stockwellpete wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 3:53 pm
Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 3:37 pm
ok, so if we retain the 1 tile for SG and 2 for CinC for +1 to CT if adjacent while general is in combat, then the in-combat range of the general should be 1 or 2 as is appropriate for the general type for rallying, refusals and anarchy as well?
Not sure really. The command radius for all generals now is 4 squares. But if we do what you say will units 2 squares away from a S-G in combat then get the anarchy penalty for being out of command? Will it happen on the same turn or the next turn?
I actually think the rules as originally published in 10.3 are better (and much simpler) for our purposes. Command benefits should exist in all parts of the command area whether the general is in combat or not. The command structure of a contingent is not just the general, although for game purposes it is abstracted to that figure. A section of a line would not be more likely to anarchy just because another part of the same line (where the general was situated) had started to fight.
so you would have something like:
Bonus AP: if within 4 tiles of general if that general is NOT in combat
Anarchy/Refuse considerations: if within 4 tiles of general, whether in combat or not
+1 to CT: if within 1 tile of general if that general IS in combat
cohesion check for general death radius: ?
or simply get bonus ap, +1 to ct, and avoid anarchy/refuse penalty if within 4 squares of your general regardless of whether they are in combat?
edit: one other detail from vanilla is that a pursuing general can still provide morale bonus (within command radius/4, which for us is always 1) and not issue orders for bonus ap within 4 ap, so like they are in combat (and in the mod that would mean that the reduction in anarchy and charge refusals would only happen within 1 radius of a pursuing general, also like with a general in combat)
One distinction which vanilla makes, which I think is important, is that between staying in command of the situation by holding the general back so he can concentrate on giving commands (and thus adding ap if within the larger radius) and inspiring by your presence by diving into the fray (and thus adding +1 ct while in combat within the smaller radius). I'm thinking this is because explicit orders can be given to a rider (who is kind of abstracted away) if the general is available to do so, and that rider can go a longer distance than the sight and sound of the general's personal inspiring presence. I think because we are dealing with ancient and medieval generals who seemed like they personally took part in the fighting, it is right to assume that command and control would drop once the general's unit was in combat, because that would mean the general himself was in combat.
My issue with the vanilla implementation is not the basic idea, but the fact that +50 POA and +1 to CT to adjacent is almost always better than the bonus ap, which is just kind of a little bit nice to keep for an extra turn or two, but not nearly as beneficial as the huge bonus to fighting power in a significant part of the line by stacking up the generals there and attacking with them.
The abstract motivation here is, from a gameplay perspective, what we are trying to do is add meaningful decision-making, NOT just pointless complexity. Maximizing meaningful decisions while minimizing complexity is ideal, but sometimes to add more decision-making you have to add more complexity to have more things to decide. That was a little too abstract, but what I mean concretely in this particular case is that the player should grapple with choosing whether to put their general into combat, rather than just always doing so because the +1 to ct and +50 poa bonus is almost always better than keeping the ap bonus as in vanilla. It would be make the decision of whether to commit a bit more compelling if the player faces the choice of:
1) committing and getting the +1 to CT within 1 tile, and the +50 poa to its unit, at the risk of higher anarchy, and more charge refusals, and loss of rallying, at 2,3, and 4 tiles away, and the existing in vanilla loss of bonus ap, loss of ability to move the general, and risk of getting the general killed and imposing a CT check.
2) not committing and keeping things under control (less likely to refuse charges or anarchy charge, and keeping rallying at 2,3, and 4 tiles away), plus the bonus to ap within 4 tiles, plus protecting the general, plus being able to move him where needed, at the loss of the CT and poa bonus.
With the addition of charge refusals and anarchy and rally changes, those seem like more equal choices that the player would really have to grapple with. But, if you just get all the bonuses and anarchy reductions if within 4 tiles of the general, regardless of whether the general is in combat, then why bother doing anything other than committing the general to combat as soon as possible (which is what tends to happen in vanilla as well). That is, you would just end up with some more complex underlying mechanics than vanilla, but without adding much to decisionmaking, if it was still just always best to commit the general.
I'm also thinking that some more serious consequences to losing a general are in order, to make committing him to combat an even more serious decision. Maybe increasing the radius in which units take a CT, or perhaps adding an extra -1 modifier to such a check?