FC Thought

[Rekila]

Personnally I am against restricting IC to historical brilliant generals, mainly because:

- The lack of FC in games is not because players can have IC's. Everybody would simply choose 4 TC's and FC's would still be only used for flank marchers.
- Reduces the competitiveness of some armies. IC's are very good against skirmisher armies and these armies are already high powered.
- The question of who is, or not a brilliant general, is very subjective, not to mention the numerous generals unknown to present day historians - for example what about the armies / periods that we hardly have material to make an army list, much less evaluate their generals.

So we are back to the beginning. The solution is to make FC more attractive, not restrict the use of IC. I think that FC should be the standard CinC, with IC being a rarity, but always a players choice.

[philqw78]

I like FCs and their value depends on the army make up you are using. They are great for flank marches, but also cover more than 3 times the area a TC does. If you don't want your generals fighting they are a better investment than 2 TC, and cheaper.

[shall]

Is that me or another Nick/Nik?

I suspect the Greek you are thinking of is Memnon of Rhodes who would probably have an argument for being an IC - although the fact he wan't too popular with the Persians for (rightly) suggesting a policy of devastating the land in front of Alexander probably took the edge off his effectiveness.

However, there are cases where a subordinate was clearly a better general than the C-in-C - Khalid in al-Walid is one that springs instantly to mind - and I guess that is the issue.

_________________
Nik Gaukroger

It was you, and that was he!!

So no reason for an sub to be worse than a C-in-C, but we need to get the IC/FC/TC balance more even.

Si

[nikgaukroger]

So no reason for an sub to be worse than a C-in-C, but we need to get the IC/FC/TC balance more even.

Si

Indeed - mainly that FCs need to be more generally worthwhile than they currently are.

[shall]

We are on the case .. but all ideas welcome.

S

[philqw78]

CinC: Extra +1 for Nominated CinC if attached to BG, for CT and CMT. Everyone gets one so there is no advantage to any player. (If drilled troops will need 8+ to CMT in V2 this will redress it back a little)

CinC lost counts as 2AP.

FC: +2 with 6MU range. or +1 with 12MU range if using the above CinC things.

[ethan]

So no reason for an sub to be worse than a C-in-C, but we need to get the IC/FC/TC balance more even.

Si

One consideration on the balance side is that FC subs already have a clear bonus and purpose in the game - flank marches. Where they don't do so well is being the CiC.

[lawrenceg]

So no reason for an sub to be worse than a C-in-C, but we need to get the IC/FC/TC balance more even.

Si

Indeed - mainly that FCs need to be more generally worthwhile than they currently are.

Well, an FC gives half the CT bonus of an IC and over a much smaller area, so as things stand they should cost less than half the points of an IC.

An IC gives double the bonus of a TC and over 9 times the area, for little more than double the cost. One IC is worth a lot more than 2 TCs, although this is mitigated by being able to affect only one BG in combat or bolstering. The bottom line is if you are going to spend points upgrading a general, you get better value by upgrading to IC than to FC (although it costs more).