I'm just reading the new version(can't print and play with it until I get back to work Tuesday)but the new rules for generals strikes me as unessecarily complicated and a little difficult to understand,what does level with the centre of the front rank mean.
I don't see the need to have a fixed point for them,they are after all some of the most important pieces in the game as such ought to able to be where they want ,maybe if with a BG be properly attached to an element within the BG.
Having it in a fixed point could also lead to a commanders radius being insufficient to command more than one BG in Battle line,defeating the Battle line concept
David
Generals elements
Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design
-
davidandlynda
- 1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
- Posts: 830
- Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 9:17 am
-
rbodleyscott
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28411
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Re: Generals elements
Draw a line perpendicular to the front BG edge from the point at the centre of the front BG edge. The general is at the point where that line intersects the rear BG edge. Easily explained by a diagram, and very easy to use in practice. (We have played quite a few test games using this rule).davidandlynda wrote:I'm just reading the new version(can't print and play with it until I get back to work Tuesday)but the new rules for generals strikes me as unessecarily complicated and a little difficult to understand,what does level with the centre of the front rank mean.
The problem is that measuring from the general's actual base position as if it had some relevance, while also allowing his base's position to be shifted at will to make way for other troops etc., results in a fair bit of potential cheese.I don't see the need to have a fixed point for them,they are after all some of the most important pieces in the game as such ought to able to be where they want ,maybe if with a BG be properly attached to an element within the BG.
With those rules generals can control the following battle lines:Having it in a fixed point could also lead to a commanders radius being insufficient to command more than one BG in Battle line,defeating the Battle line concept
TC:
15mm: Any battle line of 3 BGs each of any sensible width.
25mm: A battle line of 3 BGs of up to 3 base widths each.
FC:
15mm: A battle line of 5 BGs of up to 3 base widths each
25mm: A battle line of 5 BGs of up to 2 base widths each
IC:
15mm: A battle line of 7 BGs of up to 3 bases widths each
25mm: A battle line of 5 BGs of up to 3 base widths each
Note that 25mm generals can control less, but armies are likely to be played to lower total points and hence smaller.
Terry and I are together at present.........
To be candid even we have a different view of whether to go with the new generals idea or not. Here is what we see as the +s and -s and implications of the new system
+s Generals location is more accurately specified and is no longer sensitive to being moved around a BG due to not having space to fit etc.
-s General is not where his model is, which may be confusing
Side effects that one may view as a + or - (and this is what matters most perhaps) are.....
1. In the new rules a TC finds it harder to command a BL of troops, as if he is with a BG, he can no longer sit at the junction of BGs to keep them in range. This means that FCs are more valuable now due to their extra command range. FCs might therefore have a character of their own now. But it also means TCs find it hard to manage 2 blocks x 6 wide next to each other as they can't make them a battlegroup - they can sit behind them and influence both nof their CMTs. Question is whether that is a good effect, making generals more interesting, or a bad effect making generals more cumbersome. Please have a think.
2. The net result of the above is that one might need to design ones generals and BG structure together when one puts an army together under the new rules. e.g If you have lots of 6 base units of avergage knights you might want 2xFCs to allow them to form BLs. Or you might go for3 TC sub-generals and put one with each even if the BGs are together in line, in order to get maximum punch. Again the question is whether this is too restrictive or if it adds realism and interest to generals.
3. The new rules introduce an option for a general to explicitly be operating behind the lines and not with a BG at all. This existed in the old rules, but it was very rarely any use. Now there will be times when it has a specific purpose. It does reflect a bit the idea of a general roaming behind the lines, but maybe its a pointless sophistication.
4. In the old rules a general could be "pushed around" by friends and enemy. This could be thought of as a bit cheesy if you do it to get your general into a good position, or to push an opposing one into a porr position. However this can be alrgely swolved by a simpler statement that he shifts the minimum necessary to remaing with BG (with a bit of writing needed to define what is minimum distance). The new rules removes this cheese altogether but at expense of the general being in a single defined position within a BG wherever his base may be.
