Captain Anorak's Guide to Gaming
Orders in Wargames
In many tabletop wargames, a player gets to control all of his units at the same time. This seems unrealistic, because it's said that in battle coordination between units is difficult. Having one mind hovering over the battlefield and simultaneously directing every unit seems ludicrous. This is less a problem in settings where units are in constant radio communication, so it's more a problem in ancient/medieval type settings.

Many games try to overcome this by giving each unit a set of orders. That unit has to carry out those orders as long as it has them. Changing a unit's orders takes some effort (it might be that the general has to be next to a unit to change its orders).

How can this be made to work in practice?

System 1: Each unit has a set of orders written by the player controlling it. These can be anything at all. When a unit takes its action, the player displays its orders to the other player. The unit may only do actions which both players agree are covered by its orders.

There are two problems with System 1. First, any cunniung manoeuvres intended by the unit are revealed to the enemy. Second, the game would frequently be stopped by arguments over whether an action is covered by a set of orders or not. Unless two players are really fair-minded and ready to compromise, every game would be bogged down with bitter arguments.

System 2: Each unit has a set of orders written by the player controlling it. These can be anything at all. Then a GM interprets those orders and decides what actions the unit performs.

System 2 overcomes both these problems by using an impartial third party, a gamesmaster (GM) to read and interpret the orders. The problem with this is that it needs a GM. The rest of this essay assumes that you want to write a wargame with no GM. To use orders without a GM, there must be a number of fixed orders in the rules, and each order must have a set of strict rules (needing no interpretation) about what actions a unit with these orders will perform.

System 3A (ancient/medieval): There are two set order types: hold and move. A unit on move orders may move. A unit on hold orders may not move. Archers may not shoot while on move orders. Pikemen suffer a melee penalty while on move orders because their formation breaks up when moving.

System 3A might have some worth, but it doesn't bring much to the game. Cavalry suffer no penalty for moving, so there is no point in ever putting them on hold orders.

System 3B (modern/future): There are two set order types: hold and move. A unit on move orders may move. A unit on hold orders may not move. Infantry on hold orders are in cover, giving them a bonus to defence. Moving units have a penalty to shooting.

System 3B makes some difference - the orders do have some influence over the combat abilities.

But with both Systems 3, the basic problem has not been alleviated - all moving units are controlled by one mind. Instead of this, we must find a way to create orders which specify where a unit is going and what it will do along the way and when it arrives.

System 4 (ancient/medieval): The board is rectangular, and each player has a home end. There are three order types: advance, hold and retreat. An advancing unit may attack an enemy unit if within its move range. Otherwise it must move toward the enemy's home end. A holding unit may not move. A retreating unit must move toward its own home end.

System 4 is basically unworkable. There is no way of moving units sideways across the battlefield.

Battle Situation A (ancient/medieval): My enemy has a line of pikemen at the front, with archers behind them. I want my cavalry to go left, around the end of the enemy's pike line, and then turn right and charge against his archers.

With System 4 I could not do the things described in Battle Situation A.

System 5 (ancient/medieval): The board is rectangular, and each player has a home end. There are three order types: advance, hold and retreat. An advancing unit may manoeuvre as it likes if there are enemy units as close as it is, or closer than it is, to its own home end (in other words, if it is level with or behind any enemy unit). Otherwise it must move toward the enemy's home end (it may advance obliquely, moving ahead-left or ahead-right). A holding unit may not move. A retreating unit must move toward its own home end.

System 5 allows units to manoeuvre once they are in the 'battle zone'. But once again, this still means that they are all being controlled by one mind, which was the original problem we set out to avoid.

Another problem with System 5 is that advancing units may be forced to advance into enemy units when they don't want to: my cavalry, on advance orders, may be forced by the game system to advance into my enemy's line of pikemen. This is just what cavalry should avoid doing. Perhaps we could avoid this by modifying the orders a little more:

System 6 (ancient/medieval): The board is rectangular, and each player has a home end. There are three order types: advance, hold and retreat. An advancing unit may manoeuvre as it likes if there are enemy units as close as it is, or closer than it is, to its own home end (in other words, if it is level with or behind any enemy unit). Otherwise it must move toward the enemy's home end (it may advance obliquely, moving ahead-left or ahead-right). However, if this would force the unit to advance into an enemy unit, it may manoeuvre as it likes instead. A holding unit may not move. A retreating unit must move toward its own home end.

System 6 eliminates the problem of being forced to advance into the enemy, but at the expense of giving units even more freedom. In effect, it means that once a unit has come within its move range of the enemy, it can do as it likes, and we're back to the situation we were trying to avoid. Also, with Systems 5 and 6, there is no way to make a unit move sideways across the battlefield. Logically, units should be able to do this. And System 6 will not stop cavalry from wandering within bow range of archers.

System 7: There are five order types: north, east, south, west hold. A unit on hold may not move. A unit on any other order must move in the direction specified.

System 7 is terribly crude. If you want a unit to move to a point which is not an exact compass-point from its current position, you must change its orders at least once to get it there. Going around the back of the enemy line, as in Battle Situation A, requires even more changes. If you can't change a unit's orders at a distance, then once a unit is a way off it will keep on going in a straight line unitil it leaves the battlefield.

Battle Situation B (ancient/medieval): I want to order a cavalry unit to 'go around the back of the enemy and seek out units you can kill, while avoiding units that can kill you'.

In reality, I would expect a general to be able to give the orders in Battle Situation B to a unit commander, and for that unit commander to be able to carry them out on his own initiative.

System 8: Among the orders is outflank. A unit on outflank orders will try to get around the sides or rear of the enemy. In doing so it may detour wide enough to avoid being charged or shot at by the enemy. Once in an outflanking position it may attack any units of the enemy, or it may hold off waiting for a more opportune moment. A unit holding off must stay close to the flanks or rear of an enemy formation; while there it may move around, and may move away far enough to avoid being charged or shot at.

System 8 lets you do everything in Battle Situation B. The problem is that it needs interpretation. Situations may arise in which a player tries to do something with a unit on outflanking orders, and the opposing player says that this is not within the scope of the description in System 8. But hopefully that shouldn't happen too often: most of the time, if the players behave reasonably, it should be fairly clear what is within the rules and what is not.