Leaders . . .

[stockwellpete]

This issue pops up from time to time on the board. I have just finished a friendly game with davouthojo. He fielded a Scottish Isles/Highlander army against my Lowland Scots and he beat me with a bit to spare by 38/60 to 47/46. What I found interesting though was what happened to the leaders during the course of the battle.

At the outset davouthojo picked just one leader ("inspired") while I picked three (one "inspired" and two "field"). But by the end of the battle davouthojo's leader had been killed but my three were still alive and the units they were in were still quite robust (one was "disrupted").

Now, as it happens, davouthojo's leader was killed very late on in the battle so I was unable to take advantage of that development - but what if he had been killed half-way through, say? At the moment, under current rules, his army would have continued fighting normally, just without any of the bonuses that leaders can bring for movement, rallying etc. So my question is - should armies with no leaders at all be able to do this? Wouldn't they just leg it (I am thinking Shrewsbury 1403 or Bosworth 1485 by way of examples)?

The other consideration here is the state of the troops remaining on the battlefield when one army exceeds its break point total. In our game davouthojo's army had 7 "disrupted" and 8 "fragmented" units whereas my army had 7 "disrupted" and only 1 "fragmented" - so the indications are that my army may well have closed the points gap if the fighting had continued (I still would get rally bonuses etc whereas davouthojo would not). It was also the case that my army had maintained the basic coherence of its three "battle" formation (my reserve had been commited) although one of my groups (right flank) was starting to be outflanked.

So, although my army had taken much heavier losses, I actually think it had retained a bit more of its structure and coherence than the scoreline might suggest - and I don't think that my army should necessarily have fled from the battlefield in these circumstances, given the leadership disarray of our adversaries.

What do people think? Should there be provision for "extra-time" in some battles where these leadership imbalances occur? Should armies with no leaders left just automatically flee?

[TheGrayMouser]

Hmm, I would say yes if leaders were seperate entities and not "stuck" to a specific Bg

Otherwise no.

[Morbio]

The other consideration here is the state of the troops remaining on the battlefield when one army exceeds its break point total. In our game davouthojo's army had 7 "disrupted" and 8 "fragmented" units whereas my army had 7 "disrupted" and only 1 "fragmented" - so the indications are that my army may well have closed the points gap if the fighting had continued (I still would get rally bonuses etc whereas davouthojo would not). It was also the case that my army had maintained the basic coherence of its three "battle" formation (my reserve had been commited) although one of my groups (right flank) was starting to be outflanked.

So, although my army had taken much heavier losses, I actually think it had retained a bit more of its structure and coherence than the scoreline might suggest - and I don't think that my army should necessarily have fled from the battlefield in these circumstances, given the leadership disarray of our adversaries.

IMO The state of the units you describe gives a false impression of the state of the battle. You have far less disrupted or fragmented units simply because many of your units, rather than being disrupted or fragmented, are dead or have run away! Maybe you may have done better if the game had continued, but the game is meant to represent, as best it can, the situation in a battle. Your army would have seen the terrible losses you were taking and the instinct for self-preservation would likely take over and the remaining units be less likely to fight and very likely to run. Conversely the opposite would happen to your enemy and their spirits are up and they can see the victory and the rewards that gives.

I think the current model that has a break point for an army is a good one.

[stockwellpete]

IMO The state of the units you describe gives a false impression of the state of the battle. You have far less disrupted or fragmented units simply because many of your units, rather than being disrupted or fragmented, are dead or have run away! Maybe you may have done better if the game had continued, but the game is meant to represent, as best it can, the situation in a battle. Your army would have seen the terrible losses you were taking and the instinct for self-preservation would likely take over and the remaining units be less likely to fight and very likely to run. Conversely the opposite would happen to your enemy and their spirits are up and they can see the victory and the rewards that gives.

I think the current model that has a break point for an army is a good one.

Except that all my leaders (3) were still alive and his leader (1) was dead before I had reached my breaking point. So the likelihood is that his army would have routed before mine (I gave Shrewsbury and Bosworth as examples of this happening in real life).

[Xiggy]

In the current rule set, leaders are kind or pricey. If you have an army that can fight in any terrain or doesn't not need to move around a lot, you are better off with less leaders. (Inspired because of terrain choice) Double moves made leaders more useful, but they still aren't a major factor in the game.

You are also making an assumption that the entire command structures stops functioning without the general. Most of the drilled armies of the period, had officers controlling each block of foot or mounted. They used their own initiative to make tactical decisions. Generals sent messengers to move units around or used signals of some kind.

I guess part of the issue may be a lot of battles in the SOA period were a few thousand men, where as the Greek, Roman and Persian armies numbered in the 10's of thousands. Controlling 50+ thousand men is much different than say 3-5 thousand guys.

Maybe give the sub commanders a point value for terrain choice as well as the commanders. Another option is lower the point cost commanders. Currently I rather have 2 or 3 more shock units than a commander.

