Leaders and Command & Control

[jamespcrowley]

Have been playing FoG and add-ons for the last seven months and thoroughly enjoying it. Probably one of my all-time favourite PC games to date and, with more modules and engine updates to come, together with excellent customer support, there is lots more to look forward to.

The only significant area that, IMO, there is some weakness is that of C&C. The player has too much control of BGs that are out of command, being able to utilise them in the same way as in-command units. There are really no penalties for being out of command, other than not being able to take advantage of leader bonuses or to perform double moves. Not having those advantages can be telling sometimes but there is no limits on co-ordinating leaderless BGs.

I see that many players use minimal Generals - either all troop level or, sometimes, just a single leader. This allows them additional BGs, increasing their army's breakpoint level but leaving a large proportion of their army out of command. Realistically and, I think, historically, such an army would be very difficult to co-ordinate from the very beginning. However, in the game, such an army is as easy to control as one with a full panoply of leaders. Of course, as battle is joined many out-of-command units may fold more quickly but, and I think this is crucial, they have been moved in a co-ordinated manner totally out of tune with reality.

Soldiers follow orders. They do not do as they please. Without orders i.e out of command, they generally do nothing other than maybe, defend themselves.

I would like to see an option to have greater C&C. Perhaps along the lines of allowing no orders to be given to out of command BGs unless they are within a pre-defined range of an enemy BG. This would force players to buy sufficient leaders to keep most of their army in command most of the time or take a chance that could result in a large proportion of their army being out of their control. It would also keep players from rashly committing their leaders to combat - something I see in nearly every game that I play (and yes - I am also guilty as charged!). It would, I believe, lead to a more realistic game without affecting the fun factor to any significant degree, especially as it would be an option like LoS or Double Moves.

[beserko]

I usually maxout my leaders as placeing them next to a disabled unit will greatly increase the odds of rallying! I once retreated 4 disordered units back into a circle and moved one of my leaders in the middle. They all rallied! Sweet .... I don't seem to have the same odds trying to un-rout fleeing units. I prefere maakeing them field but 1 leader seems to have to be troop. Don't forget to inspire your leader!

BTW when makeing scenarios I can make unlimited(so far) leaders.

[Morbio]

Soldiers follow orders. They do not do as they please. Without orders i.e out of command, they generally do nothing other than maybe, defend themselves.

I agree with much of what you say from a historical perspective. But I also believe that units would have a lower leader giving orders along the lines of the strategy his general/commander decided prior to the battle, but also making tactical decisions as the battle progresses. So, although there is not 'commander' I don't consider the unit leaderless and without orders.

I tend to work with minimal commanders (rightly or wrongly) because I perceive the benefit of the additional troops and break points tends to outweigh the benefit of the commanders. Yes, lots of commanders can give double moves, but realistically that's generally for a maximum of 2 turns. Yes, they can help cohesion and rallying, but that's outweighed by the fact that you get flanked more because the frontage is less and that when your taking the same level of hits on fewer units then you having more loss of cohesion to have to rally. Finally, when those fewer units are routing because of all the hits, then no amount of commanders will help against auto-routs.

Like I said, I agree with the comments, and I'd like to use more. but the cost is too high (IMO).

[Blathergut]

In truth, on an ancient battlefield, once the lines joined, there'd be little if any 'command control.' There would be commanders at all levels, aware of what they were to do but once things started, there'd be no changing anything.

Commanders as they are in the game now, give the game a good 'feel," allowing some interesting movement instead of the slow grind across the table, esp. if your opponent is a 'dancer.'

You are not recreating ancient battles with FoG PC. You are playing a game that gives an enjoyable experience using troops from that time.


Blathergut, He of the Leaderless Romans

[MasterChief81]

The community continues to impress me. I agree with the original post and the follow on posts as well.

The effects of "out of command" probably should be more substantial. However, as mentioned in a follow on post...just because there is not a leader unit it doesn't mean there are not leaders relaying orders.

But, a leader that is important enough to represented by a unit on the battlefield would have significant influence on the flow of battle. I believe that history does support the theory that units out of direct influence of these leaders would be prone to slower reaction to orders and more of a chance of anarchy (charge or refusal to charge)

[deadtorius]

Commanders in FOG PC and the TT version are different. On the TT they are needed to rally units, and can double move groups of units as well as risk their lives by moving into the front ranks and fighting and increase the units effectiveness.
In the PC game they are another combat unit who can double move and give bonuses to cohesion, and help to curb anarchy moves, which I still find doubtful although they are not as prevalent as in past versions of the game.
I agree that once things got started the generals had little say over events, probably they could ride around and influence their immediate area but other than that I am not sure how much control they would have.
FOG is a fun game and it has a good ancients battle feel to it, no sense trying to muck up a good thing now is there?

[deeter]

I think FoG PC would definately benefit from some C & C rules. Some multiplayer deployments I've seen (and used) bear no resemblance to anything in hsitory, in part because there's no need to keep troops together. For example, elite pike units all fought together as a group and usually on the right. Many pike players interspere them with regular pikes. I don't think this is a good idea, but many people do. In reality all the elites would be under one commander and thus would fight together. Same goes for skirmishers who also would fight togther under on commander or at least be controlled as a group by limited trumpet commands. Instead they operate all over the place.

The PC version will probably never addres this, but at least having more penalties for being out of command would be something. How about having to pass a CMT in order to move? Double moves in command are a big step in the right direction, but that is knd of nerfed because you can move a unit into range of a leader and pick up the bonus, or move a commander around to give the bonus. Clearly, the double move should only apply to units in command at the start of the turn.

It's also curious that routed units don't need to be in range to rally. In fact, these units seem to rally the most often. I see a growing trend toward mimimal leaders in favor of more troops and it's regrettable. It's only natural in a competitive environment to seek every advantage, by armies are becoming so distorted that I considering sticking to historical scenarios so I can get something resembling an acutal ancient battles.

Deeter

[TheGrayMouser]

hey Deeter just read your post, I agree with most of what you say regarding deployments and troop types, however, players intersperse superiors with average pikes(for example) because it WORKS

I guess the crux is flexibility for players to deply as they like vs have some rigid formation based game where you can only deploy "blocks of troops"

i dont think there is any easy answer to this issue.....

I agree double moves should only be allowed at the start of units in range of leaders

*Although this is likly a matter of perception, I aslo feel units rally more often whn they are on the extrem edges of the map! (is there a component about rallying when not near enemy units that "overpowers" the positive of being close to a leader?)

Not being allowed to move might be a little harsh if not in range of a leader.... maybe cohesion checks at a penealty? (might be too harsh as well)

Maybe some nice line command functionality will be introdiuced at some point (i belive Iain hinted he would like to see soemthing like it), where if we had it, one could then have some nice penalties for being out of range/out of formation

[deeter]

I know players do it because they think it works. I don't because I'd rather have all my superior troops in one spot than spread out. It suits my style of play as well as my aesthetic needs. I not advocating a rules change for that, but there should be more of a penalty for being out of command. Passing a CMT isn't that harsh and it gives betteer quality troops more chance to take personal initiative.

Deeter

[jamespcrowley]

I think that it ultimately depends whether there is a greater desire for a 'game' which just nods at history or a game with some basis in reality, reflecting history.

Far too often I look at a battlefield in which I have lost and see my army more or less still 'joined-up' and mostly in command and compare it to the victor, most of whose BGs are not in command and are scattered to the four corners. I don't mind getting beaten per se but I do object to a-historical, lets face it, gamey play that just couln't happen in the real world. It offends my sense of, and knowledge of, the history on which FoG is based.

Having additional C&C rules as an option would allow those of us who wish to more closely emulate ancient and medieval battles to do so and those who prefer more of a purely competitive game to equally have their way.

[TheGrayMouser]

I think the game as is does more than just "nod" at history

I too, often times have battles where my main battle line is intact yet still lose the battle because I was careless with my lights or cavalry....
However, I dont think that is necesarily due to having complete control over all your units , it has to do with the fundamental objective of the game which is getting the opponent to his BP level....
That of course is an artifical way of victory, but then again every game is going to have something similar because lets face it, continuing the fight until you wipe out your opponent isnt realistic either.
There is no way you could have a progam objectively declare someone the winner just by looking at the final position and state of troops


So, would a better command and control system force players to play more "realistically"? Maybe, but how is it going to be done, and will it be fun?

I would have no problem w some sort of change to units that are out of command but the ? is what ?? I maintain that not allowing them to move is too harsh and just as unrealistic as allowing them to move as normal....

Really what you are suggesting is some kind of C and C where every unit is part of a formation and only the formation can be given orders if "in command" Such orders would have to be simply like line ahead or skirmish, or charge..... Of course the pathfinding would have to be pretty good or , as a player you are not likly to be too happy w the results... GMt games had this aproach and it worked moderatly well but in the end it was just as artifical and i wouldnt say it was better....

[Blathergut]

I think the game is best as is...simple.

[jamespcrowley]

As I suggested above, a way of hobbling out of commmand BGs would be to prevent them from moving unless they are within a certain distance of an enemy battlegroup, at which time they are free to move.

Think of it this way; the BG is no different from a company on a WW2 battlefield. It can only see a small portion of the battle and is entirely dependant on higher command to direct its operation one it has reached its assigned objective (completed a move while under command control). from then on it is awaiting orders. If it perceives a threat it will respond by attacking or moving away or staying put. What it wont do - can't do - is co-ordinate an attack with three or four other out of command units in other parts of the battlefield and mount an assault with other friendly Bgs on another sector of the battlefield. Doesn't even happen that way on a modern battlefield.

Breaking an army by getting the enemy to its BP level is not the issue - it is how it is done. My contention is that often it is accomplished by means that were simply not possible historically. An army that was broken up all over the place was, and still is, beyond redemption for that particular battle.

And why shouldn't a bit more realism not be fun? Especially if it as option like LoS, which is also realistic.

[TheGrayMouser]

As I suggested above, a way of hobbling out of commmand BGs would be to prevent them from moving unless they are within a certain distance of an enemy battlegroup, at which time they are free to move.

Think of it this way; the BG is no different from a company on a WW2 battlefield. It can only see a small portion of the battle and is entirely dependant on higher command to direct its operation one it has reached its assigned objective (completed a move while under command control). from then on it is awaiting orders. If it perceives a threat it will respond by attacking or moving away or staying put. What it wont do - can't do - is co-ordinate an attack with three or four other out of command units in other parts of the battlefield and mount an assault with other friendly Bgs on another sector of the battlefield. Doesn't even happen that way on a modern battlefield.

Breaking an army by getting the enemy to its BP level is not the issue - it is how it is done. My contention is that often it is accomplished by means that were simply not possible historically. An army that was broken up all over the place was, and still is, beyond redemption for that particular battle.

And why shouldn't a bit more realism not be fun? Especially if it as option like LoS, which is also realistic.

Well, how fun will it be when your leader, who is a Light spear cavalry unit, evades a charge and now the rest of your formally in command cavalry corp are now out of command range and thus unable to move! What I an getting at is what seems to be a simple change to add realism actually would effect so many aspects of the game.

I would argue a BG is Not the same as a WW2 company for the company would be dispersed likly in an area 10-20 times as large... One could argue that a battle group, even only on a slight incline would actually be able to see the entire battle field, and theoretically be able to "march to the sound of the guns" much more readily even when out of "command"

I do understand what you are saying about troops only reacting to orders but what are the command ranges suppoesed to be anways? I dont think an inspired leader can control troops in a 7 hex radius is because he has a louder voice or more trumpetes to toot and get troops moving , than a troop commander w a range of three...

Also who are you as the player supposed to be anyways... If you argue , well the commander in chief, then you have already sacrificed massive amounts of realism at the getgo if you allow any units to move under your guiding hand as the player , except for the unit the commander (you) is in.

I dunno, I dont mind more realism per say but i have played enough games where units cant/have limited movement when they are "out of range" and usually it ends up being more frustrating than realistic. It is just too easy to have a unit that literally is next to another unit that can move or attack, not be able to do so because of the vagaries of a hex based system.

No turn based hex game will ever be perfect in terms of realism and i believe that true command and control is almost impossible, at least w/o sacrificing too much gameplay... How many "elements" did Alexander command at Gaugemela? I would argue 3, maybe four... How many did he control? I would argue 1 , his HH cavalry squadron, and whatever units nearby that could see the banners waive for the charge into the gap in the persian line (however even this was likly preplanned)
I dont think many players would enjoy a game, at least not a turn based one where you can only control a few elements , and with extreme limits at that....

I hope i didnt blalther on to much and just want to say that I dont disagree just becasue i think everyting is perfect as is, i just cant think of a way it can be accomplished in a turnbased game with out adding many more artificalities

[Blathergut]

As I ; the BG is no different from a company on a WW2 battlefield. It can only see a small portion of the battle and is entirely dependant on higher command to direct its operation one it has reached its assigned objective (completed a move while under command control). from then on it is awaiting orders. If it perceives a threat it will respond by attacking or moving away or staying put. What it wont do - can't do - is co-ordinate an attack with three or four other out of command units in other parts of the battlefield and mount an assault with other friendly Bgs on another sector of the battlefield. Doesn't even happen that way on a modern battlefield.
.

But ancient battles didn't work like modern ones. Everything formed up in mass and moved forward. There was no need for such co-ordination.

[deadtorius]

I have to agree with Mouser. I don't see much fun if half your army stands about twiddling its thumbs because they are not in command radius of the general. Since you pointed out WW2 its fair to point out that Rommel liked to lead up front and wherever he was he knew what was going on and could react to it. Problem was the rest of the Afrika Corps was out of sight and their commanders had to wing it on their own since high command had problems contacting Rommel themselves. So there you go WW2 command problems the guys on the ground have to use their own discretion to work out the problems at hand.
I agree that it might not be historical but really how much control do you think any of histories great generals had once things got messy. Its a game and you have to make sacrifices in the name of game play or no one will want to bother with it.

[Morbio]

Command and control isn't a problem for my armies. Each unit commander has a can on a long piece of string - there are only 2 problems; keeping the string taut... and all those sharp objects being waved about!

[Blathergut]

There was one good moment in Rome (the HBO series) when, during the battle of Philippi, Octavian asks Anthony what's happening. Reply: "I have no idea. Attack!" Anthony promptly charges off into the fighting.

[cothyso]

I think a way to simulate this would be having the AI deal with the out-of-command troops.

A sort of local tactical assessment of the situation for each out of command battlegroup. The decisions and their quality of this local tactical friendly AI control would depend on the general/local(centre/wing) pre-battle orders/plan, combined with the quality of the troops/officers (conscript/veteran, drilled/undrilled etc).

At least this is a part of what I am planning to do with the ancient wargame I am working on.

GBCE offered another solution to this: each leader had an initiative rating and a certain amount of command points. At the beginning of a turn, the leaders would roll dice and be activated in the order of their dice result (of course, higher initiative means more chances to be activated at the beginning of a turn). Also, each BG would belong to a leader, and each complex command of a BG would cost 1 point. The leaders could also issue general commands to all their BGs (like advance, or retreat, or charge or dress ranks) which would spend all their command points. They could also give individual commands to other leader's BGs, but at a double cost (2 points instead of 1). Also, to prevent a unit moving too much (ordered by different leaders), each second or 3rd command of another leader would give that unit a cohesion hit.

And as an extra, some leaders with very high initiative would roll during a turn for a exceptional second activation (momentum) and also the exceptional initiative ones had the posibillity to size the initiative once or twice per battle (like in asking to be the first to be activated during that turn).

Yet, GBCE was not a PBEM, but a TCPIP game. Doing this with FoG would require a turn for each different player switch leader.

I don't know how many of you are aware of this GBCE game, but it is still the best PC ancient wargame at this moment.

[kilroy1]

GBCE offered another solution to this: each leader had an initiative rating and a certain amount of command points. At the beginning of a turn, the leaders would roll dice and be activated in the order of their dice result (of course, higher initiative means more chances to be activated at the beginning of a turn). Also, each BG would belong to a leader, and each complex command of a BG would cost 1 point. The leaders could also issue general commands to all their BGs (like advance, or retreat, or charge or dress ranks) which would spend all their command points. They could also give individual commands to other leader's BGs, but at a double cost (2 points instead of 1). Also, to prevent a unit moving too much (ordered by different leaders), each second or 3rd command of another leader would give that unit a cohesion hit.

I'm no programmer, but I would think that the "Line Commands" could be implemented in FOG, plus some of the other things you mentioned as well. I started with the GBoH boardgames years before GBCE was released.


kilroy