American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Antietam

For reasons stated earlier, Lee's Command and Leadership Ratings should both be A at Antietam.
McClellan's Command Rating of 'D' is, to me, wrong: I think it should be a 'B'. I would have McClellan's Leadership as 'A'. I would not have McClellan's Command rating as A because of things like Burnside not effectively executing orders. After all, the Command Rating does have the effect of 'passing on bonuses' down the leadership chain and that bonus to morale checks is clearly interrupted somewhere between Mcclellan and Burnside. Burnside himself has ratings of E and D so he's clearly not considered to be very inspiring.

Still, all that being said I'm not convinced designers put that much thought into it. Although they may have given due attention to Corp Commanders and above I doubt that such attention is extended to all the leaders. I would also suspect that their decisions were coloured by their opinions on performance.
"Regardless of what rating they chose, or why they chose them, the ratings only affect one aspect of the games - morale."


Determining Leader Ratings

I would determine them based upon the leader's effect upon morale, because that's how they are applied in the games. I do see little difference between a leader's ability when it comes to deciding how to rate Command and Leadership and feel that they would generally be the same. The two ratings could then be one; I'd call it Leadership as I feel Command is a little misleading. The various tests can then use that one rating.
That should leave room for a new rating of Performance, but you'd then need to introduce mechanisms because there is currently a "lack of appropriate game mechanics". It would be difficult to introduce some of the game mechanics I mentioned earlier that other games use to reflect this aspect so I'll, reluctantly, have to ignore them. There is one existing mechanic that could be used as an abstract reflection of Performance which is Command Range. The Command Range could be constricted or extended based upon a leader's Performance rating. Ideally, it would be accompanied by a Performance Test each turn whereby (similar to the Command Rating and Tests) bonuses could be added/denied on a turn by turn basis with the Command Range of subordinate leaders being subject to amendment.



I can see some argument in support of that; similar to the McClellan/Burnside argument above.

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia

_________________
Gen. Blake Strickler
Confederate General-in-Chief
El Presidente 2010 - 2012

The Root

Sirs, my thoughts may sound sharp as usual. I don't think, primarily, the current Command Ranking has a solid base - the "Disrupted", which I thought was bad. Anyone who wants to go deeply into the issue of Command Ranking should answer the two following questions first:

#1. What does the "Disrupted" exactly mean in the game?

1. A state of disorder formations?
2. A state of low morale?
3. A state of low efficiency?

The "Disrupted" in the game seems to be a mixture of all three. Abstraction is a good way and maybe the only way to design a wargame. But the "Disrupted" is an excessive abstraction. It is the problem and the root of many (potential) problems. And the (potential) problems of "Disrupted" are magnified in the Command Ranking/Command Sub-system instead of being evaded. It should not be.

#2. What does it exactly mean in the game that commanders and their Superiors in the command chain can help the units' recovery from "Disrupted" (morale check) with their Command Ranking?


If "Disrupted" is

1. A state of disorder formations? Why can the upper commander be so important for the recovery from "Disrupted"? Should it not mainly be the duty of regimental leaders and officers? Even though, why can't an overall commander urge a regiment to become ordered directly in an emergency but from the command chain?
   
2. A state of low morale? Why so much terrain can cause low morale ("Disrupted")? It may be sometimes, but is it always so? Why Lee or Grant can use the command chain to boost "low morale" ("Disrupted") caused by terrain or loss?
   
3. A state of low efficiency? It seems reasonable. And it seems that the overall commander should fix it through the command chain. However, I feel the current "Disrupted" is still not good for showing "efficiency". It is a feeling and I don't know how to express it fully and clearly. Just take two points: a) A fresh troop without loss, fatigue, or disorder (Un"Disrupted" in the game) can still be in low efficiency just because of the bad skill or bad status (or other faults) of its commander. The current Command Sub-system is too weak to describe this. As long as I take care of my units not getting "Disrupted", I can keep "efficiency" far more than history and there is no business of the overall commander. b) The "efficiency" is just the efficiency of regiments. The description of "efficiency" in the command chain almost doesn't exist in the game. The current Command Sub-system is weak in strength and wrong in direction. It is more like a decoration to pretend we have command rules in the game.
   