[stockwellpete]

You are also making an assumption that the entire command structures stops functioning without the general. Most of the drilled armies of the period, had officers controlling each block of foot or mounted. They used their own initiative to make tactical decisions. Generals sent messengers to move units around or used signals of some kind.

I guess part of the issue may be a lot of battles in the SOA period were a few thousand men, where as the Greek, Roman and Persian armies numbered in the 10's of thousands. Controlling 50+ thousand men is much different than say 3-5 thousand guys.

Yes, I am definitely talking about the medieval period here with the smaller armies. I know very little about command structures on the ancient battlefield.

I guess what I am getting at is that perhaps there should be a bit more risk attached to going into a battle with only one leader. In some of the scenarios that I write, the game can be won or lost on the fortunes of a single historical character - and this does represent what historians suggest did happen at battles such as Shrewsbury and Bosworth.

Maybe give the sub commanders a point value for terrain choice as well as the commanders. Another option is lower the point cost commanders. Currently I rather have 2 or 3 more shock units than a commander.

Interesting ideas, xiggy, particularly the first one. I also very much agree with the ideas that mac posted a couple of months ago about leaders.

[Xiggy]

I guess my point is if generals were cost effective, then the horde armies with 100+ Break points at 600 points and 1 general ( usually the cheapest available on LH if possible) would lose a lot. They do not.

That means either generals are to expensive for what they do or the point system needs some tweaking or maybe some other things need to be adjusted.

[pantherboy]

I guess my point is if generals were cost effective, then the horde armies with 100+ Break points at 600 points and 1 general ( usually the cheapest available on LH if possible) would lose a lot. They do not.

That means either generals are to expensive for what they do or the point system needs some tweaking or maybe some other things need to be adjusted.

I actually think you'd have the reverse effect. Cheaper generals will mean that every horde will have a lot of commanders giving the army greater staying power and better chances to win the initiative. The more expensive armies don't need such a wide net of command so adding additional commanders won't significantly improve their effectiveness. But in comparison the horde will become more maneuverable as everyone will be under the umbrella of leadership and fighting with cohesion bonuses.

[Archie]

Just wondering, should a LF infantry troop general, effect cavalry units to the same extent, or tribe, HF, ect, be equally effective accross the board.

Just a thought. Thats proberly to micro.....

[stockwellpete]

I actually think you'd have the reverse effect. Cheaper generals will mean that every horde will have a lot of commanders giving the army greater staying power and better chances to win the initiative. The more expensive armies don't need such a wide net of command so adding additional commanders won't significantly improve their effectiveness. But in comparison the horde will become more maneuverable as everyone will be under the umbrella of leadership and fighting with cohesion bonuses.

Yes, I can see your point here, Steve. This is where I think Mac's ideas about leaders and units being more heavily penalised for being out of command radius are very interesting. I also think that there should be some movement penalty for moving through friendly troops, and maybe a limit on how many friendly troops a unit can actually move through in each turn.

What are your thoughts about my suggestion that there should be more risk involved for a player who selects just one leader in a game? At the moment I am beginning to feel that if I am to stand any chance of closing the gap a bit on the top players like yourself then I really have to go symmetrical to you and pick just one leader in order to give me the extra troops - because it does seem to me that a lot of the top players are using this "one leader" strategy at the moment.

In the game against davouthojo, my Lowland Scots could have fielded a 60 unit army to exactly match the size of the Scots Islemen/Highlander army, but my selection would then have consisted of 52 spearmen units (!), 4 LF longbows and 4 mounted knights (one of them being an "inspired" leader). I may have stood more chance in the battle with this selection, but I do have a bit of an aversion to loading up so heavily with just one troop type. I find it a bit boring, to be honest. I would much rather pick a more varied and balanced army with a "realistic" level of leaders - but perhaps I can only progress so far with this approach given the current organisation of the game?

[Morbio]

I can't say I have an extensive knowledge of battles nor what factors determined who won, but I wonder if Shrewsbury and Bosworth are the exceptions to the rule? I'd bet money that in most battles, probably by far, where an army had suffered severe losses it routed and it is the minority where the death of a single leader turned it.

Regarding the choice of single versus multiple leaders, then I've probably changed since the early days. In my 1st 6 months I'd always go with a single leader because I thought them overpriced compared with the benefits. I found much more value in extra troops.

However, particularly since the double moves came out, I've moved to more leaders. This is for a few reasons;
Double moves: I like to play tactically and try to get to the flanks or rear rather than forming a line a marching it forwards. I find a commander helps in both movement and defeating the forces sent to stop it.
Cohesion: My preference is for Pike armies and they are great while steady, after that they are very fragile. A leader behind the line will significantly reduce the amount of cohesion loss and will also help restore good order too.
Anarchy: A solid line of Pikes or other HF is great, but when they anarchy charge it really causes problems, particularly if they then lose cohesion and subsequently rout and start chain cohesion loss.

I tend to go for troop commanders rather than inspired simply because they can be directly adjacent to many more units to help recover loss of cohesion. It also gives more 'improved' units if they fight.

