Using HQ units for Command and Control

[Bletchley]

This is a 'work around' that I have been using to make much better use of the Battalion and Company HQ units - to give them a command and control function in CM that is otherwise missing from the game. It may seem awkward at first, but it has a logical structure that, with practice, you can soon get the hang of it. It can, however, slow down attacks and meeting engagements, so allow double or triple the amount of time for these.The effect of using this 'work around' is to force the player to keep Platoon and Company formations together, within Line of Sight (LoS) or Lines of Command (LoC) of their Platoon or Company HQ, and to keep the higher level (Company and Battalion HQ units) back out of the line of fire to prevent them becoming 'degraded' or 'non-functional'. Failure to keep the higher level HQ units within LoS of their subordinate HQ units, or exposing these higher level HQ units to enemy fire, will severely restrict the player's ability to control the battle. Operating in 'close' country or poor visibility will do the same.

Basic Rules

The basic principle is this: that there should be an unbroken chain of command between a Battalion or a Company HQ unit and its subordinate units, to transmit orders in a chain that will extend from a Battalion HQ to a Company HQ (by Line of Sight LoS); from a Company HQ to a Platoon HQ (by LoS); and from a Platoon HQ to its individual Sections and teams (by Lines of Control LoC). Sections that are unable to trace an unbroken chain of command by LoC or LoS at the start of the 'orders' phase cannot be given any new orders, or have existing orders amended or cancelled.

A Battalion HQ can command as many Company HQs as it has LoS to; or one Platoon HQ that it has LoS to; or all those sections that it has a LoC to; or one section that it has LoS to.

A Company HQ can command as many of its own company Platoon HQs as it has a LoS to; or one non-subordinate Platoon HQ that it has LoS to (i.e. an independent Platoon HQ, or a Platoon HQ from another company); or all those sections that it has a LoC to; or one section that it has LoS to.

A Platoon HQ can command all those sections that it has a LoC to; or one section that it has LoS to.

Optional Refinements

1. An HQ unit can be either 'Functional', 'Degraded' or 'Non-functional' depending on its morale and movement status. A 'Functional' HQ unit is one that is 'OK' or 'Alerted', whilst a 'Degraded' HQ unit is one that is 'Catious', 'Shaken' or 'Pinned', is 'hiding', or is moving by foot (vehicle HQ units and embarked units are not degraded by movement), and a 'Non-functional' HQ unit is one that is 'Panicked', 'Broken' or 'Routed'. An HQ unit that is 'Degraded' at the beginning of the orders phase can command only those sections that it has a LoC to (i.e. a degraded HQ unit can no longer transmit, amend or cancel orders using LoS). An HQ unit that has become 'Non-functional' cannot transmit, amend or cancel any orders at all.

2. In the absence of a Battalion or Company HQ unit, or if a Battalion or Company HQ is elliminated or captured, the next most senior HQ unit can become the 'acting' Battalion or Company HQ.

In the absence of, or in the ellimination or capture of a Battalion HQ the most senior Company HQ will become the 'acting' Battalion HQ. The most senior Company HQ will be 'A' Company, followed by 'B' Company, and so on. An 'acting' Battalion HQ that is not 'Degraded' can command only one company (either its own, or a Company HQ to which it has a LoS); or one Platoon HQ that it has LoS to; or all those sections that it has a LoC to; or one section that it has LoS to. The difference between a Battalion HQ and an 'acting' Battalion HQ is, therefore, that an 'acting' Battalion HQ can command only one company at a time, not several. In the absence of a Company HQ, the most senior Platoon HQ can become the 'acting' Battalion HQ, but can command only one Platoon at a time (either its own, or a Platoon HQ to which it has a LoS). The most senior Platoon HQ will be No.1 Platoon from 'A' Company, followed by No.1 Platoon from 'B' Company, and so on down to No.2 Platoon from 'A' Company, and so on down to an 'independent' Platoon HQ and then a vehicle Platoon HQ.

In the absence, ellimination or capture of a Company HQ the most senior Platoon HQ in that company will become the 'acting' Company HQ. The most senior Platoon HQ will be No.1 Platoon, followed by No.2 Platoon, and so on, but it can command only one Platoon at a time (either its own, or a Platoon HQ to which it has a LoS). The difference between a Company HQ and an 'acting' Company HQ is, therefore, that an 'acting' Company HQ can command only one Platoon at a time, not several.

