A plea for commanders

[Ironclad]

This is a great game but what it is missing are commanders to beef up selected attacks/defence or more importantly act as rallying points for shattered or returning units. If the former is too difficult for the AI how about having them there for the latter. This would be even better for multi-player games.

[rbodleyscott]

It is on our list, but requires an engine change to implement properly with named Generals.

[Ironclad]

Thanks, that's good to know.

[Miletus]

If this change is introduced, will it be an optional extra?
Must admit I really dislike the idea, which I think isn't generally (if you'll forgive the pun) appropriate for the period.

[rbodleyscott]

If this change is introduced, will it be an optional extra?
Must admit I really dislike the idea, which I think isn't generally (if you'll forgive the pun) appropriate for the period.

I personally think the game works fine without explicitly represented commanders. I think the role of commanders is almost certainly overstated in tabletop FOGR - a deliberate design decision to give generals a more interesting role in the game. All this heroic running around rallying units may be appropriate for Julius Caesar (according to his own self-promoting autobiography) but it isn't the rule in the Pike and Shot period.

However, there is no reason why generals could not be permanently attached to certain units - which is more in keeping with the period. Their main effect would be to boost those units, and potentially cause some dismay to their own and surrounding units when they are incapacitated.

This is probably what we would add, which would at least satisfy people's reasonable desire to see the famous names on the battlefield.

At present, however, the engine lacks the facilities to allow individual unit names and unit commander names.

[Miletus]

I personally think the game works fine without explicitly represented commanders. I think the role of commanders is almost certainly overstated in tabletop FOGR - a deliberate design decision to give generals a more interesting role in the game. All this heroic running around rallying units may be appropriate for Julius Caesar (according to his own self-promoting autobiography) but it isn't the rule in the Pike and Shot period.

Yep, I agree. Although a handful of leaders might have thrown themselves into the fray as a "one off" at a crucial moment (eg good old Gustavus Adolphus - and we know how THAT worked out!) , most seemed happy not to. Rules and games that encourage the tactical use of generals moving from sector to sector during the battle to serially beef up units/wings has always struck me as pretty absurd...

[Ironclad]

I humbly withdraw the term "beef up" then.

I can't comment on Gustavus Adolphus but if we look at the role of outstanding commanders in the ECW like Rupert and Cromwell, its clear that their immediate battle influence went beyond the unit they were leading/accompanying - certainly it seems to have impacted most directly on one line of units in their particular wing. So if command is to be restricted how about the commanded unit and its immediate neighbours to left and right for the most senior general(s), whereas any others are limited to their own unit? Or perhaps a higher bonus for an outstanding senior's own unit and a lower one for its two neighbours and the units of other generals.

[Miletus]

I humbly withdraw the term "beef up" then.

I can't comment on Gustavus Adolphus but if we look at the role of outstanding commanders in the ECW like Rupert and Cromwell, its clear that their immediate battle influence went beyond the unit they were leading/accompanying - certainly it seems to have impacted most directly on one line of units in their particular wing. So if command is to be restricted how about the commanded unit and its immediate neighbours to left and right for the most senior general(s), whereas any others are limited to their own unit? Or perhaps a higher bonus for an outstanding senior's own unit and a lower one for its two neighbours and the units of other generals.

Oooops - I'm really sorry, I didn't deliberately use the term "beef up" to have a go at you, Ironclad! Clearly a Freudian slip - my subconscious is evidently a nasty piece of work though...

[shawkhan2]

Actually of course, the human player already has more control over units than any general in history.
I can see that it might be interesting to have a Leader unit that would have a positive effect on the morale of adjacent units, just the reverse of adjacent routing units. This might be reasonable.
Most of a general's job is over once the battle begins, so this addition would just add a little 'chrome' to the game.

[fogman]

I find these opinions on the unimportance of leadership very curious.

Looking at lutzen alone:

The deaths of both gustavus and pappenheim effectively paralyzed action on that wing.
Knyphausen, the Protestant commander of the reserve, was credited with preventing the rout of the centre after the destruction of the elite brigades of the first line.
Piccolomini was lavishly rewarded after the battle for holding the line after the death of Pappenheim.
Bernhard of Saxe Weimar, came from the left to the centre to assume command and he was able to get the Protestant army which was near rout, to attack again in the centre.
Wallenstein was known to reward and punish with equal extreme, acts of courage or cowardice, so much so that he was followed by unattached volunteers eager to impress him. He was said to have ridden from regiment to regiment around the centre right where the strategic windmill battery was situated. And no doubt his presence inspired every officer who wanted to be in his good book. One, Hagen, was later condemned to death for cowardice.

Warfare had become sophisticated enough that it was no longer two out of control rabbles launching at one another. Reserves are kept so that commanders can influence the fighting. Of course human players don't use reserves or fight in depth but constantly trying to outflank with every unit they have... which make it impossible to simulate battles... without special design.

