Command & Control: The Why of it.
Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2024 12:26 am
I've been asked this question multiple times. It took me a while to formulate an answer, rewriting and simplifying until I felt it was just right. Anyway, here is my reply to this oft asked question... Why Use an Echelon System of Orders?
First off, directly below is the table with the "Echelon System of Orders", that way we'll all know what this is about.
-
Now, on to the explanation.
IT....
The echelon system of orders offers a historically grounded framework that balances strategic oversight with tactical flexibility.
First off, directly below is the table with the "Echelon System of Orders", that way we'll all know what this is about.
-
| Operational Orders | Tactical Orders |
|---|---|
| ATTACK – 3 CP | Charge – 2 CP |
| Fire – 1 CP | |
| Melee – 2 CP | |
| Rear/Flank – 3 CP | |
| --------------------- | ---------------- |
| ENGAGE – 2 CP | Advance – 1 CP |
| Fire – 1 CP | |
| Cavalry Charge – 2 CP | |
| ---------------------- | ------------------- |
| HOLD – 1 CP | Hold Ground -1 CP |
| Opportunity Fire – 1 CP | |
| Counter-Attack – 2 CP | |
| ----------------------- | --------------- |
| DEFEND – 3 CP | Entrench – 2 CP |
| Hold Fire – 2 CP | |
| Steadfast – 2 CP | |
| ----------------------- | ---------------- |
| RETREAT – 2 CP | Fallback - 1 CP |
| Covering Fire – 2 CP | |
| Rally – 3 CP |
IT....
- Reflects Historical Battlefield Command Structure
- In the Napoleonic era, command hierarchy was essential to controlling large, complex armies. Orders were issued at the Corps level to set overarching objectives (Operational Orders) and refined at the Divisional level to adapt to the immediate tactical situation (Tactical Orders).
- This system mirrors historical practices where commanders like Napoleon, Wellington, or Kutuzov gave strategic directives to their corps commanders, who then relied on divisional and regimental leaders to execute the plan effectively.
- Balances Strategic Vision with Tactical Flexibility
- Operational Orders define the overall strategy, ensuring cohesion across the battlefield by preventing individual units from acting independently in contradictory ways.
- Tactical Orders, issued by divisional commanders, provide the flexibility needed to adapt to local conditions like terrain, enemy actions, or morale.
- Example: An "Attack" Operational Order keeps the corps focused on an offensive strategy, while Tactical Orders like "Charge" or "Advance" allow individual divisions to approach their objectives differently based on specific challenges.
- Enhances Gameplay Realism and Depth
- This system encourages players to think like commanders-in-chief, managing the big picture while trusting their subordinates (divisional commanders) to handle local decisions.
- Players must carefully balance their Command Points (CP), prioritizing certain objectives while accepting risks elsewhere, just as historical commanders did when dealing with limited communication and resources.
- Limits Unrealistic Micromanagement
- Without this system, players might micromanage every unit on the battlefield, which would be unrealistic and overly time-consuming. The echelon system forces players to work within historical constraints, fostering more strategic decision-making.
- Example: A player issues an "Engage" Operational Order to a corps. Within that framework, divisional commanders can decide whether to focus on skirmishing or advancing cautiously, reducing the burden on the player to micromanage every detail.
- Creates Dynamic Challenges
- The interplay between Operational and Tactical Orders introduces an additional layer of strategy. Players must anticipate whether their Tactical Orders align with the overarching Operational Order and make adjustments as situations evolve.
- Example: A poorly timed "Retreat" Operational Order could lead to confusion among divisions still operating under conflicting Tactical Orders, simulating the chaos of war.
- Aligns with Historical Command Delays
- Orders in the Napoleonic era often faced delays due to distance, terrain, and communication challenges. By separating Operational and Tactical Orders and tying them to Command Points (CP) and command ranges, the system naturally simulates these delays.
- Example: A division out of range might delay executing a new order, forcing players to rely on their previous Tactical Orders until the new one arrives.
- Encourages Thoughtful Use of Units
- The limitations imposed by Operational Orders prevent reckless or unrealistic use of troops. Players are compelled to plan their moves in advance, as changing Operational Orders mid-turn can waste CP and disrupt cohesion.
- Example: An "Engage" order encourages skirmishing and probing attacks, but a sudden shift to "Attack" may leave units unprepared for a coordinated charge.
The echelon system of orders offers a historically grounded framework that balances strategic oversight with tactical flexibility.
- Reflects historical command structures and challenges.
- Encourages strategic planning and resource management.
- Prevents micromanagement, keeping gameplay engaging and realistic.
- Adds dynamic layers of decision-making and risk assessment.
- Simulates the delays and communication challenges of Napoleonic warfare.