Re: Troop quality

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lukw Willen:


Another problem was that the German army used the Auftragstaktik command which encouraged a high level of initiative and rapid responsiveness at small unit level. The Allies used Befehlstaktik (command driven) approach which tended to discourage initititive by small unit commanders and led to slower responses to threats and opportunities.

Command Decision's order system is very good as a game mechanic but what it does not do is simulate the differences between Auftragstaktik and Befehlstaktik. However, if the orders given were combined with an initiative test that gave an advantage to the side using more aggressive orders and/or used the Auftragstaktik doctrine this could easiliy be changed. The side that wins the initiative would be able to choose whether it moved first or second whichever the CinC thinks is more advantagous to hiim.

Luke

---

Iddon and Luke,

Personally I think you are adding complexity for complexity's sake, because complex means more realistic.

I will not try and debate historical accuracy of the current ruleset with the historical accuracy of either a choice of moving first or second or a die roll to see if orders can be changed - rather, I question benefits are gained by added rules and die rolling.

Luke - the reason that Frank and Glenn did not let the player with the high die roll choose to go first or second was to avoid the 5 minute delay every intitiative roll where the winning side debates with each other about the pros and cons of moving first or second.

It speeds play considerably, and since almost everything is simultaneous in CD, it doesn't unduly cripple someone who is unlucky enough to be forced to move first several turns in a row.

Iddon - rolling to see if orders can change adds die rolling to the game - and to what end? If I want to change from full advance to cautious advance I need to roll a die? What if I wanted to no order? Do I choose all the stands that I want to try and change orders with, then roll dice for each or do I choose an order, roll a die, change it, then repeat the process? Do I have to declare what order I'm changing it to before I roll? Do I have to do this to change from movement to rally? From rally to movement? What if I had a rally order this turn, and I rallied my troops, there are no legal targets to rally, do I need to roll to change orders? If I have two friendly companies to rally, and on turn 1 I issue a rally order, leaving another friendly company that I can legally issue a rally order to, and the enemy is overruning my position, do I have to stay there and rally if I fail my die roll or can I bug out without rolling? If so, is it a disengage or a full advance to the rear?

I could go on ad nauseum - it is not a simple rules change, and would require a large amount of writing and clarification, and using your example it would only actually affect 5-10 rolls 10-20% of the time (or possibly 0% of the time for the Germans in your example)

Lots of complication, where is the reward?

That's my opinion, however - the great thing about the game is that you can change it anyway you want in the privacy of your own home

Jake

The only problem is everyone always assumes that the Germans are so brilliant and tactically fantastic.

What about their IA drill of always counterattacking after losing any sort of position. If we are going to start dicking around with rule changes how about having one that says the Germans always counter attack to try and retake the position.

If I were to design a C3I system for CD it would prpbably have the following characteresitics.

1. A decision on whether to go first or second after winning the initiative
would be made soley by the C in C. He would ideally make that
decision based on the overall tactical situation, not on what is best for
any unit he might be commanding.

2. In the inititiative test the side that held the initiaiative on the previous
turn would have a significant die roll modifier (say a +3). However, there
would also be a penalty if the iniitaitive side chose to go second (a -1
per sequential turn this happened) The Germans would have an +1
based on their Auftragstaktik doctrine until the end of the summer of
1944 after which the effects of the defeats in Normandy and in Russia
(the Destruction of Army Group Centre, Lvov etc) would finally cause the
losses of trained battalion, regimental and divsional commanders to
have the significant impacct it did on the army in the autumn of 1944.
Each unit with agressive orders (cuatious or full advance) would give a +1
modifier per unit.

Essentially this would mean that the side that was acting in the most
aggressive manner would have the best chance of seizing the initiative.
Conversely the side that hesitatesd in some way risks losing the initiative.

3 You would have to dice to change an order, failure meaning that you
would have to continue on the previous order even if that means a unit
is heading towards disastter. The ability to change orders would be
linked to troop quality which for this purpose would be described
numericaly. Commanders using Auftragstak doctrine would have an
advantage the extent of which might again depend on their training level.
The Russians would be penalised although less so in 1943 and perhaps
not at all by mid/late 1944.

There could also be a rule for political interfeence affecting the Germand
and the Soviets at an appropriate time in the war although this could,
particularly in the German case, be scenario specific.

Since the existing orders are mostly given at company level this would
continue except where a player wanted specific stands in that company
to perform a different order.