In a game without command and control, *maybe* commanders are not necessary in terms of influence on combat and movement, but the importance of commanders regarding morale (positive or negative in the case of incapacity) cannot be brushed aside easily.

[Sabratha]

However, there is no reason why generals could not be permanently attached to certain units - which is more in keeping with the period. Their main effect would be to boost those units, and potentially cause some dismay to their own and surrounding units when they are incapacitated.

This is probably what we would add, which would at least satisfy people's reasonable desire to see the famous names on the battlefield.

At present, however, the engine lacks the facilities to allow individual unit names and unit commander names.

I would entirely agree. Reading anything about the TYW will usually show that once a battle commenced, commanders led just their personal units. Christian of Halberstadt or Knyphausen would be great examples.

Western warfare rarely attempted to have overall commanders "manage" the battle during its course, although there were notable exceptions like Jean de Tilly. It was much more common in the east, notably in the Polish-Lithuanian art of war where the Hetman would orchestrate the low of the battle, chiefly by using reserves and moving nits in and out of the line of battle. Similarly in the Ottoman empire.

However that "overall commander" role is best left to the player alone, without representation on the game map imho.

[jomni]

If this change is introduced, will it be an optional extra?
Must admit I really dislike the idea, which I think isn't generally (if you'll forgive the pun) appropriate for the period.

They're instrumental during the Japanese Sengoku Jidai period.

[Miletus]

Hi Jomni,
Well I'm sure you know a lot more about the Japanese end of the period than I do, so I'm happy to defer to your judgement! And I'm really looking forward to your mod!!!

[TimW]

Hi Jomni,

As I understand it the Japanese command operated as a sort of general staff/tactical operations centre rather than the great man and bodyguards rushing about the place using their influence to inspire waverers or lead charges. Would you agree? Clearly if the HQ was over-run the consequences for the army it commanded wouldn't have been good though.

More generally, the Ottoman, Russian and other Turkish/Tartar influenced armies don't seem to have gone in for senior generals fighting in the front rank or even getting anywhere near the point of danger to their persons.

[jomni]

In Sengoku Japan, the troops are generally loyal to their minor lord / general and each lord are loyal to the Daimyo (faction head). Once a minor lord retires from a battle all his subordinate units go with him. The troops don't stick around to help other lords or the daimyo. There are also many stories of lords switching sides during battles but of course this is even more complicated to implement.

Fighting at the front is also celebrated and also individual combat between generals happen a lot. But the commander in chief / daimyos usually stay in their camps strategizing, receiving messengers and sending orders. I will try to implement a honjin (command tent) in my mod. This will be similar to FOGR main camp / supply base.

Previous post is correct. While FOG-style commanders are welcome, these still do not simulate the Japanese C&C well. Samurai generals don't just go around and influence any unit, battle group or division at their own whim. This would be just like Shogun Total War. The organization should be static instead. Each general is in charge of a fixed group of units. One solution is to assign one big mixed unit in P&S to a historical commander but you lose tactical options. That is why I am still doing individual units / battlegroups without referencing to the historical generals. If commanders are in the game then maybe we can group them into fixed divisions.

What I mean by "instumental" is that modeling specific commander units in the game add a lot of flavor to a Japanese setting when done right. Rallying troops and leading the charge are their main purpose as per FOGR but only for units under them. The order of battle should be static. if possible, Having different stats for fighting , strategy, charisma also adds flavor together with the posibility of individual combat (dueling) between commanders.

[TimW]

It was the honjin and associated staff and messenger corps I was primarily thinking of and absolutely agree any Japanese army should have one. Its generals halloping hither and thither spreading their personal influence I have less enthusiasm for. Especially as far from all armies were tied to the Western European idea of what an army commander should be doing.

And even the Western European kings and princes were getting less inclined to lead from the front than their ancestors. There's also the question as to whether mercenaries (who made up a high proportion of many European armies) would be more inspired by their general's personal heroics or his ability to pay wages on time and win battles without getting too many of his troops killed.

[Miletus]

It was the honjin and associated staff and messenger corps I was primarily thinking of and absolutely agree any Japanese army should have one. Its generals halloping hither and thither spreading their personal influence I have less enthusiasm for. Especially as far from all armies were tied to the Western European idea of what an army commander should be doing.

And even the Western European kings and princes were getting less inclined to lead from the front than their ancestors. There's also the question as to whether mercenaries (who made up a high proportion of many European armies) would be more inspired by their general's personal heroics or his ability to pay wages on time and win battles without getting too many of his troops killed.

Good point. Instead of roving generals, maybe the game should incorporate roving bank managers to pump up unit morale?

"Point d'argent, point de Suisse..."

[Aryaman]

If this is implemented I imagine there will be an endless dioscussion on the rating of generals.