All in all, if the two questions are not answered or fixed properly, I don't think more discussion will be meaningful.

---

The Relation



Mike raises a good point. The Relation! It is not just their private relationship but can be described in more specific points in other wargames. The Command Value or other terms in some other wargames look similar to Command Ranking literally. However, due to the mechanics, it has very different connotations. Like,

The Command Value can show and influence the ability of commanders:

1. to issue orders (timely, correctly);
2. to accept orders (timely, correctly);
3. to pass orders (to lower leaders timely, correctly);
4. to get initiative (give himself an order or, in other words, act without orders to catch the opportunities timely, correctly. It may get good results or a disaster).

I can find these elements in GBACW or LoB, the board wargames that some members also play, but not in JTS/WDS. I think these elements exactly respond to Blake's understanding, but the current Command sub-system JTS/WDS is far away from there and may hardly reach there.



I hosted one double-blind MP wargame with friends in the spring. We use the Command & Order rules of LoB to drive a small scenario in JTS/WDS. They can't move units directly but issue orders to the division and brigade commanders and I will move units of both sides as their orders. The orders need to be issued, delayed, and accepted. There are many rolls and checks during the Command Phase. It is short but interesting and shows the difference brought by the Command & Order Sub-system. I may share an AAR in 2024 spring if I have time to collect and write.

---

Blake, sir, you threw a bomb into the calm water indeed.

_________________
BG Ashdoll Ren
3rd Division
II Corps / Army of Northern Virginia

"Days and weeks of sheer boredom, interspersed with times of stark terror!"

#1. What does the "Disrupted" exactly mean in the game?

I always considered it to be a 'lack of cohesion' due to a combination of the first two things mentioned: disordered formation and lower morale. Lowered efficiently I see more as an effect rather than a cause.
The User Manual does discuss disruption right near the end (p80) in answering a question regarding melees. It says, in part:
"The state of Disruption in the Civil War Campaign games represents a state of disorder caused by combat. The effectiveness of a Disrupted unit is considered diminished and this affects movement, firing, and in this case melee."
And that's about it; at least I can't find anything else that describes what disruption is in the games.

#2. What does it exactly mean in the game that commanders and their Superiors in the command chain can help the units' recovery from "Disrupted" (morale check) with their Command Ranking?

Hmmm, it is all there in the User Manual but it's not all in one place so there's no clear and logical explanation. [Fortunately for you Ash, you are with the CSA and you should know where to find this information in CSA-only areas. If not, send me an email and I'll direct you where to go and find it. It's an explanation that extends over quite a few pages but if you read it through it all, it should be clear.]

For the benefit of all I can say this: the Command rating is all about morale and, if you're doing things right you can get 'the bonuses' (i.e. help units recover from disruption). To do things right you must pay attention to your command and control. The Army Commander must have the Corps Commander within his command range, and so on down to the Brigade Commander who must have the particular disrupted unit within his command. Such a situation maximises the chance of bonuses being passed on down the line. Any break in the chain and the bonuses cease to be passed down at that point. Having leaders with higher command ratings will help but leaders of any rating can help. As the manual says:
"Even an officer with an F command rating will increase the chance of a Disrupted unit recovering if he passes his command test."

That is why I said in the post at the top of this page that constricting or extending command ranges for individual leaders could help to provide an abstract mechanism to reflect performance. Currently, the command ranges are all the same depending on which level of command (and type because cavalry are different) the leader holds. There is generally no difference between the command ranges for different sides nor between whether the leader has a low or high Command rating. [I say 'generally' because I can remember that there were a few scenarios (western theatre) where some CSA leaders had a command range of zero! Those anomalies may have been fixed in subsequent updates.]

The Relation

I commented on Mike's post earlier and, as I summed up, I can see some argument to support that contention.

The mechanics listed by Ash are all fine to help reflect 'performance' and I believe I mentioned some of them earlier. However, as he states, they are simply not present in the WDS games. I think it would probably be a significant undertaking to introduce them.
The only mechanism that does currently exist is command range, but it would have to be adjusted as described above (and earlier) to provide some method of reflecting performance.