4 Orders down to battalion level should be written down specifying routes
of advance and objectives, Once a battalion has reached its final
objective a new order will be required. Again, the Germans should be able
to change battalion orders more easily than the Alies until the Autumn of
1944. This would work in the same manner as 3.

This would force both sides to plan their battle out in advance though
the Germans would be more capable of operating "off the cuff" It
would be legitamate for a series of sequential objectives to be specified.
For example, 1st Battalion will take Demouville then Cagny, and then it
will take Frenouville where it will halt. 1st Battalion will then pass through
2nd Battalion and capture Vimont. This would work out fine unless 2nd
Battalion fails to achieve its objectives requiring a change of plan and
therefore new orders at battalion and regimental level.

None of this in any way affects the existing orders system which works
very well at company level but less well in simulating battalion and
regimental level command which is where a system such as the one
above could come in.

Advantages

1. The side with the initiative could choose whether to move first or second
depending on the decision made by the C in C. This would simulate the
ability of that side to dictate, to some extent, the course of the battle
My experience in using a similar house rule in Battlefront is that this is
actually a rather powerful and realistic simulation tool. For example. in
one recent game an early war Soviet force failed to change its orders
and, as the German player, I had the initiative so I chose in this case to
move second. This meant that the Soviet player rolled straight into a
mobile ambush and was quickly shot up over the next couple of turns.
Reading accounts of WW2 Russian front actions of the 1941 - 3 period
this seems to be a most realistic result and this was only achieved by
using the C3I system outlined above.

2. The system is designed specifically to simulate the difference between
Aurftragstaktik and Befehlstakik. The Allies find it more difficult to
change their orders and the more flexible Germans will often be able to
take advantage of this. Specifically the Allied could bog down as
they attempt to change orders and the Germans could well be able to
take advantage of this on the table as they often did in reality. However,
the Gernans should lose much of this capablility from the autumn of
1944.

3 More realistic battalion and regimental level command as described
above forcing gamers to plan their battle in a manner similar to the way
in which it might be done in reality.

Disadvantages

1 There would be some increase in complication as Jake points out. On the
other hand the CD system has been simplified in other areas so perhaps
the overall game mechanics could support a change of this nature in
a way that the older versions might not have.

2 It is true that the side without the initiative could be forced to move first
several times in a row and this could disadvantage them. What is also
true is that this is precisely the point of having the initiative.

You can influence your ability to win the initiative by giving the more
aggressive orders to more of your units and then "challange" for the
initiative. If your assessment of the battle is correct and your opponent
is adopting a more defensive mindset (i.e. giving defensive orders to his
troops then you may well be able to seize the initiative and dictate the
course of the battle yourself Likewise, if the enemy attack is bogging
down you should be more capable of taking the initiative as the
defender. How the defender uses the initiative is up to him and it may be
that the defender would choose to use the initiative in either a defensive
way, perhaps forcing the attacker to continue to move first or he could
move up reserves and mount a major counter attack before the enemy
can make a cohesive response.

3 More dice rolling

Disadvantages (cont):
4. More booking. You have to count and track orders
5. Probability of gamesmanship. A player with lots of units in reserve could put them all on cautious advance with no intention of moving them to influence the initiative roll.
6. Rolling for order changes can actually be advantageous for armies with less command assets (though not always). E.g. a defending force wants to counter-attack. An army with lots of command assets will either attack in dribs and drabs or (if giving cautious advance orders) wait until all the units have managed to change their orders. Meanwhile their defense has been compromised as some of the units can no longer use opportunity fire. But an army with, say, just a battalion level command stand will be able to either attack in force straight away or stay in an effective defensive posture. To get round this you have to redesign the command rules (e.g.introduce the TAC:WW2 idea that if you fail a command roll the unit becomes confused) or the OOBs (give everyone coy level command stands) or probably both.

Because of the simultaneous shooting and order placing phases the choice of who goes first has much less impact than in games like Spearhead and BFWW2. So I don't see it adding much to the game to make the extra complexity worth it.

While I can see the attraction of the command change rolls I don't think that it is as simple a change as you make out and CD already provides more friction than most rules with the order and morale phases. And as I suspect that most company level order snafus occur under fire or in close proximity to the enemy it is enough for me.

Troop Quality

On Matthew's point 4 yes, there would be some additional book keeping although this would only be an issue on a turn when one side challenged for the initiative. On turns where this is not the case then there would be no need to take the test.

The only decsion that would still be neccessary is whether the initiative side wished to move first or second. I would suggest that the ability to choose whether you wished to move first or second could be quite a significant afvantage in some situation as in the example I gave earlier involving an early war Russian army.

