CP availability and Generals

[BrettPT]

It has been mentioned elsewhere, however there are a couple of related issues worth thinking about.

1. High end commanders are not really worth the points; and
2. It is uncommon - even with all L1 commanders - to be short on CPs.

Nearly everyone likes the command system in FoGN. The CP mechanism is a definate feature of the rules IMO. The theory is you 'never have enough CPs to do everything you want to' and so have to make some hard choices. However, apart from the 1st turn of the game when attacking and perhaps the occaisonal turn during play, in practice you pretty much have enough CPs to do everything you want most of the time - even with all L1 commanders.

IMO this is why we don't see many L2 and L3 commanders. It is not really a cost issue, it is simply that the addition CPs are not often needed. Even if L2 commanders were only 40 points rather than 50, I would still go for a charismatic L1 for the same cost. The extra dice for rallying being more useful than the extra CP.

So does this need fixing? Not really, nothing is broken as such. However perhaps the rules could be made improved if a couple of changes were looked at.

When looking at options to 'stress' the availability of CPs, I think that it's important not to slow the game in the process. That said, apart from in the first turn, the majority of CPs used in my view are to prolong artillery. So the main effect of any tightening of the availbility of CPs would likely be fewer artillery prolongs.

Options?:

1. The 'free' CP for commanders could be removed, leaving them with just the 4+ pass when leading a unit. This would certainly enhance the value of CPs, although perhaps too much so?

2. The command radius when attached could drop to 2MU, or perhaps even 0. Dropping it to 0MU would have the same effect as (1) above.

3. Get rid of the 'CP free' assault for blown or disordered Guard or Shock cavalry. As an alternative, the CP free charge could be changed from shock and guards to superiors. There are far less superior cavaIry fielded than shock or guards, so such a change would also result in a slight increase in CP use for many armies. I am not sure why average cuirassiers can happily charge when blown, while (presumably more excitable) superior hussars cannot. I would imagine that the heavier the cavalry, the bigger the problem of blown horses.

4. Allow a player to try make a 2nd attempt if failing a CMT. This has the advantage of being a 'positive' change which would enhance game speed. However getting a 2nd crack to charge home would change the balance in assaults. Fine IMO for infantry assaults, however I'm not sure if this is so desirable for cavalry assaulting infantry.

5. Allow a successful CMT to to turn a 'retire to 3MU' into a 'halt at 2MU' result for shooting. This would assist unreformed infantry and others attempting to close on fresh infantry. The greatest danger in closing to close range IMO is the threat of being driven back out of short range before you can shoot back.

My preference in the above list is probably (3) and (5).

Thoughts?

[KendallB]

What about brigade commanders? Do you want them to lose their "free" CP?

[BrettPT]

Probably no for BCs - there is not much point in them without a free CP!

Also I am unsure about whether DCs losing their free CP is good for the game or not. Just throwing it out there for discussion.

Cheers
Brett

[Blathergut]

It has been mentioned elsewhere, however there are a couple of related issues worth thinking about.

1. High end commanders are not really worth the points; and
2. It is uncommon - even with all L1 commanders - to be short on CPs.

Nearly everyone likes the command system in FoGN. The CP mechanism is a definate feature of the rules IMO. The theory is you 'never have enough CPs to do everything you want to' and so have to make some hard choices. However, apart from the 1st turn of the game when attacking and perhaps the occaisonal turn during play, in practice you pretty much have enough CPs to do everything you want most of the time - even with all L1 commanders.

IMO this is why we don't see many L2 and L3 commanders. It is not really a cost issue, it is simply that the addition CPs are not often needed. Even if L2 commanders were only 40 points rather than 50, I would still go for a charismatic L1 for the same cost. The extra dice for rallying being more useful than the extra CP.

So does this need fixing? Not really, nothing is broken as such. However perhaps the rules could be made improved if a couple of changes were looked at.

When looking at options to 'stress' the availability of CPs, I think that it's important not to slow the game in the process. That said, apart from in the first turn, the majority of CPs used in my view are to prolong artillery. So the main effect of any tightening of the availbility of CPs would likely be fewer artillery prolongs.

Options?:

1. The 'free' CP for commanders could be removed, leaving them with just the 4+ pass when leading a unit. This would certainly enhance the value of CPs, although perhaps too much so?

-too much I think...it would slow down the game...but...perhaps GIVE each commander the 'free' CP as a CP...so instead of having one free every phase, you'd have one to spend somewhere in the turn


2. The command radius when attached could drop to 2MU, or perhaps even 0. Dropping it to 0MU would have the same effect as (1) above.

-0 is too much...again, slows down...what's nice is how well the game flows

3. Get rid of the 'CP free' assault for blown or disordered Guard or Shock cavalry. As an alternative, the CP free charge could be changed from shock and guards to superiors. There are far less superior cavaIry fielded than shock or guards, so such a change would also result in a slight increase in CP use for many armies. I am not sure why average cuirassiers can happily charge when blown, while (presumably more excitable) superior hussars cannot. I would imagine that the heavier the cavalry, the bigger the problem of blown horses.

