I don't disagree: maybe I was just putting the accent in a different aspect.ShrubMiK wrote:But I'm saying they are, effectively, paid for in points when you consider the cost of the generals required to provide the same level of command ability. Whether it is enough to offset worries about over-effectiveness of smaller BGs is another matter, but the effect is there.
There are some issues, in my mind, with the whole generals thing in the rules, I think there is a lot of room for improvement. I did argue once that there should be a maximum number of BGs in an army determined by adding up the command ability of all the generals, with FCs and ICs allowing more BGs in the army. And that would also provide more of a reason to see some FCs on the table more than once every blue moon!
I totally agree that FoG lacks of a structure of command and system like the one you propose for generals would help in that regard, avoiding the tricky splitting of BG's (which, in my opinion, it is too open for many gamey things) or giving importance to having good generals.