Units with a cautious advance order are, as I understand it, compelled to move at least one inch so a player would hve to move his unit if he gave this order.

Given that the Initiative test takes place after the previous turn's Command and Morale phase any unit that failes a morale test would no longer be in position to implement any previous order it had been given. This would result in a side with lots of pinned down units being more likely to lose the initiative to an opponent who had given more offensive orders. However, you would have to be able to forecast this situation in advance and you could be wrong in your assessment of the battle. This could result in disaster and is the risk that commanders have to take in these situations. that is what they are paid for.

I agree that an army with lots of command stands (like the Germans) would have the advantage of greater flexibility. The Germans did have exactly that tactical flexibility in WW2 and there is no reason they should not have this advantage in CD.

British and US armies also have a lot of command stands. The difference under the kind of order system I have proposed is that the Germans have the advantage of the Auftragstaktik command doctrine under which commanders are encouraged to use inititiative and therefore we would make it easier for this army to change its orders than the army that uses Befehlstaktik (i.e. everybody else in WW2)


The Red Army on the other hand has only a few command stands and these are concentrated at battalion level (although a Red Army battalion can often be the same size as a German company) The lack of command stands means that the Soviet Battalion actually has far less flexibility than its German, US or British counterpart with company level command stands. The Soviet battalion can act in force straight away but the way that it can do this is actually very inflexible compared to the German , US or British battalion.

Under the command system I suggest a unit that fails to change its ordersdoes not become confused. It is however compelled to follow the order under which it was previously operating and that order may well now be irrelevant or even dangerous to that unit. Fog of war and friction leading perhaps to the complete unraveling of a battle plan and possibly, sometimes, leading to a disaster.

The trick that players would now have to master is to plan their battle and anticipate situations in advance (that is why you have reserves) The side that proves most capable of achieving this will have a much increased chance of victory.

CD does do C3I better than many rules. However, there ,may well be an opportunity for it to improve still further. There are many subtleties in the C3I rules I suggested and they do require careful battlefield decision making and the ability to forecast and anticipate situations. Gamers who can master these skills, particularly those using German armies will do better as real commanders with this skill set did.

The real question is whether the cost of some additional complication is
worth the benefit of having a more realistic C3I system. My belief is that it is worth it because meeting the challenge of succesfully planning and anticipating the course of the battle is a challenge Mastering that challenge succesfully is quite an achievement.

Luke

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jake Strangeway:
Iddon and Luke,

Personally I think you are adding complexity for complexity's sake, because complex means more realistic.

I will not try and debate historical accuracy of the current ruleset with the historical accuracy of either a choice of moving first or second or a die roll to see if orders can be changed - rather, I question benefits are gained by added rules and die rolling.

Luke - the reason that Frank and Glenn did not let the player with the high die roll choose to go first or second was to avoid the 5 minute delay every intitiative roll where the winning side debates with each other about the pros and cons of moving first or second.

It speeds play considerably, and since almost everything is simultaneous in CD, it doesn't unduly cripple someone who is unlucky enough to be forced to move first several turns in a row.

SNIPPED

Lots of complication, where is the reward?

That's my opinion, however - the great thing about the game is that you can change it anyway you want in the privacy of your own home

Jake

---

Troop Quality

I agree with Shawn's comments regarding troop quality, particularly as regards the decline of the German army. I also like his method of deciding who moves first or second. Where we part company at the moment is on the question of whether or not the C3I system gives the most accuarte simulation of WW2 battalion/regimental command. I think that it could do better although the price would be that there would be some additional complication. The question is whether a more realistic C3I system is actually worht that cost.

I can only suggest that you try the idea below for a couple of games before that question can really be answered. It is a play test idea and you may decide to change some of the numbers if you think it is either too easy or too hard to change orders or gain the initiative.

Orders. Roll 1D10.To change orders you must roll the modified number or lessr as calculated below

Green 3
Trained 4
Regular 5
Experienced 6
Veteran 7
Elite 8

You would modify this number as follows

Army uses Auftragstaktik doctrine +3 if the commander is Elite or Veteran. +2 if the commander is Experienced or Regular, +1 for trained or green.

Russians prior to 1943 -2

Russians 1943 to mid 1944 - 1

Unit is in Reserve +2

What this does is to take account of any national characteristics affecting command doctrine and changes that occurred in this during the course of the war. It also deals directly with the troop quality issue and the decline of the German army. Looking at the Armies of the Second World War army lists we can see the decline in German quality which types of divsion were affected most by that decline (i.e. the infantry divisions.