4. Allow a player to try make a 2nd attempt if failing a CMT. This has the advantage of being a 'positive' change which would enhance game speed. However getting a 2nd crack to charge home would change the balance in assaults. Fine IMO for infantry assaults, however I'm not sure if this is so desirable for cavalry assaulting infantry.

-i'd leave as is...the fun is seeing if you make it or not...don't allow another attempt

5. Allow a successful CMT to to turn a 'retire to 3MU' into a 'halt at 2MU' result for shooting. This would assist unreformed infantry and others attempting to close on fresh infantry. The greatest danger in closing to close range IMO is the threat of being driven back out of short range before you can shoot back.

this one is interesting...again, esp. if you only had that one 'free' CP to spend somewhere...

My preference in the above list is probably (3) and (5).

Thoughts?

[hazelbark]

I was talking about some of the numbers you are generating on your seen by commander types and we had a discussions among our gamers about what is occurring. Because we see the need more that you.

Now you may be ahead of the curve on the evolution of what succeeds.
Or you (you're group) may have a style of play that does not require it much.

I will get around to writing my AAR of our Marengo historical game and the abundance of French CPs allowed a fighting withdrawal that would have been a fiasco without the CPs. Now that is historical not points driven ratings. But I think an important point.

I would tread cautiously for now.

PS how often does your group flank march?

[deadtorius]

So far in our own games we have never seen much of a problem with CP's. Although I need to keep an closer eye on Blathergut who likes to keep his commanders with his units and forgets how short his command radius is.

[Blathergut]

Quoi??? Je sais pas quesque toi parle! meh

[deadtorius]

Quoi??? Je sais pas quesque toi parle!

Bloody bilingual Frenchies showing off again.....

[Blathergut]

"le mehehehehehe"

[terrys]

So far in our own games we have never seen much of a problem with CP's. Although I need to keep an closer eye on Blathergut who likes to keep his commanders with his units and forgets how short his command radius is.

you need to use British with impetuous cavalry - 1CP per unit just to stop them charging.

[deadtorius]

Terry
makes me glad I am running easily controlled Austrians

[shadowdragon]

Back to Brett's original post about the value of high end commanders and CP availability (or use of CP, if you will)....

Just a random thought thrown out....

A critical function for commanders is the recovery attempt. There's very little advantage to this function if you have a bunch of exceptional / skilled commanders compared to just competent commanders. Perhaps there's a possibility of improving the recovery cability with the expenditure of CP. An attempt to recover an extra unit per CP would be too disruptive, but perhaps an extra unit recovery attempt per 2 CP or a more benign option like an increase in recovery range by 2 MU per CP expended?

Too extreme? Compare the existing recovery capability of a corps with an exceptional commander with 3 skilled divisional commanders (230 points) to a corps with a competent commander and 4 competent divisional commanders (120 points).

Any views as to whether any change in this area is too much or not?

[terrys]

Just a random thought thrown out....

A critical function for commanders is the recovery attempt. There's very little advantage to this function if you have a bunch of exceptional / skilled commanders compared to just competent commanders. Perhaps there's a possibility of improving the recovery cability with the expenditure of CP. An attempt to recover an extra unit per CP would be too disruptive, but perhaps an extra unit recovery attempt per 2 CP or a more benign option like an increase in recovery range by 2 MU per CP expended?

Too extreme? Compare the existing recovery capability of a corps with an exceptional commander with 3 skilled divisional commanders (230 points) to a corps with a competent commander and 4 competent divisional commanders (120 points).

I'm certainly not against adding something that places more importance on CPs.
Recovering an extra unit would possibly be too big a bonus.....perhaps allowing them to re-roll a failed recovery test at a cost of 2CPs would be worth considering (an exceptional commander would be able to retake a failed test twice). I wouldn't want to make it much easier to recover cohesion because it them makes it less likely that you'll get a result in the time-frame.
The other suggestion of increasing the range by 2MU per CP is also a possibility.
....or perhaps both ?

[BrettPT]

I am not sure about changes to the rules which would increase the chances of rallies -mainly for game length considerations. While an interesting idea and worth considering, I suspect that allowing a commander to take an extra rally for 2cps may encourage players to simply horde their cps for the rally phase. Increasing the recovery range is unlikely to have much effect as the effective current range of 8mu (including the 4mu move in the rally phase) is usually enough.

Looking over the suggestions regarding cps, my thoughts are that getting rid of the cp-free assaults for guard and shock cavalry, and reducing the comand range to 2mu when attached look the best options.

Reasons:
1. Guard and shock cavalry are good enough as it is without the bonus.
2. They are small changes that shouldn't tip the balance into a regular dearth of cps that slow the game.
3. It makes the decision on whether to attach commanders a little more tricky.
4. They can be simply made adding hardly any extra ink to the rulebook.

The above would only increase the need for cps slighty. If something more substantisl was desired, a variation on using cps to assist with rallies could be to allow more than one cp to be allocated to a cmt attempt, each extra cp allocated adding an extra dice - much like charismatic generals get when rallying. Unlike using cps to help rallies, this might speed the game as it would increase the chances of double moves, closing while disordered changing home, etc