Compulsory Bolster

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 9:53 pm

It should be compulsory for a general to attempt to bolster a BG he is with.

Seems cheesy otherwise

Centurion wrote: "Caesar, viri vitant equites. Sis usus duce praestantibus suscipit animos agmina tua"

"Ceasar, my men are afraid they are fighting horse and have broken formation. Please use your outstanding leadership to raise the morale of your troops and kill the enemy"

Ceasar wrote:"Fornicandum! Numidas equites inutilia. Armis et arte et gladium eorum frangis. Sto et vigilate"

"Feck off. They're only Numidian peasant horsemen, and your better skill, armour and swordsmanship will surely beat them whilst I stand quietely and watch"

Subtitles courtesy me. Latin courtesy some dead blokes.

Strategos69 · Post by **Strategos69** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:35 am

Actually yes (the historical quotations seem pretty convinving

), but would that it mean that you can't choose which BG to bolster in the Joint Action Phase? For example, you have been the whole turn with (but the general not involved in combat) a DISR BG that has been in combat (just for the +1 to CT) and then you decide to move in the JAP to another BG you think more necessary to bolster. Would it be forbiden? Does it happen that someone does not want to bolster a BG a general is with?

In the other hand, does it have any sense that a general can bolster some type of troops? For example, elephants and scythe charriots. I have a problem to imagine how a general could possibly get in the middle of these beasts fleeing or in disorder and convince them with his valorous example to stay. And the same for inspiring them in combat, unless he is also in an elephant, which could make some sense.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:47 am

Strategos69 wrote:Actually yes (the historical quotations seem pretty convinving ), but would that it mean that you can't choose which BG to bolster in the Joint Action Phase? For example, you have been the whole turn with (but the general not involved in combat) a DISR BG that has been in combat (just for the +1 to CT) and then you decide to move in the JAP to another BG you think more necessary to bolster. Would it be forbiden?

Generals move before bolster so they can move to any BG within range, then bolster it if they are with it.

Does it happen that someone does not want to bolster a BG a general is with?

Yes

In the other hand, does it have any sense that a general can bolster some type of troops? For example, elephants and scythe charriots. I have a problem to imagine how a general could possibly get in the middle of these beasts fleeing or in disorder and convince them with his valorous example to stay. And the same for inspiring them in combat, unless he is also in an elephant, which could make some sense.

If they are merely disrupted instead of allowing the 'drivers' to just give up on the situation the general would give them some encouragement, like "I kill your children and your childrens children". Stuff like that usually helps.

Strategos69 · Post by **Strategos69** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:56 am

If it does happen that some people do not want to bolster their own BG even if they can, then I agree it should be compulsory. I understood for a while you wanted to limit that movement, which could make some sense ("why Caesar you are leaving us just when we need you?"), but not really interesting in game terms.

In the other hand, does it have any sense that a general can bolster some type of troops? For example, elephants and scythe charriots. I have a problem to imagine how a general could possibly get in the middle of these beasts fleeing or in disorder and convince them with his valorous example to stay. And the same for inspiring them in combat, unless he is also in an elephant, which could make some sense.

If they are merely disrupted instead of allowing the 'drivers' to just give up on the situation the general would give them some encouragement, like "I kill your children and your childrens children". Stuff like that usually helps.[/quote]

I doubt he would be of any help in that situation or that he would be heard (but, ok). But when fleeing?

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:07 am

Strategos69 wrote:I doubt he would be of any help in that situation or that he would be heard (but, ok). But when fleeing?

It depends on what you consider the game scale. It is rare, because of the way elephant units are designed, that they can ever be rallied. Normally because they are reduced to 1 base its impossible. But if they get a long way from anything threatening them they may just start knocking down trees and chomping grass again (if 2 bases). They wouldn't be thinking about a pursuing army robbing the baggage or taking their women. So, if far enough away, the drivers might be encouraged to get back on. I would have to check the rules specifically on SCh as normally they are just removed. But there are rare moments when they can rout.

Strategos69 · Post by **Strategos69** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:41 am

Yes, both cases are really extreme and in fact it is a pitty that we barely see them routing and mostly autobreaking. If I recall it properly, for ScCh it is possible fleeing from shooting or seeing friends routing, isn´t it? Anyway, sorry for the off-topic.

shadowdragon · Post by **shadowdragon** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:14 pm

Strategos69 wrote:If it does happen that some people do not want to bolster their own BG even if they can, then I agree it should be compulsory. I understood for a while you wanted to limit that movement, which could make some sense ("why Caesar you are leaving us just when we need you?"), but not really interesting in game terms.

Usually those commanders that flee ...er, leave are the ones the troops are better off without...e.g., Darius.

DavidT · Post by **DavidT** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:31 pm

I don't believe that it should be compulsory.
FoG highlights certain key activities for generals which are represented in the game e.g bolstering troops. However, many activities of the generals are not directly represented as they are either too difficult to model, would add unnecessary complication or can be delat with abstractly.
In real life, a general has to appraise the situation, send orders to troops, get information from aides along with many other activities. While with a BG, it is possible that the general is just too busy trying to find out and decide what is happening on his left flank to spend time bolsetring his troops to get them back into line.
I must admit, it is probably not a frequsnt occurrence that it is more advantageous not to bolster your troops. But it should be optional.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:06 pm

If he is not bolstering because he may be too busy doing other stuff it should be a randm=om roll for him to be allowed to bolster anything. As he may be too busy to do it.

