Ally question

[babyshark]

I was just reading a bit of the life of Belisarius, and I was reminded of the reliablilty (or not) of ally generals. How will AoW model this? DBM does a pretty good job, IMHO (unless my Hun ally has just gone unreliable, in which case the mechanism sucks). Without PIP dice it is obvious that a different approach must be taken.

Thanks,

Marc

[shall]

Thanks Marc,

It is easy to put unreliablility in in several guises. The issue is whether it helps the game or should be left for specific refights. A debate still ongoing in fact.

Having unreliable generals and troops seems nice in it realism for a few examples where it happened; but it is potentially a huge single swing in a game if we are not careful with the mechanism. Views on this would be very interesting to the authors. Would people like to see a chance of large proportions of troops not joining in the game and potentially changing sides, or is that better left for refights and as a option? Many people seem to dislike the dramatic swing it creates in other sets.

Feel free to kick it around a bit from the point of view of what is desirable. Don't worry to much about how as we have several ways to do it, but don't let that stop you throwing ideas out either....

Thanks

Simon

[sagji]

I don't mind having unreliability, however it must be fairly reflected in the cost of the allied troups. Thus an allied command would need to get a discount so that the "average" cost effectiveness isn't changed.

[philqw78]

I like the 'pays your money and takes your chance thing with allies. 10% cheaper and 10% chance of changing sides at deployment would work for me. Doesn't matter how it works tho, just cost to risk should work out.

[babyshark]

Feel free to kick it around a bit from the point of view of what is desirable. Don't worry to much about how as we have several ways to do it, but don't let that stop you throwing ideas out either....

I think it is very desirable to have a mechanism in the game for unreliable allies. Ally contingents allowed an ancient general (just the same as us wargamers) to bring more troops--or a more advantageous mix of troops--to the battlefield at a relatively low cost. Of course the general had to accept the risk that the ally would sit the battle out or even change sides for reasons ranging from political (Roman consul) to monetary to simple calculation of the physical risks (Belisarius's allies in North Africa). All the (admittedly limited) reading I have done on the subject indicates that allied contingents were commonplace, which suggests that the rewards outweighed the risks.

I think that DBM's system is--broadly--excellent. Ally generals cost less, in exchange for which there is a risk that they will be unreliable, and a further risk that they will turn on you. One may argue that the point cost for allies needs to be better balanced, and possibly that no army should be forced to take more than one. But the system in general is good, and needs to be adapted to AoW.

My $.02,

Marc

[whitehorses]

Feel free to kick it around a bit from the point of view of what is desirable. Don't worry to much about how as we have several ways to do it, but don't let that stop you throwing ideas out either....

I think it is very desirable to have a mechanism in the game for unreliable allies. Ally contingents allowed an ancient general (just the same as us wargamers) to bring more troops--or a more advantageous mix of troops--to the battlefield at a relatively low cost. Of course the general had to accept the risk that the ally would sit the battle out or even change sides for reasons ranging from political (Roman consul) to monetary to simple calculation of the physical risks (Belisarius's allies in North Africa). All the (admittedly limited) reading I have done on the subject indicates that allied contingents were commonplace, which suggests that the rewards outweighed the risks.

I think that DBM's system is--broadly--excellent. Ally generals cost less, in exchange for which there is a risk that they will be unreliable, and a further risk that they will turn on you. One may argue that the point cost for allies needs to be better balanced, and possibly that no army should be forced to take more than one. But the system in general is good, and needs to be adapted to AoW.

My $.02,

Marc

There are unreliable Allies - as in Shrewsbury (1403) when the Welsh decided they didn't fancy supporting Harry Hotspur after all & snuck away without a bowshot in anger.
Treacherous Allies, like Lord Grey of Ruthen, who let the Yorkists into his line at Northampton (1460) & Lancastrians were routed.
And then Mistaken Treacherous Allies, as at Barnet 1471), when Warwick's men fired in error at Oxford's returning to the battle & Tewkewsbury (1471) when Wenlock refused to support Someset's surprise attack against the Yorkists.

Wonder how AoW can reflect al that - if at all?



Cheers,
Jer

[whitehorses]

Feel free to kick it around a bit from the point of view of what is desirable. Don't worry to much about how as we have several ways to do it, but don't let that stop you throwing ideas out either....

I think it is very desirable to have a mechanism in the game for unreliable allies. Ally contingents allowed an ancient general (just the same as us wargamers) to bring more troops--or a more advantageous mix of troops--to the battlefield at a relatively low cost. Of course the general had to accept the risk that the ally would sit the battle out or even change sides for reasons ranging from political (Roman consul) to monetary to simple calculation of the physical risks (Belisarius's allies in North Africa). All the (admittedly limited) reading I have done on the subject indicates that allied contingents were commonplace, which suggests that the rewards outweighed the risks.

I think that DBM's system is--broadly--excellent. Ally generals cost less, in exchange for which there is a risk that they will be unreliable, and a further risk that they will turn on you. One may argue that the point cost for allies needs to be better balanced, and possibly that no army should be forced to take more than one. But the system in general is good, and needs to be adapted to AoW.