5. It may at times be harder to use the measuring sticks under the new rules as one is measuring from a location in a BG.
6. In the old rules you used to be able to put a general at the edge of a BG that had troops nearby that were most threatened - e.g. move him over to the right. Now to do this one needs to leave a BG if you hvae a short command range - hence it limiting TCs rather.
So even we are not sure. Some of us think it is not worth the complexity, some of us prefer the precision and the effects above, others of us don't.
So please give your comments on whether this is worth it or not having considered all the above points and try designing a few new armies optimised under the new rules to see if it works.
Franbkly if there is a ahcnace to think this one through early on it would help us finalise a few diagrams soon.
Cheers
Simon and Terry
To be candid even we have a different view of whether to go with the new generals idea or not. Here is what we see as the +s and -s and implications of the new system
+s Generals location is more accurately specified and is no longer sensitive to being moved around a BG due to not having space to fit etc.
-s General is not where his model is, which may be confusing
Side effects that one may view as a + or - (and this is what matters most perhaps) are.....
1. In the new rules a TC finds it harder to command a BL of troops, as if he is with a BG, he can no longer sit at the junction of BGs to keep them in range. This means that FCs are more valuable now due to their extra command range. FCs might therefore have a character of their own now. But it also means TCs find it hard to manage 2 blocks x 6 wide next to each other as they can't make them a battlegroup - they can sit behind them and influence both nof their CMTs. Question is whether that is a good effect, making generals more interesting, or a bad effect making generals more cumbersome. Please have a think.
2. The net result of the above is that one might need to design ones generals and BG structure together when one puts an army together under the new rules. e.g If you have lots of 6 base units of avergage knights you might want 2xFCs to allow them to form BLs. Or you might go for3 TC sub-generals and put one with each even if the BGs are together in line, in order to get maximum punch. Again the question is whether this is too restrictive or if it adds realism and interest to generals.
3. The new rules introduce an option for a general to explicitly be operating behind the lines and not with a BG at all. This existed in the old rules, but it was very rarely any use. Now there will be times when it has a specific purpose. It does reflect a bit the idea of a general roaming behind the lines, but maybe its a pointless sophistication.
4. In the old rules a general could be "pushed around" by friends and enemy. This could be thought of as a bit cheesy if you do it to get your general into a good position, or to push an opposing one into a porr position. However this can be alrgely swolved by a simpler statement that he shifts the minimum necessary to remaing with BG (with a bit of writing needed to define what is minimum distance). The new rules removes this cheese altogether but at expense of the general being in a single defined position within a BG wherever his base may be.
5. It may at times be harder to use the measuring sticks under the new rules as one is measuring from a location in a BG.
6. In the old rules you used to be able to put a general at the edge of a BG that had troops nearby that were most threatened - e.g. move him over to the right. Now to do this one needs to leave a BG if you hvae a short command range - hence it limiting TCs rather.
So even we are not sure. Some of us think it is not worth the complexity, some of us prefer the precision and the effects above, others of us don't.
So please give your comments on whether this is worth it or not having considered all the above points and try designing a few new armies optimised under the new rules to see if it works.
Franbkly if there is a ahcnace to think this one through early on it would help us finalise a few diagrams soon.
Cheers
Simon and Terry
I think it makes sense to have the general in a specified place in the unit - as you say it removes the cheese from moving a general around to benfit from CT and such like.
However, some of the bigger spear units can be in 10's (I am thinking specifically of Greeks and Scots Common here) which means that a TC can only control one BG rather than two, which makes the Battle line a thing of the past.
However, I do agree with the FC comment. At the moment, most people I play against (and me) tend to go for an IC and three TC's. The FC is sadly lacking from most games.
Ally Generals will also be hit hard - making it almost mandatory to have an FC rather than a TC - although I don't see this as a bad thing.
For my mind even when attached to a unit the general would not be static within the unit. Would it be too big an advantage to have the general in a fixed position within the BG, but for his command radius to be measured from anywhere from the unit he is with?
