game 4

[shall]

I'm in agreement with Vincent. There is little or no evidence IMO that Alexander acted in the battlefield manager role in the way that the typical Roman general did - probably as much because it was not in the Greek tradition to do so (if we can sidestep the issue of whther Makedonians were Greek )

IMO cases of generals managing battles in the Roman model and also leading in the Greek model are like hens teeth when you actually look at what happened in large battles. Currently AoW seems to make all generals that exception rather than what was the norm.

I would also suggest that if you split generals more clearly between the Battlefield Manager and Combat Commander types (I changed the name here to avoid "heroic") it would present players with clear cut choices when picking armies and deploying the generals which may be interesting.

I must say I am puzzled by this, but also intrigued so keen to explore it a little more.....

If anything it is the Roman model that is different to the rest of the ancient world is it not? This is in part due to its oringins in sending Consuls out to lead armies, often for just a year IIRC. Are we not in danger of trying to build a logic based on Rome alone? In any case didn't many Roman leaders fight in he front-line at battles - lots of generals came home in body bags IIRC. If they had no effect on the battle its hard to see why they got stuck in.

I am happy with the concept that there are two types of skills - combat and command. In fact I think there are 2 - combat, command, charisma. What bothers me is the idea that they didn't co-exist. It seems logically implausible for that to be the case. This is true right through history from our period, through Napoleon, Patton, Eisenhower, Wellington, Cromwell, Rupert etc.

Everything I see about Alexander tells me has was a great deployer and commander of an army of 14 BGs, not just a combat leader. I am not sure I see the functinal distinction between Alexander and Scipio on this dimension for instance, unless we restrict Batllefield Manger to something called "Battlefeld manager in the style of some famous Romans" Similarly it would be hard to classify Alexanders command skills as no better than a typical barbarian warband leader. I fear it is too narrow a view of what a battlefield commander is therefore.

I like the generic split but it sems to me it is:
Battlefield Commander: a leader who is expert at commanding the manouvre of sizeable part of an army
Combat Commander : a leader whose can lead a charge effectively from the front-line

Speaking from an area I know well I can see samurai generals who were the first, some who were the second, and some who were both. More ideas would be great.

I have started a new Generals topic with these two to make it easier to find. I shall give it some though over he next few days. Nick could you suggest an overall scheme from your views with some Roman and non-Roman examples. ta

Si

[bddbrown]

Just to muddy the waters a little more, this is also a philosophical debate about game design. At the moment generals are fairly simple entities on the battlefield - they have a simple set of things they can do (albeit important mechanisms) and the simple classification system represents this. There has even been talk of representing them with flags rather than figures. On the other hand generals can be viewed as being the most interesting part of an army. GW games and many others have taken this too extremes and turned generals into heroic figures that have infinite variety, scope and complexity.

Having scanned through the posts so far has lead me to believe that improving the variety and all-round interest factor for generals would be a good thing - without taking it too far. I find it a little hard to reconcile Dailami being "Drilled, Armoured, Superior, Impact Foot, Swordsmen" and a general being simply "Inspired". So more scope for variety in classification of generals, even without historical justification, may very well lead to a better game that appeals to a wider audience.

Definitely something to talk over a glass of something at Usk into the wee hours of the morning.

[madaxeman]

One of the starting principles of AOW was to make much more of generals and make them feel as realistic as possible. In my mind we have:

• Steady = top shape BG
  Small Drop
  DISR = BG still a capable fighting unit at reduced effect
  Big Drop
  FRAG = BG is close to breaking and no longer and effective fighting BG
  Small Drop
  BROK = unit has given up and is running

So to me the top two level are generally OK and the bottom two generally lost. This is why I feel like I am pressing on when DISR but rescuing a problem when FRAG. This shae is delibrate as what we care about is really top shape/ a bit rattled/ almost gone/gone. Maybe some words on this are worthwhile.Cheers
Si

OK - to me you have
Steady = fine
DISR = significantly broken, would not fight with them unless forced to
FRAG = on the verge of broken, hard to fix from here
BROK = well f__ked, you need to be lucky to get them back

If troops start as Steady and decline to DISR, and Fragged is Fragged, DISR is a significant degredation from normal state. Unless some troops start as DISR (and it has another name) thats going to be the way its seen and read IMO.