Strategos69 · Post by **Strategos69** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 4:05 pm

By the way, just as a curiosity, why people would not bolster a BG? The only thing that comes to mind is that he wants the BG to deviate the enemies, but in those cases I would not leave my general with them (actually, shadowdragon, I have played Darius in several ocassions and at least I am here to tell it

)

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 6:08 pm

philqw78 wrote:If he is not bolstering because he may be too busy doing other stuff it should be a random roll for him to be allowed to bolster anything. As he may be too busy to do it.

It may be that he is too busy watching Han Infantry slaughter some Xi Xia Light Horse who thought it might be fun to charge...

pezhetairoi · Post by **pezhetairoi** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 6:26 pm

He he,
I'd be tempted to add that if the commander leaves a fragmented group, they'd have to roll a CT.
"Darius ... come back ... er, wait for me!"

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 7:33 pm

dave_r wrote:
philqw78 wrote:If he is not bolstering because he may be too busy doing other stuff it should be a random roll for him to be allowed to bolster anything. As he may be too busy to do it.
It may be that he is too busy watching Han Infantry slaughter some Xi Xia Light Horse who thought it might be fun to charge...

Xi Xia LH that cannot break off because the Han MF are disrupted perchance?

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:07 pm

philqw78 wrote:
dave_r wrote:
philqw78 wrote:If he is not bolstering because he may be too busy doing other stuff it should be a random roll for him to be allowed to bolster anything. As he may be too busy to do it.
It may be that he is too busy watching Han Infantry slaughter some Xi Xia Light Horse who thought it might be fun to charge...
Xi Xia LH that cannot break off because the Han MF are disrupted perchance?

That's the one. Have any bearing on this thread did it?

shadowdragon · Post by **shadowdragon** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:07 pm

pezhetairoi wrote:He he,
I'd be tempted to add that if the commander leaves a fragmented group, they'd have to roll a CT.
"Darius ... come back ... er, wait for me!"

I was about to suggest the same thing. If a commander leaves a BG in the JAP of a turn in which it has lost cohesion, it takes another cohesion.

"Thinks aren't looking too good. What's the commander want us to do about it? Oh, hey! There he is on the horizon."

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:09 pm

shadowdragon wrote:
pezhetairoi wrote:He he,
I'd be tempted to add that if the commander leaves a fragmented group, they'd have to roll a CT.
"Darius ... come back ... er, wait for me!"
I was about to suggest the same thing. If a commander leaves a BG in the JAP of a turn in which it has lost cohesion, it takes another cohesion.

"Thinks aren't looking too good. What's the commander want us to do about it? Oh, hey! There he is on the horizon."

Or perhaps it would be more like

"Praise the lord that buffoon has gone. I am sure he would have made us do something stupid"

shadowdragon · Post by **shadowdragon** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:12 pm

dave_r wrote:
philqw78 wrote:
dave_r wrote: It may be that he is too busy watching Han Infantry slaughter some Xi Xia Light Horse who thought it might be fun to charge...
Xi Xia LH that cannot break off because the Han MF are disrupted perchance?
That's the one. Have any bearing on this thread did it?

Phil, Phil, Phil....that's pretty shameless - suggesting a rule change to protect you from your...er, ahem, cough...questionable decisions.

shadowdragon · Post by **shadowdragon** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:14 pm

philqw78 wrote:
dave_r wrote:
philqw78 wrote:If he is not bolstering because he may be too busy doing other stuff it should be a random roll for him to be allowed to bolster anything. As he may be too busy to do it.
It may be that he is too busy watching Han Infantry slaughter some Xi Xia Light Horse who thought it might be fun to charge...
Xi Xia LH that cannot break off because the Han MF are disrupted perchance?

I say let the Han boyz should be allowed to have their fun and not waste their time reorganizing themselves so that the LH have a chance to escape.

ShrubMiK · Post by **ShrubMiK** » Sat Jan 29, 2011 2:14 am

Here's another example scenario where you might choose not to attempt to bolster.

Your army needs to win in the centre quicker than the situation falls apart on the flanks. Being a top, top opponent, he immediately spots a slight mistake and punces ruthlessly. Your skirmishers in the centre are too far ahead of your advancing battle troops, and therefore his (better) skirmishers have a chance to catch yours if your VMD is bad. So he charges, inevitably your VMD is bad, your skirmishers get spanked from behind, go disrupted, and lose a base to boot.

Never mind, you think, I need this combat to be over quickly as possible now, even at the cost of the skirmisher BG, because I really need the battle troops to get their finger out and get stabbing things. So from that point of view it's going pretty well, with a bit of luck they'll double drop or lose another base in the melee round and we'll be laughing (4 base BG).

But sadly the fickle and contrary god of dice hears you, and they survive the melee round unscathed. That's a pain, it's now your turn and your HF line cannot make its full move, so there is a negative impact to your plans. Oh well, if it breaks this turn or during the opponents next turn, at least there'll be no further hold-up imposed.

But what's this? Your faithful sub-general, obvously in the pay of the devious enemy, decides that he will try to bolster the unit (don't even ask why the general has moved to join them!), and inevitably succeeds.

Much GRRRing! then ensues.

Strategos69 · Post by **Strategos69** » Sat Jan 29, 2011 10:52 am

Ok, I can see the case right now and it is very machiavelllic. So you want your troops to remain disrupted but with a general to avoid losing more cohesion and so that the uncatchable LH can be beaten in hand to hand. Shouldn't the foot be happy about watching the enemy breaking off? Should the LH have some additional penalty for breaking off? Maybe the breaking off could cause a CT to nearby units as a rout, but certainly seems a hard situation to fix.

In the other hand, regarding the skirmishers issue, shouldn't it be possible to ask you own troops to flee? We know that armies had signals for this kind of manouver. It could be something dealt with in the Joint Action Phase.