Slitherine

Who will get these extra special generals, or will we just pay extra points and everybody can have them?

phil

philqw78 wrote:Who will get these extra special generals, or will we just pay extra points and everybody can have them?

phil

My understanding at present is that almost all armies will have the option of an inspired commander but that certain armies will require one (Hanibal in Italy for example) and a small number may not allow one where there was only ever one leader and he was most definitely not inspired.

Hammy

BTW I am trying to do a list for Spartacus' slave revolt and the more I read the more I am leaning towards Spartacus being a compulsary IC.

Yes at present we plan to allow all armies to have an IC iof you pay it on the grounds that were likely many great general in this period of history we haven't had documentation for....

Si

allow all armies to have an IC iof you pay it on the grounds that were likely many great general in this period of history we haven't had documentation for....

They can't have been that good if nobody's heard of them!

philqw78 wrote:

allow all armies to have an IC iof you pay it on the grounds that were likely many great general in this period of history we haven't had documentation for....

They can't have been that good if nobody's heard of them!

I fear that you may have been spending too much time on the DBMM list my friend

Seriously, there are some armies where we know a lot and other where we no nothing much. Who for example can definitivley say if the Burmese had a talented general in 1100AD? Absence of evidence cannot be taken as evidence of absence.

If there is evidence that all the commanders of a specific army were really bad then that army will not be alloed an IC. If an army was only ever led by a great general (Phyrus of Epiros is a good example) then they really should have an IC as a compulsary.

Hammy

hammy wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

allow all armies to have an IC iof you pay it on the grounds that were likely many great general in this period of history we haven't had documentation for....

They can't have been that good if nobody's heard of them!

I fear that you may have been spending too much time on the DBMM list my friend

Seriously, there are some armies where we know a lot and other where we no nothing much. Who for example can definitivley say if the Burmese had a talented general in 1100AD? Absence of evidence cannot be taken as evidence of absence.

If there is evidence that all the commanders of a specific army were really bad then that army will not be alloed an IC. If an army was only ever led by a great general (Phyrus of Epiros is a good example) then they really should have an IC as a compulsary.

Hammy

For example, during the Feudal English era, Edward 1 (1272-1307) & Edward III (1327-1377) & were both Inspired Commanders.
But Edward II (1307-1327) would definitely count as Poor Commander
So no IC during those 20 years


Cheers,
Jer

Philip & Alexander at Charonaea - two ICs?

clivevaughan wrote:Philip & Alexander at Charonaea - two ICs?

From another recent thread:

rbodleyscott wrote:The current version has the generals listed in the form:

C-in-C: IC/FC/TC 1
SGs: FC 0-2, TC 0-3

In addition:

- The maximum total number of generals in any army is 4.
- If Alexander is the C-in-C he must be an IC. (Thus if Philip is the C-in-C, Alexander will be serving his apprenticeship as an FC or even TC).

Epaminondas and Pelopidas for Thebes?

abivor wrote:Epaminondas and Pelopidas for Thebes?

See quote in my previous message. It appears that only the C-in-C can be an Inspired Commander, so there is only one (at most) IC per army.

Cheers,
Scott K.

You could look up DBMM for a list!!

Moving slightly to one side, will we be able to have an IC ally general? One possible case is Pyrrhus at Ipsus.

abivor wrote:Moving slightly to one side, will we be able to have an IC ally general? One possible case is Pyrrhus at Ipsus.

This would be, in our opinion, another case of a future Inspired General "serving his apprenticeship".

Absence of evidence cannot be taken as evidence of absence.

So can my Tibetans have elephants then? Facetious maybe, but they often allied with armies that used them, so may have been given a loan and there is no evidence that this didn't happen. If we take the above quote at face value the hardly known armies could have pretty much anything available at the time. If not the list should not be written.

phil

Reducing the number of inspired commanders could also have 2 effects. If armies with inspired commanders are the only ones chosen IC are then too cheap points wise. It will encourage people to research a bit more for their favourite armies to give evidence for the existence of their IC, something that JD already stated he wants in his "Favourite Army" post. Bad side effect: I won't get any elephants, probably. But then absence of elephant isn't elephant in absence

philqw78 wrote:

Absence of evidence cannot be taken as evidence of absence.

So can my Tibetans have elephants then? Facetious maybe, but they often allied with armies that used them, so may have been given a loan and there is no evidence that this didn't happen. If we take the above quote at face value the hardly known armies could have pretty much anything available at the time. If not the list should not be written.

phil

OK, Perhaps not what I was trying to get over. The point I was trying to make is that unlike another set of rules which has different qualities of commanders but only allows anything other than an average commander to armies where there is sufficient evidence to convince the rules author, Art of War works on the basis that just because we don't have evidence of a nation having a commander who was particularly effective they shouldn't be prohibited from doing so.

As to army lists, an army will only be allowed unusual troops where there is evidence that that particular army used those troops. Otherwise you might as well only have one army list and allow everyone to choose whatever they want.

Hammy

because we don't have evidence of a nation having a commander who was particularly effective they shouldn't be prohibited from doing so.

army will only be allowed unusual troops where there is evidence

The above statements are contradictory. So the army lists are going to be written using different rules for different parts of the list. If a general's name survives through history he is something special or especially bad, unless mentioned as part of a contemporary historical write up, but then the evidence is there to see. There are a huge amount of Inspired (above average) leaders. They may not have been tactically or strategically inspiring however, but could inspire their troops. If there is enough evidence to write the list the generals in the army would undoubtedly be mentioned and they could be graded. If the list is made up from poor evidence, e.g. they fought the Egyptians in 2000BC using this sort of equipment and tactics, but didn't make a mark on Egyptian tactics/equipment/history they, can't have been that good.

philqw78 wrote:

because we don't have evidence of a nation having a commander who was particularly effective they shouldn't be prohibited from doing so.

army will only be allowed unusual troops where there is evidence

The above statements are contradictory. So the army lists are going to be written using different rules for different parts of the list. If a general's name survives through history he is something special or especially bad, unless mentioned as part of a contemporary historical write up, but then the evidence is there to see. There are a huge amount of Inspired (above average) leaders. They may not have been tactically or strategically inspiring however, but could inspire their troops. If there is enough evidence to write the list the generals in the army would undoubtedly be mentioned and they could be graded. If the list is made up from poor evidence, e.g. they fought the Egyptians in 2000BC using this sort of equipment and tactics, but didn't make a mark on Egyptian tactics/equipment/history they, can't have been that good.

Taking the "they fought the Egyptians" example. There are a goodly number of pictorial references to say the Sea Peoples so we have a good idea of how they fought but I suspect that finding a critique of the command ability of all Sea People generals and thus determining if they warant an inspired commander is far from easy.

If you limit inspried commanders to only armies where we know the name of and specific examples of how well someone fought you effectively cut out a huge swathe of poorly documented armies from having IC's. I don't think that the lists should prevent an army from having and IC. I do think that allowing Elephants to Meso-American armies is perhaps a touch tenuous

"no land could stand before" the forces of the Sea Peoples who destroyed the ancient civilisations of Anatolia, Cyprus and the Levant,

Pretty inspired

limit inspried commanders to only armies where we know the name of and specific examples

We don't need to know the name of the general. In the Sea peoples example a 'nomadic' people moved themselves into position where they held the strategic upper hand and destroyed a number of 'Great' civilisations