Given the discussion of the OODA loop in Operations 5, I suggest that adding TCS-like orders to the OCS would make for a realistic and exciting operational game that would model the OODA decision-making cycle. I am not simply suggesting that written orders be added to the current OCS. The changes I envision would necessitate a somewhat more detailed subseries (similar to the RSS for the CWB). The most significant change would be that each player would write orders before initiative was determined. The player with the initiative will be rewarded by being able to implement his plan, while the other guy may finds his plan overtaken by events.

Think of all the planning problems and issues inherent with following an order that was written before you know who is moving first. Consider the France '40 campaign. The French player could write orders to reinforce a key bridge and defend and then watch the Germans with the initiative get there first. Likewise, the German player would have to make hard decisions about when to stop the panzers to allow the artillery, infantry, and supplies to catch up before he is hit with a strong counterattack from several sides. Both sides would have to plan for contingencies (e.g. use reserves), and have to carefully consider what the other guy may be planning. Not only is this quite realistic, it is also in line with The Gamers' philosophy of forcing players to plan rather than react. Most importantly, I think it would be really fun to play.

The written orders would deal with an OCS issue that Dean has addressed on the mailing list: that a player on the defensive can respond to a breach and thrust far better and faster than their historical counterparts could. Consider the France '40 again. Dean contends that the French generals would have loved to know precisely where the panzer columns were at the end of any given day. An OCS player faced with a deep penetration knows exactly where he needs to go and has a fair idea on how many units he needs to send. He can change mode, go after the lead offenders and/or attempt to seal the breach. I am not directly addressing the issue of how soon a player can react. I agree with another point that Dean has made in Ops: a lot of water will pass under the bridge before the defense can react. I want to address the issue of whether a defender can implement a plan to counteract the attack before more damage is done. In short, to get a shorter OODA loop than the attacker.

Of course, this is just a concept-many details need to be worked out. The unit size should be considered with the role of the player. The TCS orders system allows the player to act as a divisional or regimental commander who writes orders for battalions, and those orders control the movement of platoons.

In organizational terms, there is a one or two-level drop from the player to the written order and then another two level drop from the written order to the actual maneuver elements. I propose using the same number of "organizational level drops" from player to maneuver element, with battalions being the maneuver elements. Thus a player would act as an army or corps commander who writes orders for divisions, and those orders would control the movement of battalions. The exact nature of the order types and how they constrain the players will obviously have to be thought out carefully. A limited number of reserve markers should allow each player some, but not excessive, flexibility.

The OCS time scale would have to be changed, as the current 3.5-day turns are too long to simulate a single OODA loop. I won't pretend to know exactly what an OODA loop was for a WW2 army or corps commander, but a turn per day should work well. This would simulate the night/day nature of planning. Orders (based on whatever happened that day) would be written at night for implementation the next day. Obviously, hex scale, strength, and movement factors would also have to be modified. The initiative die roll could no longer be a simple crapshoot. It could be modified by several factors:

• number of attack orders written in previous day
• number of attack orders written for current day
• number of DG/step losses inflicted in previous day
• number of low-ammo units
• number of units that had to eat off the map for trace supply
• historical situation
• nationality distinctions

The initiative modifiers should allow the guy who is attacking and inflicting pain to be more likely to continue doing so. Of course, the same guy that keeps going and going with no thought to his flanks or supplies will get crushed when he loses the initiative. Such are the risks of Blitzkrieg-style attack.

Here are some other things that could be done in a more detailed OCS design:

Supply points could be segregated into fuel and ammo points. The player would have to "order" the two types of supplies in advance (say two or three turns). This would reduce the weird effect of gas turning magically into bullets whenever it is convenient for the player. The player who is the better planner will have the right mix of fuel and ammo when he needs them.

Air units could be squadrons rather than groups. I must admit I am not sure of the exact effect this would have, but I suspect that more flexibility in mission types would be available. The refit phase for a given squadron might need to take an entire one-day turn, rather than be a phase within the current 3.5-day turn.

The above is intended to stimulate thought and discussion on a potential OCS sub-series. I realize there is no shortage of design projects in The Gainers pipeline, but if any of the OCS gurus (which I definitely am not) are interested in the concept, I will be happy to develop it further under their supervision. All comments, criticisms, etc. should be sent to matthewnoah@aol.com. Thanks.