Slitherine

Deeter said "That's why I'd like to just see some rule to make units stick together to create larger BGs." I always try to think of ways to modify the system without any or much programming. I have suggested a mod to command and control that would be a step in that direction. To repeat, I suggest the following:

1) BGs out of command range would have their movement limited.
2) Skirmish light foot and light horse would be able to move 2 hexes and turn.
3) All other troops would be able to move 1 hex OR turn.
4) Any troops out of command range who charge an enemy within charge range can still move full distance to complete the charge.

I would combine the above with a new class of commander (call it "unit commander") with a command range of 2 hexes. As this commander is meant to represent a lower level command structure, I would not subject it to being killed, nor would I give it any morale, cohesion or combat bonus. Due to his reduced abilities, I would give this new commander a low cost, say 10 points. It is really designed to facilitate movement and to keep BGs together while moving and to more closely reflect the TT rules.

The existing IC, FC and TC commanders would still exert their command range and be able to allow units to move normal distance or double move.

I think the above would be easy to implement, still allow the individual movement of BGs, but restrict the movement of BGs out of command range.

Well, before we all get carried away with mods, new rules and comparisons to other games, it is perhaps important to remember the target audience.

Slitherines PC games IMO fall into the category of wargames Lite.
They do a pretty good job of making the player use historical tactics, but they're not full-blown simulations.
Now, let me make it perfectly clear that this isn't a criticism, nor some snide remark as to the quality of the games.
It's simply a design-decision.

Far as I can see, the games (FoG and BA in particular) are designed to look good, be easy to use, and perhaps most importantly to be fast-playing.
Just as there are players who'll prefer Axis&Allies over Advanced Squad Leader, there are players who are willing to live with 'fudged' mechanics in order to facilitate play.

The funny thing is that all of us who are complaining about the mechanics are still playing the game.
In my case, FoG will never replace say War in the East or Combat Mission.....But nor can I see it leaving my HD entirely, despite what I perceive as flaws.
It does a damn good job of giving a quick fix of bloody slaughter (read: fun!)

Lars

mceochaidh wrote:Deeter said "That's why I'd like to just see some rule to make units stick together to create larger BGs." I always try to think of ways to modify the system without any or much programming. I have suggested a mod to command and control that would be a step in that direction. To repeat, I suggest the following:

1) BGs out of command range would have their movement limited.
2) Skirmish light foot and light horse would be able to move 2 hexes and turn.
3) All other troops would be able to move 1 hex OR turn.
4) Any troops out of command range who charge an enemy within charge range can still move full distance to complete the charge.

I like these ideas very much.

I would combine the above with a new class of commander (call it "unit commander") with a command range of 2 hexes. As this commander is meant to represent a lower level command structure, I would not subject it to being killed, nor would I give it any morale, cohesion or combat bonus. Due to his reduced abilities, I would give this new commander a low cost, say 10 points. It is really designed to facilitate movement and to keep BGs together while moving and to more closely reflect the TT rules.

The existing IC, FC and TC commanders would still exert their command range and be able to allow units to move normal distance or double move.

I think the above would be easy to implement, still allow the individual movement of BGs, but restrict the movement of BGs out of command range.

Or could it just be a case of increasing the number of leader slots available in the DAG from 4 to either 5 or 6? I make a lot of scenarios and I can put 6 or 7 leaders on each side and the system accepts it OK.

CheerfullyInsane wrote: Far as I can see, the games (FoG and BA in particular) are designed to look good, be easy to use, and perhaps most importantly to be fast-playing.

I think that is right, Lars, but I don't think that adding greater realism necessarily compromises playability. A lot of what we are discussing here is about computer calculations rather than asking players to learn more complex rules.

There was another big thread regarding the addition of a supplementary level of command.

Truth is, most probably we won't see any drastical changes of FoG gameplay's core mechanisms.