Military writers have disagreed on whether it is necessary to fight a battle to win. Sun T'zu respected the general who could win the war without fighting the battles. Clausewitz suggested that there were three ways to defeat an enemy (destroy his armies, occupy his territory and destroy his will to fight). There are times when picking a fight is a good option, usually when you have lots of advantages. Other times, it may be necessary to fight even if the best outcome is a pyrrhic victory. I leave it to the reader to decide into which category the following arguments fall. I only mention this so that the reader is aware of the belligerent tone of this article. Those not include to read are advised to go to the next one. The aim of this article is to address issues arising in the last journal and other related sources. I read with interest the comments by Karl Heinz Ranitzsch about command and control. I still do not subscribe to the contemporary methods of dealing with command and control. These attempt to embrace increased fog of war and minimize the omnipotent role of the gamer, particularly in one-on-one games. My impression is that too many restrictions are being imposed without considering how command and control can operate. Monty Python and Command Control For those familiar with Monty Python's movie about King Arthur and the grail quest, the skit involving the two castle guards and their lord illustrates one stereo-type of common soldiers. The noble is trying to give an order that is continuously confused by one of the guards. The noble gets exceedingly frustrated trying to get the guard to understand what the noble believes are simple instructions. It is funny, but may not be the best example of good command and control. The DBM/DBA/DBR approach is bordering on anarchy in that the gamer does not know how much control can be exercised from one turn to the next. Is not a bit extreme to go from a die roll of one indicating very limited control to a die roll of six suggesting almost unlimited control without wondering why there is so little consistency? It is true that regular generals can allocate dice to maximize the control where it is most needed. Is this necessarily an appropriate method? Maybe gamers need to governed by another system that encompasses rationale limitations on complete freedom of action. One way to counter the anarchy of the WRG PIP system is to have a small and cheap command to which the lowest die can be given. Its main role in the game is to minimize the impact of the lowest die. I realize this only applies to regular generals; however, it is indicative of what gamers will do to overcome an obstacle to their command and control capabilities. The editor's system is to permit generals to have a specified number of orders that can be issued each turn. The better the general, the more orders available to issue. There is still some anarchy involved, as the gamers must determine the quality by throwing dice at the start of the game. In effect, the gamer's character is decided arbitrarily. Would a gamer eagerly accept a bad character or would the tendency be to fight another day? Neither rule set acknowledges many of the good qualities of a command and control system. Subordinate officers do not exhibit initiative, only the lack of it. Each turn is treated as an independent action rather than part of a manoeuvre. Some actions could take several turns to complete, while others could be performed without the need for prompting from "headquarters". There is no recognition of multi-dimensional order giving systems (verbal, visual and audible) and orders are only issued to single entities (a group of elements or a unit of stands). There is little emphasis placed on the difficulty of completing an action. It is possible that some orders were more difficult to carry out than others. Certainly, there are some limits imposed such that trained or regular troops can usually move faster than untrained or irregular troops. What is lacking is a representation of the response of the troops to orders. May be charging the enemy requires two pips or order chits sometimes and only one at other times. Personal Experience This not just a personal opinion with basis. It comes from personal experience (national and UN military experience) and years of reading military history. Soldiers are not always mindless automatons nor are they always imbued with initiative. The truth is somewhere in between. In addition to military training, organizational improvements were developed through experience working with the same people and techniques. Even irregulars could benefit from non-structured developments. By contrast, the lack of experience and cooperation contributed to many military defeats. A good general with a trustworthy group of subordinates would be more likely to have more capabilities than a bad commander with untrustworthy subordinates. Are these represented in command and control systems? It may be that too much emphasis is being placed on ways to limit the omnipotent tabletop general of the past and not enough on developing a suitable command and control system. Possibly we have settled for something that is adequate rather than being appropriate. The next topic is the use of language. Dennis A. Leventhal wrote that the proper way to spell Skythian is with a c. He provided many sources, all of which use the convention of spelling the word with a c. What is not clear is the pronunciation of the word. Is it a hard c (K sound) or a soft c? Being in mind the many variations in spelling, is one more correct than the other? There are those that support spelling reform with emphasis on phonetics, such that when we read a word, we know how to pronounce it without recourse to an elaborate system. Anyone using an American spellchecker on this article would find that I have misspelled many words, although I used a British spellchecker. Which one is right? Another long-term problem with many articles is the use of abbreviations. I work for a bureaucracy that seems to be enamoured with abbreviations. We use a lot of tla and fla (three letter, four letter and five letter abbreviations) and acronyms. This may be fine for technical writing, although less so in general writing. Many readers of this and other gaming journals are using a second or third language. If it can be confusing for a native English speaker, how is it for the non-English speaker? Is it necessary or even suitable to employ jargon that is confusing? Even widely accepted terms may be misleading. While many rulebooks use the same abbreviations, their meanings can be different. Is HC (heavy cavalry) the same in a specific period and is it generic enough to be used for several periods? My answer is no because it can be used to distinguish soldiers with some body armour and cavalry that fought in a specific manner. Jamie Fish has lamented about the use of generic terms by some gamers. They know the terms used by a rulebook and assume that these words are easily understood. When ordering figures we are more likely to receive the right figures, if we identify them according to the code and name selected by the manufacturer rather than asking for sixteen HI with JLS and shield. One of the reasons for communicating is to make others understand what you are thinking or describing. Battle reports can be very confusing without supporting diagrams or maps. The use of patois, lingo, vernacular or slang may reduce the report to meaningless gobbledygook. BTW (by the way), the MS Word 97 thesaurus provided most of these synonyms for the word jargon. Which one best describes what I am saying? Writers may wish to heed these words, IMHO (in my humble opinion). Back to Saga #73 Table of Contents Back to Saga List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 2000 by Terry Gore 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