Inspired Commanders

[hammy]

limit inspried commanders to only armies where we know the name of and specific examples

We don't need to know the name of the general. In the Sea peoples example a 'nomadic' people moved themselves into position where they held the strategic upper hand and destroyed a number of 'Great' civilisations

Well in DBMM I don't believe that Sea People get a brilliant general for the reason I cited. I don't see any reason why they (or almost any other army for that matter) should not at least have the option.

[plewis66]

limit inspried commanders to only armies where we know the name of and specific examples

We don't need to know the name of the general. In the Sea peoples example a 'nomadic' people moved themselves into position where they held the strategic upper hand and destroyed a number of 'Great' civilisations

Isn't that exactly the point that Hammy is making? that just because we don't know the names of thbose generals, it doesn't mean there were none of the caliber of Alexander? and therefor, we shouldn't 'limit inspried commanders to only armies where we know the name of and specific examples', which icf you read that quote in context, is what Hammy is saying should NOT be done. not what should be done, as you seem to have misunderstood.

[philqw78]

We shall agree to disagree. And it would all depend upon your definition of an inspired commander and what advantages they get out of being an IC from the rules. Another example, a more famous one for the Anglos amongst us.

William the Conqueror certainly didn't choose his battlefield and was at a severe disadvantage at the start of Hastings. Harold had just destroyed one invading army and got himself into a very advantageous position against the Normans. William won. Should either be considered inspired?

[philqw78]

we shouldn't 'limit inspried commanders to only armies where we know the name of and specific examples',

We shouldn't have to know the name of the general just their performance, thats what I meant using the example of the Sea Peoples.

[ars_belli]

William the Conqueror certainly didn't choose his battlefield and was at a severe disadvantage at the start of Hastings. Harold had just destroyed one invading army and got himself into a very advantageous position against the Normans. William won. Should either be considered inspired?

From earlier quotes, it would appear that for AoW, the answer actually depends on whether you are playing in a tournament competition or refighting an historical scenario. As has often been pointed out in the past, the two are really very different.

For example, if I am attempting to recreate the Battle of Hastings (1066) in miniature, then I would examine historical accounts and analyses, to see if an IC rating accurately represents the degree of control that William and/or Harold exercised over their respective armies in that particular battle. On the other hand, if the Normans and Saxons are engaged in an 'equal points' tournament competition, then there would always be the option of rating William or Harold (or both) as an IC, as long as the players are willing to expend the extra points to do so. IMHO neither would qualify for 'mandatory' IC status.

Cheers,
Scott K.

[SMK-at-work]

The point I was trying to make is that unlike another set of rules which has different qualities of commanders but only allows anything other than an average commander to armies where there is sufficient evidence to convince the rules author, Art of War works on the basis that just because we don't have evidence of a nation having a commander who was particularly effective they shouldn't be prohibited from doing so.

"That other set of rules" has no rules about whether you can/have to/cannot buy different quality commanders. It lists those the author considers particularly brilliant or inept, but there's nothing at all to stop you spending or saving the points on anyone else too. It is expected that army lists and competition organisers will decide how they want it done.

[spikemesq]

I must say that I like the idea of making inspiration generally available for purchase but not mandatory. It seems to me that compulsory ICs might be restricted to armies that want to bring a particular troop that is associated with that personality.

Thus, almost all armies could upgrade their CinC to inspired. If you want to bring Hannibal's veterans, however, you must purchase the IC (i.e., Hannibal). I recall many places in the DBM army-lists where the availability of certain troops or their min/max numbers hinge specifically on the personality of the CinC. These strike me as the situations where compulsary ICs make the most sense. Conversely, the lists might permit a player to eschew certain troops or limits only if the CinC is NOT IC.

Spike

[shall]

philqw78 wrote:
William the Conqueror certainly didn't choose his battlefield and was at a severe disadvantage at the start of Hastings. Harold had just destroyed one invading army and got himself into a very advantageous position against the Normans. William won. Should either be considered inspired?

This is indeed is a bit the nub of the issue and our answer is...yes ........ or no ....

You could consider William a Inspired Commander but on the other hand you might actually regard Harold exploits in the run up to the Battle of Hastings much more in keeping with such leadership, and his deployment and control of his troops rather excellent. Was he an unlucky Inspired Commander who got hit in the eye? The battle was perhaps lost by then due to his shieldwall pursuing apparently feeling Normans....so was William a genius for getting his mounted troops to draw the Saxons from the hill...or.....

There was a theory going around that Parmenio was actually rather more impresive than Alexander and that jealousy was a big reason for his demise....When we read history it is easy to draw a view, but hard to be 100% sure. Even well documented history - e.g. WW2 - leaves much debate in such matters. I view Rommel as a military genuis but others might argue he was reckless and lucky....Montgomery a strategic genius or a laggard....

So our approach is to leave such matters in the land of debate and for the players to decide what they feel is representative rather than enforce an authors view of the world. If you are refighting historical games then form a view of how to classify the generals that fits with your beliefs on the history. If fighting a one-off tabletop game we have kept the option for all armies to have an IC as a general, or not. When we do our campaign supplement there will be a system for how generals develop in calibre over time...if they live long enough and do well enough.

This seems both fair in not trying to over-state our understanding of ancient history, and makes for more fun as you can play armies with different leadership set ups.

As an example, we refought Granikos using the rules. We had Alexander as and IC and Parmenio as an FC. We had the Persians led by a TC but with and FC for Memnon - the professional Greek Mercenary who was with the Persians at the battle. This was because it seemed the Geek had raher more nouse than the Persian king and seemed to take charge whn things got a bit messy. The resulting categorisation gave a very good flavour that fit with our understanding of the battle. But we wouldn't want to prohibit those who felt - from their reading - that it should have been Alexander as an FC, Parmenio as an IC, the Persian King as a FC and the Greek Mercenary as a TC.

Oh and Alexander won the game.....

Hope that ramble helps.

Simon

[hammy]

"That other set of rules" has no rules about whether you can/have to/cannot buy different quality commanders. It lists those the author considers particularly brilliant or inept, but there's nothing at all to stop you spending or saving the points on anyone else too. It is expected that army lists and competition organisers will decide how they want it done.

Well there is a page at the back of those rule that specifically lists which armies are allowed (and which must have) brilliant generals and at what dates plus another list of which armies are similarly treated for innert generals.

I suspect that if you want a brilliant general for your Tupi army in a competition you will be rather dissapointed when your list is rejected because there is no evidence either way as to how good the Tupi generals were.

Hammy

[abivor]

In the end the rules will be allowing us to do (almost) what we want and interpret the ability of the generals in our favourite armies as we wish (lets hear it now - Arthur for IC!) and keeps it withing the points structure. (I still think we should have allied and and multiple ICs if we want Richard - but would we want to pay for them? )

[SMK-at-work]

Hammy you really should have read my post!!

You should also go back and read DBMM - it states "Only the following historical generals are Brilliant:" (emphasis is mine).

How many of "our" generals can be said to be historical??