3. HQ units (and for movement purpose only, this also includes Forward Observation Officers) are always considered to be in command of themselves. i.e. the player can add, amend or cancel orders to the HQ section itself, even if it does not have LoS to a superior HQ. Also, a vehicle (including tanks) that has a unit 'embarked' on it is regarded as an extension of the embarked unit for command and control purposes. i.e. that vehicle can receive commands from the embarked section or team's HQ unit (or the HQ unit itself if it is embarked), so long as the embarked section or team is itself able to receive commands from that HQ unit (and this regardless of whether the vehicle is itself buttoned or unbuttoned).

4. A vehicle or vehicle HQ unit within LoS of a superior HQ unit can only receive commands from that HQ if it is unbuttoned at the start of the orders phase (unless, as above, the command is received via an embarked unit). Otherwise, the only command that a buttoned vehicle can receive from a superior HQ unit within LoS is the command to unbutton. A vehicle can, however, receive orders from its own Platoon HQ by LoC whilst buttoned, so long as the vehicle Platoon HQ in question is itself unbuttoned and receiving orders by LoS from a superior HQ.

5. All units can be receive orders in the first orders phase of an engagement, regardless of the above restrictions.

Feedback, and sugestions for improvement welcome

Bletchley

[The_Enigma]

Just out of intrested but why do they need to all have LOS with each other? Its WW2 am sure they would have had some sort of radio contact (or other form of commuication) with one another, then just waving at one another?

[Bletchley]

In practice, they probably wouldn't (although WWII radio sets at Platoon and Company levels were not that great). LOS is just used as a convenient tool to restrict the amount of command and control you have over them, whilst at the same time using the Company and Battalion HQ units as more than just souped up Platoon HQs or assault troops. It is a bit awkward at first, but the practical effect is that the more spread out or mixed up the platoons or sections are, or the closer the country, then the more difficult it becomes to control them. You will also find that prior planning becomes even more important, as it becomes more difficult to make rapid changes to the plan in mid-stride. The Company and Battalion HQ units are then best kept out of the immediate firing line and slightly to the rear, where they can 'see' what is going on, rally routed or broken troops, or at the end to sweep up any orphan infantry sections and lead them in a final assault or counterattack.

Bletchley

[Earl Grey]

Interesting proposition. But wonn't that become a little bit to tedious soon? In teh end, most sceanrios won't give you enough time to plan and maneuver that much, so you'd at least have to edit some of them to last longer. Well, a game engine can ony simulate so much...

[Bletchley]

Yes Earl Grey, time can be a problem at first - particularly in close country, fog, or night engagements - but with practice I have become fairly adept at keeping the chain of command intact, and if you can do this then it is less of a problem. The best way to practice, before trying a scenario, is to start with a small quick-battle meeting engagement of about 500 points and see how you get on. Until you get used to it a larger engagement might seem tedious, although in any one order phase you will find that you are usually in a position to give or change orders to only some units, not to all of them as before, and this does reduce the time it takes (or it at least balances out the extra time needed to check the LoS between HQ units). The main idea is simple, and it is applied consistently, so with a little practice it should soon become second nature. Once you have the hang of that then you can add extra elements from the 'optional refinements', or tweak it to your own taste.

Bletchley

[JoMac]

Bletchley,

I was thinking of working on a similar perhaps easier Command & Control Rule set to use for CM.

Back in my WWII Miniature Wargaming days ( which I still have an interest ) there were many rule sets that had there own Command & Control variations.

A couple rule sets come to mind, one called Combined Arms and the other Wargame Rules 1925 to 1950s that would work well with CM.

Basically your BHQ has ( cant remember off hand until I look at the Rules ) a 1000 or 2000 meter radius to all it sub CHQs. CHQ has a 500 or 1000 meter radius to all its sub PHQ. PHQ has a 100 meter range to its squads and support units. If Your Command is within that range you can issue new orders with a certain amount of delay before the units can act upon them.

If you are outside that range your higher HQ would have to send a runner to the lower HQ to issue the order. That may double or more the time delay for which a unit may react on those orders.