Inititiative Roll 1D10. Highst modified roll wins initiative and may decide whether to be Side A or Side B

Germans prior to late summer 1944 +1
Soviets prior to winter 1943 -1
Each command stand on cautious or hasty advance +1
Each command stand on disnegage orders -1
Your side held the initiative last turn +3
Per sequential turn your side chose to be side B -1

Luke,

I admire your desire to be a forerunner in bringing change, but - you are kidding right?

The rules changes you are proposing would require something on the order of 10 to 20 pages of text to cover all the possible eventualites you describe. What you are talking about is not simply an add on, but a fundamental restructuring of the game system.

Writing orders for a battalion's objective - i.e. Battalion 1 will advance along this route (drawn on a map) and take this town. What types of exceptions to that axis would be allowed? Could a higher level commander override it? Does the battalion have to advance at a cautious advance minimum? If so, can it be one inch or does it have to be the full 6? Can they deviate at all? If so, how much? What if they come under fire?


Rolling for changing orders - see my previous post on the nightmare this becomes as far as what is allowed or not allowed. It also would mean a fundamental shift away from hasty advances, as most players would not want to take the chance of being forced into moving at BMA when they don't want to.


The initiative modifiers are perhaps the least important change for the most work. I have to start counting all my orders up and keeping track of who has what. I assume this is done after morale is rolled - but even then you will have people who don't remember what orders they gave (and with 13-14 command stands I've seen people do it in a regular game)

In addition, you have all sorts of issues - I have a 75mm artillery battery commander that issues a cautious advance to himself, and moves an inch away from the enemy. That command gives me the same bonus to initiative as a full armored infantry company advancing toward the enemy at 24 inches.

So now you would need to start qualifying movement rates and direction of movement and lots of other things, simply to determine who goes first? Luke, you are stepping into a nightmare of rules for a very, very, very, limited reward - and more importantly, a game that does not really bear any resemblence to CD TOB.

But that's just my opinion

Jake

OK. Here's my question. Are there English terms for these supposed 'tactical doctrines' or are the Germans the only ones who thought it necessary to coin terms? I'm not well read at all on the Eastern Front, but I've got a pertty good handle on what happened in the west and I simply can not see any significant difference in capabilities between the American and the Germans that aren't suitably explained by simple experience.

I'd also point out that there is a draw back to 'higher initiative at the lower level'. Which is, just because there are low level decisions being made, it doesn't mean that all of them are the right decision. Afterall, the lower level commanders are less likely to have large scale information and the decisions they make could be right for the local situation but completely wrong from an operational standpoint.
_________________
More fun to come...

quote:

---

Originally posted by RichBliss:
OK. Here's my question. Are there English terms for these supposed 'tactical doctrines' or are the Germans the only ones who thought it necessary to coin terms? I'm not well read at all on the Eastern Front, but I've got a pertty good handle on what happened in the west and I simply can not see any significant difference in capabilities between the American and the Germans that aren't suitably explained by simple experience.

---

Come on now men, this is a game we are talking about here. There was quite enough difference between the characters of the various commanders to negate any slight differences being proposed here concerning different national doctrines. I strongly believe anyway that after the first contact with the enemy most soldiers are going to operate in a way largely to the survival of themselves and their comrades and to hell with higher command if they appear out of touch.
We ourselves are the commanders of our little people and can quite seriously screw things up on our own without creating rules to do it for us. How often have any of you at the orders phase looked down on one unholy mess and felt like Spike Milligan's famous catch phrase "well what do we do now".
Yours from the Home for the Terminally Bewildered
Best wishes
Jamie
_________________
Jamais Arriere

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamie Douglas:
How often have any of you at the orders phase looked down on one unholy mess and felt like Spike Milligan's famous catch phrase "well what do we do now".

---

Troop Quality

Alexei

Yes, that would be the rough English translation of the terms Auftragstaktik and Befehlstaktik and the translation does describe the effect quite well.

Jake and Richbliss

What we are looking at here is a regimental to divisional level game so I would argue that, yes, Auftragstaktik and Befehlstaktik doctrines would have an impact at this level and indeed at battalion level as well.

