First of all, adding more realistic CC rules to a game will not make a game overly complex or lengthy as is sometimes proposed. In a good order system, the only time you would have to worry about orders is when you change them. For example, in a Napoleonic game, if a battalion is in Reserve order, and you want to commit it to a Attack order (to allow it to come closer to the enemy, not necessarily attack it), then the computer could generate a percentage to indicate whether the unit adopts the formation ordered, or another formation, based on a number of variables taken care of by the computer. Certainly, the player wants to know these factors, but this will give a better game playing experience, to be under more similar constraints as his historical counterpart. Knowing these factors would certainly be less complex than ballistic matters, for example, that some players seem to have almost an anal fixation on.

As to complexity being a turn-off for wargamers, I don't buy that argument....We have all seen inordinate complexity in wargames that did not detract from sales....Squad Leader and its genre???

Now, to my point that most wargamers don't want better CC rules.....Most wargamers prefer to play wargames with the point of winning, not necessarily following accurate historical results. In my experience of wargaming, I have seen too much bending of rules to give an advantage to the player, with disregard towards historical accuracy. Case in point. Battleground Waterloo allows leaders to act as nearly indestructible recon units. This practice is certainly not within historical accuracy, but I have seen it done countless times....I am certain we have all seen this bending of the rules despite historical convention....

Now to my next point. Gamers not only want to win, but they don't want rules that restrict their pieces from doing what they want to do. Again, the typical wargamer is a micro-manager, and despises lack of control over his pieces. We have all experienced this disgust from players who for some reason or another complain that a particular disrupted unit can't move forward to make a "soak-off" attack. Or try playing a game that has some CC in it.

For example, East Front (Talonsoft). I have never heard so much crying and complaining on a bulletin board whenever I (or someone else) suggested better CC be instituted should be implemented. "Boo-hooo, I might not be able to move all of my units....", was the overwhelming response. And I don't buy the argument that command radii is an effective CC rule. To say that friction in war is avoided by merely having units within a particular radius is asinine. To give one side a slightly larger radius is a disservice to the side with better leaders and staff.

Based on my experiences with the wargaming community, I think it is fair to say that better CC rules in computer wargaming has not been implemented because the majority of players don't really want it. Most place their attention on the precise ballistics of the 76mm Soviet tank gun, as opposed to more realistic CC rules that would better show national differences between two warring factions. Anyone who reads any theoretical warfare doctrine will know that CC is way more important than the weapons involved, yet that is what most wargamers want games to concentrate on. And that is what they will get.