Leaders and Magnesia

[Aryaman]

Hi
I have noticed this in the product page
Named generals who can influence combat and morale of units under their command.
That is a moved from Pike and Shot system, would they be played like in FOG?
An unrelated question, one of the battles listed is Magnesia. I wrote an article on the battle for Ancient Warfare magazine, it is one of those ancient battles in which ancient sourcess are completely biased, resulting in very inflated numbers for the Seleucidan army. That could lead to misrepresent Seleucidan armies as a mob of low value troops to compensate the numbers. Modern historiography tend to balance numbers so that the Romans could have actually outnumbered the Seleucidans or in any case be fairly equal.

[rbodleyscott]

Hi
I have noticed this in the product page
Named generals who can influence combat and morale of units under their command.
That is a moved from Pike and Shot system, would they be played like in FOG?

No, they would be played like in Sengoku Jidai. They can be moved from unit to unit like in tabletop FOG. I don't think they could do this in FOG1.

The game has group moves - where you can move the whole of a command with one order when the enemy are not too close. This greatly speeds up the initial moves as with a group move all of the units in the command move simultaneously. The AI does the same. There are no extra-long march moves, however.

An unrelated question, one of the battles listed is Magnesia. I wrote an article on the battle for Ancient Warfare magazine, it is one of those ancient battles in which ancient sourcess are completely biased, resulting in very inflated numbers for the Seleucidan army. That could lead to misrepresent Seleucidan armies as a mob of low value troops to compensate the numbers. Modern historiography tend to balance numbers so that the Romans could have actually outnumbered the Seleucidans or in any case be fairly equal.

We largely ignored the alleged horde of low quality troops apart from a few token units.

[Adraeth]

Answering to rbodleyscott, you are right in FOG pc game the player is unable to pass the leader to one unit to another, it is more like tabletop DBA or DBM, a leader unit is always the leader and he remains in that unit.

I do like the Sengoku jidai use for leaders.

[mceochaidh]

Regarding leaders, will the command and control system work similar to FOG miniatures where an Inspired Commander has a larger command range then a Field or Troop commander? If so, what will units out of command range be able to do? For example, will a unit out of command range be able to shoot or charge enemy in range? Will there be "simple and complex moves" such as in Fog minis? Will "shifting" be allowed? Will commanders be able to command units not in their line of command? Will allied commands sometimes prove to be unreliable?

What I have seen so far looks like a profoundly intelligent conception!

Mac

[rbodleyscott]

Regarding leaders, will the command and control system work similar to FOG miniatures where an Inspired Commander has a larger command range then a Field or Troop commander?

If so, what will units out of command range be able to do? For example, will a unit out of command range be able to shoot or charge enemy in range? Will there be "simple and complex moves" such as in Fog minis? Will "shifting" be allowed?

Troops in command radius get a free 45 degree turn, those outside have to pay for the turn.

Sub-generals can command troops outside their own command, unless they are allies. ally generals can't.

[jamespcrowley]

On the face of it, this seems to be quite a light penalty for units not in command.

Given that un-manoeuvrable units don't get the free 45 degree turn anyway, an army that comprises of a high number of such units will not be penalised much for having units out-of-command.

I would have thought that some reduction to movement, not just turning, should apply. After all, out-of-command units are not getting their orders so quickly and are playing catch-up to some extent, so should be lagging behind. Was that not the case with the original FoG?

I'm not even sure that such units should be able to be ordered to attack; or is that perceived as too harsh?

[Benedict151]

hello Jim
To be honest the question of command control in games is a thorny one, and whilst some of us might want to see "stricter" command control rules its also a game and has to be entertaining and some players would not be happy with the lack of control. Indeed a fairly constant criticism from some quarters for both P&S and S-J was that players did not have enough control over their units

So in short its a balancing act and your sentence kind of summed it up - more 'rigorous' command control rules were "perceived as too harsh"

regards
Ben Wilkins

[jamespcrowley]

Hi Ben

I fully understand that the extent to which a player can control their troops, or not, is a case of 'one mans meat is another's poison'

To that end would it not be possible to have optional rules, such that those players craving greater 'realism' around command and control could be catered for?

Or would such rules make it too difficult for the AI to handle, as I suspect is usually the case in most wargames?

Cheers
Jim

[rbodleyscott]

Or would such rules make it too difficult for the AI to handle, as I suspect is usually the case in most wargames?

That is a significant consideration. Also it would complicate the setup process for MP games.