Commanders: How Many?
Moderators: Slitherine Core, FoG PC Moderator, NewRoSoft
-
Blathergut
- Field Marshal - Elefant
- Posts: 5882
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:44 am
- Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
Commanders: How Many?
Lately I've been "experimenting" with the mid-Republican Romans, using only 1 troop commander. The points not used for commanders results in a veritable swarm of legionaries ranging from elite/superior - average - poor. Was just curious what the rest of you are doing commander-wise. I still seem to see lots of inspireds. Personally. I think I prefer the 10-15 extra units!!
-
TheGrayMouser
- Field Marshal - Me 410A
- Posts: 5001
- Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm
I think you are exagerating with 10-15 units! 
Adding one more average legion, doesnt necasarily cost 10 aps , it likly will cost 27 because (Ithink) for every 4 legions you are forced to buy another Triari and a velite
My own optimal Mid Rep's at 500 have 8 superior and 8 average legions (plus whatever velites and triari get added to that , 4 and 12 i believe)
I use a field leader and a troop leader and can still buy 4 cavalry, an elephant , a couple light cavalry and archers, as well as 4-5 medium troops....
I have tried experiamenting with taking protected legions and reducing the aux troops, ie less cavalry etc but because of the way mid's work w the triari and velites, it really only gives 3-4 more legions and your army is much less flexible.... i would nevr take poor legions, theyd be worse than mobs!
I think with Mid repubs 2 leaders are needed because you will be flanked no matter what and it is really beneficial to have those xtra rallies, esecialy when superior cavalry and cats are chewing up the HF impact legions....
Adding one more average legion, doesnt necasarily cost 10 aps , it likly will cost 27 because (Ithink) for every 4 legions you are forced to buy another Triari and a velite
My own optimal Mid Rep's at 500 have 8 superior and 8 average legions (plus whatever velites and triari get added to that , 4 and 12 i believe)
I use a field leader and a troop leader and can still buy 4 cavalry, an elephant , a couple light cavalry and archers, as well as 4-5 medium troops....
I have tried experiamenting with taking protected legions and reducing the aux troops, ie less cavalry etc but because of the way mid's work w the triari and velites, it really only gives 3-4 more legions and your army is much less flexible.... i would nevr take poor legions, theyd be worse than mobs!
I think with Mid repubs 2 leaders are needed because you will be flanked no matter what and it is really beneficial to have those xtra rallies, esecialy when superior cavalry and cats are chewing up the HF impact legions....
With a 500pt Mid-Republican Roman Army I always take 2 field commanders, and both of them I put as veteran triarii to go with my veteran legions. Using just one cmmander is chancing ruin despite any extra benefit of units, but having said that if you can make it work then thats great. There is a balance to strike with regards to how many commanders, but I suppose its personal preference really and different players will have different ideas.
As for quality, unless you are claiming to be fieldng Scipio Africanus, then the commanders should be either field or troop, as mostly the leadership was ordinary to abysmal.
If this helps at all here are ratings for some of the most well known of the Roman generals of the Punic Wars.
Scipio Africanus = Inspired
Marcellus, Fabius = Field or even Inspired on a very good day.
Flaminius, Paulus, P. Scipio, Nero = Field
Varro, Longus = Troop
As for quality, unless you are claiming to be fieldng Scipio Africanus, then the commanders should be either field or troop, as mostly the leadership was ordinary to abysmal.
If this helps at all here are ratings for some of the most well known of the Roman generals of the Punic Wars.
Scipio Africanus = Inspired
Marcellus, Fabius = Field or even Inspired on a very good day.
Flaminius, Paulus, P. Scipio, Nero = Field
Varro, Longus = Troop
Having just faced (and narrowly lost to) Blathersgut's one-general army, I can tell you he was able to field a vast number of Romans. It was a Roman spam army and it didn't seem to matter when his sole leader died under and elephant's foot.
I am rather skeptical though that it's a good idea as many of his legions were never engaged. They did up the BP count though, but a bunch of MF could've done that.
With the patch coming out with double moves only for units in command, I wouldn't recomend this style army.
Deeter
I am rather skeptical though that it's a good idea as many of his legions were never engaged. They did up the BP count though, but a bunch of MF could've done that.
With the patch coming out with double moves only for units in command, I wouldn't recomend this style army.
Deeter
-
grumblefish
- Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
- Posts: 459
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 5:46 pm
Four commanders whenever possible. The front line looks more impressive when it has a bunch of flags sticking up, and they increase the fighting ability of your units. I imagine having a longer line has its advantages, but I like it more when the little percentages are in my favour, and I just trample over the enemy line like it was nothing more than an ancient speed-bump.
-
arsan
- Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
- Posts: 153
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:22 am
- Location: Madrid (Spain)
Hi!
I like to use plenty of leaders too. Maybe its not the optimal setup, but seeing those "out of command" white hands makes me nervous
Before 1.2.6, on my 500 points Ptolemaic army i used 4 troop commanders. Two for the phalanx, in the center, one for the lancer cavalry and another for the MF thorikitai on the wings.