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia

_________________
Gen. Blake Strickler
Confederate General-in-Chief
El Presidente 2010 - 2012

I know how the Command Ranking (and relative rules) works. I know Command Ranking provides a reason to encourage players to keep their troops with a complete command structure. Keeping their troops with a complete command structure is good. But my argument is that looking at the overall picture, the reason provided by the current Command Ranking (and relative rules) is not a good one and is not a reasonable one. It is just a fake one.



In my last post, I didn't imply Command Ranking or Disrupted should/must be divided into more categories and values, which will have pros and cons. More likely, more categories and values will bring more cons, more designing difficulty, and more endless debates to a simple game.

I mean "Command Ranking" or "Disrupted" or many other elements in wargames is an abstraction. Abstraction is not reality and so they have strong points and weak points in different cases for simulation. Designers need to take care, in most cases of the game, not to abuse abstraction and not to magnify the weak points of abstraction. It is a pity that I think the current Command Rules in the games magnify more weak points from the abstraction of the "Disrupted".

It can be OK and players can "ignore" the current Command Rules and just need to keep their troops together in the game because the Command Rules are really weak. But if we are talking more deeply into it, I would say, yes, the current Command Rules are bad.

---

If there is no agreement on "Command Ranking" and "Disrupted" (and all the relative rules) first, there will not be a meaningful debate on Lee's Command Ranking in Gettysburg, but just boring quarrels.

So I have no more thoughts to share on that. Just two other points.

---

Assuming that there is an ideal wargame with ideal Command Rules to go more with real command, except for "What Command Ranking should Lee have in Gettysburg", there is one more interesting question - "Should Lee or other overall commanders in the game have a Command Ranking?". I think Blake mentioned a similar question in the last post.

This answer is open. It depends on who you think you are roleplaying in the game.

1. If you think you are playing Lee or other overall commanders, the individuals in the battle, the overall commanders should have Command Rankings.
   
2. If you think you are taking the place of the individuals in history and playing yourself in the position of the OOB, the overall commanders should not have such Command Rankings, which should depend on your performance in this game this time.

My answer is open. I think both can be OK in designing. Even a certain kind of mixture of both can be OK - Some objective factors are limited by Command Ranking while some subjective factors are determined by players.

---

I want to mention that the Command Range can be adjusted by yourself from the .pdt file. Editing it is not hard. Both sides can have different ranges, though they are usually the same. But, of course, it is static and won't change during a game.



---

Thank you all for the discussions and input.

_________________
BG Ashdoll Ren
3rd Division
II Corps / Army of Northern Virginia

"Days and weeks of sheer boredom, interspersed with times of stark terror!"

Yes, the Command rating "is just a fake one" so far as command performance goes. It is a misnomer: it has nothing to do with 'command' or 'performance'; it is all to do with morale (and assists with disrupted units).

"A. If you think you are playing Lee or other overall commanders, the individuals in the battle, the overall commanders should have Command Rankings.
B. If you think you are taking the place of the individuals in history and playing yourself in the position of the OOB, the overall commanders should not have such Command Rankings, which should depend on your performance in this game this time."

A. Yes they should have some sort of Command Performance rating [the Command Rankings or ratings are currently there but used for morale/disruption issues]. However, to reflect Command Performance the game needs to have mechanisms, ones like you and I suggested, to ensure the effect of such a rating in the games. It does not.
B. This is currently the situation. How Lee, Meade and all the others performed on the day is neither here nor there as far as the games are concerned. All the leaders are you and me, the people playing the wargame.

"I want to mention that the Command Range can be adjusted by yourself from the .pdt file. Editing it is not hard. Both sides can have different ranges, though they are usually the same. But, of course, it is static and won't change during a game.

Parameter Data wrote:
Union Command Distances
Brigade: 3 hexes Division: 6 hexes Corps: 12 hexes Army: 28 hexes

Confederate Command Distances
Brigade: 3 hexes Division: 6 hexes Corps: 12 hexes Army: 28 hexes"

Yes, it can be adjusted but only for levels of command. You adjust it for one leader, you adjust it for every leader of the same command level on that side. Such an adjustment could be used to reflect the performance of a historical leader but only if there is one leader at that command level. It cannot be adjusted to use as a mechanism to reflect Command Performance for individual leaders. Such a rating could be used as one mechanism to reflect Command Performance of the historical leaders.

