generals at Britcon

[shall]

And here's a bit of analyses of general choices - muhc variety in fact ...

7 x FC TC TC
7 x IC TC TC
2 x TC TC TC

= 16 for 3 generals = 59%

4 x TC TC TC TC
3 x FC TC TC TC
3 x IC TC TC TC
1 x IC FC TC TC (what a powerhouse of command that is)

= 11 for 41%

Quite a nice mix
and plenty of FCs

Si

[petedalby]

I wonder how we did not dead Commanders?

My Serb Ally died twice - but everyone else survived.

Pete

[AlanCutner]

I killed one general, but then had two of mine die in the last game.

[shall]

I lost 2 over 4 games

Boedicae once as well - bless her cotton brassiere!

Si

[marshalney2000]

Only one lost over the 6 games as I recall.
John

[hazelbark]

Again as suggested elsewhere, a poll of the players of what they woudl change if anything about the commander choise could prove instructive.

[gareth121]

I lost 3 in one game!

[dvorkin]

I had 3 TC

I Engaged them all the time in combat, lost 2 on 6 games

[madaxeman]

I would have 4 generals next time, no question at all.

Only 3 was a big mistake - even if I had known what I was doing, I don't think 3 would have been enough

[madaxeman]

Oh, one more thing - maybe not for this thread.

Why is someone the "CinC"? What aspect of the rules makes the "CinC" different to the other generals?

Am I missing something here? Isn't it just that you can have 2, 3 or 4 generals, and they can be of three different types ?

Why go to the pretence of having lists with "CinC" and "subs" ??

Maybe worth suggesting "fixed command structures" as an optional rule, or callinga general "the CinC" is a pointless distinction?

[shall]

You are right that in game terms its fully flexible. This helps "model" some unusual battles.

E.g. I re-did Granikos and decided that the Persians should have a TC TC TC FC structure where the first was the c-in-c nd the last was Memnon the mercenary greek who was the most able of the lot.

It is also as a backup in case we choose to change and give the C-in-C some additional power other than him generally being the highest graded general. E.g. We might decide to allow him to affect allies which we really wouldn't ever allow for a sub.

From a practical point though on generally is taking 3 or 4 generals and considering the best of ther bunch the C-in-C.

Si

[madaxeman]

You are right that in game terms its fully flexible. This helps "model" some unusual battles.

E.g. I re-did Granikos and decided that the Persians should have a TC TC TC FC structure where the first was the c-in-c nd the last was Memnon the mercenary greek who was the most able of the lot.

It is also as a backup in case we choose to change and give the C-in-C some additional power other than him generally being the highest graded general. E.g. We might decide to allow him to affect allies which we really wouldn't ever allow for a sub.

From a practical point though on generally is taking 3 or 4 generals and considering the best of ther bunch the C-in-C.

Si

This might be sensible from game mechanic terms , but form an emotional engagement/"game feel" POV I would be concerned its a missed opportunity. The CinC is the representation of the gamer after all - and I dont want to think Im just "one of the other generals"

Either mandating the CinC to be the highest graded general, or give him some additional "free" powers would be cute.

Historical refights are scenarios - no point in driving the whole rules by them

[shall]

'tis a fair point and we'll give it some thought

Si

[dvorkin]

fully agree with tim, C in C must have some special powers

[lawrenceg]

Either mandating the CinC to be the highest graded general, or give him some additional "free" powers would be cute.

Seems like an unnecessary complication to me. And what do you do about those cultures who had several generals who took it in turns to be C-in-C for one day each?

[/list]

[thefrenchjester]

already have some if he's IC , FOG is not roleplaying game or I forgot something ?

thefrenchjester " neutral good "

[jlopez]

You are right that in game terms its fully flexible. This helps "model" some unusual battles.

E.g. I re-did Granikos and decided that the Persians should have a TC TC TC FC structure where the first was the c-in-c nd the last was Memnon the mercenary greek who was the most able of the lot.

It is also as a backup in case we choose to change and give the C-in-C some additional power other than him generally being the highest graded general. E.g. We might decide to allow him to affect allies which we really wouldn't ever allow for a sub.

From a practical point though on generally is taking 3 or 4 generals and considering the best of ther bunch the C-in-C.

Si

This might be sensible from game mechanic terms , but form an emotional engagement/"game feel" POV I would be concerned its a missed opportunity. The CinC is the representation of the gamer after all - and I dont want to think Im just "one of the other generals"

Either mandating the CinC to be the highest graded general, or give him some additional "free" powers would be cute.

Historical refights are scenarios - no point in driving the whole rules by them

How about doubling the distance units have to take a test when the C-in-C dies? Or giving a minus on the test?

Julian

[madaxeman]

already have some if he's IC , FOG is not roleplaying game or I forgot something ?

thefrenchjester " neutral good "

"if" he is IC. Maybe you answer your own question! Afer 6 games I am thinking maybe 2 FC and 2 TC is better value/more useful. Then I have no CinC..... ??

I think ALL historical games must have some "role-play" aspect or they are just mathematical tests of calculating probability, but with figures...

[thefrenchjester]

Sorry Tim , I said that as a joke because : I regularly plays dog armies ( even the are on onagers

and really like to play games and have fun , not of course playing mathematics ( where I'm a donkey

hope to see you in France for Clichy (to see you in real )

best regards

thefrenchjester " poor english joking even if I really like the life of Brian "

ps: don't call me big nose !

[petedalby]

Or giving a minus on the test?

Or even a plus - a la Gustavus Adolphus?

Pete

(Only kidding!)