Chaos on the Battlefield vs. Our Perfect Knowledge

[vtsaogames]

A short discourse about C&C rules https://corlearshookfencibles.blogspot.com/2024/06/chaos-on-battlefield-vs-our-perfect.html

[has.been]

Interesting & I agree.
I find it difficult to believe that if I was the allied left wing at Waterloo, I would not be worrying about Grouchy's 10,000 French.
In my own Peninsular War skirmish rules, you shoot & an enemy figure goes down.
He might :-
have fallen over,
dived for cover,
be wounded or even
be dead

Unless your figure actually goes over & checks you do not know.
At the battle of Long Tan (Aussies in Vietnam) they were surprised when the second wave of NVA troops attacked to see 'dead' from
the first wave get up & join them.

In a Sealed Knot battle we stopped our advance & rapidly formed up to defend against the cavalry that appeared behind us,
only to have their officer berate us as they too were Parliamentarian.

More confusion in battles please.

[jon_1066]

The big question is how do you translate the chaos into a game?  Design for effect (command pips, activation rolls, etc) or bottom up (pass orders with couriers)

[has.been]

how do you translate the chaos into a game?  /quote]

LOTS of ways:-
Communication between players , or orders to troops to be by notes. Have a tub & start the game with some blank or confusing 'orders'. When a
player fills in an order he puts it in the tub. Umpire/opponent shakes the tub. Starting next move an order can be taken out & implemented.

Dice to activate unit. Several rule sets do this, e.g. Rebels & Patriots also Bloody Big Battles.

Disguise the scenario.  I read of one such where the players all acted as ACW generals, as the umpire used ACW figures, but it was Spanish American war.
Player (who was not aware he was Teddy Roosevelt) "As I'm in charge of a unit I paid to equip, can I have repeating rifles?" Umpire, "Yes" (didn't tell Teddy that
ALL that side had repeating rifles.  I have seen similar done with disguising a Crimea battle as if it was Napoleonic.

Let the player make a few pre-fighting decisions. e.g. How many of your men are manning the ramparts? Player, "All of them" Umpire then says the enemy
don't attack for four more days.

Pre-battle get the players to write a (very) few 'standing orders' &/or signals. I remember a Manzikurt  game where the Byzantine player, fearful of a trap, chose
as his signal, 'All units halt & do not chase the enemy'. This he signalled when the opposing General made his signal. Unfortunately for the Byzantines the opposition's
signal was, 'Retreat NOW with whatever you've managed to steal'.

Make it different for each unit to activate/move etc. Then the nice neat battle line starts to get a bit ragged.
I saw a big Renaissance  game where the player managed to get one Tercio moving, but the other two refused.
His figure was then seen galloping after the moving block to stop it taking on the enemy army all by itself.

[vtsaogames]

The big question is how do you translate the chaos into a game?  Design for effect (command pips, activation rolls, etc) or bottom up (pass orders with couriers)

Easiest if the scenario designer isn't playing. Then you can do things like have troops off-table that aren't ever going to arrive. Owning player knows this but not the other side. "They still have reserves!" Though I usually play too since we are a small crew. Hmm, make up index cards that say if those off-table troops are available or not. Each side draws one and then wonders if the other side can use theirs. Might do that some time. Even an extra unit or two adds some mystery.

The BBB rules don't portray generals unless that officer was fairly competent or that side had superior staff work. Sides that were sluggish can be penalized as "cautious", which gives them more chance of doing nothing, a la Bazaine or McClellan. In a First Bull Run battle a while ago, Union troops marched into a position to flank Confederate artillery. The guns failed to move on their next turn, leaving themselves open to flanking fire or attack. We decided the local CO said "don't fire, those are our troops". It happened more than once during the war. Just keeping units from always doing what is desired is a good start. Portraying Bragg's army, I'd have the whole force cautious and with few officers, maybe Cleburne able to influence his division and not much else. Their opponents would get Thomas in corps command and Sheridan for his division. Then you don't have to paint up that many mounted officers. 

[ChrisBBB]

The big question is how do you translate the chaos into a game?  Design for effect (command pips, activation rolls, etc) or bottom up (pass orders with couriers)

Command pips are good but I think the limitation there is that you can always be sure of doing the one thing that you can see is most important. That doesn't allow for the fog of war, uncertainty, limited situational awareness that might prevent a commander from realising that is the most important thing to do.

Passing orders with couriers likewise doesn't provide for uncertainty (except with regard to anticipating enemy intentions, as it does create OODA loops).

That's why, for realism, I prefer activation systems as in BBB, as cited by Vincent. I also think they're better in game terms because they create unpredictability and tabletop surprises that make the game more interesting and fun.

