|
Post by profjohn on Oct 26, 2017 21:33:37 GMT
Here's a question that's been puzzling me since I returned to wargaming after a lay off lasting about 40 years. In my youth the better rule sets required written orders which were then simultaneously disclosed and you had to put up with the results . This still strikes me as better than turn based play and obviates the need for many of the randomisation mechanisms we need to counter chess-like reactions to our opponent's movement. It also encouraged manoeuvre. Why was this largely abandoned ? I really don't know the history but it seems to me that this was a better way of doing things (I hope I don't sound like Rip van Winkle!).
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Oct 28, 2017 2:23:56 GMT
I do seem to remember this concept from the Featherstone days, and I always thought it was too confining and took away my ability to be a control freak. I liked the idea that I could move units and react at will to anything - totally unrealistic, but it worked as a game concept when your opponent could do the same.
One new game that captures this pretty well is Et Sans Resultat. Nothing happens without orders, which fall into several catagories. Once you declare that a unit is heading off in a particular direction to attack, for example, off it goes and you cannot just change your mind and stop it at will. It is a pretty good system, a little complex but it represents how a commander might feel on a real battlefield. I had trouble just getting my formations out of traffic jams caused by my orders. In the end, I reverted to Neil Thomas for my solo games rules because they are so easy to customize and I get in a quicker game.
I can see where written orders might fit into a solo system as well, where each side issues major formation orders and units move accordingly. Changes to such orders might depend on couriers with a set movement allowance reaching the unit. Lots of possibilities.
I think this concept fell out of favor during a period when the emphasis was shifting to tactical gaming and a lot of fiddly technical stuff held sway. As I get older I find myself looking for simple ways to get something approximating historical results in an enjoyable way. I think perhaps written orders might be a fun way to create some command and control tension without getting too technical. In fact, they might play a key role in giving solo games some extra zing. Bruce
|
|
|
Post by davidsh on Oct 28, 2017 8:46:22 GMT
One compromise may be for established orders for a mimimum of turns or rounds. This would have to be at higher organisation level - brigade//division say to avoid being too fiddly. For example, if orders are given to cover three rounds, an infantry division could be ordered to attack a particular point, and must continue to carry out those orders, with only reaction to enemy action (halted, routed) changing matters. After three rounds, orders can be re-issued, and a lot could have changed!
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Oct 28, 2017 13:22:48 GMT
Yes, that a good idea, less fiddly and gives the same result.
Thinking as a solo player, I like these easy to use command ideas, they add some drama to the narrative. Back to the future, apparently. I should get out my old books or go to the Vintage Wargamming website to refresh my memory on this topic. Bruce
|
|
|
Post by profjohn on Oct 28, 2017 20:59:38 GMT
Thanks for that gentlemen. I am talking about the late 60s and early 70s so a long time ago. As I only do solo I've never played a turned based game against an opponent so have no idea what it's like. I haven't looked at the ESR system but I will. One thing this discussion reminds me of is the system adopted with some success clearly by the Prussians during their mid nineteenth century wars. You'll all know this and I'm sorry if I can't recall the correct terms but broadly an distinction was made between an instruction which was given at a higher level and an order which was given by the officer in the ground who could see what was happening and only such officers could give orders. The amount of initiative this required from junior officers was consequently ultra high which is not the stereotype of the Prussians. Anyway, it seems to me that this is the kind of structure that could animate the very good suggestion that orders could run for a few turns and then change as things develop.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Oct 29, 2017 16:29:59 GMT
Orders also might sometimes be ignored, misunderstood, not executed immediately. Or sudden opportunities might arise that bold commanders seize which contradict a written order. Many, if not most, games rate commanders for various qualities, not hard to come up with. Again ESR does this quite well. Some sort of mechanism could be built into how well orders are implemented, or whether there is initiative allowed, depending on the qualities of the corps/division commanders. Or whatever the largest unit components are. Bruce
|
|
|
Post by Orlog Subedai on Nov 2, 2017 20:07:23 GMT
I well remember the orders being written times -I started wargaming in 1971- and the current set of home-brewed Napoleonic rules for my 5mm blocks I use follow this trend. Orders are given from the highest level to his immediate commanders. Therefore at corps level, each of the brigade/divisional commanders would receive orders to Hold, Defend or Attack -usually including some visible terrain feature. The brigade commander would then be allowed to fight his battle in his own particular way. If an order needed changing a courier figure is sent at fastest speed from the CnC's position to the commander on the ground. Until he receives that order he must continue with his present order. The move after he receives the new order it is assumed that all his command have received it and will change. Of course, if any are outside his ZOC they are screwed until they can return to the fold.
MickS
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Nov 3, 2017 3:56:16 GMT
Excellent Mick! Thanks for this, I think I am going to add the couriers to my rules as well. I had envisioned them dashing about, adding to the narrative, with much the same conditions, excepting that if need be, a courier may continue riding on the next turn until he makes contact. A chance element might be devised creating an occasional unexpected delay as well. Always looking for solo play drama! Bruce
|
|
|
Post by Orlog Subedai on Nov 8, 2017 22:38:35 GMT
Of course you could always add an option for a courier never arriving due to being wounded or even kia with a randomly generated number of turns -say 1-6- passing before the CnC realises what has happened and can have another go.
Another alternative if you are not too keen on having single figures galloping everywhere is to simply roll a die for the number of moves that pass before the formation can act on the new order.
Both systems have merits, it all depends how complex you want to make it.
MickS
|
|
|
Post by profjohn on Dec 3, 2017 19:46:05 GMT
I like those ideas very much too. Of course it's not only couriers getting waylaid but also handwriting and simple mbiguitu that causes disaster. I'm thinking Balaclava as a classic example but also the mess around Grouchy's Corps at Waterloo (or rather not at Waterloo!).
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Dec 4, 2017 19:53:41 GMT
I am experimenting now with a return to written orders and the couriers. Will report back. I think this adds to the narrative and drama, am including a die roll for miss-read handwriting! Already I find myself as commander saying "Not THAT way you fool!" Sounds like real life! Thanks for all the ideas, you guys! Bruce
|
|