[Xiggy]

Pantherboy as usual is correct, cheap leaders will mean stronger horde armies. That is probably a bad idea. My usual leader mix is 1 at 500 points, 2 at 600 and 3 at 700, but lately I have been playing more mounted armies and have not decided how many generals to buy. Most of the mounted armies have very expensive troops, so I have used less leaders, than when I play foot armies.

[stockwellpete]

I can't say I have an extensive knowledge of battles nor what factors determined who won, but I wonder if Shrewsbury and Bosworth are the exceptions to the rule? I'd bet money that in most battles, probably by far, where an army had suffered severe losses it routed and it is the minority where the death of a single leader turned it.

Oh yes, I am sure you are right, but it is the case that there are some battles where one side was getting the worst of it but still managed to win because they managed to kill the leader of the other army. I can't think of any examples where all the leaders of one side were killed or had fled yet the rank and file soldiers in that army carried on fighting to victory.

And I am not challenging the break points mechanism of the game either - I think 50% is quite reasonable. But I am wondering if, in certain circumstances, games could be ended by other criteria i.e. all the leaders of one side being dead (or "routed") - and I am also wondering if, in certain circumstances, some games might continue beyond the 50% break point limit (if armies were, say, within 10% of each other strength-wise and still had leaders).

[Morbio]

Hmmm, now that's an interesting thought....

In a previous post I posed an idea about the break point being variable rather than fixed because a fixed break point sometimes leads to unrealistic play to get the point to win. In my proposal the game would test each turn for Army Rout at a certain point, e.g. 50%, and the chances of routing would increase the more losses over the break point until it would be certain at, say 60%. The idea about leaders being a factor and the closeness of the two armies could easily be incorporated into this mechanism, and even it could be extended to Army Rout tests at critical events below 50% a good example being the death of a leader... perhaps the better the general the more negative an effect if he should die or be routed. This would support the examples of Shrewsbury and Bosworth you quote and would also cover events like Darius III running at Gaugamela, which enabled Alexander to win against the odds.

[TheGrayMouser]

Just a thought on leaders . , likly more apropriate in macs thread but....

What if the game had a new feature called command points (cp's) for short. Just like BP's, Cp's would be allocated based on army size so scalable, thus a 40 battlegroup army has 40 BP's and 40 Cp's. Heres how it would work:

At the start of your turn, any unit in range of a commander can move/under take any action but expends 1 Cp. If out of range expends 2 Cp's. Shooting, charging (excpet of course anarchy) and even changing facing would NOT be excempt from those rules.

So any army completely under you(the players) thoughtful unbrella of leaders command radii would be able to move all units as current. If somehow you found yourself with no leaders left on the map, you only would be able to move 50% (perhaps 3 cp's might be more realistic for out of range units but might effect gameplay too much...)

Of course your overall cp's would need to be scaled up or down as the battle rages, fragged units dropp your cp's by one, routed/destroyed and driven off the map units by two (or three), after all , no reason why an army falling apart should benefit with increasingly better command and control....

I think you would see a more thoughtful aproach with leaders , and more importantly with deployment with the above. At the very least it would mitiagte horde armies streaming anywhere and everywhere across a map, as well as preventing the single line of tropps stretching from one side of the map to another... Not very realistic (no army could realisticaly deply in a single line miles wide and expect to maneuver) but can be very effective in game terms

Hmm, i hope noone had this idea and I am repeating it, if so its due to old age and forgetfullness rather than idea theft

[stockwellpete]

Hmmm, now that's an interesting thought....

In a previous post I posed an idea about the break point being variable rather than fixed because a fixed break point sometimes leads to unrealistic play to get the point to win. In my proposal the game would test each turn for Army Rout at a certain point, e.g. 50%, and the chances of routing would increase the more losses over the break point until it would be certain at, say 60%. The idea about leaders being a factor and the closeness of the two armies could easily be incorporated into this mechanism, and even it could be extended to Army Rout tests at critical events below 50% a good example being the death of a leader... perhaps the better the general the more negative an effect if he should die or be routed. This would support the examples of Shrewsbury and Bosworth you quote and would also cover events like Darius III running at Gaugamela, which enabled Alexander to win against the odds.

Yes, interesting stuff, Morbio. Armies are usually very battered at 50% casualties but if they are still of similar strength to their enemy and have leaders then they wouldn't necessarily rout. In some circumstances the two armies might break off from each other and not wish/be able to continue due to exhaustion. So then really you have a draw even though the time may not have expired.

[Xiggy]

I like TheGrayMouser's idea.

Here is a variable of command points.

Another option is have troop generals have 8 command points field maybe 10 command points and inspired generals 12.

Poor troops in command range cost 2 points to move. Average 1 point to move and superior .5 points to move. Elites are free. (The cost a fortune, so why not) That way horde armies will be unwieldy even with 4 generals. Units out of command can turn in place to face the enemy, but not move other than to evade or route.

When a general dies, he is replaced by a troop commander if he isn't routed. Generals routing will really hurt a army.

I realize this will be a bit complicated, but it isa nice idea.