The Commander Series Forum

Hey all!
Explaining FWC to players of other popular sci-fi games (one of which starts with 4, ends with K, for example) one of the common points raised concerns how being a derivate of sorts of the Warmaster rules the War Commander series fails to emulate the advanced communication systems of troops in the future by still implementing the 20cm command range variable. After a deep sigh to avoid snapping the interlocutor's neck over how the heck they can justify tank and special weapons ranges in "their" system (diplomacy is always called for when speaking to GW devotees) I proceeded to explain the system does, in fact, allow troops to have superior comm systems if one PAYS for it, as in the Independent attribute. On the drive home it then dawned on me a house rule could be looked at to expand on this command issue.
This is what I came up with, which I'd like some advice on

At first I thought of a quick way to standardize a cost to be paid by the CO/HQ to issue his orders over a greater distance instead of the cost being attributed to the issued unit but this raised two problems
A. the variable would have to be a percentage cost or account for the numbers of troops the command would issue orders to (both of which kill the streamlined simplicity and elegance of FWC in handling costs)
B. the cost being applied to the CO/HQ alone would make him very, very expensive and it didn't seem fair

My conclusion has been to assume once the Communication Net is up both the commanding and commanded troops need a way to get on said net and interface on it. As the Independent rule costs 20pt/figure the easiest way was to build the following three options at the time of attribute purchase


COMMUNICATION ATTRIBUTES (cost per figure)
0pt - Primitive/No Comm Equip - standard 20cm range (-1 CV per extra 20cm)
10pt - Basic Comm Net - command range for force raised to 40cm (-1 CV per further 40cm)
20pt - Integrated Comm Net - unit unaffected by command distance penalties

Any thoughts?
S.

Well, another way to play it is to just assume that ALL units have the "independent" attribute.

True that. But doesn't it discourage thinking about your command and control structure at purchase? What's to stop troops assuming you've got jump packs then? Unlimited missiles? Wire cutting equipment? Electronic Warfare Devices? The thing I like about FWC is that while it's set a solid framework for gaming, it's fairly open ended on the customization side, allowing a however greater a degree of detail you'd like for scenario play to be added. Typically, for example, a specialist would be required to engage an intranet or remote deploy/pilot equipment (Bishop in Aliens et al)
If that figure gets got, it's a problem. Similarly, I play skirmish mostly so the difference in comm nets is really important. Heavy support troops need a better command net to be re-deployable with ranges of 60 or 100cm for their weapons. Troops with weapon ranges of 40 or so need to get in much closer and that leaves the covering fire guys in the back cut off from the action. Or forces the Command unit to order them at serious penalties. The sniper in the rules has the +20pt Independent feature built into the cost (try reverse engineering the cost!)
The local rebel militia of former colonists (rabble with guns) suddendly consistently raid the on-site lockers and take all the advanced communication devices the elite power suited infantry sent in from off-planet to "pacify" them are equipped with? Ummmm...have you tried accessing a private ftp protocol nowadays? You really think they'd know how to operate the equipment even if they did find it?
My style of gaming prefers, for an average battle coming in at say 1500pt on a 4x6' table with 20-30 figures per side, for C&C advantages to paid for by the player. At 10pt for a basic comm and 20pt for integrated the differences are felt in point terms where a basic unarmed MV10 ATT0 CC3 H4 S0 trooper costs 15pt. The basic rabble militia comes in at 30pt arming him with a 2/30* rifle. A power armoured infantryman with jump pack, integrated comm net and gauss gun is 185. 20pt per figure makes a big difference on the bottom line and I like it that way. "Assuming" is something I've always been uncomfortable with but that's just me, I guess. If the system asks for 20pt to be spent, the figure must include that in their cost (even if both sides have it, as has happened with Aliens vs Marines!)

All of this assumes that the enemy aren't actively trying to disrupt/hack your communications net, which is what I always thought of as the reason finite command ranges exist on a futuristic battlefield. If you can buy improved comms you should also be able to buy an ability to counter improved comms.

Here's another way to do it...

Instead of measuring from the HQ, allow the player to measure from any point within a set distance of the HQ (say one meter, which would give a battalion HQ a command radius of 2 scale klicks). Bad HQs can declare 1 point a turn and measure up to 20 cm from it. Normal HQs can declare 2 points and measure up to 20 cm from them. Good HQs can declare 3 points and measure up to 30 cm from them.

Note that each point is declared and played in sequence, so if your normal HQ blows its rolls on the first point, it doesn't get a second one.

This rule works very well with the dedicated units option. It means that a competent HQ, for example, can coordinate up to 3 seperate groups over a 2 kilometer front. The HQ can't get too greedy, however: if it spends all its attention running the first group out to the max, it will eventually blow its rolls and not get to move the second and third. You could also declare the the HQ itself is default point.

