A different way to play fog 2 (need critics and ideas)

[lapdog666]

while i enjoy fog2 and have nearly 600 hours logged in multiplayer i am starting to think about adding meaningful and fairly realistic house rules to my games

i came up with a set of really simple house rules which are easy to follow

it ll be explained down bellow. now what i 'd need is people to point to me to the weaknesses (both gameplay AND historical) or outright contradictions and fatal flaws
or just if it wouldnt change anything for the better, that said i 'd also be grateful for improvements , if existing set of rules prove worthy of improvement


here bellow is the screenshot and the rules




1. SG must be in range of CNC (cnc's aura represented by the blue color) if SG is to do exactly what CNC (or me) wants him to do
2.ALL Skirmishers MUST be assigned to AT LEAST one SG
3.ALL skirmishers are considered part of SG they are binded to, and rule #1 applies to them
4. SG's Battalions DO NOT need to be in range of CNC, but they need to be in range of their SG
5. SG which has the BIG AURA (one of three SGS has it always i think) is 2nd in command, IF CNC DIES
edit: rule#6: CNC IS not allowed to move to SG formations

[Kabill]

Personally, I'd argue there's a few issues with this:

- It feels to me like it would be too difficult to keep track of. Having to keep checking the command radius of units to make sure you're doing things correctly seems like a lot of work, and in the context of a multiplayer game it would be difficult to keep track of you're opponent's side. So I'm not sure any benefits you're getting outweigh the administrative cost. (But I'm a lazy creature, so maybe that's just me).
- When does a unit count as in/out of command range. I.e. is it decided moment-to-moment, or at the beginning of the player's turn? The latter will make moving units a pain, since you'd strictly need to order unit moves such that all units are always in command radius which will be quite cumbersome.
- I'm not sure exactly what the consequences are for units being outside of command radius. I.e. what would it mean for a unit not to "act exactly what the CNC" wants them to do. A basic interpretation of that is that they cannot act at all, but that ignores scope for independent initiative of units, or the role of subordinate commanders (e.g. in the context where a commander is killed). If it means something more complex, you then need a system for adjudicating what units do when they are out of command, which would need working out and which would probably be difficult to administer in the context of a PBEM game.

As such, while I appreciate the intention behind it, I'm not personally convinced it would work well in practice (but I am always open to being proven wrong).

[lapdog666]

Personally, I'd argue there's a few issues with this:

- It feels to me like it would be too difficult to keep track of. Having to keep checking the command radius of units to make sure you're doing things correctly seems like a lot of work, and in the context of a multiplayer game it would be difficult to keep track of you're opponent's side. So I'm not sure any benefits you're getting outweigh the administrative cost. (But I'm a lazy creature, so maybe that's just me).


- When does a unit count as in/out of command range. I.e. is it decided moment-to-moment, or at the beginning of the player's turn? The latter will make moving units a pain, since you'd strictly need to order unit moves such that all units are always in command radius which will be quite cumbersome.
- I'm not sure exactly what the consequences are for units being outside of command radius. I.e. what would it mean for a unit not to "act exactly what the CNC" wants them to do. A basic interpretation of that is that they cannot act at all, but that ignores scope for independent initiative of units, or the role of subordinate commanders (e.g. in the context where a commander is killed). If it means something more complex, you then need a system for adjudicating what units do when they are out of command, which would need working out and which would probably be difficult to administer in the context of a PBEM game.

As such, while I appreciate the intention behind it, I'm not personally convinced it would work well in practice (but I am always open to being proven wrong).

lets presume for a moment that it wont be significantly more difficult to play and touch on the 2nd and 3rd issue or command radius.

2)you can send your battalion outside your SG's Range or aura, but next turn you have to get SG close enough so that battalion is again in range to issue command which would bring the battalion again out of range ,rinse and repeat if needed

3)i was thinking about a rule that units which are out of command range can only fall back,stand where they are or charge enemy. charge is only possible if they are in range that turn
also we should take into account that moving SG's is easy, they can move 4 hexes per turn to supervise complicated movements on the flanks
or that issue can be reduced by assigning your 2nd in command (SG with big radius ) or CNC to such complex manouvers that are likely to result in chasing on the flanks far away from the main line

in all goal would be to prevent complicated manouvers happening without fear of messing up command and communication and to see more well defined,prepared blocks of troops, instead of all over the place style

[Kabill]

So with (2) the implication is that for a unit to be issued orders, that unit needs to start it's move/action within command radius? I suspect that would probably be best as it's the most flexible option, but you would need to be careful sometimes that you don't accidentally move your units in the wrong order.

With (3) I think at some continued action is certainly required, but I don't think your suggestion goes far enough. In particular, the inability to move or turn is devastating: infantry might not notice it much but horse and light troops will, as are easily scattered as a result of evasions or pursuits, and I don't think it would make sense for these units to simply stop because they ran a bit too far.

I do, then, get the imperative behind your idea, but I don't feel like the game is very well suited to it. In reality, troops would not be continually micromanaged by their high-level commanders: they would be given general orders which would then be executed at a lower level. Being cut off from a commander might therefore mean that they cannot act effectively at a strategic level (e.g. withdrawing; moving to reinforce a part of the line or envelop a part of the enemy's etc.), but on a tactical level they would still remain operational (i.e. skirmishers will continue to skirmish, based on the general order to fight, even if their commander cannot direct them personally).

What you really need, then, is a game where the player issues orders, not to individual units, but to commanders which are represented by the AI and which executes the tactical level moves based on those general orders. That has some appeal - I can imagine it working well as part of a game with a larger strategy level (actually, there was an old game, which I forget the name of, based on the wars of Ancient Greece where you would deploy your troops at the beginning of a battle and issue strategic orders but then the battle itself was automated and played out according to your's and your opponent's plans). But I think the loss of tactical level moves in something like FoG2 would be to its detriment, as there's a lot of skill in fine maneuvering of units which really distinguishes high level players (so I've learned at my expense!).

One possible compromise for what you're suggesting, which I think would fit better within the scope of what FoG2 is about, is to further limit turning of units that are not withing command radius. Ultimately, complex maneuvering is contingent on facing - if you did something like restricting turn-and-move entirely for units that are out of command range (so the only option for a unit without a commander to turn would be to reform, costing it's whole move), that would seriously harm the ability of units to undertake complex moves in a timely fashion without stopping them from actually participating in the battle (it would also provide a distinction between commanderless units and maneuverable units, which has some appeal). I think you'd need to exclude light units (which you were keen to include in your solution) as otherwise they'd probably end up useless (and their mobility reflects how they fight), although I suppose you could limit some of their free turning if they are not in command radius even if it is not blocked entirely. To this, you might also add an inability to fall back, since that's actually quite a difficult maneuver to perform in an orderly fashion.