Since 1.2.6 and his anarchy spam come along i changed to 3 leaders. One inspired for the phalanx and two troops leaders for the wings, which now have changed from "all shock" crazy anarchist troops to a 50% non shock troops including some galatian cavalry and Thracians. They don't fight as well as the lancers and thorikita, but at least follow orders from time to time ;
It seems the Inspired leader bonus help reducing the anarchy charges of the phalanx quite a lot.
Cheers
I like to use plenty of leaders too. Maybe its not the optimal setup, but seeing those "out of command" white hands makes me nervous
Before 1.2.6, on my 500 points Ptolemaic army i used 4 troop commanders. Two for the phalanx, in the center, one for the lancer cavalry and another for the MF thorikitai on the wings.
Since 1.2.6 and his anarchy spam come along i changed to 3 leaders. One inspired for the phalanx and two troops leaders for the wings, which now have changed from "all shock" crazy anarchist troops to a 50% non shock troops including some galatian cavalry and Thracians. They don't fight as well as the lancers and thorikita, but at least follow orders from time to time ;
It seems the Inspired leader bonus help reducing the anarchy charges of the phalanx quite a lot.
Cheers
Last edited by arsan on Sun Jun 27, 2010 7:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Commanders... well, what do you want??? a solid battle line with only one flank with offensive mission or both flanks??? you are going to detach units to do a distraction with flank maneuver option open or only is a fake to attract enemy cavalry??? and of course, who is your enemy??? is a numbers army or a quality small bone???
With macedonian i like have 2 field commanders and 1 troop commander, try to deploy then covering all possible options, fight in a single line, break army in 2 parts with a 3rd working as flank guard, options to launch a surprise cavalry charge... options are infinite because is strange that after start the game your initial plan dont change and here have a good selection of leaders can help to start one or other plan.
PD: for me is more important who have the leader, not allways have them in superior units is a good idea, you can use leaders as bonus for average units
With macedonian i like have 2 field commanders and 1 troop commander, try to deploy then covering all possible options, fight in a single line, break army in 2 parts with a 3rd working as flank guard, options to launch a surprise cavalry charge... options are infinite because is strange that after start the game your initial plan dont change and here have a good selection of leaders can help to start one or other plan.
PD: for me is more important who have the leader, not allways have them in superior units is a good idea, you can use leaders as bonus for average units
-
TheGrayMouser
- Field Marshal - Me 410A
- Posts: 5001
- Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm
Scutarii wrote:Commanders... well, what do you want??? a solid battle line with only one flank with offensive mission or both flanks??? you are going to detach units to do a distraction with flank maneuver option open or only is a fake to attract enemy cavalry??? and of course, who is your enemy??? is a numbers army or a quality small bone???
With macedonian i like have 2 field commanders and 1 troop commander, try to deploy then covering all possible options, fight in a single line, break army in 2 parts with a 3rd working as flank guard, options to launch a surprise cavalry charge... options are infinite because is strange that after start the game your initial plan dont change and here have a good selection of leaders can help to start one or other plan.
PD: for me is more important who have the leader, not allways have them in superior units is a good idea, you can use leaders as bonus for average units
I agree, and had actually started a thread about choices of leaders ie why are some lists extremely limited in which units can be leaders and others not?
-
deadtorius
- Field Marshal - Me 410A
- Posts: 5286
- Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:41 am
I usually field 2 at least, more if its a really big army. I have found my inspired leadership does nothing to stop the anarchy as I have seen units 2 hexes away go off on a silly charge followed by their deaths shortly after, so nut sure what all the points for inspired are going to. Only Alexander in the historical scenarios seems to be the miracle rallier, but he is too likely to anarchy himself
-
arsan
- Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
- Posts: 153
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:22 am
- Location: Madrid (Spain)
According to the rules, which i can't be sure are truly applied in the game (it wouldn't be the first time...deadtorius wrote:I usually field 2 at least, more if its a really big army. I have found my inspired leadership does nothing to stop the anarchy as I have seen units 2 hexes away go off on a silly charge followed by their deaths shortly after, so nut sure what all the points for inspired are going to. Only Alexander in the historical scenarios seems to be the miracle rallier, but he is too likely to anarchy himself
)IC gives a +2 on the Anarchy tests of units in their command range. Other commanders give just a +1.
http://www.hexwar.com/field-of-glory/he ... tests.aspx
The same happens with rallys
http://www.hexwar.com/field-of-glory/he ... tests.aspx
It helps, but of course it's just a bonus on a roll, not the perfect solution for rally and anarchy
-
Blathergut
- Field Marshal - Elefant
- Posts: 5882
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:44 am
- Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
-
Blathergut
- Field Marshal - Elefant
- Posts: 5882
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:44 am
- Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
-
TheGrayMouser
- Field Marshal - Me 410A
- Posts: 5001
- Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm
Be carefull, the last player that started keeping a tally of his wins with a specific army(Swiss) just disappearedBlathergut wrote:Well, so far, the 600pt army is running 10 wins out of 10 battles...unheard of for this inept commander!
I never played pantherboy in LW. How did he run his Illyrians? With commanders?
I've been thinking a bit about the benefits from commanders and dug up this old thread.
