The mechanics that
regulate Orders (in the pre-radio era) are always a nightmare for the Game Designer.
Basically, what we want to represent is what a Commander may and may not do when
he is under a certain Order from his Superior. We will skip for the moment the
order comprehension by the subordinate, and concentrate on the “MAYs” and “MAY
NOTs”. Let’s take a typical “set” of basic orders: ATTACK, DEFEND, MANEUVER,
HOLD and start from the top of the list.
ATTACK: Your CinC wants you (his subordinate general)
to attack an enemy unit, defending a hill. Within the above set of orders this
is the most offensive order, so
everything seems simple: you have to attack your target, i.e. move your troops
to engage the enemy to annihilate it or force it to abandon the position (and
carry it). So you cleverly move your – say – 6 units of infantry at full speed
towards the target, and sooner or later you’ll engage the enemy.
BUT.
There’s always a BUT, because
battlefields are rarely empty, or one Vs. one affairs. There is Artillery
threatening, Cavalry lurking behind hillcrests or woods, strong enemy units in
reserve. So it happens that while you boldly move towards your target the local
situation changes (an 8” pdr battery unlimbers just in front of the target) and
your attack seems doomed. You desperately
need an Order change from the CinC but it will take time (turns) and in the meantime
that battery will cut your units in pieces.
In this situation, I
think that 1 player out of 10 would carry on the order (and have his command
slaughtered) while the other 9 would REFER TO THE RULES. Why? Because they want
to check what they are allowed to do when under an attack order they don’t want
to execute anymore.
And here the can of
worms opens….
Some rules don’t say
anything about this, so in principle you are free to do what you want. You
apply the concept: “if the rules don’t say it is not allowed, you can do that”.
Your opponent will not agree, however.
Some rules try to stop
the flood with a spoon, stating that “under an attack order, units must advance
towards the target”. How many units? How
many inches? You may fulfill the order moving ahead 1 unit of less than 1 inch…
OK, let’s rephrase the
rule: “under an Attack order, all units must move towards the enemy at full
speed”.
A rather drastic rule
that players will not like (“I don’t like suicide rules. I’d like to have an
option”).
Mmmmhh… try this: “under
an Attack order, more than half of your units must move towards the enemy at
full speed”. Problem solved…..? Nope, for two reasons: rounded up or down?
(this is easy) and “what does moving towards the enemy means”? If I’m allowed
to wheel or oblique, for instance, I could make all sort of evolutions,
spending inches as I go, so that at the
end of the movement, my units used up their movement allowance, even if they
are just ¾ of an inch nearer to the enemy than before.
Giving a proper
definition of moving toward the enemy could help.
What about this: “under
an Attack order, more than half (rounded up) of your units must move towards
the enemy at full speed, wheeling only once and using the most direct route to
the enemy. Oblique movement is forbidden”.
Even so, the most
direct route can be an argument, and there is another problem: changing
formation.
If your game has
formations (most Napoleonic games do) you must be allowed to change formation
in order to attack, but at the same time you must be prevented from doing it
too much. A common trick in fact is to change formation several times per turn in order to decrease the movement
allowance of your units. It is so common that many game designers specify that “consecutive,
unnecessary formation changes are not allowed”. This (apparently) simple rule
becomes more and more complicated… Sharp gamers could also have noticed another
potential bug when it comes to moving “towards the enemy”. Which enemy? “The
one in front, it’s obvious..” you would say. Nope, it’s not. Because in linear
games (i.e. those not using hexagonal or square grids) quite often you have
more than one enemy around, and it can be difficult to determine which one is
in front of another. Should we try with the “nearest enemy”?
“Under an Attack order,
more than half (rounded up) of your units must move towards the nearest enemy
at full speed, wheeling only once and using the most direct route to the enemy.
Oblique movement is forbidden and consecutive, unnecessary formation changes
are not allowed.” Sounds good?
Not so much. Who is
the nearest enemy? If I have 6 units in my Command maybe the leftmost unit has enemies
belonging to command X nearby, while the rightmost units may have enemies
belonging to command Y just in front and near. Who is the enemy?
I could go on for
hours.
Now multiply the
problems above for each other order (Defend, Maneuver, Hold) and I think you’ll
realize that – in a competitive environment – it is simply impossible to use
such an Order system unless you write a 100 pages chapter about it. And please
don’t tell me that you are not so competitive. Maybe you are not, but I’m sure
there is a rules lawyer in your group, and the problem will pop up.
The vast majority of the
wargame rules out there simply ignore this
problem, even in good faith: many rules are the result of years and years of Wargaming
in a Club where people is always the same and – little by little – some conventions
take over, so that no one is arguing about this or that rule. It is so because….
It has always been so. Many, though,
ignore the problem because they are not able to solve it.
So there is no
solution. Probably not, but maybe… slightly changing the angle something can be
done. If you are interested follow up (and comment) …
This is an interesting point Sergio and I totally agree with you. Many 'orders' cannot be followed to the letter as (as you rightly say) the battlefield constantly shifts and alters. The one and only 'rule' I use personally is that infantry under Attack orders must do so in column as to me it is highly unrealistic that units advance in line to simply maintain their most effective firepower. I think I'm right in saying (but don't hold me to this!)that as a rule of thumb most assaults were performed in column both for shock effect and speed of movement.... I do agree with you though, orders on our tabletop battlefields are tough to replicate in a realistic manner especially as we have a birds-eye view of all our units surroundings... I'll be interested to hear any suggestions as to how best to achieve this.