Cost: 0 for a "bad" HQ; +10 for a "normal" HQ; +25 for a "good" HQ.

Hey Macuima. That's an interesting take! Think it'd work really well, actually, for games with 6mm troops as it'd reflect the scale much better. Though at 25pt per command stand it's cheap as dirt, what calculations did you base the cost on? In my take it's 20pt PER unit, based on the independent rule in the book. Part benefit for part payment. A considerable cost upgrade without complicating the system much. As you read in my post I too thought of putting the cost on the Command stand at first but problems A and B arose. So within the framework of the rules I opted to have a "basic" net cost half the price of the Independent rule (10pt for 40cm command range) and, again, the idea of putting the cost on the Command stand doesn't account for sniping and auto-link weapons.
Unless you're implying using this rule for non-skirmish games, in which case I agree it's a great optional rule. In skirmish games, however, where the command stand can be targetted and must move first before the troops under its command (taking a much more "front" role) having it carry the burden of the command structure cost is dangerous and counter-productive. And 25pt I don't think is sufficient, anyway. 25pt PER unit in the force I can see. But again, don't think of this as criticism. It's merely differing views of the amounts to be invested in the purchase of attributes. I believe if you want it, you spend for it. 10pt per figure for basic and 20pt per figure for advanced (thank you larva for your comment, too. I too thought about counter-comm equipment but resolved it simply complicated the game and was duly abstracted in the command roll growing lower as the enemy's fix on the links closed in to disrupt. So each new turn a new line is opened on different channels, say, and immediately the counter-comm systems begin scrambling to find the range and channel. As more orders are issued the chance of the enemy's disruption by pinpointing and codifying the channels increases until they shut the net down. That's reflected in even Independent troops still not being issued a single order should a HQ 9 roll 11 for its first order et al. Given Pete's organization of the Command roll with the three modifiers I personally find - and it's my opinion only! - that distinguishing between counter-comm levels just complicates things without necessarily providing appropriate reward)
Also, does your rule assume the new HQ/CO coming in to replace a KOed command also has the "bad"/"normal"/"good" attribute? Would it be a random roll? Wouldn't that allow people to get a "free" upgrade then if they bought a "normal" command and a new replacement one entered the board rolled as "good"? Where'd the points come from for that? Isn't that already written, in fact, in the idea of the random roll for the replacement commander in the skirmish section?

Well, the costs would be current HQ costs PLUS that number (0 if poor, +10 if normal, +25 if good). I only play non-skirish, too, btw, so I make no claims as to whether or not this is a good rule for skirmish games.

I dislike the current command radius because it seems odd to me that a commander needs to be physically present within 400 meters to command his troops. That might be OK for a company (3-5 stands) but its not acceptable for a battalion (8-16 stands).

OK, you say: "Just buy more HQs"?

But I don't want every fifth unit on the board to be an HQ.

My proposed variant allows you to buy one HQ per battalion and operate that battalion on a 2km front, which is close to RL size. A normal battalion HQ thus stays behind the lines with the reserve company and the fire support company, while coordinating the actions of two combat teams up to a kilometer away. This seems about right for modern C-in-C techniques.

Another problem this does away with is the high incidence of HQ units caught in artillery barrages. Seeing as how the regular ruls stipulat a comand range of 20cm, the same as an artillery strike blast radius, it is VERY easy, in the Commander system, to take out headquarters.

Unless you want to have a command unit for each company, I suggest that a rule such as the one I propose above is pretty much the only solution.

It also allows us to model WWI, WWII, WWWIII and sci-fi quite elegantly.

In WWI, there are no radios, so play by the rules as written: your commanders will need to be witihn 400 meters of your troops to give orders with no die-roll modifiers.

In WWII, armies with good communications get a +1 modifier to the die roll for HQs making longrange orders calls, while armies with poor communications get a +2. Armies with no radios to speak of (perhaps late 1941 Russians) must use the rules as written.

In WWWIII, use my variant.

In hightech future war settings, double the distance longrange commanding can take place, from 1 to 2 meters.

You could then add in a electronic warfare module for WWIII and FWC. Electronic warfare superiority degrading the opponent's ability to issue longrange orders and whatnot.

Hi all, I'll put my 2c into this discussion.
20cm is not the limit of the command distance, its just the distance before you start getting any mods to your roll. A CV9 or 10 Commander can easy have his units spread 40cm or more without adversly affecting his command rolls.
Speaking from experiance, communications on the battlefield is sometimes hit or miss. During one operation, we could get comms with a unit that was 20 km down the road but not with the APC's that were no more than 500 either side of us.

