Just curious, has anyone tried layering the order system from MMP/TheGamers Line of Battle (LOB) board game series? Requires the trust of your opponent but seems like it would be fun and add some realism.
I really like the LOB system and this Civil War Battles series is so close in scale and much easier for me to play than the board game.
I've just scratched the surface of CWB but am really loving it.
Line of Battle Order System
Re: Line of Battle Order System
I'm not familiar with LOB, but have you considered ENVOY for WDS?JP48 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 11:06 am Just curious, has anyone tried layering the order system from MMP/TheGamers Line of Battle (LOB) board game series? Requires the trust of your opponent but seems like it would be fun and add some realism.
I really like the LOB system and this Civil War Battles series is so close in scale and much easier for me to play than the board game.
I've just scratched the surface of CWB but am really loving it.
viewtopic.php?t=1096
WDS Support
Re: Line of Battle Order System
I just checked Envoy and it seems very similar. The LOB system though has a rating for each leader that is used as a DRM to determine if he can issue an order, whether he accepts it right away or delays accepting it. There is also a chance each turn, "Fluke Stoppage", that a leader, again based on his rating, will just decide to stop following the order. Also a lower level leader can use his initiative to issue his own order, once more the chance is modified based on his rating.
Now, you would have to check out the LOB specific game to get those leader ratings but that's not that hard.
You can find the rules here: https://mmpgamers.com/support/gamersarc ... _Rules.pdf
And the needed charts here: https://mmpgamers.com/support/gamersarc ... Tables.pdf
Now, you would have to check out the LOB specific game to get those leader ratings but that's not that hard.
You can find the rules here: https://mmpgamers.com/support/gamersarc ... _Rules.pdf
And the needed charts here: https://mmpgamers.com/support/gamersarc ... Tables.pdf
Re: Line of Battle Order System
Thank you for sharing these rules. I have been searching for information like this for a some time after reading several books about the Civil War and Napoleonic Wars that are based more heavily on recollections of those who participated in the battles (Stephen Sears Civil War books and Rory Muir's "Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon"). Most wargame boardgames and a good portion of computer wargames are based on a birds eye view of the field of battle, instantaneous and telepathic transmission of orders/intentions, do not account for lost orders, rely on a perfect understanding of the intent and components of orders on the part of the recipient, and include faithful execution of these orders, something rarely experienced on the 19th century battlefield (unless the commanding officer is with their subordinate or take charge of the subordinate units). I imagine this is most likely a result of decisions that relate to playability and coding complexity, rather than any omission on any designers part. I wouldn't even know how these would operate at game engine or a coding level - well beyond my pay grade, as they say.
The Line of Battle rules and tables you shared address these nicely, can be based on WDS leader ratings, and as you say could be used by agreement by the players using a order log similar to a variation of the spreadsheet Ross Kennedy developed for order delays in campaign play with WDS games. I like the issuing of orders, delays in transmission, and particularly the "fluke stoppage" from misinterpretation and especially with leader losses (this makes leaders even more valuable in gaming). You really have me thinking about how I can include these in the solo games I typically play.
One area that even these rules miss, though, is what I like to think of as "span of control." Span of control represents a commander’s ability to oversee and manage or react to the multiple variables occurring once an engagement begins (think of Helmuth Von Moltke's quote, "No plan of operations reaches with any certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy's main force"). The idea of a span of control most closely represents the psychological construct of working memory (the number of variables a person can keep in active memory at any one time). To me, this is one of the greatest differentiators between great and average to below average commanders (think Robert E Lee vs George McClellan or Ambrose Burnside). Great commanders can keep many things in active memory, actively attending to them; lesser commanders can deal with fewer.
Somewhere in my past gaming (board or tabletop miniatures) I came across an approach that simulated a span of control by limiting the number of discreet orders to subordinate officers or individual units a commander may have in effect during a given turn. If I remember correctly, orders were theater or wing orders in this system and consisted of broad orders like defend extreme, defend, attack extreme, attack, move, reserve that were assigned to subordinate commanders up to the limit of the overall commanders order limit (usually commanders did not have enough to control all subordinates though). In this system, commanders like Napoleon, Wellington, or Lee were able to issue more orders than their counterparts like Archduke Charles (Eckmuhl or Wagram), Benningsen (Eylau), McClellan (Antietam), or Pope (Second Bull Run). For historical play, this really put a new spin on why these leaders were so effective, showing how they were able to respond more quickly across a battlefield than their opponents. Of course for "what if" play (what if McClellan were not so timid or detached at Antietam) you would not use these, but to really simulate the reality of command and control as it existed, they seemed to work better than anything else I have seen. I just wish I could remember when I found them so I can include these in my game play.
Anyway, thanks again for sharing this with the community. I am looking forward to trying these, or a variation of these rules in my gameplay.
The Line of Battle rules and tables you shared address these nicely, can be based on WDS leader ratings, and as you say could be used by agreement by the players using a order log similar to a variation of the spreadsheet Ross Kennedy developed for order delays in campaign play with WDS games. I like the issuing of orders, delays in transmission, and particularly the "fluke stoppage" from misinterpretation and especially with leader losses (this makes leaders even more valuable in gaming). You really have me thinking about how I can include these in the solo games I typically play.
One area that even these rules miss, though, is what I like to think of as "span of control." Span of control represents a commander’s ability to oversee and manage or react to the multiple variables occurring once an engagement begins (think of Helmuth Von Moltke's quote, "No plan of operations reaches with any certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy's main force"). The idea of a span of control most closely represents the psychological construct of working memory (the number of variables a person can keep in active memory at any one time). To me, this is one of the greatest differentiators between great and average to below average commanders (think Robert E Lee vs George McClellan or Ambrose Burnside). Great commanders can keep many things in active memory, actively attending to them; lesser commanders can deal with fewer.
Somewhere in my past gaming (board or tabletop miniatures) I came across an approach that simulated a span of control by limiting the number of discreet orders to subordinate officers or individual units a commander may have in effect during a given turn. If I remember correctly, orders were theater or wing orders in this system and consisted of broad orders like defend extreme, defend, attack extreme, attack, move, reserve that were assigned to subordinate commanders up to the limit of the overall commanders order limit (usually commanders did not have enough to control all subordinates though). In this system, commanders like Napoleon, Wellington, or Lee were able to issue more orders than their counterparts like Archduke Charles (Eckmuhl or Wagram), Benningsen (Eylau), McClellan (Antietam), or Pope (Second Bull Run). For historical play, this really put a new spin on why these leaders were so effective, showing how they were able to respond more quickly across a battlefield than their opponents. Of course for "what if" play (what if McClellan were not so timid or detached at Antietam) you would not use these, but to really simulate the reality of command and control as it existed, they seemed to work better than anything else I have seen. I just wish I could remember when I found them so I can include these in my game play.
Anyway, thanks again for sharing this with the community. I am looking forward to trying these, or a variation of these rules in my gameplay.