However, some of the bigger spear units can be in 10's (I am thinking specifically of Greeks and Scots Common here) which means that a TC can only control one BG rather than two, which makes the Battle line a thing of the past.
However, I do agree with the FC comment. At the moment, most people I play against (and me) tend to go for an IC and three TC's. The FC is sadly lacking from most games.
Ally Generals will also be hit hard - making it almost mandatory to have an FC rather than a TC - although I don't see this as a bad thing.
For my mind even when attached to a unit the general would not be static within the unit. Would it be too big an advantage to have the general in a fixed position within the BG, but for his command radius to be measured from anywhere from the unit he is with?
-
malekithau
- Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:12 am
-
jre
- Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
- Posts: 252
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 3:17 pm
- Location: Zaragoza, Spain
We played with the new General rules last Sunday (but with the rules only partly read so we skipped some changes). In general 
we liked them. It made us move generals less, and although it was not critical with my small Burgundian BGs, taking only TCs will be a problem with big battlelines.
Three Burgundian generals died (out of four, really rotten casualty rolls) so the test was a bit less complete than expected, but it made much clearer the general moves and morale influence, with no phase to phase generals skipping from side to side to get the bonus where it is needed. And much more thought was given to interbound movement, which is a good thing. Unless constraints impeded it, we placed generals at their rear position as a reminder, and it worked quite well.
For planning it is easier than having a totally variable position, as you have less worries about where should I put the general. Combined with the clarifications about moving with a BG you influence it makes movement slightly faster.
A clear support from our side.
Jose
we liked them. It made us move generals less, and although it was not critical with my small Burgundian BGs, taking only TCs will be a problem with big battlelines. Three Burgundian generals died (out of four, really rotten casualty rolls) so the test was a bit less complete than expected, but it made much clearer the general moves and morale influence, with no phase to phase generals skipping from side to side to get the bonus where it is needed. And much more thought was given to interbound movement, which is a good thing. Unless constraints impeded it, we placed generals at their rear position as a reminder, and it worked quite well.
For planning it is easier than having a totally variable position, as you have less worries about where should I put the general. Combined with the clarifications about moving with a BG you influence it makes movement slightly faster.
A clear support from our side.
Jose
-
rbodleyscott
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28411
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
We have decided to revert to using the actual position of the commander's base for all purposes except testing for seeing him lost. We have introduced some restrictions to prevent players "fiddling" with their commanders' positions:
a) MOVEMENT OF COMMANDERS
“When a commander joins a battle-group:
• His base must be placed in edge to edge and corner to corner contact with a base of the battle group.
• He can only be with one battle group at a time. If possible, he must be placed in a position that makes it clear which battle group he is with. If not, the player must declare which battle group he is with.
• Unless fighting in the front rank (see below) his base can be moved the minimum necessary to a new position in edge to edge and corner to corner contact with the battle group at any time if this is necessary to avoid obstructions or make way for friendly or enemy troops. If there is no room left for him to be so placed, a counter can be placed on top of one of the bases of the battle group to represent his position.
• He can only leave the battle group, or voluntarily move to a different position in contact with it, during the manoeuvre or joint action phases. If the battle group itself moves, he cannot voluntarily move to a different position in contact with it.”
The following has been deleted:
“A commander can join a battle group if his move is sufficient for any part of his base to touch that battle group.
• A commander who is with a battle group is assumed to be at a fixed position in the battle group, as follows. If he is fighting in the front rank in close combat, he is considered to be at a point in the centre of the front edge of the battle group. If he is not fighting in the front rank, he is considered to be at a point on the rear edge of the battle group, level with the centre of the front edge. The exact position of a commander’s base therefore does not matter when he is with a battle group.
• When a commander is with a battle group his command radius is measured from the point specified above.
• When a commander who is with a battle group moves away from that battle group, his movement is measured from the point specified above to the furthest point reached by any part of his base. “
b) Command range
“Command range is measured from the nearest point on the commander’s base.”
