Slitherine

I wonder if an FC could be made more of a halfway hourse between the TC and the IC. I think I would do this only for an FC CiC, and not an FC Sub.

How about something like:

A CiC who is an FC attached to a unit gives a +2 morale bonus.

If they go with the idea of raising CMTs to needing an 8+ to pass i think the extended range of a FC would become very popular.

The really should lower TCs to 2" or so since they are tactical commanders

stecal wrote:The really should lower TCs to 2" or so since they are tactical commanders

So a TC CinC is a tactical commander. I thought he was just an average commander. BG have their own commanders who we do not see. Most BG are wider than 2MU

Regarding commanders, I have two issues. First it is that command structure for most lists is identical, which is ok if you are thinking in fair tournament games but not that really historically. I know people won't like it, but in some other rulesets you don't pay the quality of your commanders but you receive it randomly. Depending on the army, the odds could be different.

Second, what I have seen in most AAR in the website is that it is very common to find 4 TC's. I haven't seen two FC, for example, representing the two alae of an army or two leaders joining their armies. In DBM, given the command structure, the choice of commanders was a balance between large commands and number of leaders. I find that in FoG that is missing, specially if we are playing from a CiC perspective.

Regarding this I have a question to experienced players (the ones that have played lots of games). What are the most common combinations of leaders that you see in tabletops? Are they predictable depending on the army?

philqw78 wrote:Most BG are wider than 2MU

Maybe just the elements within 2MU coudl take the +2 - then it'd help level the playing field* against all of those cheesey big units of foot, and give a much needed boost to those weak useless armies made up of Lh and Cv who are hamstrung with a max BG size of just 6 bases.

tim

(* unless its Steppe, in which case it's going to be level already.)

I reckon that other post on this forum is from someone called Dave bleating on about LH again. You know I'm right

Strategos69 wrote: Regarding this I have a question to experienced players (the ones that have played lots of games). What are the most common combinations of leaders that you see in tabletops? Are they predictable depending on the army?

IC, TC, TC or TC, TC, TC, TC are by far the most common. These days probably more predictable by player or what armies are allowable in a competition than just by army.

I used IC, FC, TC in my most successful army, even though Dave Ruddock beat it 24-1 it beat everyone else it met, though some not by far.

Last time out I used TC, FC, TC

philqw78 wrote:I used IC, FC, TC in my most successful army,

Its a useful, but less common in my experience, variant on IC, TC, TC - I used it at Derby and the FC meant my first flank march roll was successful and that probably made the difference between getting a big win and a winning draw.

I think that a Field commander should add 1 to CMT tests but not to Cohesion ones to reflect the fact that he is (as states on the rulebook) “ A competent commander” but not an Inspiring one.

Rekila wrote:I think that a Field commander should add 1 to CMT tests but not to Cohesion ones to reflect the fact that he is (as states on the rulebook) “ A competent commander” but not an Inspiring one.

Also a possibility. I think it should be possible to bump up an FC CiC a bit (an FC sub already is there primarily to help flank marches and gives a significant bonus to that, so I don't think he needs more help). Right now there just isn't enough of a bonus vs. a TC to make them attractive.

Making all CMTs pass on 8 might make people think about FCs

My 2 cents:

FC = 12" command span, +1 modifier.

That would be enough to make me consider buying one in a non-flank march context.

I don't have much experience in many battles but a few (and we usually go for historical lists), but it seems to me that for the CiC the most common choice should be a FC in historical terms. As I have read in the rules, it seems that they were the most common commanders and there were a few exceptions of really good and really bad commanders (I am only referring to CiC). As you have mentioned, FC as CiC aren't rather the exception than the norm? Isn't there a problem in terms of historicity? Shouldn't there be some more inconvenients to have a poor commander as your CiC? I am thinking really bad things like having one point less in attrition points or something that radical.

Off-topic: in my opinion inspired commanders should be reduced to a few picked examples with their specific lists (as Pyrrhus, for example). Can they be too common?

All useful input. Suffice to say we are developing two thrustson commanders:

1) Making the C-in-C a little more distinct without losing the "vitural" command structure for FOG that allows the game to speed along without too much on paper planning
2) Making the IC/FC/TC balance better.

Si

Agree with the theme of the topic, don't know what's the best solution, but increasin the command range could be a good one.

Additionnaly it shouldn't be allowed to have FC as subcommander, unless the C-in-C, is a FC or IC (bad generals "disrupt" good generalship from their subordinates...), unless the subordinate general is an ally general.

Darius was an FC C-in-C and I would argue the Greek mercenary general whose name escapes me was an FC. Possibly an ally, but in the lists perhaps medizing greeks ...

Nick any view?

Si

I really like this idea that ICs become a rarity.

Perhaps we should be discussing WHICH army lists had obvious Inspiring commanders? I can think of a couple:
French 100YW (only when led by Joan of Arc)
Saladin
Hannibal
Alexander the Great
Julius Caesar
Emperor Constantine (before his eventual title)
Richard the Lionheart

I'm sure there are others and many who may disagree with my short-list. However, if certain, few army lists have access to ICs, then you will certainly see many more FCs. To add another vector to consider, the IC option could be reserved even further to special campaign lists. To add even further discussion, there could also be additional mess by saying that many more lists only have access to 3 TCs and an ally TC (like the early Greeks list from Immortal Fire).

Wouldn't this reduce the abundance of IC-TC-TC and TC-TC-TC-TC lists? Or, would this only reduce the diversity of decent army lists?

shall wrote:Darius was an FC C-in-C and I would argue the Greek mercenary general whose name escapes me was an FC. Possibly an ally, but in the lists perhaps medizing greeks ...

Nick any view?

Si

Is that me or another Nick/Nik?

I suspect the Greek you are thinking of is Memnon of Rhodes who would probably have an argument for being an IC - although the fact he wan't too popular with the Persians for (rightly) suggesting a policy of devastating the land in front of Alexander probably took the edge off his effectiveness.

However, there are cases where a subordinate was clearly a better general than the C-in-C - Khalid in al-Walid is one that springs instantly to mind - and I guess that is the issue.

Personnally I am against restricting IC to historical brilliant generals, mainly because:

- The lack of FC in games is not because players can have IC's. Everybody would simply choose 4 TC's and FC's would still be only used for flank marchers.
- Reduces the competitiveness of some armies. IC's are very good against skirmisher armies and these armies are already high powered.
- The question of who is, or not a brilliant general, is very subjective, not to mention the numerous generals unknown to present day historians - for example what about the armies / periods that we hardly have material to make an army list, much less evaluate their generals.

philqw78 wrote:I used IC, FC, TC in my most successful army, even though Dave Ruddock beat it 24-1 it beat everyone else it met, though some not by far.

Last time out I used TC, FC, TC

And I did well at Roll call this weekend with just 2 FC's. So there is scope to use different generals and combinations and be successful.