Command and Control

[neil123]

One thing I personally feel detracts from the feel of an ancient battle is the way units - especially sk can just run around anywhere. It is almost standard now for a few SK to be sent to hang around the rear of the opponents army and pick off "F"'s units. And for little risk.

I would like to harsher penalties for units out of command range to simulate the fact such units would have no real understanding of overall tactical situation (and in reality normally should not be there anyway). I guess these should mainly be moral based, but how about a chance of an inactive state that could happen to any unit out of command range at start of turn - a bit like the Anarchy charge but just stops unit moving and halves any evade move until its next turn. I think that would more or less stop the (what I see as an) exploit. Such rear attacks would then require risking a junior commander. (Note I realize there are out of command penalties, but these dont seem to have much effect!)

[CharlesRobinson]

Just Wait, once we get the army builder you will see little skirmishing commanders leading an army of the skirmishing archers!

[IainMcNeil]

I was thinking of a 1MU's (movement units) deduction for anyone out of command range so units would move slower to simulate less decisive action. It would make LF risky as they could be caught more easily and slower to get in position.

Alternatively units out of command could have a random penalty 0-2 MU's to make it less predictable.

[neil123]

Both those ideas sound good to me.

[CharlesRobinson]

I know some units like poor mobs sometimes can only move one hex, also some units can only move one hex because of terrain. This rule could render units inert - totally unable to move if not done right. Since the game is now release as opposed to being in beta, any changes to the game needs to be explored very well before running out a new patch.

[jamespcrowley]

I have been giving serious consideration to purchasing this game and have been reading the posts on this forum with great interest. I'm not normally a fan of download only games but only a few things that I have read have given me pause for thought and one of them is the apparent lack of C&C limitations.

Most, if not all, wargames tend to skirt around these issues and almost anything that promotes the sort of problems commanders had with C&C is a plus in my book; assuming some sort of adherence to historical reality is being aimed at.

Bearing in mind that I have not played the game, most of the concepts are familiar and I like iainmcneil's suggestion about a random limitation on movement for units not in C&C. CharlesRobinson's concerns over some units being rendered inert as a result is interesting and, oddly enough, reinforces the idea. Poor quality units for certain and, quite possibly, units in difficult terrain would need the influence of a leader in order to move or, perhaps, do anything. So, in order to help co-ordinate such units, you would need to ensure that a leader was close-by, thus requiring more planning on the players part and, I would venture to suggest, a more realistic playing experience.

I am very close to taking a chance on this game and am happy to see that the developers are open to suggestions as to how it can be improved.

[Donegal]

I agree, the units out command have almost no penalty

I was thinking of a 1MU's (movement units) deduction for anyone

I think it could be a good idea but i would prefer a kind of Complex Move Tests (similar to it, but different modificators)

[jamespcrowley]

Perhaps too complex too implement but the abilty to give orders to units out of C&C should be determined by a combination of the experience level and current cohesion of the unit.

For example:

At one end of the scale, poor units out of C&C cannot be given any orders - if they are disrupted or fragmented they would do nothing, other than defend themselves or retreat.

Average units that are steady may have very limited move/attack orders but if fragmented would retreat from enemy.

Superior units in any state, other than fragmented, could be given full orders although may still have a possible move penalty.

In other words, moving any troops other than superior (are there only three states?) out of C&C should not be a good idea but a little randomness should be allowed so that exceptions can occur (so the lowly mob unit actually manages to do something a bit heroic once in a while).

[IainMcNeil]

We need to be careful of making it too nasty. If a general dies it would cripple your army as a big chunk would be out of C&C and may be realistic but not any fun.

[jamespcrowley]

We need to be careful of making it too nasty. If a general dies it would cripple your army as a big chunk would be out of C&C and may be realistic but not any fun.

Perhaps an optional set of C@C rules for those preferring more realism? For some, realism is fun

Having said that, having a general die and that event leading to the break-up and, perhaps, defeat of an army seems to be a not unreasonable outcome:
'Scipio refrained from exposing his person without sufficient reason.....conduct characteristic not of a commander who relies on luck but one gifted with intelligence' - Polybius

Look after your Generals.

[CharlesRobinson]

If they make this change then they need to move back to the original command distances from the table top game of 4/8/12 instead of 3/5/8.

[CharlesRobinson]

Something that I think a lot of people are missing is that most armies of this period really lacked real command and control outside the immediate area of the generals - especially if they got stuck into combat. Once the formations were set into motion a lot of the initiative and movement was coordinated with the local commanders within the formations as opposed to the mighty generals of history. But this brings up another point from an earlier post about people using their commanders as simply another unit of cavalry. Maybe if we had it so that if a commander unit was in contact with the enemy then it was the same as if he was kille din combat as far as command and control. You would probably have far less people throwing their commanders into the fray. Just an idea.

[Aryaman]

In most battles of the period skirmishers started the battle, then they retreated to back leaving the field to the infantry in close ranks. IMO we should look for ways to do that proceeding an advantageous one for players. Currently that is not, once you SK are pushed back you move them around the enemy flanks and rear with impunity, and your opponent does the same.
One thing that could encourage players to play more historically is the ability to lob projectiles over your own troops and hit with them enemy troops engaged at the front. It is historically sound as well, and more so in later times (more armies to be released in the future?).

[CharlesRobinson]

That would be cool, especially if they could contribute to damage done in close quarters fighting that way.

[JMass]

One thing that could encourage players to play more historically is the ability to lob projectiles over your own troops and hit with them enemy troops engaged at the front. It is historically sound as well, and more so in later times (more armies to be released in the future?).

I agree.

[keithmartinsmith]

There is no historical reason for troops, other than formed up ones, to shoot over friends.

You should really not let the enemy get their LF around your rear. Thats tactics.

If they do get there they are rarely more than a nuisance and thats how it is on the TT.

Keith