The following has been deleted:
• If a commander is with a battle group, and not fighting in the front rank in close combat, his command range is measured from a point on the rear edge of the battle group level with the centre of the front edge.
• If a commander is fighting in the front rank in close combat, his command range is reduced to 0 MUs.”
c) COMMANDERS IN CLOSE COMBAT
• “A commander declared to be fighting in the front rank is placed anywhere in the front rank in contact with the enemy (player’s choice) to show that he is fighting. The base(s) he displaces is (are) placed behind him – these still fight as if they were where the commander’s base is. Once declared as fighting in the front rank, the commander cannot leave the front rank of that battle group until it is no longer in close combat and no longer in contact with enemy routers.”
d) COMMANDERS (Introductory section)
“If with a battle group, a commander’s base must always be placed in edge to edge and corner to corner contact with a base of this one battle group. If operating independently he must not be touching a battle group.”
The following has been deleted as no longer correct and unnecessary detail for introductory section:
“The location of the commander with a battle group does not affect the rules as he is considered to be central within that battle group anyway – so if his base is in the way just put him somewhere else that qualifies. If a commander is placed touching two battle groups, the player must declare which one he is with. This can only change when the commander would be allowed to move. “
a) MOVEMENT OF COMMANDERS
“When a commander joins a battle-group:
• His base must be placed in edge to edge and corner to corner contact with a base of the battle group.
• He can only be with one battle group at a time. If possible, he must be placed in a position that makes it clear which battle group he is with. If not, the player must declare which battle group he is with.
• Unless fighting in the front rank (see below) his base can be moved the minimum necessary to a new position in edge to edge and corner to corner contact with the battle group at any time if this is necessary to avoid obstructions or make way for friendly or enemy troops. If there is no room left for him to be so placed, a counter can be placed on top of one of the bases of the battle group to represent his position.
• He can only leave the battle group, or voluntarily move to a different position in contact with it, during the manoeuvre or joint action phases. If the battle group itself moves, he cannot voluntarily move to a different position in contact with it.”
The following has been deleted:
“A commander can join a battle group if his move is sufficient for any part of his base to touch that battle group.
• A commander who is with a battle group is assumed to be at a fixed position in the battle group, as follows. If he is fighting in the front rank in close combat, he is considered to be at a point in the centre of the front edge of the battle group. If he is not fighting in the front rank, he is considered to be at a point on the rear edge of the battle group, level with the centre of the front edge. The exact position of a commander’s base therefore does not matter when he is with a battle group.
• When a commander is with a battle group his command radius is measured from the point specified above.
• When a commander who is with a battle group moves away from that battle group, his movement is measured from the point specified above to the furthest point reached by any part of his base. “
b) Command range
“Command range is measured from the nearest point on the commander’s base.”
The following has been deleted:
• If a commander is with a battle group, and not fighting in the front rank in close combat, his command range is measured from a point on the rear edge of the battle group level with the centre of the front edge.
• If a commander is fighting in the front rank in close combat, his command range is reduced to 0 MUs.”
c) COMMANDERS IN CLOSE COMBAT
• “A commander declared to be fighting in the front rank is placed anywhere in the front rank in contact with the enemy (player’s choice) to show that he is fighting. The base(s) he displaces is (are) placed behind him – these still fight as if they were where the commander’s base is. Once declared as fighting in the front rank, the commander cannot leave the front rank of that battle group until it is no longer in close combat and no longer in contact with enemy routers.”
d) COMMANDERS (Introductory section)
“If with a battle group, a commander’s base must always be placed in edge to edge and corner to corner contact with a base of this one battle group. If operating independently he must not be touching a battle group.”
The following has been deleted as no longer correct and unnecessary detail for introductory section:
“The location of the commander with a battle group does not affect the rules as he is considered to be central within that battle group anyway – so if his base is in the way just put him somewhere else that qualifies. If a commander is placed touching two battle groups, the player must declare which one he is with. This can only change when the commander would be allowed to move. “
-
madaxeman
- Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
- Posts: 3002
- Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:15 am
- Location: London, UK
- Contact:
I'm still vaguely surprised/puzzled that there isnt a grade of "general" that isn't permanently attached to one (or maybe 2 or 3 identical) battlegroup(s).