So lets say your BHQ issues orders to one of its CHQ, then that CHQ issues orders to one of its PHQ, That PHQ issues orders to all its Squads and attached units. Total time from Battalion to the squad finally acting upon the order may be up to an hour.

Ofcourse you can use some of your Optional Rules in Tandem to make it that more interesting.

Joe

[ June 30, 2007, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: JoMc67 ]

[Earl Grey]

It'd be nice if the AI had the same restrictions, though... If I have to wait 60 turns (if we count real-time) to get my combat platoons moving, I can just bloody well stop playing.

How'd that delay work within wargaming rules? I know only few systems and you may know just one that can be called a 'real' wargame (FoW), so my knowledge isn't that representative...

[Bletchley]

Joe, yes your system seems very similar

But using the LoS tool means that you do not have to measure the distances, so you can see very quickly if two HQ units are in contact, and it works out such that in 'open' terrain you have more control over what is going on (and less delay in getting the commands through) than in 'closed' terrain or in conditions of poor visibility.

Earl Grey, yes but the AI has its own restrictions - it can be rather dumb, to put it mildly. These command and control restrictions can balance the game a little. So long as you maintain a chain of command it does not take a great deal longer, in most circumstances, to get units moving - but you have to get used to giving them commands that will last for several turns, and micromanage them less than you might be used to, to make best progress. Maintaining the balance between having the Company/Battalion units forward enough to keep their Platoon/Company HQs in sight, but back far enough to avoid being elliminated or degraded by combat is tricky at first, and needs a careful eye for terrain, but becomes second nature after a bit. These higher level HQ units are often best kept in cover, but with good lines of sight over the battlefield (e.g. a wood or building on top of a hill). I usually assign heavy weapons such as mortars and artillery FOO to their control also, for much the same reason.

Bletchley

[Earl Grey]

Seems sensible enough. Just one thing, though: If LoS/LoC gets severed between the Bn HQ and its respective subordinates, I have to stop giving orders to the subordinate HQ's - is that correct?

Because: I get my orders from my Bn CO at the start of the battle and follow them until told otherwise. In what situation should I as, say, a Coy CO stop and wait for new ordesr when I, in fact, actually have them? Should I write down specific orders/circumstances when they apply etc and then check every turn if I'd have to change my initial strategy?

Maybe I'm making it more complicated than it already is, but I LOVE this game and would so much like to see it improved...

[Bletchley]

Earl Grey, yes, but it is more dynamic than that. Think of yourself as the next HQ up the chain of command from the highest ranking HQ that is on the map (you yourself being off-map). If you have a Battalion HQ on the map you would be the next higher (Regiment, Brigade, Division?). So long as the Battalion HQ is OK, then a chain of command between yourself and the Battalion HQ is intact (i.e. no LoS required). The chain of command between the Battalion HQ and Company HQs is by LoS, and it remains intact so long as the LoS is there at the start of the orders phase. The chain of command from Company HQs to Platoon HQs is also, similarly, by LoS but it is then by CMs lines of command between Platoon HQ and its Sections (or alternately by LoS to one Section only). In order to give, cancel or amend an order to a Section in the orders phase of any turn you have to trace an intact chain of command up to yourself (off-map) via Platoon-Company-Battalion HQ units. If you cannot, if the chain is disrupted at any point, then you don't. Subordinate units below the break will just carry on with the most recent set of movement/fire orders you gave them until you can repair the disrupted link in the chain and receive information/pass on new orders or cancel/amend the ones they have. Simple. You don't have to keep notes, unless you feel that this would be a good way to refine the system. But after much testing and tinkering I have found that it is best to keep it as simple as possible, as otherwise you can very easily get muddled or the whole thing can become far too intricate and ponderous to be enjoyable when there are a large number of units involved.

