Home Forums General Game Design Command and Control

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #199101
    Avatar photoJustin Swanton
    Participant

    A blog post on how C&C actually worked in the pre-gunpowder era and its application to my gaming system.

    https://wargamingwithoutdice.blogspot.com/

    #199106
    Avatar photoWhirlwind
    Participant

    It is an interesting post. I quite liked lots of the suggested mechanisms. The radius of action to a subordinate general who has used up their command rating is quite a neat idea. I thought that the practical mechanisms were a bit stronger than some of the theoretical justifications – there are just tons of examples of subordinate commanders not doing what they were ordered; and representing all the subordinate commanders as part of the Hivemind, well it isn’t the worst idea obviously, but it certainly isn’t necessarily the only or best way.

    #199108
    Avatar photoMartinR
    Participant

    Yes, the sub commander action limit is quite smart. Although it is just order chits by another name (sorry!).

    Have you had a look at Strategos/Lost Battles? It also makes unit manouvre very, very commander dependant, and armies lumber around in cumbersome formations on a 5×4 grid. Personally I don’t have any problem with Ancient armies lining up and marching slowly towards each other. It is what they did, but to make a game of it, you need to model the deployment phase, as that is the most interesting part of the battle. Phalanx has a brilliantly simple system of deployment from camp, whereas Lost Battles is a bit more complicated.

    As von Moltke observed, mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified.

     

    "Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

    #199112
    Avatar photoJustin Swanton
    Participant

    It is an interesting post. I quite liked lots of the suggested mechanisms. The radius of action to a subordinate general who has used up their command rating is quite a neat idea. I thought that the practical mechanisms were a bit stronger than some of the theoretical justifications – there are just tons of examples of subordinate commanders not doing what they were ordered; and representing all the subordinate commanders as part of the Hivemind, well it isn’t the worst idea obviously, but it certainly isn’t necessarily the only or best way.

    I spent some time thinking about the unreliability of subcommanders and eventually decided to dispense with it as IMHO it removes too much control from the player which spoils playability and playability is king in gaming. Limiting the subcommander’s ability to change direction is as far as I want to go with their non-dependability.

    https://wargamingwithoutdice.blogspot.com/

    #199133
    Avatar photoJustin Swanton
    Participant

    Yes, the sub commander action limit is quite smart. Although it is just order chits by another name (sorry!).

    Damn! I wanted history to remember me as a genius. ):-(

    Have you had a look at Strategos/Lost Battles? It also makes unit manouvre very, very commander dependant, and armies lumber around in cumbersome formations on a 5×4 grid. Personally I don’t have any problem with Ancient armies lining up and marching slowly towards each other. It is what they did, but to make a game of it, you need to model the deployment phase, as that is the most interesting part of the battle. Phalanx has a brilliantly simple system of deployment from camp, whereas Lost Battles is a bit more complicated. As von Moltke observed, mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified.

    I’ve played plenty of Legion which is the father of Lost Battles. Same system – deployment from a camp exit point. It works very well and I would have adopted it (and might still adopt it) except for the fact that it adds several turns to the game.

    My own system is rather different (second shot at the genius title). An army has a certain number of command points used to purchase a general and subcommanders. A general/subcommander has a command rating from 1 to 5 and a combat rating from 0 to 5. Naturally the higher command and combat ratings cost more to purchase, so if you buy an Alexander you are limited in how many subcommanders you will be able to purchase as well as their quality. It’s all about trade-offs.

    When it comes to deployment, if one general has a command rating one number less than his opponent, his owning player is obliged to deploy 1/3 rounded up of his units (not stands) starting with the slowest. If the general has a command rating two numbers less the owning player has to deploy 2/3 of his units, and if the general’s command rating is three or more below his opponent the owning player has to deploy all his units first. This simulates a superior general divining how the inferior general will deploy and being able to deploy in consequence, as Hannibal did at Cannae or Caesar at Pharsalus.

    Incidentally the Macedonians under Alexander can afford to make him a genius general and still get good commanders since the army is drilled (most infantry are drilled) whereas the Persians are unwieldy (most infantry are unwieldy). Drilled armies get more command points than average armies which get more command points than unwieldy armies. The Persians will have to deploy in few commands and trust in numbers.

    https://wargamingwithoutdice.blogspot.com/

    #199186
    Avatar photoJustin Swanton
    Participant

    @MartinR:

    Although it is just order chits by another name (sorry!).

    How exactly does the order chits system work?

    https://wargamingwithoutdice.blogspot.com/

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.