot look the system in isolation.

40K is a system that launched as a sci fi game in an age that there were virtually none, was boosted by GWs huge store presence at the time and the models were good at the time, all their major competitors died one way or the other leaving them a decade uncontested allowing them to build a base that grows simply from inertia.

Popularity does not equal quality, but it has reasons for been there.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Nobody is saying 40k is good design.

But nobody is giving an example of good morale rules for a moderns - SF squad-level game, either.

That isn't the topic, though, or at least it's a subset of the topic perhaps.

I suggest starting a separate topic on morale rules for modern/SF skirmish games if that's your particular concern.

Squad Leader and Up Front may be worth looking at.