You can give all your units a set of orders in the very first orders phase, regardless of the chain of command, if you use Refinement no.5, and they will of course carry on with these until they run in to opposition. Think of this as your initial battle plan. Depending on the opposition/quality of troops involved and your initial orders your units, when fired upon or when they spot enemy units, will either try to continue following the orders or stop and 'ask' for more. If your chain of command is intact at this point, then you can amend their orders depending on the situation. If they are temporarily 'out of command' they will sit tight or just do their own thing (seek cover, fire, run away, etc.) until you can re-establish the chain of command to them. Their actions are generally going to be conservative (either carry on with the current orders, or if the opposition is significant then go to ground and fire back or withdraw to cover). You might feel that this does not give enough autonomy/initiative to the Platoon or Company HQs. I did re-introduce some limited autonomy for them in Refinement no.3, but I found it best in practice to think of these HQ units as just the (important) links in a chain of command. Your priority, as commander, is to keep this chain intact so that you can respond both rapidly and effectively. In this sense you are both the off-map commander and the subordinate HQ units, and they can only respond effectively when they are themselves in touch with the 'big picture', and are receiving information on what is happening outside their limited field of view.

I hope this makes sense

Bletchley

[Earl Grey]

It does make sense. In the end, it is pretty diffcult to simulate soem things within the limitations of the game engine.

What I actually thought of was the doctrine of tactical initiative, but that would only apply for the Waffen-SS, I think...

Whatever, I have to try this before I can make any moe comments.

[JoMac]

Here is the WWII Miniatures Rules set called

" Combined Arms " each unit represents a squad, weapons section, Individual Vehicle or Gun, each turn represents 2 minutes. Here is what the Command and Control section reads.

COMMAND:

All units must remain, or attempt to remain within command distance of their HQs e.g. Platoon, Company, battalion. This varies with the communications equipment with which the unit is equipped. The table below shows these distances based on unit type.

------------------- UNIT TYPE --------------------

-Within Infantry Platoon or Cavalry troops Command distance 50 meters.

-Within non-radio equipped AFV Platoon 100 meters.

-Within radio equipped AFV Platoon 200 meters.

-Within non-radio equipped Infantry Company 300 meters.

-Within radio equipped Infantry Company 500 meters.

-Within non-radio equipped AFV Company 500 meters.

-Within radio equipped AFV Company 1000 meters.

-Within Infantry Battalion 1000 meters.

-Within AFV Battalion 2000 meters.

--------------------------------------------------

COMMUNICATIONS:

Communications within a Platoon, Company, Battalion is automatic if the elements are within the distances shown above.

( 1 ) RADIO:

A radio equipped unit may speak to all its subordinate elements, all elements of actual status on the same radio net and its immediate superior if within the Command radius. Manpack sets must remain stationary to communicate, vehicles may do so on the move.

( 2 ) FIELD TELEPHONES:

Troops who are in static positions may use field telephones. These operate as radios except there is a 10% chance that the wire has been cut, dice each time the phone is used.

( 3 ) OTHER SIGNALS:

There are two types, Flares and Audible. Flag signals are presumed to be seen and understood if within the command distance. Flares may be seen at 5000 meters in Clear conditions, 1000 meters in Rain, 500 meters in Mist. Flares will not be seen in Fog. Noise signals will be heard 500 meters if quit, at 250 meters if light small arms, 100 meters if in full scale battle conditions.

All Flare and Noise signals require definition in orders and will have a 50% of understanding if only one is used and automatically understood if one of each is used.

ORDERS:

All units must have orders telling them what they are required to do and must normally contain movement instructions with action to be taken when the eneny is encountered , e.g. " A company will advance and take the village to the front".

All units operating indepedently require orders as do all Companies strengh units. Companies may show some initiative with their orders, smaller units may not.

-------------------- END -------------------------

These Rules can be used in Tandom with Bletchley and his Command and Control system or as a stand along. Some of these rules can also be left out and assumed to be in use.

I remember trying to work out some type of Command and Control Rule system for CM ever since back in the CMBO days but never really persude it any farther. Now that Bletchley came up with his version it has again sparked that interest.

Joe

[ July 02, 2007, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: JoMc67 ]

[JoMac]

Earl,

Unfortunatly you are right, it would be difficult to simulate actual Real-Time as opposed to Game-Time.

Most scenarios would end before you even receive a new order and act upon it.

This system might work best if played at Company level for a few games first before trying it out at Battalion.

If interested maybe Bletchley can setup a Company size Meeting Engagement between me and Earl to test the mechanics out.

Basically you will act as overall commander for both sides. We both would send you our file each turn so you can take a look and see what units are in and out of C&C and what options are available for each player.