[Khusru2]

Perhaps make a list of 20 positive/negative things that can happen to either side. Each side rolls a d20 on turns 3 and six and incorporates the listed item on his own or the enemy.
Things like out of ammo, unit is one move behind/ahead of current location, unexpected marsh in front of unit, unit halts to reform no move next turn, Anything you can make up that seems logical to that era.

[vtsaogames]

Copy of what I posted on the Wargames Website follows.

Some ideas for reserves:

Rules of Battle (Minden Games, not played) had designated reserve units (up to 1/3 of units on table) make a triple move the turn they were activated, provided they stayed beyond 4″ of enemy. Otherwise they could make a single normal move, including into contact with enemy.

My untested preference is to allow a double move including into contact.

From a home brew set of rules* : On the turn reserves were committed (once per game per unit) friends within 6″ of final location removed one Disorder marker immediately. Think of the hard-pressed lads cheering as reinforcements arrive. Don’t use multiple disorder markers? Allow an immediate rally test. Or something.

*Rules were canned because some of our guys didn’t get them. Also, too much chrome was added to them. So easy to do, a very bad habit.

Off the top of my head yesterday for off-table reserves: put units off-table for each side. Make up a set of cards (index, whatever). Say six per side. They specify how much of the off-table reserve is available (all, some, none), what turn the player can start dicing to see if they arrive, (if none are coming, dice anyway and complain of lousy dice to keep the other side guessing), and where (left, center, right).  Each side draws one card. On the turn they arrive (if any), show the card to the other side. A player could opt to keep them off-table past their arrival time to keep the opponent guessing, though I imagine that would take some iron discipline.

All this presumes that the game is moving fast enough that there is time for the reserves to have some effect. Bit of a problem with the Fencibles these days. We gab so much after the prolonged plague lockdowns that the games move at a stately pace.

[jon_1066]

Blucher by Sam Mustafa has an interesting mechanic.

Units in reserve can make a quadruple move but can't go through rough ground or cross obstacles or within sight of the enemy within X distance.  So your uncommitted units can lurch across 2/3 of the field but roads become very important and you can bring reserves right up to a fight by screening it with your own troops.

It's simple but very effective.

[vtsaogames]

I have a copy of Blucher but seem to have missed this. Must crack it open and take a look. Thank you.

[olicana]

The only rules I've come across that allow for the chaos of battle are from the 'Piquet' stable. This is because both sides have a random move sequence - both in independent operation at the same time - which gives what I call "elastic time". Only at the start/end of a complete turn cycle, which might involve several 'moves' and 'fires', does time equalise across the battlefield and often after an unequal number of moves and fires by each side - the game is randomly asymmetric.

In other words, his cavalry might move three times, in quick succession, before yours can move at all, and infantry might not get to change formation (into square) before it charges home. As a player, the eye in the sky, it all happens in slow motion but you can't do a damn thing about it.

Of course, this will not happen often but, when it doe it is beautiful (as a game mechanic) to watch. Many players hate this kind of thing because they find they lose control from time to time - "why can't that unit form square now, I can see them coming?". Personally, I think Piquet often plays like a real battle reads - where battlefield stupidity reigns and unit officers prove lacking - and I love it. Fog of war, and all that.

[jon_1066]

This is a very interesting rule set that embraces a lot of what you are talking about but in a very different way:

https://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=145386.0

It is very untraditional in its approach but has great potential.

[olicana]

I remember playing a few matrix games when they first appeared as an article in MW back in the day. In the first game they worked quite well. In the second game some players 'pushed the envelope' and it all seemed to get silly and a bit techy. The third game I played worked rather better but, that was because it was used as the basic mechanism to drive the map part of a  campaign and, being a little more abstract in nature, this helped it work - the table games used a more traditional rule system. After that, matrix games seemed to lose their promise and fell out of favour. I remain open to them, if sceptically, and would try them out again. As sort of said in the review, matrix games rely on game experienced, sober, sensible players - and sometimes, sadly, I'm not.

[vtsaogames]

I ran a couple matrix games by e-mail during the lockdown. The second game saw some silly stuff, like French infantry wearing ballet slippers so as not to alert enemy sentries. I do like matrix games...

[AdamPHayes]

Of course, this will not happen often but, when it doe it is beautiful (as a game mechanic) to watch. Many players hate this kind of thing because they find they lose control from time to time - "why can't that unit form square now, I can see them coming?". Personally, I think Piquet often plays like a real battle reads - where battlefield stupidity reigns and unit officers prove lacking - and I love it. Fog of war, and all that.

Even when frustrating Piquet games are usually edge of the seat affairs….