Several rules sets have developed innovative ways to permit gamers to "issue" orders to their units. Regardless of the method, the aim is to limit the scope of action of the tabletop general. The emphasis on restricting a player's ability to "issue" orders compensates for a player's unique view of the entire battlefield (the bird's eye view). This had allowed gamers to react to the flow of the game much quicker than their real life counterparts. While most gamers laud the innovations because they add to the "fog of war", some ideas do work better than others.

Two innovations will be the focus of this article; use of dice and use of order chits. One of the first problems that both systems have is their one turn limitation. Gamers must allocate dice pips or order chits every turn to units in order to retain control. While this does indeed limit a player's options, it also prevents units from performing a continuous action, particularly in a tactical movement phase. For example, a player wants a unit to move to a specific location. In order to achieve this aim, the gamer must issue the same "order" every turn until the move is completed.

If "orders" are not issued every turn, then the aim is not likely to be achieved unless the gamer can rely on uncontrolled, spontaneous or impetuous movement/action. This is considered a problem because it requires the gamer to prompt units to do one "order" repeatedly. This could quickly exhaust the available number of pips or chits, which would force the player to prioritize their allocations. It is unlikely that all units would stop their activity just because they have not received confirmation of their instructions. In reality, only some commanders needed to repeat orders all the time or needed to constantly issue orders. Yes, there are many examples of when orders had to be repeated or commanders had to take personal control to ensure their orders were obeyed.

Gamers should have some expectations that their "orders" will be obeyed so that they do not have to resort to micro-management. Otherwise, the players could spend too much acting as unit commanders rather than formation commanders. This can be a significant drawback if playing a large battle with dozens of units to "command".

There is good reason to allocate pips or chits when a commander decides to change orders or even modify orders. This should be the standard procedure so that the gamer clearly indicates that a new action is to be done. This clarifies to other players that previous "orders" have been replaced or modified. This replicates a real commander's need to issue new instructions or modify existing ones.

There are ways to reduce the need for prompting every turn. Players can resort to a response test to see if units will do one of three things:

a. carry out the last order;
b. stop carrying out the order; or
c. act as the unit commander decides.

The quality and/or morale of the unit would determine the likelihood of each option. The better the unit, the more likely it will do as it is ordered. Units with the highest levels of quality and/or morale would be more likely to act according to the initiative of their commander. This would permit players to react quicker to changing situations, although their range of action would still be restricted. It would also prevent units being inactive in an illogical manner.

Another problem with these systems is that it only applies to a unit or group where the figures/stands/elements are in base-to-base contact. Many armies developed non-verbal forms of communications such as signal flags and use of musical instruments. These allowed group orders to be issued as long as the recipients understood the purpose of the signal. In addition, verbal messages could also be relayed from unit to unit if they were in close proximity. Given that a normal game turn is several minutes, orders could easily be passed to several units within a designated command radius. This would enable players to "issue" group orders in close proximity. Units outside the command radius would be less likely to follow orders.

The response test mentioned above could also be applied here to determine the reaction of each unit to a signal. The test would be modified by proximity to the commander, level of quality/morale and applicability of the order (formally issued commands may take precedence). Again the intent is to prevent absolute control of the tabletop army as the gamers desire.

The issuing of orders can be a very important factor influencing the flow of a tabletop game. Too many restrictions can be as bad as too few in that an army moves in a jerky manner under the former or too easily under the latter. The standard pattern is more likely to be somewhere in between.

The trend towards one or other of these two extremes would be dependent on the skill of the players to issue orders in a timely manner, the ability of units to respond to direction and the ability of units to operate as part of a larger formation. In general, regular or trained units and armies will be able to act more cohesively than irregular or untrained units and armies.

No matter how good an army is trained and led, players will not be able to dictate the actions of their units without restrictions. Conversely, a badly trained and led army will not be reduced to acting like wind-up toys that need to be checked constantly to ensure that they are still in motion.

One problem unique to the pip system is that there is too much variation in the "issuing" of orders. The number of available orders is completely random each turn. At least with pre-determined allocation of chits, a player knows how many "orders" to issue. This permits players to tailor their groups, commands, divisions and formations to a size best suited to the "command abilities" of their generals.

This gives a definite advantage to any player who can organize his army based on the ability to issue orders. No general will be allocated more units than he can give orders. Canny players will further compensate by reducing this number if necessary so that units can be issued two orders if permitted. This ensures greater control, although reducing the "fog of war' somewhat. Players know that their orders will always be "obeyed" once issued. This is not a likely normal occurrence; however, it is again an example of the benefit of structuring an army to minimize the risk of uncontrolled events.

The use of the response test would be possible in this case to lessen the responsiveness of the tabletop army.

No matter what method is employed to issue orders, there are going to be pros and cons. The suggestions above are ppresented to limit the use of innovations that may impose illogical restrictions or introduce illogical advantages. Regardless of the method, players should retain a similar scope of action, which is a balance between too much and too little control. In addition, the tabletop units are able to act as if directed by the communication systems employed by their historical counter-parts including verbal, written, visual and audio commands. These can be highlighted individually or synthesized into a generic order system. In the end, the aim is to permit activity to occur in a logical manner so that the game proceeds smoothly, but bear in mind that no plan survives contact with the enemy!

It can be argued that there should be distinction between regular or trained and irregular or untrained troops. This is one debate that goes back many years. Most popular rules do have distinctions in that the former are permitted to do more than the latter. Whether it is the ability to allocate the dice rather than assign the same one each turn to a general or more option when moving, the former do have obvious benefits. What is less clear is whether they deserve to have significant advantages. The key to success is more often the ability of the commanders to lead their forces, regardless of proficiency in performing drill and/or working as a cohesive force.

There is some scope to allow regulars to act differently because they have been drilled. This is still subjective as the sophistication of their training has to be considered. The lack of information concerning some armies means that it is difficult to define a universal standard.

One option is for rule writers to add special rules to allow certain armies or troop types to perform special actions. This at least acknowledges the difference between various forces. Players can then include these as desired or if applicable.

Whatever system is used, players must realize that they will not be able to tightly control the actions of their units. There should be some expectations that troops will perform in a relatively consistent manner because of their training, experience, morale and other factors identified by the rules writers as important to the game. This general trend is sometimes modified by random factors, although not so much as to unbalance the game. Tabletop army commanders often have enough to contend with in a game, without having to worry constantly about whether the army will be reduced to inaction because of poor dice rolls or insufficient chits. These concerns are usually magnified in a multi-player game as each commander proceeds with the game with or without following the directions of their commander.

Response: Orders and Disorders: Communications (#72)