A Fast Take: limiting Command and Control in wargames - part 2

 

 

Staff work makes the Dream work.

 

This will make more sense if you read the first part first. You can find it here. If you haven’t read it yet, go do that. Then come back and read this as well. There will be one more part to come, but I'll add a link to that here as well when it's up.

In Part 1, I highlighted a post written by game designer Fernando Sola Ramos entitled Mando y control en los wargames (Command and Control in wargames), published on Josep Oliver’s Spanish language blog, El desafío de las Águilas. As I mentioned in Part 1, it’s worth taking the time to read Sr. Ramos’s article, either in the original, or (like me) via a translation app. In fact, it’s worth blocking out an hour or two to spend on las Águilas. I always come away from reading Sr. Oliver’s blog with a fresh thought or a different perspective.

Sr. Ramos identified six models of rules mechanisms that game designers have used to mimic limited intelligence in the field of battle, along with a game (in most cases) that exemplified each model. For the sake of clarity, here’s a duplicate of the list that appeared in Part 1:

- Initiative rolls for activation (leaders or formations) – Napoleon at Bay: The Campaign in France, 1814 (Avalon Hill, 1978)

 - chit-pull formation activation – A Victory Lost: Crisis in Ukraine 1942-1943 (Multi-Man Publishing, 2006)

 - through shared orders with a limited "budget" of orders – Panzer: The Game of Small Unit Actions and Combined Arms Operations on the Eastern Front 1943-44 (GMT Games, 2012)*

 - activation of armies using points in card-driven games (no single example given here, but I’m sure everyone has at least one game in mind from their own experience).

 - leadership-distance chain of command (Great Battles of the American Civil War series)

 - limiting attacks to command formations (i.e. disallowing or limiting ad hoc formations). Sr. Ramos didn’t mention a particular example here, but visually represented Mark Simonitch’s “ZoC-Bond” family of games.

In Part 1, I looked at the first two models in the list, adding a couple of examples of my own. I’m going to do the same thing here for the next two in the list and wrap it up with a third post in a week or so.

 

Shared orders with a limited order "budget"

When I think of games that use Action Points (or Operation Points), a handful of Worthington games come to mind. In games as diverse as Hold the Line: the American Civil War (Worthington Publishing, 2019), the Blue & Gray series (Worthington Publishing, 2016), and 1944: Battle of the Bulge (I could also mention Worthington’s Holdfast series, but I don’t want to get too carried away here). Each of these games share some points of commonality, which could describe Worthington’s house philosophy, are relatively low-bar entry games into the hobby, with 8-16-page rulebooks and good production values, but still provide challenging game experiences that offer a satisfying experience for fairly evenly matched players.

All the games mentioned are two-player IGO-UGO games, nothing too fancy, but leach limits the number of activations that can occur in a single turn. Added to this is the change of scoring extra activation(s) via the sanctioned lottery of a die roll.

The Blue and Gray series games, for example, use a Command Action Point (CAP) system to limit just what you can do in a turn. Each player has a fixed number of CAPs per turn. At the start of a turn, each player rolls two dice and if the result equal to or greater than their side’s Leader’s Command Rating, they get an extra CAP for that turn. CAPs can only be used in their given turn; they can’t be banked for use in subsequent turns. And you don’t get many of them; In Jackson and Sheridan: The Valley Campaigns (Worthington Publishing, 2016), each side gets just two CAPs per turn, plus the possibility of a third. CAPs regulate movement, and one CAP will allow one unit to move up to its total allowable range (other games in the series may offer more CAPs per round). The point-to-point movement and limited agency make for a challenging cat-and-mouse hunt through the Shenandoah.

1862 scenario set-up for a solo playthrough (in my opinion, the best way to learn
 the basics of a game). Photo courtesy of Michael Wild, BGG. 

The Blue and Gray games are contests of manoeuvre, often with just six or seven units to a side. 1944: Battle of the Bulge is a slight level-up in bookkeeping, still not difficult, but instead of CAPs, it uses more generic Resource Points (or RPs). Each side gets a varying number of RPs each turn, and in significantly higher quantities than Blue-and Gray’s CAPs. But these are general-purpose issue points.

