What makes Chain of Command so special - Part Four

The last of the articles discussing why I consider CoC such a special set of rules. The previous articles can be found here.

Part One - Scale and the empty battlefield

Part Two - Friction, Chaos, Command dice and Chain of Command points

Part Three - Historically based

Thematic rather than competitive? 

While players obviously compete against one another when playing CoC, the rules are designed less around creating a perfectly balanced contest and more around recreating the uncertainty, confusion, and character of small-unit warfare. As I mentioned in Part Two players do not have complete control over their forces each turn. The Command Dice and Chain of Command mechanics ensure an element of uncertainty, meaning that a player cannot simply execute an ideal plan whenever they wish. Units may be unable to act as expected, while opportunities can suddenly appear—or disappear. This creates the "friction" as previously discussed and encourages players to react to events rather than simply follow a predetermined strategy. As discussed in Part Three opposing platoons are not necessarily symmetrical, and scenarios can deliberately give one side advantages in numbers, deployment, terrain, or objectives. This reflects the historical reality that battles were rarely fought between perfectly matched forces. 

In a strongly competitive game, players generally expect symmetrical conditions and carefully controlled variables so that victory can be attributed primarily to skill and knowledge of the rules. Asymmetry and uncertainty are core concepts within CoC because these elements contribute to its simulation of warfare. Historical scenarios may even produce situations where one side is clearly in a difficult position—and that can be entirely appropriate if the purpose is to explore how that situation might unfold. These situations can of course on occasion be frustrating as a player, but perhaps that is part of the challenge of the game.

However CoC is competitive in the literal sense that two players are trying to beat each other, but its design philosophy can be considered thematic more so than competitive. Its emphasis on friction, asymmetrical forces, historical circumstances, and campaign play encourages players to experience a battle as a developing story rather than as a perfectly balanced test of competitive skill.

The result is a game in which the most satisfying outcome is not necessarily a decisive victory, but the stories that emerges from the battle: the squad that held on against impossible odds, the Leader who made a crucial die roll at the right moment, or the unit who somehow survived to fight another day. In that sense, Chain of Command is less about proving who is the better player and more about enjoying the narrative of two small units pitted against each other. I can play and lose and it does not matter because I had fun.

                                                             

Lends itself to a high aesthetic

The small scale of the CoC battlefield, in terms of both table size and the number of units in play means that there is no requirement to paint hundreds of figures or vehicles in order to play. This means time and effort can be spent on battlefield terrain and scenery alongside the required figures and vehicles. In my opinion the look of a CoC game, particular in 15mm, is primarily driven by the look of the terrain so it makes sense for buildings and terrain elements to be completed to a similar standard as figures and vehicles.

The games ground scale and 1:1 representation of figures and vehicles means there is no need to abstract or reduce the scale of terrain elements and the games emphasis on friction, uncertainty, and the tactical importance of terrain means that the table is not simply a playing surface: it becomes an essential part of the game. This creates a strong incentive to build terrain that is not merely functional, but visually convincing. A beautifully modelled farmstead or carefully landscaped hedgerow can have genuine tactical significance, rather than existing purely as decoration. The result is a table that can resemble a small section of a real landscape.

I would also argue that the game's mechanics encourage scenery to be believable. Since troops in game depend heavily on cover and concealment, terrain should make visual sense. Dense vegetation ought to obscure movement; substantial walls ought to provide protection; buildings should feel like places troops could realistically occupy. Good modelling therefore supports both immersion and gameplay. The battlefield can be aesthetically ambitious without becoming disconnected from the game.

A high-aesthetic Chain of Command table is therefore not simply a beautiful backdrop—it is a visual expression of the game's central idea: that terrain, uncertainty and human decisions combine to create the battle.

In recent years some absolutely stunning CoC tables have been seen at wargaming events. Joe Bilton is perhaps the foremost exponent of this and he has generously allowed me to use some of his photos of recent award winning tables. 

Inspirational stuff indeed.