Nice article by Graham Empson on Command and Control (C2) in Lone Warrior 130. I thought that I might offer another view on this rather interesting subject. Why do I think that I have anything to offer? Well, I'm no expert that's for starters - but I have spent the last 16 years in the Royal Marines and am currently a company commander in a commando unit - so I do get paid to command at the moment, allegedly! At Staff College the officers of this country, and not an inconsiderable number of Johnny Foreigners join us for the experience, are taught a subject called 'Command and Control'. All kinds of theories are discussed, historical examples studied, all designed to give a better understanding of how we are supposed to best conduct our business of warfighting. As far as I can remember it, the essential difference is that commanders make decisions and set objectives and the staff control the forces to achieve those objectives. As a commander you make the decision, that's what you get paid for. The information which is fed to a commander, on which he will make his decision is collated by a number of specialist cells who collectively constitute the staff. These might cover intelligence, logistics, engineering, aviation, PR (yes, Kate Aidie gets everywhere!) and of course operations. The staff and their efforts are coordinated by a 'Chief of Staff' or COS. This man is key. He maintains an overview of every input to the staff work and controls its output to the commander. He can thus piece the battle picture together and offer the commander a number of options with detail where required. Thus, the staff and the COS provide the commander with his basis for decision. He makes his decision, gives orders and what happens next is where the controversy starts. Before moving on, however, I would like to involve our passion and hobby, wargaming. As Generals of our lead armies we do indeed have a birds-eye view of the battlefield. We can see most of the battle picture right in front of us. What I have found to be a real key to winning wargames over the years (oh no, here I go giving away all my secrets!) is not so much what can I see, but more what my opponent can't see. If that sounds really obvious and you've been doing it for years with great success then perhaps we should swop places - great commanders are indeed made of such stuff - if not, then please keep reading. So far I have discussed how real commanders and their staffs create decisions on the battlefield. What I would like to do now is relate this to our wargame. Inputs are vital. Decisions are vital. The rules of the wargame should not constrain my ability to command. They should however, attempt to create that confusion of inputs (or equally demanding - lack of them), which a staff under its COS would have to deal with. This then presents me, the commander, with options for decision - my job. One of the best methods for doing this I have come across, and ironically I did not like it when I first tried it, is the 'command pips' method of movement. Throwing a D6 or whatever type of dice is relevant, and applying the number thrown to the number of units you can move. I have found both myself and my opponents sweating hard over which units to move. I have experienced similar dilemmas in headquarters in the past. It is rare indeed to have the resources to move every unit at will or have all your units' right where you want them all the time. As far as rule sets go Principles of War, Lion of the North (my personal favourite set of rules) and DBA all use this method to good effect. In essence, they all simulate one of the oldest dilemmas which commanders have wrestled with since before some Libyan bloke took his elephants hill walking in Europe - too few troops, too many tasks! Moving on to the execution on orders. As table top Generals we tend to just move our troops as we see fit at the time. Few make plans, fewer nowadays write orders for their armies. Often there is a vague mission, 'to defeat the enemy' or 'to take the hill'. As solo wargamers there is great scope here - and best of all there is little original thought required by me. Most of this has already been done and its works a treat. But first a little illumination. There are micro managers, 'hands-on' types, 'hands-off' types, gifted and dynamic leaders and casual but resolute leaders. In short, some tell you what they want doing and some tell you how to do it. The former is called mission command and works on the basis that you tell your subordinate what you want to achieve, tell him what his part in your plan is, tell him what you want him to do and then sit down and drink tea while your subordinate goes and does it. Sounds great, where do I sign up? The latter type is a pain in the rear, he will tell you what he wants you to do all right, but then he'll tell you how to do it and then sit on your shoulder while you do it, putting his oar in the whole way through - ugh! In my experience there is no man in the middle - you're one or the other. So, what sort of leader do your painted units of little lead soldiers think you are? Do you give them orders and then let them get on with it or do you fuss about each unit and constantly change your mind making changes here and there. I once saw an opponent move a unit of infantry over a period of 4 moves in as many different directions because he had no plan and could not decide where they were most needed - "it's not so much what can I see but more what my opponent can't see", remember that line? OK, so what is so obvious? Well, numerous books on wargaming give us commanders ratings and allow us to create or use existing charts to determine how our units' commanders react to our orders. That great stalwart Don Featherstone gives some great ideas in his book 'Advanced Wargames' and the WRG Horse & Musket rules give an excellent rating system for commanders. But it is Charles Grant who, in 'Napoleonic Wargaming', gives what I consider the most realistic advice of all for solo wargamers. Each wargame army should be given two sets of orders. The first, a general set to achieve the army's objective. The second, a more detailed set giving each unit its missions and objectives in order to achieve the former. Changes to these orders can only be made by a realistic courier, ADC or radio message as applicable to the period. Rules for simulating the hazardous journeys of ADC's or the vagaries of modern radio equipments are well known. I told you it was simple. I have used this system in my solo games since the mid seventies and have always found it great fun. The excitement of watching an Airfix Confederate officer galloping across my wargames table with an urgent change of orders to the Rebel column advancing on a hill which the game mechanism had just revealed was lined with entrenched rifle armed infantry and flanked with guns I still remember to this day! (He didn't make it by the way and the rebels got minced!) So, what have I said, I have attempted to make the reader think about command and control systems during a solo wargame (or an ordinary game). I have tried to relate the real business of command and control to those mechanisms, which we can employ to enhance our games. Make a plan, give realistic objectives, and remember - it's not what you can see...... Back to Table of Contents -- Lone Warrior #131 Back to Lone Warrior List of Issues Back to MagWeb Magazine List © Copyright 2000 by Solo Wargamers Association. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com