Charging tanks, the sharp crackle of machine-gun fire, and determined infantry assaults. These are indeed the visceral, dramatic elements of battle. Yet, underpinning all this action, often unseen but utterly critical, was the intricate web of command and control (C&C). How did leaders effectively disseminate their orders? How did disparate units coordinate their efforts? And what were the consequences when communications inevitably failed, or when vital leaders were lost in the fray?
For the WWII wargamer, grappling with how different rulesets attempt to simulate these command challenges is fundamental. It’s not merely about winning games through superior die-rolling; it’s about learning to orchestrate your forces under immense pressure, to contend with the inherent “friction” of war, and to make difficult decisions when plans invariably unravel.
Commanding troops in wargaming
Commanding troops in a WWII battle was a profoundly difficult task, fraught with inherent uncertainties. Communication, for instance, was a constant hurdle. While radios were increasingly common, their reliability, particularly at lower echelons or for certain nations earlier in the war, was far from guaranteed. Soldiers often still relied on runners, signal flares, hand signals, and even shouted orders amidst the din of combat – methods that were slow, easily misinterpreted, or perilous for the messenger. Compounding this was the pervasive “fog of war,” where commanders seldom possessed a complete or accurate picture of the battlefield. Enemy positions might be shrouded in mystery, friendly units could lose contact, and the overall situation could shift with alarming speed.
Different armies also approached command with varying philosophies. The German Auftragstaktik, or mission-type tactics, famously emphasized empowering junior leaders to understand the broader intent and act with initiative, even if specific orders couldn’t be given. Other nations might have employed more centralized or rigid command structures, especially at certain junctures of the war. Furthermore, the very presence, or absence, of capable NCOs and officers under fire could determine whether a unit held its ground or disintegrated. And crucially, units suppressed by enemy fire weren’t merely taking cover; their capacity to receive and execute orders was drastically impaired by fear and combat stress, directly impacting the command chain.
Tabletop wargames ingeniously employ a variety of mechanics to represent these command challenges. Often, leader figures – Sergeants, Lieutenants, Captains, and so on – are central to this. They might be required to “activate” nearby units, perhaps by being within a certain command radius, for those units to perform actions effectively. Units too far from a leader could find themselves unable to act, performing with penalties, or limited in their choices. These leaders frequently provide morale bonuses, reflecting their reassuring presence and making nearby troops less likely to break or become pinned. Some rules even grant specific leaders unique abilities, such as allowing re-rolls for crucial tests or inspiring units in particular ways.
Chain of Command offers nuanced, but not too complex C&C system
Beyond individual leaders, many games feature sophisticated order systems. A popular approach involves order dice or chits, where a token for each unit is drawn randomly from a bag to determine activation sequence, as seen in systems like Bolt Action. This introduces an element of battlefield chaos, as players can’t always activate units precisely when desired. Other games utilize a resource pool, such as command points or pips generated at the start of a turn, like the Command Dice in Chain of Command. These resources dictate how many units can be activated or what special actions, like calling in artillery or deploying hidden units, can be undertaken, forcing players to manage their command efforts carefully. Often, units may need to pass an action test, frequently based on their morale or a leader’s skill, to perform complex maneuvers, especially if under fire or distant from command.
The very sequence in which units act can also model command flow. Alternating activations, where players take turns activating a single unit, create a dynamic back-and-forth. Older or larger-scale games might employ an “I Go, You Go” structure, perhaps with a distinct command phase for issuing orders, which emphasizes pre-planning.
Wargames also strive to simulate communication breakdown. This can be as straightforward as requiring units to pass a dice roll to successfully receive or act upon an order, with modifiers for distance or suppression. More detailed rules might include specific mechanics for radios, considering their range and reliability. Crucially, the common “pinned” or “suppressed” status inflicted by enemy fire directly impacts command, as units under such pressure are often unable to follow new orders beyond seeking cover or retreating.
In contrast, Bolt Action offers more casual and simpler approach to C&C
Finally, rules often attempt to capture the distinct national doctrines and leadership styles of WWII. The German emphasis on Auftragstaktik might be reflected by giving NCOs greater autonomy or initiative bonuses. Soviet forces, particularly in the early to mid-war, might feature Commissars whose rules impact unit cohesion and aggression. US forces could benefit from better radio communication at lower levels, facilitating fire support, while British rules might focus on the specific command structure of their platoons and companies.
Incorporating good command and control mechanics adds significant depth to any WWII wargame. They introduce “friction” and uncertainty, reflecting the reality that plans rarely survive contact with the enemy. Your star tank might fail its activation at a key moment, or an infantry squad might become pinned just as it needs to assault. This inherent unpredictability makes for more memorable and engaging games. These systems also create meaningful choices for the player. Decisions about where to place a Lieutenant for maximum effect, or whether to spend precious command resources on activating another squad versus calling in supporting fire, become critical. Leaders themselves transform from mere combatants into valuable assets whose protection, and the targeting of whose enemy counterparts, becomes a genuine tactical consideration. Their loss can send disruptive ripples through a force.
Furthermore, C&C rules are instrumental in providing historical flavour, differentiating armies beyond their weapon statistics and making a German force feel distinct from a Soviet or American one by reflecting their operational doctrines. All these elements – the struggle to enact your will, the heroics of a leader rallying their troops, the chaos of broken communications – contribute to a richer, more compelling narrative unfolding on the tabletop.
Some more granular rulesets delve even deeper into the complexities of command. For instance, games depicting larger engagements might require players to issue written orders for units or formations, thereby limiting their flexibility once the action commences. The “fog of war” can be represented more directly through hidden movement or “blip” systems, where the exact nature of an enemy marker remains unknown until spotted, compelling cautious advances and reconnaissance that are themselves driven by command decisions. Other systems might implement a detailed chain of command, stipulating that a platoon commander can only issue orders to his NCOs, who in turn activate their respective squads, creating a more hierarchical, and potentially slower, command flow.
In conclusion, Command and Control is the invisible nervous system of any WWII army, both on the historical battlefield and on your wargames table. While the specifics vary greatly between rulesets, the best C&C systems achieve a balance: they introduce historical challenges and meaningful decisions without bogging the game down in excessive bookkeeping.
So, next time you set up your Sherman tanks or deploy your Panzergrenadiers, take a moment to consider your leaders. How will you use them? How will you maintain cohesion and ensure your plan can adapt when contact is made? Understanding and mastering the command elements of your chosen wargame won’t just make you a better general of lead (or plastic) soldiers; it will deepen your appreciation for the immense challenges faced by those who led in World War II. It truly helps bring order to the inherent chaos of battle.
