GENERALS

[rbodleyscott]

I am not sure why I would want it, but is it possible to have two IC generals?

Don M

No

[madaxeman]

Will not be at Usk so thought I would put a fnal comment here about generals.

Generals however, I do think of as a mobile +1 on CMT. Or as a useful boost for a unit in combat. Does not just seem right for what should be the most important base in the army......

Even more clarification from me...

Useful boost in combat - I'm happy with that as a function
Rallying troops - yep, its a bit boring, but I think they used to do that in 6th and 7th so I guess its OK - just need to throw my DBX preconceptions away !
+1 on a "CMT" - thats the issue. "The mere presence of Alexander inspired his troops to march much more closely in time with the music and even right in the face of the approaching enemy execute some of the sharpest parade ground turns thay had done since basic training back in Macedon... ".

A general who's principal functionnis is inspire his troops to feats of astounding tidiness feels a bit dull

[rbodleyscott]

+1 on a "CMT" - thats the issue. "The mere presence of Alexander inspired his troops to march much more closely in time with the music and even right in the face of the approaching enemy execute some of the sharpest parade ground turns thay had done since basic training back in Macedon... ".

Excellent - so we have some play-testers that would like generals to have more effect on CMTs, and some that think they should have less.

Some rules writers might take that as meaning we have the balance about right.

(And if you want a rationale for the +1 on the CMT - you can take it as being that the general prompted the local commander to do the manoeuvre, which he otherwise might not have thought of doing.).

(Also note that IC stands for "Inspired" Commander not "Inspiring" Commander - although that is also part of his role).

[jre]

I think it is just a matter of perception. Most battles were a matter of deployment and starting orders (and then the different units' performance) but that would make for boring games, even if accurate simulations.

So what the Generals represent, to me, are those senior commanders (or junior commanders with high charisma and elan) who are able to get a unit to follow their orders rather than the standing orders, or who can supersede the local commander in terms that the most dangerous enemy is that one over there rather than the one to the front. The CMT effect represents that rather than a hesitating leader, checking everything twice and preferring to err on the side of caution, there is one of those charismatic fellows around close enough to get them moving right now (and on reflection, 12 MU is maybe too far to represent an aide hurrying along the unit to make sure the orders are followed).

Its effect is mostly choreographic, helping the units do what you expect of them, when you expect it. Because if some complex maneuver was planned at deployment, you can bet the different unit leaders represented in a BG will argue (much, much more in an undrilled BG) exactly when they were expected to perform it.

The fact that commanders are also blessed with telepathy among themselves to enforce a master plan enters a ground that makes so many Napoleonic rule systems so boring to read and so slow to play. Part of the fun factor.

So, while a phalanx lochagos is hesitating whether the hoplites to the front are close enough to be a menace, and after all they are to his front which is what he should be thinking of skewering, or if that cavalry that was not mentioned at the meeting (oh, the hangover!) is his concern or not, no matter they are running right past on his left, Alexander just orders:

"Phalanx left and go for the horses [Turn 90?? and green advance]. Now!"

The problem I have is that right now a drilled unit without generals will do those complex things quite easily. And one thing is endowing generals with telepathy, but that those archers hidden in a woods share the same kind of telepathy and can easily react to the whole battle situation is a bit too much.

An easy to apply penalty would be that a unit that attempts a voluntary CMT and fails cannot move. That will avoid the "let's try the turn and move first, and if I fail, I will turn anyway". Now you have to balance the risk of staying put rather than the assured green move. Unless that is already in the rules and we have been playing wrong, again. No rules at work...

Just firing ideas to the gallery.

Jos?©

[neilhammond]

An easy to apply penalty would be that a unit that attempts a voluntary CMT and fails cannot move. That will avoid the "let's try the turn and move first, and if I fail, I will turn anyway". Now you have to balance the risk of staying put rather than the assured green move. Unless that is already in the rules and we have been playing wrong, again. No rules at work...

Just firing ideas to the gallery.

Jos?©

I agree with Jos?© that the consequence of failing a "blue" CMT are too light. For example, in a game a block of foot attempted to turn 90 degrees, and when it failed it simply wheeled to achieve a similar effect.

I'd extend Jos?© suggestion. If you fail a "blue" CMT then you either halt that bound, or you can voluntarily move, but lose one cohesion level to represent the "Make up your f*****g mind, first you ask me to turn 90 degrees then you ask me to wheel" effect.

Neil

[petedalby]

[quoteAn easy to apply penalty would be that a unit that attempts a voluntary CMT and fails cannot move. That will avoid the "let's try the turn and move first, and if I fail, I will turn anyway". Now you have to balance the risk of staying put rather than the assured green move. Unless that is already in the rules and we have been playing wrong, again. [/quote]

This makes sense to me - a good idea. Fail voluntary CMT = halt - caught on the horns of indecision.

To bring it back to generals, telepathy etc, - why not require a BG to be within a General's command radius before it can attempt a Complex Move?

Pete

[abivor]

Perhaps a more complex general structure could be available for one off games by agreement rather than just campaign games. However there might be a problem about 'ok - who were your army's inspirational generals then?' Any evidence so far?