I'm not talking about command and control and if that should be reworked in some way. I'm thinking of the advantages commanders are supposed to add to BG:s when they are fighting, first and foremost with cohesion tests but also rallies.
I've noticed from time to time that I don't really see much help from commanders in either case unless the BG is adjacent to him.
A recent game brought these thoughts back. My opponent had one lone troop commander that were on the extreme flank of his battleline and had influence over two or maybe three BG:s the short time it took them to finish off my army (a hint on who my opponent was
).
I also had one commander. Inspired and he had maybe a little less then a third of my troops under his command. In two turns of impact and melee fighting I estimate that my BG:s suffered 15-20 cohesion hits against 5-6 of his. One turn I inflicted one (1) cohesion hit and received at least ten (10).
Not all but a large part of the fighting were on an even basis i.e. fifty-fifty odds.
One battle is of no statistic value, of course but as I wrote in the beginning it's not the first time I notice this.I wonder if others have the same observations?
Units that have the general next to them do better in cohesion tests, that's my conclusion but further away than that I see no difference. Could a change be done so it was just as good to be anywhere within command range? It would certainly make commanders more of an option. I've used one lone IC commander in most of my game for a long time but perhaps it's time to change to only a troop one
I'm not talking about command and control and if that should be reworked in some way. I'm thinking of the advantages commanders are supposed to add to BG:s when they are fighting, first and foremost with cohesion tests but also rallies.
I've noticed from time to time that I don't really see much help from commanders in either case unless the BG is adjacent to him.
A recent game brought these thoughts back. My opponent had one lone troop commander that were on the extreme flank of his battleline and had influence over two or maybe three BG:s the short time it took them to finish off my army (a hint on who my opponent was
).I also had one commander. Inspired and he had maybe a little less then a third of my troops under his command. In two turns of impact and melee fighting I estimate that my BG:s suffered 15-20 cohesion hits against 5-6 of his. One turn I inflicted one (1) cohesion hit and received at least ten (10).
Not all but a large part of the fighting were on an even basis i.e. fifty-fifty odds.
One battle is of no statistic value, of course but as I wrote in the beginning it's not the first time I notice this.I wonder if others have the same observations?
Units that have the general next to them do better in cohesion tests, that's my conclusion but further away than that I see no difference. Could a change be done so it was just as good to be anywhere within command range? It would certainly make commanders more of an option. I've used one lone IC commander in most of my game for a long time but perhaps it's time to change to only a troop one
A game I just won in LOEG (One of the rare ones). On the first turn of contact I lost most of the dice rolls. (He rolled a lot of 6's) Then on the next few turns I won more than I lost. So it evened out. Over the course of many games, the numbers will even out. When I was playing table top miniatures, after a string of bad rolls a player who shall remain nameless always through his dice to the other end of the room. (The local wargame store did a banner year in dice sales primarily because of him) We gave him a xmas present that year of a wooden plaque with 4 or 5 dice embeded in it.
We usually remember when we get a particularly good or bad string of rolls at a critical time.
We usually remember when we get a particularly good or bad string of rolls at a critical time.
I guess the crux of what I'm trying to say is that I think I observe a clear difference in stability when a BG is next to a commander but not when further away but still within command radius compared to being out of command.
It evens out yes, but the point is that it shouldn't if you compared number of cohesion hits within command with hits out of command.
At least that's how I think it is or wish it should be...
It evens out yes, but the point is that it shouldn't if you compared number of cohesion hits within command with hits out of command.
At least that's how I think it is or wish it should be...
-
ianiow
- Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
- Posts: 1219
- Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:24 am
- Location: Isle of Wight, UK
In one of my LOEG games I seemed to be losing every match up I was in. So I decided to write down the hits in the next few battles just for the hell of it.
Me:Him 1:12, 2:5, 1:7, 1:12, 1:2, 1:10 18:1 (I hit him in the back!), 1:12, 1:7, 1:7. at this point the turn ended.
Now some of these match ups I was at a disadvantaged, but at least three or four of them I had 70-95% chance of winning. I've never beaten this particular opponent (mainly due to being thoroughly out manuvered!) But with luck like this I am never going to beat him! lol
I think we should petition the dev's for a visible Dice rolling graphic again. There is nothing a grognard likes more than watching the dice roll and moaning about his luck!
EDIT sorry for going off on a tangent. I agree with Hidde, leaders dont appear to have much influence on a battle unless they are adjacent.
Me:Him 1:12, 2:5, 1:7, 1:12, 1:2, 1:10 18:1 (I hit him in the back!), 1:12, 1:7, 1:7. at this point the turn ended.
Now some of these match ups I was at a disadvantaged, but at least three or four of them I had 70-95% chance of winning. I've never beaten this particular opponent (mainly due to being thoroughly out manuvered!) But with luck like this I am never going to beat him! lol
I think we should petition the dev's for a visible Dice rolling graphic again. There is nothing a grognard likes more than watching the dice roll and moaning about his luck!
EDIT sorry for going off on a tangent. I agree with Hidde, leaders dont appear to have much influence on a battle unless they are adjacent.