I understand both points, Backstab, but two things:

1) Were communications reliably screwed up to the point where your battalion commander wouldn't even bother to try to use the radios and would always send a runner? I doubt it. The specific situation you mention occurs very often using my rules: with a CV9 HQ in CWC, it'll occur 1-in-6 times, when the HQ blows its orders roll.

2) Everything I've read indicates that a modern battalion deploys on a 2-4km frontage. Try 2000 meter frontage with even a 10CV HQ in CWC and see what it gets you. Place your HQ in the middle of the line. To command its flank companies a klick away, it needs a 7: slightly more than 50%, and that's presuming that there's nothing blocking command lines. Now turns are roughly 15 minutes to a half hour in CWC. In 20 minutes, even a runner could get over there with orders!

Now I admit that this all has to do with personal tastes. One could limit both sides to 1 HQ per battalion and just play a really slow game. In my experience, though, that's not what ends up happening. What happens is that units cluster unrealistically near their HQs in order to maximize order rolls. In the best of circumstances, you have the battalion HQ attacking up front with the schwerpunkt. That may have happened in WWI and WWII, but I doubt it happens much on the modern battlefield, unless the unit has piss-poor c3. And note that my mod takes both factors into consideration: a German panzer battalion commander may very well want to stay close to his units for maximum command effect: in the middle of a 400 meter wide panzerkiel. The commander of a guerrilla battalion in 1972 is going to want to do the same thing. But a major commanding a U.S. infantry battalion in Vietnam... He's going to radio it in.

This is the side-effect of taking a command mechanic that was originally created for medieval warfare and porting it to the modern age.

With my variant, the battalion HQ sits back with the reserves and fire support and commands up to two manuever elements via radio. If it concentrates too much on one, the other gets ignored and does nothing. Also note that the "virtual command point" used to trace command doesn't move, so as your units move out, they'll leave it behind, just as if it were a HQ. This models the confusion inherent in an advance.

Anyhow, I've played the rules this way a couple of times and they give me a better feel for modern combat than the turls as written.

My take on all this are two-folded:

1) You want to see your commander. In the platoon that mean you want to be able to have a direct way of communicating with your Lt. Everything not seen must be communicated with via technology. Tech can be jammed, broken and intercepted. All of which are stress factors for the GI.
2) To make a high tech comnet it has to be un-interceptable. (Or you have the 20th century High vs Low tech fights that are soooo interesting... The last even fight was USA vs Vietnam?)
Un-interceptable to me is directed optolink, not radiolink. And more often than not that would cut effective range.

Right?

Erik, that's true on the skirmish level.

It's not true on the platoon level, even today, let alone in the future.

The average grunt in the field today doesn't usually see his captain and CERTAINLY doesn't see his battalion commander, who may in fact be miles away.

I'm presuming you want to use about one command stand per every 10-12 platoon-sized units. Thatt means a battalion commander.

And no, you don't need to presume that these command links are unbreakable. At CV9, they have a 1-in-6 chance of being broken, every turn.

'COMMUNICATION ATTRIBUTES (cost per figure)
0pt - Primitive/No Comm Equip - standard 20cm range (-1 CV per extra 20cm)
10pt - Basic Comm Net - command range for force raised to 40cm (-1 CV per further 40cm)
20pt - Integrated Comm Net - unit unaffected by command distance penalties

Any thoughts? '



OK, so, why bother with this? Why not just buy a commander with a higher CV?

On the general point though, concerning the 'issue' of superior communications negating distance penalties, i think its about how you think about that the CV roll is representing. Its not really technology, but 'communication'.

I see the CV roll as encompassing:

1. Local commanders relaying intel about their current positions and tactical situation to their commanders. (Initiative is the local commanders acting without reference to higher command).

2. Commanders taking that information amid the mass of other data currently flowing through thier command and control system.

3. Commanders understanding the reality of that remote situation, assessing it within the other competing priorities and issuing correct orders to meet that local situation.

Having a hyper-efficient communications system (jammable or not) doesn't really deal with the problems, misinterpretations, poor data manipulation, etc. inherent in this whole CV test.

And frankly a senior commander, even with the best 'sci-fi smart intel net', who is 1000 yards away from a situation will have a poorer, more delayed, less effective command response than to a situation he can directly see or is much closer to.

Therefore i don't really see the issue of retaining the CV distance penalty.

As i said above, i'd reflect the relative quality of a command and communications system by simply giving the CO & HQ units better CV ratings.

Isn't command range tied to Tech Level anyway?

As to 'independent' units, i think what this represents is those units whose command and control is localised so that they don't need to refer to a higher commander for their action. Therefore, they are capable, within the confines of the overall army info-net to operate effective local command decisions all the time.