The "Commander of one body of troops who leads them in the battle and stays with them all battle" seems a very typical figure in most accounts I've read. It would also create a genuinely discrete role/concept for the FoGs lesser commanders, and involve an interesting decision at list writing time (or maybe deployment?).
Having 3 grades of functionally similar but progressively less effective generals does seem like a slightly wasted opportunity IMO.
The "Commander of one body of troops who leads them in the battle and stays with them all battle" seems a very typical figure in most accounts I've read. It would also create a genuinely discrete role/concept for the FoGs lesser commanders, and involve an interesting decision at list writing time (or maybe deployment?).
Having 3 grades of functionally similar but progressively less effective generals does seem like a slightly wasted opportunity IMO.
http://www.madaxeman.com
Holiday in Devon? Try https://www.thecaptainscottagebrixham.com
Holiday in Devon? Try https://www.thecaptainscottagebrixham.com
Tim
Within the concept of FOG every BG has a junior general - which is why it is what it is - but there s no need to represent it explicitly on table. So in concept an army will typically have 15 junior generals commanding BGs, 3 subbies and a cinc above that. When you make CMT you are rolling for the work of the BG commander - aided by the big guys if nearby.
We did consider putting the literal chain of command in as bases but decided it was too many bases and didn't want to force people to create lots of generals.
However as a modelling plan I am intending putting 1 command base including a junior generals figure with every BG I put out. i.e. within their normal bases one of them will be a "command base". It is purely for show as all BGs are imagined to have one. So my roman legion BG will have 5 normal legionary bases and 1 with a mounted generals figure and 2 legionaries on it. Wouldn't want to make such representation compulsory, and I need to try it to make sure it doesn't look too busy. But to me this will give the ultimate feel of where the FOG command system derives from. So your Russ Abbot can be put to use again Tim...........
We are storing ideas for future development and this are is one of them.
If we are successful with vs1 then one-day (not too soon I hope so we can all recover) there will be FOG2.
Si
Within the concept of FOG every BG has a junior general - which is why it is what it is - but there s no need to represent it explicitly on table. So in concept an army will typically have 15 junior generals commanding BGs, 3 subbies and a cinc above that. When you make CMT you are rolling for the work of the BG commander - aided by the big guys if nearby.
We did consider putting the literal chain of command in as bases but decided it was too many bases and didn't want to force people to create lots of generals.
However as a modelling plan I am intending putting 1 command base including a junior generals figure with every BG I put out. i.e. within their normal bases one of them will be a "command base". It is purely for show as all BGs are imagined to have one. So my roman legion BG will have 5 normal legionary bases and 1 with a mounted generals figure and 2 legionaries on it. Wouldn't want to make such representation compulsory, and I need to try it to make sure it doesn't look too busy. But to me this will give the ultimate feel of where the FOG command system derives from. So your Russ Abbot can be put to use again Tim...........
We are storing ideas for future development and this are is one of them.
If we are successful with vs1 then one-day (not too soon I hope so we can all recover) there will be FOG2.
Si
-
jre
- Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
- Posts: 252
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 3:17 pm
- Location: Zaragoza, Spain
Played a new game (Later Hungarians vs Ottoman Turks). The new change is better than 5.01 but we still prefer the fixed place position for the generals. We are back into spending time on moving generals (and wondering if they are in the right place), determining where they end up when space gets tight and they just do not fit, and keeping them on the sides depending on the range and troops.
It may be a phase we are going through, but general placement consumes a sizable portion of time, specially with the TCs I favor... ICs usually do not take time, as they have range enough for most purposes.
Jose
It may be a phase we are going through, but general placement consumes a sizable portion of time, specially with the TCs I favor... ICs usually do not take time, as they have range enough for most purposes.
Jose