"After 1943 Allied forces regularly broke through German lines in massive set piece attacks involving huge artillery barrages and air support. These were rigidly coreographed operations and junior subordinates were allowed little freedom of action. However, these attacks became bogged down or defelected. Allied commanders often showed little initiative. They just waited for further orders. for reinforcements, or for new supplies to come forward, leaving the weakened attacking troops vulnerable to counterattack.

This was the pont at which the German command doctrine came into its own. It gave the commander on the ground the freedom of action to do what was neccessary ro stop the attack without reference to higher command. In many case , of coursem such reference upwards was actually impossible , becuase the artillery bombardmetents or airstroikes had severed communications with higher headquarters.

For the execution of Auftragstaktik, command procedures required highly trained, experienced , and confidant commanders" (P218 Wehrmacht: The German Army in World War 2 Thomas Ripley)

The above description of doctrine seems very typical of many detailed tactical accounts of World War 2 actions such as the ones we find in the official histories and in the diivisional histories and it is these processes that I am trying to simulate here.

Jake

Battalion and regimental level orders would merely give the axis of advance. This would be tracked by written orders which should not need to be changed all that often. Within those restrictions companies can be given appropriate orders and this would be tracked by the esisting Command system. The only difference now would be that company orders would not be changed automatically as they are now as explained in my earlier post.

A higher level commander certainly could override current battalion orders. He would have to roll to determine whether this was succesful or not. This reflects issues such as communication difficulties caused by poor radio communications, cut phone lines, faulty staff work or mere human stupidity. Any or all of these could explain failure to succesdully change a battalion's orders.

Indeed, according to Thomas L Jentz in Tan Combat in North Africa: The Opening rounds "the worst was the revealtion that individual tanks, troops and squadrons did not hav4e the right to manouver without permission from the next higher command" (P101)

Surely a case of Befehlstaktik gone mad but that lind of thing did happen in the early war British army in the Western Desertparticularly with inexperienced units like the short lived 2ndArmoured Division in April 1941. Indeed, there is a particularly embarassing incident mentioned by Jentz in which 3rd Armoured Brigade took over 3/4 of an hour to sort out a simple situation namely that "the support group had encountered enemy tanks, that 5th RTR was to send a troop to assist them and that contact with the support group was to be made through the 3rd Hussars" (Jentz P93)

In terms of my orders system a unit of green troops had a couple of lousy dice rolls causing them to fail to change their orders for a couple of turns.

One hopes that your troops will be luckier and more competant than that but if this sort of snafu was possible in reality then it should be possible on the wargames table. Although of course everybody hopes it will not happen to them.

Jack

We may only want to include manouver companies (armour and infantry) and rxclude Headquarters companies, towed anti tank/gun batteries from the initiative calculation.

Battalion advance rates would be at whatever speed their company level orders dictate (as now) Note that battalion and regimental orders deal with a cp,[;etely different issue, that of determining the overall axis of advance, the objectives the battalion is required to achieve and what it will do once it has achieved them. What this means is that you would now be required to plan your battle in advance.

As an Allied commander operating within the Befehlstaktik command doctrine you would have to plan your battle in quite a rigid and detailed approach setting outr a series of objectives, phase lines and perhaps a passage of lines as one battalion passes tthrough another (see my earlier example. You would have to do it this way as it will be more difficult for you to change your orders quickly in mid battle and there will be a good chance of seeing the situation as described by Thomas Ripley in which an Allied attack bogs down,

Conversely, the Germans will find it easier to change their orders more quickly and they can take seift advantage of the slower Allied command system.

This does mean that you will have less control over your figures than you may be used to having. However, this is closer to the reality of battalion and regimental level WW2 command as described in the official and unit histories as well as in other detailed battle accounts.

Luke

Troop quality

Jamie

So what you don't like is the possibility that you would lose a certain amount of control over your troops? It is true, you would lose a certain degree of control under the C3I rules and from a simulation point of view this is precisely the intention. your challenge then becomes to work within that framework anc to overcome the inertia and sometimes the inconpetance of your own troops as well as fighting the enemy. that is what real command is all about (see accounts written by actual former brigade, divisional and corps commanders)

Actually real commanders do/t have as much control over their own troops, certainly not until the digital age anyway.

If your objections are a "game thing" then fair enough. No-one is forcing you to swithc to a C3I system like the one I am talking about.

On the other hand, if you want to experience something of the challange of what it might have been like to command a real WW2 regimental level battlegroup and some of the problems of doing so in combat with the command doctrine limitations of the historical army of which your figures form a small part then the C3I system I have outlined could give you a better understanding of the historical reality even though it is designed in a very abstracted manner.

Luke