Also, in some scenarios you get odd things with command ranges. In Shiloh you have:
Union Command Distances
Brigade: 2 hexes Division: 4 hexes Corps: 15 hexes Army: 20 hexes

Confederate Command Distances
Brigade: 4 hexes Division: 8 hexes Corps: 16 hexes Army: 22 hexes

For the CSA, Johnston has a command range of 22 hexes. His Second in Command, Beauregard, had a command range of zero. Beauregard's has no responsibilities there as the game is concerned, even an F-rated replacement Brigade leader has more impact upon the wargame. Beauregard's only role, and effect, is to assume command should Johnston become a casualty in the wargame (as he did in real life).
In reality, for better or worse, Beauregard played a key role in the battle (Johnston rode to the front leaving Beauregard in the rear. That effectively meant it was Beauregard who was issuing many of the orders concerning which units went where [late on Day 1, Johnston gets shot and killed and Beauregard assumes full command, a role that he had practically been performing for most of the day]).

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia

I agree with “B”. If we have control over over each commander, the rating should be done differently.

My idea would be to have each level commander have a command range. Brigade have the smallest ehile Army or Division commanders would have the largest. The rating system is simple. Army commanders (Lee, Grant, etc.) Get an “A” no matter what. Down the line goes to Brigade commanders. Say they get a “C”. No matter what we think, these men were put in charge for a reason, so they get a rating based on command “level”. Each level also gets a larger command range (this is already true). Now, if a unit becomes disrupted, the player (us) should get a choice as to what commander in command range of the unit can “Rally” the unit. We can already do this in Squad Battles. The dice roll would even be simple in the game. Army commander gets an “A” automatically, so on a six sided die a roll of 5 or less means those troops are rallied. If a brigade commander is selected with a “C” rating the roll is 3 or less to rally. However, each commander can only attempt to rally one unit each turn.

This provides interesting strategies too. Say you have done well with unit cohesion and have both a brigade and division commander in proximity but have a unit on the attack that has become disordered and another unit that is disordered but not in contact with the enemy. Maybe you choose your division commander with the “B” rating attempt to rally the troops in contact, while using the brigade commander to attempt a rally of the other. Either way, its your choice because you are the actual “Commander”.

Another small option would be to make brigade commanders rating increase if its in range of a higher commander. Normal would be C fro them but if Lee or Jackson is in command range of them it boosts to a B. This could be interesting if you threw the wrinkle in that the commander has to be in the actual hex of the disrupted unit to rally them.

Just some ideas. Thoughts? Seems simple enough. Please pick it apart though! Maybe we can create some change by continuing to boil this down.

_________________
Lt. Colonel JJ Jansen
3rd Calvary Brigade, 4th Calvary Division
Army of Tennessee
CSA

Option B is what we currently have; there is no rating/mechanism used to reflect performance of command by individuals on the day.

Whether it is any of the methods suggested by anyone, a true-to-name 'Command' rating (with all its associated mechanisms) is something that would have to be introduced to the games. I don't think that is likely.
The most likely (and I think it's still unlikely) is to amend the existing mechanism of Command Range to reflect in some way the performance of the Commander [it's nor perfect but it would assist in arriving at a 'command rating' that is not the current 'Command' rating which is really a morale rating].
Rallying exists through the Leadership rating and is, in my opinion, just another type of morale rating.

Blake suggested five main areas saying we should have "Something like:
Morale
Leadership
Command
Organization
Influence"

I'd go with just two or three (to be decided by designers - there's sure to be controversy but at least it will not be the current controversery AND confusion that exists with the current two leader ratings of Command [a morale rating and used in regard to disrupted units] and Leadership [a morale rating used to rally units]. Those two/three ratings would be:

Command Performance - The performance of the leader on the day based upon decisions they made, ability to influence subordinates, and ability to maintain the organisation and cohesion of units under their command (the rating to be reflected through Command Range and any other useful mechanism the games may desire to introduce);

Morale - A combination of the existing Command and Leadership ratings. The 'tests' used for the existing two ratings would then simply refer to the one rating - no mechanisms are changed in essence so you essentially have the status quo. If it is desirable for some technical reason to continue to keep them separate then do so, but please change 'Command' to 'Morale' (the current name of the rating is confusing and misleading).

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia