Slitherine

This may have been beat to death elsewhere, but I didn't see it.

I always take 4 TC's unless I'm planning a flank march. I have never taken an IC.

I'd love to hear the reasoning, since I see it a lot in the posted lists.


John

IC - bigger command range 12"
+2 to cohesions and cmts (within the 12")
+2 to initiative for terrain selection

Whats not to like!

It really depends on the army and how you intend to use it. Based on that I some times will go with 4 TCs versus an IC and 2 TCs. Then with some armies I'm willing to go with an IC and 3 TCs. So I don't think there is a general purpose answer. You might want to look at Madaxeman's various battle reports on his web site (Madaxeman.com) to see how he has used generals in various situations, in particular for the ICs aura of invincibility effect

Chris

I have changed over time to viewing IC+2xTC as my "base" general package. However, it really depends on the army, the battle plan and strenghts and weaknesses.

4xTC is good for lowering initiative, first move can be powerful and letting you risk your generals in the front line more readily. I have also seen IC, FC, TC used for armies that plan a lot of flank marches, but not so much close combat.

IC, 3xTC is a choice I have considered for armies largely composed of average troops. The 35 points for the "extra" TC makes up for the lack of superior troops, let's you use general aggressively in the front lines and still gets the benefits of the IC. I have thought it might be a particularly good choice for some Chinese armies.

ethan wrote:I have also seen IC, FC, TC used for armies that plan a lot of flank marches, but not so much close combat.

I use this for the Ostrogoths. They try to stay out of combat, not. But I did plan a lot of flank marches.

Any way which generals you choose depends on how you view your army working overall.

With the Ostrogoths I knew I would flank march and exchanging the IC for 2xTC would have given me another 2 bases of LF and a general to throw into melee. But I could live without an 8 of LF and the huge radius of the IC for CMT and CT when being shot more than made up for 2 generals not fighting in a mostly superior army.

Look at your battle plan. Take the the troops you must have to achieve it. Then spend the rest on generals and support troops to enable it.

(then start again from scratch when you realise there's never enough points.)

Ask yourself some questions...

Does my army need all the bonuses for Cohesion tests against shooting it can get?
Do I need to control the terrain as best as I can?
Yeses to those imply an IC.

I like using an IC with my Low Countries army because he helps me move all that artillery forward with the OSp. It also makes CTs easier in the face of all that longbow shooting if facing an historical opponent.

I go back and forth to be honest.

The IC is big advantage in shooting matches.

But some battle plans a la the swarm need more moving parts and a 4th general is needed.

Also a bigger army needs more generals to bolster and fight in multiple places.

If your army is vulnerable to shooting (either because of the troop types in it or the liklihood of facing a shooty army), you definitely need an IC.

IC's are there to protect you against shooting and help you secure terrain choice.

FCs are there so a sub general can flank march.

If you don;t need any of these advantages, its 4 TC's every time for me.

madaxeman wrote:IC's are there to protect you against shooting and help you secure terrain choice.

FCs are there so a sub general can flank march.

If you don;t need any of these advantages, its 4 TC's every time for me.

I would rather 2 FC and a TC than 4 TC.

philqw78 wrote:If you don;t need any of these advantages, its 4 TC's every time for me.

I would rather 2 FC and a TC than 4 TC.[/quote]

Interesting, why would you make this choice?

madaxeman wrote:IC's are there to protect you against shooting and help you secure terrain choice.

The first I'd change to protecting troops vulnerable to shooting CTs (generally due to poor armour or quality). In third place, they help troops with manoeuvre, either because the troops are bad at it or they need enhanced CMT capabilities for fancy manoeuvring. I think their greater ability to rally/bolster via CTs is regarded as incidental.

ethan wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

madtim wrote:[If you don;t need any of these advantages, its 4 TC's every time for me.

I would rather 2 FC and a TC than 4 TC.

Interesting, why would you make this choice?

I rarely put generals in combat
The command area is far larger
I don't use armies with lots of BG, so don't need generals all over the place
It gives the opportunity for Flank march
If I have 4 generals one always seems short of something to do.
For initial double moves the generals can all go with the skirmish line then drop back in JAP and back further if necessary in opponents JAP to double move the next line when it gets back to your own turn again.
If you may need a genral with someone an FC can go 7MU away and still add to their CMT and shooting CT and add to the same of the BG he just left, then get to either of them in the JAP or next movement phase

philqw78 wrote:
I rarely put generals in combat
If I have 4 generals one always seems short of something to do.

Change the first and the later is solved too.

I usually would like 5 or 6 generals.

Very much army dependent I find. My Merovingian Franks (all undrilled HF and Cavalry) would be terrible without an IC because of the CMTs. On the other hand my early Persians wanted to move first and had four big combat units so wanted 4TCs for the 0 initiative and ability to improve 4x8 fighting dice. Plus, once everyone gets into the tunnel vision of close combat you can affect the CHTs and bolstering of 4 BGs.

Of course, the IC does the bolstering better, and the Merovingian warband BG is a tough nut when it has a TC fighting and an IC at the back making it brave!

IC .... Never leave home without one.

Caesar