ReplyDeleteForcing units under an Attack order to do it in column can be a part of the solution, but then you enter a new cathegory of problems (Linear tactics, when you can change formation to get maximum firepower and the like). Also, the helicopter view does not help, but without a Master (or an extensive use of the technology) it can just be slightly mitigated (blanks, dummies, and the like).. I'll soon write a new post about this.
ReplyDeleteCheers
The question of 'when' a unit can change formation should be dependent upon it's order. As I mentioned before, to my mind a unit (or Brigade / Batallion dependent upon the game scale) under 'Attack' orders is planning on closing to melee with the enemy at the fastest possible rate in the formation that has the appropriate 'punch'.. and that is column. I doubt that any planned attack order was envisaged using linear formations (these being more defensive than attacking formations).. However let's take an order that doesn't appear in SN 'Engage'. This order (to me anyway) suggests an order to engage an enemy and thereby 'pinning' them in position to stop their use elsewhere. It does not necessarily order the formations to close into hand to hand combat but merely engage in ranged fire. .... Getting back to formations and formation changes; A body of troops under the 'Engage' order should again advance in column but be allowed to form firing line at a certain distance from their intended target. I would probably play it as a column may change to line when it is within one full column move of it's target unit..... I'm rambling again but these things are worth suggesting I suppose!
DeleteA very interesting post on what a simple movement can generate! Please, more on these themes
ReplyDelete@leadaddicted: see my today's post :)
ReplyDelete@Steve: please remember that I'm not talking only about Napoleonics (during the SYW most movements were made in line). Apart from this, what you say makes sense, even if could be difficult to make a good rule out of it (for the same reason mentioned in the post).
Many grand tactical wargames of course 'assume' troop formations (V&B, Grande Armee for instance) and even though I really do like Snappy Naps I'm not entirely convinced that actual formations on the tabletop are actually necessary.. this 'micro-management' seems a little odd to me when playing a game of this scale.
DeleteHowever, I do believe that formations per say should have an affect of sorts. This being the case would it be completely out of place to assume formations dependent upon the actual forces stance? For instance a corps on 'Hold' or 'Defend' orders would be considered to be in line and benefit from the added firepower that his formation offers (and similarly it's vulnerability to cavalry). Again, a corps in 'Attack' stance would be considered to be in column and hence move at greater speed and enjoy a greater impact upon contacting an enemy unit... Food for thought or am I just waffling again?
Steve,
ReplyDeleteif we assume that formation is not essential to our rules then yes, your idea is sound and makes a lot of sense. Grande Armee uses Brigades and you do not care about their formation at all.
About the greater impact of columns, however, let me disagree with you... :)
Sergio,
Delete'Grande Armee uses Brigades' ... as does V&B and SN...
Do you disagree that a column formation has less impact than a line? Are we to assume that column was only used to maximise speed across the battlefield?
Really enjoying this discussion by the way!
Steve,
ReplyDeleteas many recent historians have demonstrated, the myth of "column vs. line +1" typical of most wargames of the '80s and '90s, was in great part false. If you read Alessandro Barbero's "The Battle (Waterloo)" one of the most appreciated books on this battle, you'll find - in particular when he talks about D'Erlon attack aganst the British line - a documented explanation on this subject. The French battalions were supposed to advance in column and then deploy into line to maximize firepower, but they were suprised by the British position, behind the crest and a slightly sunken road. In a matter of seconds, they found themselves under fire (from a line), still in column and in total confusion...
Interesting stuff Sergio..... Now back to how we best represent this on our tabletop!
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteif you give Drums & Shakos Large Battle a go, you'll see how I represented this on a tabletop, i.e. giving the column a clear advantage for moving but not for the Approach-Close Combat procedure. This way you must carefully plan when you open your columns before the approach. As an alternative, you can attack in column but when the enemy line has been softened before (maybe by some artillery fire?).
The problem is one because largely rules have you give orders for a TURN and not an ATTACK. If you had to give multi-turn orders for a planned ATTACK, you would not have so many false arguments to create wiggle room.
ReplyDeleteInteresting set of posts.
Dale,
ReplyDeleteyou comment is right on target. A system that forces you to give multi-turn orders creates many interesting situations, a nice fog of war and strongly limits "wiggles". I tried it (and wrote at least 10 pages on the subject) taking inspiration from games like RoboRally and Wings of War (and its ancestor - Blue Max). It could work, but IMHO only in non linear games, i.e. those with a grid. I'll write a post about it.
Thank you Dale!
I think Dale has hit the nail on the head there. Many rule sets allow us to chop and change rules somewhat at the drop of a hat dependant upon what WE are seeing developing on the table top. Perhaps a better way to represent our 'orders' to our formations would be to 'fix' our commands on a certain order for X amount of moves? So for instance a force under 'Attack' orders must do so for the next 'X' (perhaps 2-3?) moves?
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteone of my last post was on this topic (Multiple Turns Orders), what do you think about it?