Rule Heresy

[T13A]

Hi

Interesting discussion!

I think that it was Phil Barker who pointed out that in real life, orders, chains-of-command, doctrines, staff, etc. are there to reduce the amount of 'friction' that happens in any army, on any battlefield (not a direct quote). But with wargame rules 'activation' systems, regardless of the type used, are there for the exact opposite, in effect to re-create that friction. I think the best rules are those that have the 'friction' but allow the players to mitigate that friction to a certain extent (whether it is having units in certain formations, positioning generals etc.) via the rules.

Cheers Paul

[FierceKitty]

I'm having difficulty believing this thread is still running. How many ways are there of saying battlefields aren't flat, brigadiers argue with ADCs, generals pen ambiguous orders, morale goes too high, morale goes too low, shooting often causes smoke, and bad language can be a major obstacle to communication?

[fsn]

Thank you Chris for your measured response. I think we're not too far apart actually.

To summarise my thoughts on activation:

• Units should be able to take local actions. (Form square, shoot up the BMPs) because it is appropriate that they should do so without referring to higher command.  
• A unit should continue to carry out an order until the order is countermanded or external factors impact  

I agree that my 2nd point is much easier to manage in solo or umpired games. I agree with you that the alacrity and enthusiasm that units obey orders is variable, and rules should recognise that, but once kicked, cajoled or threatened into action, a unit can reasonably be expected to carry that action out according to their lights. You would not expect the 17th Lancers to pause half way through the Valley of Death saying "go on, we'll catch you up." If they ran into an unknown ditch, their halt would be explicable.

To me the crunch point is that receipt of orders and the way they are carried out.  Nolan may have trotted up waving a bit of paper, but once the course of action was begun, it was likely to continue - the die, as they say, is cast.  Agreed if the Light Brigade had been an irregular unit of irregular irregulars, they may have spent a good while getting their act together, may have taken advice on the clarity of the orders or found that union rules called for a tea break. Conversely they may have been off a whoopin' and a hollerin' leaving Nolan spluttering in their dust.

Again, I realise that this is easier to model in solo or umpired games. When your 2nd Brigade suddenly turns left an avoids the carefully contrived trap, your opponent may well ask for some proof that that was the order that they had received.


I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread. Thought provoking and well tempered.  

As has been said many, many times, "don't put that there, that's dirty", and also wargaming is a wide and varied church wherein for every 4 wargamers there are d6 opinions.

   

[fsn]

Ah! I posted too soon. FK has of course shown me the error in my ways, or has missed the point. 

[steve_holmes_11]

The more dice you roll the nearer the average they should roll.

Bzzzztttt!!! Illogical Captain.
 

[steve_holmes_11]

Real warfare wasn't measured in 16% intervals. Period. If you had a mere 5% advantage over your enemy, you'd probably win most of the time.

Bzzzztt!

[steve_holmes_11]

I was going to say that I've not come across a ruleset with this, and then remembered the Battle of Britain rules that have been mentioned here a couple of times - all fighters roll a d6 for movement. It works well in this instance.

I cannot say whether it's realistic (I'm far to bulky in both dimensions to fit into a BoB single seater - besides, I cannot pilot a plane).
I can vouch for the fact that it's great fun.

[steve_holmes_11]

BTW, in my Napoleonic rules, orders to Brigadiers have to be carried by an ADC. He may or may not make it, but I do give him the ability to find the Brigadier unerringly.

This is why my armies have a number of single base ADC figures. 

That does sound like a lot of work.

[steve_holmes_11]

Two simple question for all you chaps who don't like rolling dice for movement.

Why do you like rolling dice for fighting?
Why do you like dice to determine whether troops run away?

[steve_holmes_11]

I think that all the sensible grognards can agree that dice are rubbish.
.
The bestest rules involve shooting matchsticks at your enemy through a Brittains 4.7" gun.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

The bestest rules involve shooting matchsticks at your enemy through a Brittains 4.7" gun.

Use the 25pdr mesen

[fsn]

Two simple question for all you chaps who don't like rolling dice for movement.

Why do you like rolling dice for fighting?
Why do you like dice to determine whether troops run away?

Easy. If I go down the road in my car at say 30mph, I can be pretty sure that I will do 30mph until either I decide not to do 30mph or something else happens - like a junction or a ford or a Belgian Gate.

If I am in a road accident at 30mph then there may be a number of different outcomes, from "oops" to "call a hearse".

In other words, movement is predictable. Battle is not. There are more factors affecting battle than there are affecting movement.  If you don't believe me, try an experiment. Time yourself walking from point a to point b every day at the same time for a week. Then try challenging different people to a fight.

That does sound like a lot of work.

Not really. It is more realistic though.

     

[FierceKitty]

Two simple question for all you chaps who don't like rolling dice for movement.

Why do you like rolling dice for fighting?
Why do you like dice to determine whether troops run away?

They clearly fight on a football field.

[fsn]

They clearly fight on a football field.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Oh wait. You're serious?

No Kitty, but one can assume that movement of a (for example) trained body of troops A would be approximately equal to trained body of troops B. Agreed that on flat ground this would be speed X, up hill on a 10^o slope Y (where X<Y) and on through a wood speed Z. It is illogical to assume that troop A would move along a road at speeds X₁  then X₂, trip along at X₃ again, then back to X₁, unless acted upon by some change for example a ford, a slope or an ambush.

There is a difference between units of the same type having consistent speeds across the same terrain and units of the same type having consistent speeds across different terrain.

Look. Here are bodies of troops marching at the same speed across the same terrain!

[steve_holmes_11]

Easy. If I go down the road in my car at say 30mph, I can be pretty sure that I will do 30mph until either I decide not to do 30mph or something else happens - like a junction or a ford or a Belgian Gate.

If I am in a road accident at 30mph then there may be a number of different outcomes, from "oops" to "call a hearse".

In other words, movement is predictable. Battle is not. There are more factors affecting battle than there are affecting movement.  If you don't believe me, try an experiment. Time yourself walking from point a to point b every day at the same time for a week. Then try challenging different people to a fight.
Not really. It is more realistic though.

We're clearly playing different periods.
None of my armies drive along otherwise empty metalled roads in the course of fighting.