My $.02,

Marc

There are unreliable Allies - as in Shrewsbury (1403) when the Welsh decided they didn't fancy supporting Harry Hotspur after all & snuck away without a bowshot in anger.
Treacherous Allies, like Lord Grey of Ruthen, who let the Yorkists into his line at Northampton (1460) & Lancastrians were routed.
And then Mistaken Treacherous Allies, as at Barnet 1471), when Warwick's men fired in error at Oxford's returning to the battle & Tewkewsbury (1471) when Wenlock refused to support Somerset's surprise attack against the Yorkists.
And then Opportunistic Allies, like the Stanleys at Bosworth (1485) who were basically waiting to jump in on the winning side ......

Wonder how AoW can reflect all that - if at all?



Cheers,
Jer

[vsolfronk]

Perhaps one should have the option of purchasing an ally, rather than requirg one. As one who has had to sometimes suffer with 3 allies and a useless Reg CinC in the SubHumans, giving a player a choice might be worthwhile, especially same nation troop types. "Foriegn" allies might have to be handled differently.

[babyshark]

Perhaps one should have the option of purchasing an ally, rather than requirg one. As one who has had to sometimes suffer with 3 allies and a useless Reg CinC in the SubHumans, giving a player a choice might be worthwhile, especially same nation troop types. "Foriegn" allies might have to be handled differently.

Vince:

I feel your pain . . . and yet history abounds with examples of allies being unreliable, even ones who should have been on board. Republican Roman consuls staying in camp, Achilles sulking in his tent, and so on, not to mention the examples given by Whitehorses in this thread. Taking a list with three allies may be pushing a good thing (discount generals/troops) too far. Besides, your favorite list is called "Subhuman British" for a reason.

Marc

[vsolfronk]

and yet history abounds with examples of allies being unreliable, even ones who should have been on board. Republican Roman consuls staying in camp, Achilles sulking in his tent, and so on, not to mention the examples given by Whitehorses in this thread.

Yes, but how many would we consider in history as subgenerals, but under DBM acted like ally generals. There could be the logic that all subgenerals could in fact act and be treacherous as ally generals.

Of course the very idea of commands split into CinC and SG is sort of silly. I doubt that Julius Caesar or Ghengis Khan would have been limited to only ordering the troops under his direct command and that the SG troops would have ignored them.

[ars_belli]

Of course the very idea of commands split into CinC and SG is sort of silly. I doubt that Julius Caesar or Ghengis Khan would have been limited to only ordering the troops under his direct command and that the SG troops would have ignored them.

Well, that would actually depend where those commanders were physically located during the battle. After all, not all historical C-in-C's sat behind the lines and maintained an overall view of the battle, particularly during the ancient-medieval periods. To cite just a few examples, Caesar sometimes describes himself as joining with a particular legion in order to bolster the courage of the troops, and Alexander is usually described in the historical sources as fighting at the head of the Companion cavalry. If we take those sources as accurate, then it would seem perfectly reasonable to restrict the influence of the commanders on the tabletop to only those units with which they were in close contact, since their real-life counterparts would have been similarly restricted in their ability to influence troops in other parts of the battlefield.

Cheers,
Scott K.

[SMK-at-work]

Caesar is often described as being with a legion - but I dont' recall any case of him being desribed as actually fighting tho - unlike Alexander.

Most generals seem to have led from behing the lines - only the especially brave or foolhardy or desperate doing otherwise.

There are certainly accounts of CinC's taking control of other troops, but there's no doubt that large numbers of troops were explicitly controlled by specific generals so "commands" or the equivalent are perfectly reasonable - even required IMO.

[ars_belli]

Caesar is often described as being with a legion - but I dont' recall any case of him being desribed as actually fighting tho - unlike Alexander.

Nor do I, and I never said that Caesar did so.

Cheers,
Scott K.

[vsolfronk]

stalins_organ wrote:
Caesar is often described as being with a legion - but I dont' recall any case of him being desribed as actually fighting tho - unlike Alexander.

While Caesar perhaps only stayed with one legion, nothing really would have stopped him from switching to another legion or armed body, except mobility issues. While a subgeneral probably would not interfere in another subgenral's command, unless they were dead or wounded (which is what ADCs are for), an overall commander really shouldn't be restricted to soldiers under his own actual command.

[SMK-at-work]

Quite right IMO - something few rules ahve ever done well is allow a CinC a decent ability to move around. "That otehr set" has a mechanism that allows it & it'll be interesting to see how AoW does it.

[ars_belli]

Quite right IMO - something few rules ahve ever done well is allow a CinC a decent ability to move around. "That otehr set" has a mechanism that allows it & it'll be interesting to see how AoW does it.

I agree 110%. The goal should be to reflect historical circumstances as accurately as possible, within the setting of an enjoyable and exciting game.

Cheers,
Scott K.

[bryan]

Something for the campaign rules might be the ability to influenece an enemie's ally out of the game.
Maybe by an points expenditure or sacrifice of some sort.

[shall]

stalins_organ wrote:
Quite right IMO - something few rules ahve ever done well is allow a CinC a decent ability to move around. "That otehr set" has a mechanism that allows it & it'll be interesting to see how AoW does it.

I agree 110%. The goal should be to reflect historical circumstances as accurately as possible, within the setting of an enjoyable and exciting game.

Cheers,
Scott K.

We've made this pretty historical. If its the obvious "other set" then the c-in-c can move around but doesn't actually do anything - and the influence gets worse as they move away.

We have instead tried to give them a reason to move around, to be busy, and make them do things when they get there.

Si