[ July 01, 2007, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: JoMc67 ]

[Bletchley]

Thanks for that information Joe, I hadn't seen that WWII Miniatures Rules Set but the principles behind it seem very similar to my idea - just a bit more complicated, with the need to measure distances and differentiate between the types of communication being used.

I had not envisaged my C&C system being used for PBM play, but two players could use it so long as they both agreed on a common interpretation and application of the system, and trusted each other to enforce it. I would be happy to act as referee in a small PBM game, also, to give a 'tutorial' on it, if you think that this would help.

Otherwise, the best way to test it in SP would probably be with a small meeting engagement of about 500 points, using the Quick Battle option. This usually gives you enough units for a viable Company, or even a reinforced Company strength force. Once you get the basic principle sorted out, you can then go on to add the refinements from my list, or of your own choosing.

Bletchley

[JoMac]

Bletchley,

Yes, this system would work well if you know your opponent good eneogh to trust he would follow the interpretation and application of the system.

I will email you a file for a 500 point, Meeting, against the AI first so you can tutor me on a turn by turn basis. This way I will have a better understanding of what I can and cannot do.

Hopefully more people will respond to this Command & Control thread as I find it one of the more interesting aspects of CM.

[ July 02, 2007, 06:40 AM: Message edited by: JoMc67 ]

[Earl Grey]

Sounds interesting so far... though I'd prefer JoMc's solution. After all, it's a game - and it's diffcult enough to be good at it so why complicate it too much? Just let us keep things plain adn simple, even when trying to simulate things like C&C.

P.S.: Would like to try, too!

[JoMac]

Earl,

We can do a Test-PBEM, Company size, Meeting Engagment, using Bletchley and his C&C rules.

Atleast he put alot of time and thought on a system while mine just comes from a Rules Set.

We would send PBEMs to each other and to Bletchley on a turn by turn basis so he can Tutor us.

Email me at irishwop67@aol.com or post reply below if intereted and I will setup the game.

If not I will still setup a game for myself against the AI and have him Tutor me.

Joe

[Bletchley]

That is fine by me: you can get my email via my profile (clicking on 'Bletchley')

There is no harm in trying both systems, and then picking the one that works best for you - or working out a combination of the two - the LoS tool displays the distance.

Bletchley

[Earl Grey]

Since I'm pretty occupied at the moment - as of this morning - maybe it would be better if you first tried against the AI. In 2 or 3 weeks I should again have more time, so we can try it out H2H.

[JoMac]

Bletchley,

You might also want to add this thread over at CMBB and CMBO, just a quick copy and paste. We might get some attention from those players.

[Bletchley]

OK, done that

Have replied to your email, also, with C&C options for your first move (2 emails, as I overlooked a couple of details in my first email).

Bletchley

[JoMac]

Thanx,

I Received both emails, will respond shortly with next game turn.

Joe

[JoMac]

Bump,

Come on Players we need alittle more input on this thread.

[JAFisher444]

The only problem I have with this system is that Company level commanders in many armies had a great deal of freedom to act without orders from above. It just doesn't seem to me that a company commander for most armies would just hunker down in the absence of directions from Bat. (With the possible exception of the Germans who regularly did absolutely nothing if they didnt have orders)

[Bletchley]

Thanks JA! The amount of 'freedom' that any HQ has with this C&C system will depend upon your ability to keep the chain of command intact. This may at first sound contradictory, but I do not think of the chain of command as just a one-way process of a Battalion HQ passing down an order to a Company HQ, that in turn passes down the order to Platoon HQs. In reality, these lower formations are also passing information up to the higher HQs, so that they can form a 'big picture' on the developing situation, and the higher HQs are then passing information as well as orders down the chain. In order to have this freedom to make an informed decision, the CHQ would need to have some kind of access to this 'big picture'. I think that a CHQ that has become cut-off or is isolated will soon lose touch with what is happening on the flanks or in the rear, and it will not therefore be able to request support, know when other objectives have been met or abandoned in the light of success or failure elsewhere, and is more likely to respond conservatively in the face of stiff opposition. This is handled abstractly by using the Line of Sight tool, as this forces the player to maintain some coherence in the deployment of units, and to keep HQs in contact (it does not mean that they are all frantically waving to one another). I hope this makes sense

Bletchley