RE ICs and their ‘cost effectiveness
As a non comp player ( as much to do with personal reasons as anything else - travel away from home overnight , no wheeled transport etc) maybe this might be seen as off topic but this issue has been raised here in this thread.
Please don’t muck about with v 3.0 - if only for the sake of us non comp folks!
The cost effectiveness of an IC in a standard 15mm 4x5 800 point game is, I suggest, different to that of say, a 1200 point 28mm army on a 6x8 – which I regularly play. I stick to 1MU = one inch as 1.5 inches needs to much mental arithmetic.
Not allowing a 50% increase in commanders to match the 50% increase in points - and of mini/maxima for troop types - changes the situation as one typically has 50% more units for the same number of commanders. The IC’s command range and ability to move 6 units together eg a block of 6 pike units or of Roman heavy foot, and the 12 “ reach has more value and the relative scarcity of commanders makes one more cautious in their use in the front rank . Especially now you can lose one even if you win a close combat!
The historicity of the FOG(AM) approach to command is arguable but it is a reasonable game construct and simple especially when so little is known about the commanders in many of the armies in many eras. A default FC or TC is what you would end up with if you could not find anyone who justified IC status which would be much of the time. I note that in the original V1.0 and 2.0 lists few armies were denied an IC – Burgundy – any others? It would be very harsh call for most to be denied an IC given the wide spread of years covered for so many lists.
I think we handled it a bit better
in FOG(N) but much more is known of the hundreds of divisional and Corps commanders in the era and we have the division and corps structure to shape it. For those who may not know we have a separate “ charismatic” add-on quality - and not all lists get to have one. Nor do they all get top level “ Exceptional “ commanders and we have command points to limit how many CMTs for example they may try - one only for the lowest level three for top level etc etc. I think we use command more as a resource and the combined effect is a measure of the relative quality of the staff systems and staff officers in different armies of the period and which changed over time in some nations eg 1806 Prussians versus 1813-15. We treat the initiative as a sum of the top level commander plus a number out of 3 for a given list and it has different effects. Much more nuanced. But this is for just 23 years of history!
That said what might one do different in FOG(AM)? I have experimented with the idea of a leader who is not a commander, as such, who can only affect the unit he is with and whose principal purpose is to fight in the front rank- the warrior ideal. If he doesn’t put himself in the front he has no effect on close combat cohesion tests.
Achilles et al fits that bill as do many from the Dark Ages - Ivar the Boneless? - and the medieval era.
On the latter limiting an FC or TC commander to their own “Battle” also works. The Battle is the nearest thing to a consistent order of battle /structure in that world so a minimum of 3 ( Vanward Mainward and Rearward) and a maximum of 4 battles ( 4th is a reserve) in an army with a minimum of 3 units in a battle is the result and you must have a commander for each battle . An IC is typically the army commander ( as well as of a battle sometimes) and can “ float”. ( Edward IV at Tewkesbury I have also used variations between a named “ Royal “ Commander as against a non Royal one. The presence of the King ( Harry VI maybe excepted
) makes a difference to knights at least. And you can treat Edward Earl of March or as Duke of York differently to when he was an anointed King.
I am not sure if any of that really helps however! It is fun though.
Needs a separate thread I think.
