Slitherine

I just wondered whether the different grades of Generals will be based differently to facilitate easy identification?

Regards
Ridd

meaning like the grades of generals in the sets?
If so, then yes, they should be, but idk, i think neil can help you (the site admin)

~coldknight

Yes. Would you base a Field Commander differently to a Tactical (not sure if this is the correct term ) Commander to make it easier to remember excatly who is who in the heat of the action? Should an Inspirational Commander also be based slightly differently?

Cheers
Ridd

As far as I know there is no requirement to base different commander types differently.

What I'd do is make sure you're figures/bases for commanders are easily identified by the use of a banner, etc. so that if the commanders are a different type that you can remember which is which my that means.

I can understand the desire to make it easy to remember what types your own generals are, but different basing would give that information to your opponent as well. Is there any historical basis for one side to be aware of the status of the enemy's generals at deployment? Presumably the quality of the opposing commanders will become apparent as the game plays out.

I think some sort of recognition scheme would be very useful to help players not to forget (genuinely or "inadvertently") which of their generals is which type.

Certainly I have sometimes got mixed up during games as to which of my generals is the good one.

Whether historically the enemy would be aware of the information probably varies. I would imagine that the Lancastrians would be very aware (after the first battle or so) of Edward IV's prowess, and his banner would be clearly visible. In other historical battles, the quality (or even the location) of the enemy generals might be unknown.

So the question would be should we go with:
1) No recognition system. Rely on players' honesty.
2) Recognition code on bottom of general's base so that it can be checked if necessary.
3) Some form of recognition code visible on the base.

In practice (2) may be not much different from (3) as some players might challenge the quality of ICs/FCs the first time it makes any difference.

Thanks for the responses. I've never had any problem remembering who was my own C-in-C in a game (which I suppose would be similar to differentiating between IC's and FC's (?) but there has been the odd occasion when my opponent became confused, usually in melee situations where generals were committed in desperation to achieve a breakthrough or hold a line. Perhaps under AOW it is less likely that generals may operate in close proximity?

Maybe an approach would be to say that generals should be openly identifiable in competition, up to the players in 'firendlies', and leave the possibility of concealing the identity of generals for scenario/campaign games?

If one is going to tell the opponent what troop types the various battlegroups are (and one should) there is no reason not to divulge the same information about the generals.

Marc

Out of interest, what is the reasoning behind disclosing information regarding troop capabilities?

I can understand that it is not always possible to tell from the models exactly what is going on, so that's fair enough. But it seems to me that type and armour are pretty much all that needs to be disclosed, as that is pretty much all that one can tell by looking at troops.

It may be said that you can tell the weponry of troops by looking at them, but the AoW POA system does not just reflect what troops are equiped with, it reflects the troops effectiveness with that equipment. So just because a bunch of blokes are carrying spears, how does the opposing general know if they are Offensive Spear, Defensive Spear, Spearmen, Light Spear etc?

It seems to me that if, for example in a late Republican Roman army, there are say four battle groups of Superior Legionaries, and two of Elite Legionaries, what is it about the Elites that gives them away to the enemy?

I suppose there is the issue of cheating: The Roman general could hope that his opponent does not remember the deployment order (which would give away which BG is which) and switch the quality of troops 'at run time' to suit himself...but he would have to run the risk of being found out.

Unfortunately there are people who will try this sort of thing, and, as Hammy says, the umpire would only have your word for it which BGs were deployed in what order even if you could remember with any certainty.

However, I think it is fairly common for the players themselves to genuinely forget which troops are which.

In tournaments I think that the rule should be that if two BGs that look the same are differently classified, the correct classification should be marked on the bottom of the base. This is not too hard to chop and change for different tournaments with adhesive labels.

I suspect that this may be unpopular with some tournament players, but as I also mentioned in the thread on troop types, a simple roster would take care of this problem very cleanly. Just a thought.

Cheers,
Scott K.

rbodleyscott wrote:Unfortunately there are people who will try this sort of thing, and, as Hammy says, the umpire would only have your word for it which BGs were deployed in what order even if you could remember with any certainty.

However, I think it is fairly common for the players themselves to genuinely forget which troops are which.

In tournaments I think that the rule should be that if two BGs that look the same are differently classified, the correct classification should be marked on the bottom of the base. This is not too hard to chop and change for different tournaments with adhesive labels.

I think RBS's idea very sound indeed. If you think someone is cheating or either of you are simply getting a bit confused then check the base. I can't see a sticky label being beyond even my limited modelling skills

Ridd

It could even just be battle group number, as listed on the order of march. This would mean the full specification didn't need to be crammed on the base. Paste a little paper to the bases, use a soft pencil, and you have certainty and flexibility. This would also allow every base to be labelled easily, and would help determine where BG splits are in BLs, which is something else that can get a bit vague.