Resource Points must be spent for individual unit movement (one RP per unit) combat (one RP if all are from the same army or corps, two RPs if the attacking units are from different formations, and those costs are per hex attacked), and one RP per step to refit infantry units, two points per step to refit armoured units. After a couple of rounds the move/fight/refit decisions start to get tougher for both sides. The optional weather rolls for each turn can reduce the German Resource Point quotas by two each time the clouds depart. Neither side can ever do everything they want to in a turn, and that tension makes for

 

Activation of armies using points in card-driven games

As mentioned above, Sr. Ramos didn’t offer an example of this model in use. The obvious example might be any traditional Card-Driven Games (CGDs) like For the People (GMT Games, 1998) or Washington’s War (GMT Games, 2010). The Ops value on the card can be used to activate individual leaders and their attendant forces. The ops pint values run from one to three, and ironically, the lower the activation number, the more readily you can activate a general. There are also Minor and Major Campaign cards that allow the holding player to activate two or three generals simultaneously. I’ve been playing some Washington’s War on Rally the Troops lately – never turn down the opportunity to lose a game to somebody much better than you as it’s a worthwhile learning opportunity – and it is a game that is definitely worth your time. It captures the pace of the American Revolutionary War really well. But there is another system that, for me, represents the apotheosis of card-driven mechanics.

Literally blocking the roads to Erfurt.

For my money, the most interesting use of this model in recent years has been that applied to the Conquerors series of games, starting with Napoléon 1806 (Shakos, 2017). In the Conquerors system, each turn a unit can be activated, but only once. It is then turned upside-down to indicate the unit has acted that turn. The units represent full corps, all infantry and their attendant batteries and cavalry, which are named for their commander. Movement is point-to-point, starting with the Initiative holder, players take turns activating a formation or formations and units starting at the same location may move together as a larger formation. But this is where it gets interesting. Each activation, the player declares which formation or formations will be ordered. Then a card is drawn; the cards in these games are multi-use, but in this capacity, the player checks the number in the top corner indicating that card's action point value, which will dictate how many movement-points that formation has to spend on that turn. The number will be between one and six.

If two or more formations are to attempting to move together, a point will be taken off the total available for each extra unit before any movement can be undertaken. It’s conceivable that a multi-corps formation may not be able to move at all, or only a town or two (modelling orders not received, unclear in intent, or simply ignored). Activating the formations individually comes with its own hazards. Say you want three corps to take the most direct route to Leipzig and order them separately. If the first formation draws a two-point card for its movement, and the consecutive units draw a four and a five respectively, unless they can find an alternative route, they too will only move two spaces, due to road congestion.

This simple mechanical model adds a frustratingly realistic level of battle friction to the game, enriching the experience (well, enriching my experience). Since we’re talking about the Conquerors series, it’s a good time to mention a fourth volume is on its way to crowdfunding (I’m not sure at this stage which platform, so I’ll keep you posted). Napoléon 1870 (Shakos, ~2027) will bring the Conquerors system forward sixty years to the Franco-Prussian War, and frankly, I couldn’t be happier. This is a conflict that gets some wargaming attention from time to time, but is still largely ignored by the hobby, but it’s an interesting chapter of history and a crucial step in the development of war doctrine leading up to the Great War.

– <<STOP THE PRESSES>> –

Napoléon 1870 is currently on Kickstarter! At time of publication there’s about two weeks left of the campaign, plenty of time to back it if you’re interested. You can find it here.

-----

And so ends part 2. I dug into the back-shelves a bit for this instalment, and it’s given me an appetite to play the Blue and Gray games again.

 I’ve got something else on the cooker at the moment that I’m trying to finish off, so part 3 may take a little longer to get posted, but it shouldn’t be too much later. I also have a Quarterly Report to put together – not much news, but a couple of interesting things to talk about.

Thanks for reading this far.  As a reward, here’s a photo of our cat. Dharma was a rescue with a broken tooth who hated other cats and most people, but we took a chance on her and now she’s definitely a pat of the family. The first weekend of October marks the second full year of our mutual adoption, so happy anniversary, Dharma!