Slitherine

Just bumping this thread to the top, in case CC's are something that Terry is looking at with forthcoming amendments.

- For what it is worth, my view on the value of exceptional CCs has moved a little, and I now think they are costed about right.

I've used one a couple of times now, just to see how they go.
While the extra CPs you get are generally unusable, being able to re-roll a failed rally test is a worthwhile boost. More importantly, the +3 to get to be the attacker (and reasonable chance of getting a 'free' extra unit, especially if your agression is 3 to start with) make them almost worth the points IMO.

- and L3 CCs should be a rarity so it is a good thing if they are slightly overpriced, otherwise we might see them fielded too often.

A rule saying that you deploy 4 units at a time (rather than 3) if the opponent's CC is better than you might be an interesting (but not strictly neccessary IMO) addition, but I don't think that any more than this is required.

Just my thoughts!

Cheers
Brett

Too bad Blathergut would never agree with you, he is so stingy he only ever gets a competent corps commander and then has him running about leading a cavalry unit to boot.
I usually go with a skilled corps commander, but lately I have been forced to downgrade as I needed the points for some better fighting troops. When we first started to play and only had the rule book army lists to use I took the exceptional commander, never ran out of command points but also found it way too expensive to use him. With the army list books out Austria rarely sees that option any more, I would rather spend the points on charismatic.
two cents worth.

i agree...just...i'd rather have the extra troops...otherwise the austrian smarmy swarms swarm me...

Just you wait until you see our glorious, undefeated french army of italy 1805...mwhahahaha...

General Mack will see how his old school army from 1796 does against their more modern counterparts from the Italia.

I have always been happy that Exceptional Corps Commanders are just fine as they currently are - both in cost and application. The real benefit IMHO comes not from CPs, but in maximising the chance of being attacker. Though I must admit, the re-rolling of a single rallying attempt has been very useful over my past few games .

And, if you want an easy way to consume more CPs, then simply require a CP (with no CMT required) to move any unit that is out of command. It will give a better historic feel of units needing to stay closer to their divisional formations, and require more careful marshalling of CPs once units spread out more. Heck, it might even mean that higher level divisional generals become more useful. It will also mean a player will need to give more thought to how their divisions will work during the game.

That would really mess up Blatherguts armee du Francais as he always runs parts of his divisions on opposite sides of the tables. If they need to be rallied most likely their commanders are way over on the opposite end of the battle field. Forcing them to be kept together might make for an interesting game...

I don't know the minutia of napoleonic battles to be able to say whether or not individual regiments, initially with a specific division, ever/never fought removed from the other units of the original division.

Blathergut wrote:I don't know the minutia of napoleonic battles to be able to say whether or not individual regiments, initially with a specific division, ever/never fought removed from the other units of the original division.

They tended to operate together on a battlefield. The exception tended to be when a detachment tolld to defend a position. Usually a defined hill, town bridge, etc.

The Austrians werre probably the most guilty of detaching battalions and regiements to guard towns and crossing. They lost a lot of force that way, but they didn't do it on the battlefield.

if you want an easy way to consume more CPs, then simply require a CP (with no CMT required) to move any unit that is out of command. It will give a better historic feel of units needing to stay closer to their divisional formations, and require more careful marshalling of CPs once units spread out more. Heck, it might even mean that higher level divisional generals become more useful. It will also mean a player will need to give more thought to how their divisions will work during the game.

That does seem like a nice solution to the problem of making CP allocation meaningful.

thinking about it more it might be more complicated then it sounds. What is out of command? And do you also count an extra point if you require a CMT while out of command range? At present it will cost you an extra CP just to take the cmt.

I think this would be a very simple thing to implement. Out-of-command would be as per the usual command and control rules for the command ranges for commanders. The spending of a CP to make a simple move when out of command could be required but not need a CMT to go with it (cos it is a simple move); a move requiring a CMT when out of command could cost an extra CP (as it does currently).

Thus to implement this, it requires only the addition of 1 bullet point reading: "Any move for a unit outside of the command range of its general requires the expenditure of a CP by that general in addition to any other CPs normally required for that move."

Well when you put it that way it does seem more simple. I will have to see if I can convince Msr army spreader to give it a try. Might work out for him he was complaining about having 2 mandatory skilled division commanders, so this might actually make them more useful to him.

How will an attached general affect a unit? Seems they can wander about far from division till he dies, then it gets tricky.

An attached BC would effectively mean a unit was 'in command' . . . as you say, the problem starts if that attached general becomes a casualty !


Mind you, this approach would also mean that officer attachments become more useful as well

OK that's all cleared up,now if I can convince Blathergut to try it out we can see how it works in practice. Saturday is looking good for us to have another blue and white bash.

I'll think on it. I have to make a list of the changes we're using. I'm beginning to lose track.