From Doctrine to Dice: The “Two Levels Down” Principle

My mate Roland and I often talk about a specific principle of military command, where a commander focuses on units one or two levels down the hierarchy — no further. I wanted to use this to justify the scale of Wombat Gun, my Crossfire variant for the Vietnam War, so I went looking for its origins. In Wombat Gun, players take the role of company commanders. The “two levels down” principle is why the game tracks platoons and squads — not fire teams, not individual soldiers. Player authority is meant to mirror real-world command practice. But where did this principle come from?

---

Military unit hierarchy

The concept starts with the military unit hierarchy. The military unit hierarchy structures forces from the individual man, through the smallest unit, the fire team, and increasingly larger formations like the squad/section, platoons, companies/troops/batteries, battalions, brigades/regiments, and divisions, culminating in large formations such as corps or armies. At each level, units are led by officers of appropriate rank, such as a sergeant leading a squad or a captain commanding a company, with command and administration functions scaling up with the unit size.

A typical hierarchy (Largest to Smallest):

Unit	Description
Army / Field Army	The largest combined military force, formed from corps, led by a general.
Corps	A large formation composed of several divisions, commanded by a lieutenant general.
Division	A major fighting unit formed from multiple regiments or brigades, often commanded by a major general.
Regiment or Brigade	A larger formation made up of several battalions. In some contexts, such as the British Army, a regiment may have sub-units equivalent to companies, like squadrons for cavalry or troops for artillery.
Battalion	Formed from several companies and commanded by a lieutenant colonel.
Company	Made up of multiple platoons, led by a captain or major. The company level is often the lowest where administrative functions are introduced.
Platoon	Composed of several squads (e.g., three) and commanded by a lieutenant.
Squad / Section	Consisting of 7-14 men organised into two or three fire teams, and led by a sergeant.
Fire team	The smallest unit, consisting of a few soldiers (e.g., 4-7).
Individual Soldier	Single combatant; the basic element of all units.

---

Basis of “Two Levels Down” Principle

I found three military theories/practices supporting the “Two Levels Down”:

1. Mission‑type tactics (Auftragstaktik) commanders focus on communicating clear intent and desired effects—not detailed instructions—to the two levels down while empowering subordinate leaders to execute through initiative and flexibility.
2. Command by Negation lets commanders two levels down act freely unless explicitly overridden—empowering lower echelons while the senior stays strategic.
3. Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield (IPB) ensures situational awareness and coherence two levels down in planning, without burdening higher command with minute details.

1. Mission Command / Mission-Type Tactics

Mission-Type Tactics (Auftragstaktik), known as mission command in NATO and other modern doctrines, is the military principle where a commander cares about how two levels down understand and act upon his intent — while not mandating direct, detailed control (for a company commander, that means focusing on platoons and squads). It focuses on empowering subordinates, articulating clear intent, and trusting them to execute, all grounded in decentralised initiative and centralised planning. This fosters speed, adaptability, and empowerment within established intent constraints.

In Mission‑type tactics, the senior commander defines the objective, the reason for the mission, and any constraints, then entrusts subordinates to plan and act autonomously to achieve it.

This approach has its roots in Truppenführung, a Prussian military theory that emphasised giving subordinate commanders the freedom to act within the broad intent of their senior leadership — a method designed to cope with uncertainty and fast – changing situations.

The broader doctrine of Mission Command includes seven principles such as mutual trust, shared understanding, commander’s intent, disciplined initiative, and risk acceptance

This practice:

• Ensures subordinate commanders not only know what needs to be done and why, but also are entrusted with how to achieve it within that intent.
• Prevents micromanagement, enabling agile responses while preserving overall unity of effort.
• Enables a subordinate, should the need arise, to operate two levels above his appointment; for example, a platoon commander is expected to be capable of operating at the level of a battalion.

2. Command by Negation

Command by Negation is a well-established doctrine in the U.S. Navy. It allows subordinate commanders to act on their own initiative unless explicitly countermanded by a higher authority. Subordinate commanders conduct operations independently, reporting their plans along the lines of “UNODIR” (unless otherwise directed). The superior doesn’t need to micromanage — only intervening when there’s cause for objection. This structure allows command to focus on high-level strategy and frees up senior officers from overseeing every detail, while lower tiers (e.g. two levels down) retain significant autonomy.

3. Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield (IPB)

Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield (IPB) is a planning doctrine used in U.S. Army operations. IPB instructs commanders to analyse and anticipate objectives down to two subordinate levels. Intelligence staff begin at least one level above their own command and work their way down to two levels below. This ensures alignment of ends, ways, and means across multiple echelons—supporting both coordination and decentralised execution. While not a command authority doctrine per se, it embeds visibility and understanding at those two levels down, without requiring awareness or control beyond that.

---

Two Levels Down for a Company Commander

Using the “two levels down” principle, a Company Commander would be concerned about platoons and squads/sections, but not fireteams or the individual men.

Summary using a Company Commander example

1. Mission Command / Mission-Type Tactics (Auftragstaktik): The Company Commander makes sure intent and desired effects are understood two levels down — all the way to Squad Commanders — without directing every move. Company Commander briefs Platoon Commanders on mission and “why”; Platoon Commanders transmit that understanding to Squad Commanders, who act with initiative as situations change. This ensures agility at the lowest practical level while keeping unity of effort.

2. Command by Negation: Subordinates (down to Squads) may act autonomously unless the Company Commander explicitly overrides (UNODIR: “unless otherwise directed”).A Squad Commander seizes an opportunity and engages without prior approval; the Company Commander intervenes only if it conflicts with the broader plan. Preserves subordinate freedom while keeping the commander focused on the bigger tactical picture.

3. Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield (IPB): Planning and situational awareness deliberately extend two levels down (to Squads) to anticipate needs and align resources. Company-level IPB maps terrain, enemy, and likely actions at squad resolution so Squad Commanders can act in harmony with company intent. Coherence between company, platoon, and squad actions without micromanagement.

Using these practices, the Company Commander stays informed about, shapes, and influences actions at the Squad level (two levels down) but avoids managing individual soldiers or fire teams directly. This preserves initiative, reduces micromanagement, and keeps attention at the right tactical level.

---

Two Levels Down in Wargame Design

Why use it? Adhering to “two levels down” aligns player authority with real-world command practice: a player acting as Company Commander focuses on platoons and squads/sections, not fire teams or individual soldiers. This sharpens decisions, speeds play, and preserves historical feel.

Design Litmus Test
If a proposed rule requires tracking below squad level, abstract it into a squad modifier/state or lift it to platoon/company decision. Keep the player’s eyes two levels down—and the game will play like a commander’s fight.
Advantages for Designers

• Focused scale & scope: Rules target the company fight; no bloat from modelling fire teams or individual men.
• Clear decision space: Player choices live at platoon/squad level (tasking, timings, axes), not micro-placements.
• Cleaner abstractions: Morale, command & control, and logistics written for squads and platoons; bookkeeping stays bounded.
• Historical credibility: Mirrors commanders shaping two echelons down, boosting authenticity of outcomes.
• Rule economy: Fewer exception cases — movement, fire, and rally all reference the same unit granularity (squads).
• Integrated mechanics: Morale tracked at squad level with platoon cohesion modifiers; spotting resolved at squad granularity; fire & movement handled without per-fire-team states.
• Streamlined support: Support weapons attach to platoons or company HQ; casualties tracked at squad state with consolidation during rally.
• Scenario alignment: Objectives framed at company level; victory points awarded for squad-level effects; time pressure built in via short turn clocks and limited enablers.

Advantages for Players

• Reduced cognitive load: Track squads and platoons, not every fire team, not every man; more thinking, less bookkeeping.
• Faster turns: Fewer activations and dice rolls keeps tempo high and friction palpable.
• Stronger narrative: Plans, intent, and timing matter; platoons coordinate, squads execute.
• Role immersion: Players think like a company commander, balancing intent vs. opportunity without micromanage.
• Clear victory focus: Success measured through squad-level performance and company objectives, not granular kill counts.

---

References

Canadian Army. (2021, 15 October 15). Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield (IPB) – Glossary of terms

de Angelis, K. and Garfield, J. (2016, October). Give Commanders the Authority. Proceedings: US Naval Institute, 142/10/1, 364. U.S. Navy.

Herrera, R. A. (2022, July-August). History, Mission Command, and the Auftragstaktik Infatuation. Military Review: Professional Journal of the U.S. Army, 1922-2025.

US Army. (1994, 8 July). Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield. Field Manual 34-130. Author.

US Army. (2019, March). ATP 2-01.3 Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield. Army Techniques Publication No. 2-01.3. Author.

US Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS). (2018, 8 June). JP 3-32 Joint Maritime Operations, Incorporating Change 1. Joint Publication 3-32.

Wikipedia: Command by negation
Wikipedia: Mission command
Wikipedia: Mission-type tactics