Command Precedings

[Nikator]

hi,

i have some questions and comments on the Command Proceedings (Rule 7.0, also with regard to 1.5, as written in the actual living rules)

1. Has the distribution of command points to be confirmed? Have i to show e.g. Napoleon and the units/officers if Napoleon put some units/officers in command to assure e.g. that the command range is correct?
2. Do i have to confirm my initiative rolls? In detail, do i have to show a.) the die roll b.) the unit/officer to which the roll belongs? Do i have to show the unit/officer only if i'm successfull? May i bluff my opponent, by even not putting an in command marker on the unit/officer, even if successfull?

In general it seems to me that the spirit of rule 1.5 could (and in my opinion should) not be kept through the rules. By looking at the in command/out of command markers i can derive where are officers and where is the commander and officers.
I prefer playability over simulation and tournamentproof-rules (non-cheatable) over simulation. Perhaps it might be possible to clarify the procedings and set up some optional rules, thus every playing group might choose it's own setting regarding the intensity of the "fog of war".

[kzucker]

Dear Nik

The best way to prevent cheating is to avoid cheaters. Nothing in the rules can prevent cheating, anyway.

[Nikator]

The best way to avoid cheaters is to avoid games which invite cheating. In my experience limiting cheating potential in a game assures that the probability to play vs. cheater drops. Thus for me it’s more a matter of philosophy to play only games with limited or no cheating potential, even if i’m completely trusting a specific opponent.

I still don`t understand how the command proceedings work in the way of your intention. The 1x rules have a speficific note "Procedural Security" which is missing in the DAYS rules -> if i transfer this to DAYS then all dice rolls are secret and all counters remain hidden, but i would get some information by the in command/ out of command markers placed on the counters as described in 7.0 by looking at my opponents forces, because the markers are non-hidden. Is this the way the command rules should be used?

[MHaggett]

Me and mine don't usually use the command/OOC markers when playing with hidden movement. When learning, we didn't use the hidden units rules; this allowed us to be able to ask one another if a certain rule has been done correctly. If you are worried about cheating in this instance (or simply want a check against cheating), I would just use scrap paper and write down your command allocations and note which units are OOC.

I tend to believe Kevin is right, for the most part. Games that rely heavily on limited player information are vulnerable to this. A larger problem, perhaps, is inadvertent rules breaking--I find this especially true in the Campaigns series, more than Days. I find it helpful when teaching new players to turn the FoW "off" and step through a scenario until they are comfortable.

[kzucker]

Napoleon was a notorious cheater at cards; everyone was aware of it, but he was the Emperor! If you have any Emperor friends, don't play this series with them. Some possible signs: an urgent need to win, false bravado and boasting, throwing dice across the room, violent jesting, cursing, etc.

[MHaggett]

I prefer to humor them and be a good sport....that often earns a tweak on the earlobe, a pension, and immediate promotion to Baron of the Empire! :cool:

[kzucker]

Napoleon surrounded himself with such Barons, who dared not tell him what was really going on...

[MHaggett]

I was thinking more of the Napoleon who would review a formation and ask who the bravest man in the unit was....that fortunate often found their fortune made in an instant!

Court toadies were always a problem and grew increasingly troublesome. His continuing reliance on ageing comrades (whose enthusiasm for army life and campaigning had passed) was another, although perhaps more sympathetically so.

[Nico[PL]]

Napoleon surrounded himself with such Barons, who dared not tell him what was really going on...

Kevin,

They have not dared, or they have known that he would not listen? That is a difference. I think Lannes was always telling what he has on his mind, but he has not lived to see 'dark days' of Empire.

[kzucker]

I am thinking of Count Daru, the Administrator, who attempted to dissuade Napoleon from moving on Moscow after the Battle of Smolensk. He held his ground in an all-day discussion with the Emperor. and there were other exceptions.

I think you have that same problem in every age. There are those "game players" who just want to advance their careers and those who maybe see beyond their own interests.

[521tiger]

I am thinking of Count Daru, the Administrator, who attempted to dissuade Napoleon from moving on Moscow after the Battle of Smolensk. He held his ground in an all-day discussion with the Emperor. and there were other exceptions.

I think you have that same problem in every age. There are those "game players" who just want to advance their careers and those who maybe see beyond their own interests.

Oh Kevin,
these are wise words (from a wise man?)! After 22 years as career officer in the Luftwaffe and about 8 years career as CEO in the private business I can just nod my head put the thumbs up giving applaus to this statement!!! :)
Andy

[kzucker]

Andy,

Not so wise. I think that if you study any subject deeply, then you can learn its lessons. I have spent many years studying one subject, so I can go beyond the hard facts - who, what, when, where, how many? - to learn something of the psychology, not just of the leaders, but of the individual soldiers of the different armies.

The example I had in mind was the situation in the Russian Army before Austerlitz. This would become Napoleon's greatest victory, but he could not get at the Russians where they stood, in Olmutz; he had to convince them to come to him, to fight where he wished. He was lucky that the Tsar was surrounded by young courtiers who had reached their positions on the staff by flattering him. Napoleon did his part by making his army appear weak. The staff officers persuaded the Tsar that he was more than the equal of Napoleon, that all he needed to do was go forth and conquer.