Commanders

[plc]

Hi,

I've just started playing FOG and I am using an army that is almost totally comprised of drilled troops.

My make-up has been one IC and two TCs. It has been suggested that it might be better to consider using 4 TCs as it will allow greater micro-control.

Anybody want to share their wisdom regarding the relative advantages of different commander configurations for drilled armies.

Thanks

Pete

[OldenTired]

Hi,

I've just started playing FOG and I am using an army that is almost totally comprised of drilled troops.

My make-up has been one IC and two TCs. It has been suggested that it might be better to consider using 4 TCs as it will allow greater micro-control.

Anybody want to share their wisdom regarding the relative advantages of different commander configurations for drilled armies.

Thanks

Pete

depends on what the army is designed to do.

eg. if you stand back and shoot, then an IC is most useful. but if you want to engage and need that general in the front rank, TCs are the best option. IMHO.

[Andy1972]

For heavy foot armies that are facing shooty armies.. An IC is the way to go, IMO... But the flexablility of haveing 4 TC's is nice.

[petedalby]

All good advice.

Pete

[timmy1]

Remember also that 4 TC vs 1 IX and 2 TC radically decreases your chance of getting initiative. Not that reducing your chance of initiative is necessiarily a problem but it is a consideration.

[hammy]

I have used:

IC,TC,TC
FC,TC,TC
TC,TC,TC,TC
TC,FC,TC,TC (TC cic to lose initiative, FC sub to lead the flank march)
FC,TC,TC,TC
IC,TC,TC,TC
IC,FC,TC,TC

Most of the time I stick with 4 TCs but I can see the value in the IC, 2TC combo as well.

[petedalby]

I tried using just 2 TCs recently to max out the LB BGs in my HYW English recently but it's not something I'll be repeating.

Always good to try new things though!

Pete

[rbodleyscott]

Remember also that 4 TC vs 1 IX and 2 TC radically decreases your chance of getting initiative. Not that reducing your chance of initiative is necessiarily a problem but it is a consideration.

I have been deliberately taking 4 TCs with shooty cavalry armies, so as to get first move.

I couldn't give a monkey's what terrain the enemy puts down, it makes very little difference - terrain often works to the shooty cavalry army's advantage. (The great Steppes controversy is a red herring).

First turn is much more useful to gain skirmishing room.

[hazelbark]

I think the real issue is getting below three usable generals is a problem.

Last week at the club I had 2TC + allied TC. Yikes. Too little ability to fix problems.

I think 3 TCs is viable for a LOT of armies.

[dave_r]

I couldn't give a monkey's what terrain the enemy puts down, it makes very little difference - terrain often works to the shooty cavalry army's advantage. (The great Steppes controversy is a red herring).

First turn is much more useful to gain skirmishing room.

Depending upon the army of course. If initiative is gained then facing an army of heavy infantry then there can be a lot of gain in putting rough going down as it inconveniences the HF much more than the LH.

Against another LH army it can be a disaster due to the influence of the IC.

Normally, though, a terrain option with RG will allow the enemy to put Difficult Going down which can be a real pain. When I use the Steppes, half my plan is to neutralise all my opponents LF - no RG or DG gives them nowhere to hide.

Not as clear cut as I originally thought though.

[jlopez]

I think the real issue is getting below three usable generals is a problem.

Last week at the club I had 2TC + allied TC. Yikes. Too little ability to fix problems.

I think 3 TCs is viable for a LOT of armies.

It is but it then becomes almost imperative to keep your army together as splitting it leaves one wing with only one general which makes committing him to combat a risky proposition. I've found using generals in pairs often works best and I tend to prefer 4 TCs.

I tend to use an IC when I have a lot of cheap, undrilled troops which need help with the CMTs and against shooting. Another case is when the army is so small that I need an IC's invaluable +1 to recover routed units or prevent them from routing. Either way, I use ICs sparingly.

FCs I've used once to lead flank marches but I won't be using one again. There is always enough room on the table and I can always make use of the extra 15 points if I take a TC instead. IMHO, FCs are the one useless thing in FOG.

Julian

[rbodleyscott]

IMHO, FCs are the one useless thing in FOG.

Except for flank marching.

[babyshark]

I couldn't give a monkey's what terrain the enemy puts down, it makes very little difference - terrain often works to the shooty cavalry army's advantage. (The great Steppes controversy is a red herring).

First turn is much more useful to gain skirmishing room.

I am coming around to this view myself. Especially the part about the "steppes controversy" being BS.

I find FCs moderately useful to use up 15 points that could not otherwise get spent.

Marc

[richnz]

Agreed, the steppes isn't that important to a shooty army- in my experience they would much rather have the first move so they can pin and shoot. A few patches of terrain aren't a big deal.

[grahambriggs]

IMHO, FCs are the one useless thing in FOG.

Except for flank marching.

And moving a wide battle line

[grahambriggs]

I think the real issue is getting below three usable generals is a problem.

Last week at the club I had 2TC + allied TC. Yikes. Too little ability to fix problems.

I think 3 TCs is viable for a LOT of armies.

Yep I think 3TCs can be viable, even at 800 points for some armies. Means you can have 695 points of troops and if they get used right there'll be less pressure on your army. Against the common IC and 2TCs you get 45 points more troopps and a double move to start