I have periodically thought that it would be interesting, and possibly quite rewarding from a gaming perspective, to have an effective and playable command system based on a limited ability to change the orders you give to your unit rather than limitations on giving orders to units each turn. I like the existing command system in AW/MW/RW just fine, but think that most armies can be too well or at least too predictably controlled. A little more uncertainty and difficulty coordinating your army and its attacks strikes me as a good challenge for any commander. There have been a couple of proposals to have a 'continuing order' system in AW/MW (by Alex Aimette and Rich Knapton, I believe) which had merit – the Signals rule or general advance came out of this discussion, unless I am mistaken. The basic command system was too far advanced, well tested and workable to easily gauge or test the effect their proposals would have had on the system. For that reason alone I do not propose to replace the existing command system, but rather offer a proposal for an optional system that fits within the remaining areas of AW/MW/RW as we all know it.

The proposal I have come up with so far uses the existing sequence of play and orders (including all of the orders existing functions). Command distance and supporting distance remain the same as well. Because of this there is no change to the fire/missile combat or close combat phases.

The Basics

All units will be given orders at the beginning of the game (almost certainly Advance unless redeployment is necessary in which case some may have Deploy orders). Generals (and Leaders in RW) will have the same command range as they have now, but a reduced number of orders that they may give (probably 1/2 rounded up depending on how much control playtesting shows is appropriate). The number of orders that they can give will also be used as a modifier for units to change their orders.

The influence of a CiC, a General, and a Leader differ due to their levels of authority. For example, any change of orders given by a CiC is automatic if the unit receiving the change is within supporting distance. For a General it is automatic only if he is attached to the unit. A Leader must always roll for the unit no matter what. A complete lineup is below:

CiC: May issue a change in orders to any unit within command range and apply his modifier to all such orders. Any unit within supporting distance receiving a change in orders automatically obeys.

General: May issue a change in orders to any unit within command range. May apply his modifier to any unit within supporting distance. Any unit to which he is attached receiving a change in orders automatically obeys.

Leader: May issue a change in orders to any unit within supporting distance. May apply his modifier to any unit to which he is attached receiving a change in orders. [Ed. The Leader rule is used in RW only.]

Give armies a minimum capability of issuing 1 or 2 changes in orders each turn outside of regular orders reflecting the initiative of subordinate commanders. One 'free' order for armies unless a majority of units were Trained and/or Veteran/Elite, then 2.

Changes in orders would occur if the unit rolled a modified 10+ (on a d10) with the following modifiers:

• + for the strength of the stand (4 close, 3 loose, 2 skirmish)
• +2 Trained
• + (or -) based on morale level: use close combat factor -- +2 elite, +1 veteran, -1 poor
• +CiC/General/Leader rating (if applicable)
• +2 for Loose Order Cavalry to change to Advance/Charge
• -2 for (F) troops, Fanatics, Loose Order Cavalry to change to Retreat/Deploy [Fanatics and (F) troops still automatically advance when within engagement range and charge (frenzied) when within charge range]
• 1 for each disorder and for each stand loss incurred:
  • - for changing to Advance or Charge order
  • + for changing to Retreat/Defend/Recover order.

Execution/Loss of Existing Orders

In all cases, you lose your existing order by failing a morale check, at which time your existing order is converted to a Recover order

Advance: only change in this order is that you advance towards the unit or terrain feature most directly to your front. You may advance around disordering terrain and friendly units in order to continue moving towards this unit or terrain feature. If no terrain feature or unit is within 45 degrees to either side you may wheel to place a unit/terrain feature within this arc or voluntarily remove the marker.

You lose this order (and thus have none) upon:

• reaching any spot you choose in the terrain feature to which you were advancing
• reaching charge range if your primary weapon (first in the army lists) is a close combat weapon or
• effective missile range if your primary weapon is a missile weapon.
• You may voluntarily remove this order if you are within 1/2 movement distance to a friendly unit to your front (to help avoid crashing into them) or to avoid moving into a position which would allow an enemy unit to Advance or Charge into your flank or rear.
• You also lose this order if you become Disordered for any reason. In this case you also convert to a Recover order.

Charge: same as existing rules.

Defend: same as existing rules.

Deploy: same as existing rules.

Recover: same as existing rules.

Retreat: lose when outside engagement and effective fire range -- convert to a Recover order.

Pluses and Minuses

This approach to a command structure offers (at least in theory) a challenge to tabletop generals in terms of developing, executing and adjusting an effective battle plan in the face of the enemy and uncertainties in how your own troops will respond. A little more Clausewitzian 'friction' can be an exciting (if somewhat unsettling) experience, but one that should never be boring….

I think that it is a plus to have somewhat fewer decisions to make each turn (though too few can be as bad as too many). I like having several things going on that I can have some control over (even if it is just a die roll), but I don't want too much ahistorical control. The existing system is good – no argument from me there – but if a little more uncertainty seems appropriate then perhaps this approach is worth investigating. There are additional die rolls each turn with this system, but the reduced number of orders to place should easily counteract any tendency that might have to lengthen the game. I intend to start playtesting these concepts at my next game and would also like to get feedback on what others think.