Slitherine

Oops! I just posted the below in the Beta forum, but really meant for it to go here.

I just played a game where I got what I feel was a fortunate victory using my Late Republican Romans against an Alexandrian Imperial army at 800 points each. I played with one Inspired Commander and two Troop Commanders in my force, and although things worked out, I'm not sure if I wouldn't have been better off with more and/or better commanders. I would love to hear some comments from the more experienced players on what they may feel is an ideal quantity/quality of generals for their armies (or any other armies, for that matter).

Thanks

Peter

Never leave home w/o 4. Can't think of an army where I wouldn't get 4, even if there aren't that many possible battle lines. In the beginning they won't all be that useful, but later when things start going wrong you'd wish you had more.

I'm not experienced yet, but I'm experimenting with 1xFC and 3xTC even at 650 points. You want to have a commander in every combat that matters if possible, and at least one commander free to bolster units that are not fighting. Also, they come in handy for pre-engagement maneuvering (second moves).

It often depends on how many 'spare points' are left when the rest of the army has been selected. Four are nice, but it is quite possible to manage with three. I cannot think that two would be enough. (Although given the number who seem to die in combat, never having provided a useful re-reroll, finishing with two is not uncommon).

Remember an IC costs as much as 1 BG of 6 Superior Legionaries, so the number and type of generals is not just I'll have 1 IC and 3 TC's which costs you 185 or 23% of your 800 pt army.
I have run with 1 IC and 2 TC's and 4 TC's

Each has its problem and solutions

Spike

Depends on what you have in the army - when I used it at had lots of veteran and superior legionaries and just 3TC, and never felt short of generals - indeen the only reason for not trying it with 2 generals is that would limit you to only two battles lines getting double moves at the beginning.

Right now I am of the more generals lower quality school.

4xTC is where I start.
The FC as CiC is handy for armies that need more terrain influence and don't have the mounted wing.

I tried an inspired Henry V with the HYW english and decided i need more practice with that army to know whether the inspired is critical or not.

But the more drilled, the more mounted, the more superior the army then less need for points on quality generals.

I must admit I am torn between a unit of Light Bowmen or making a FC into a IC for the 30 points in a Parthian army list.

hazelbark wrote: But the more drilled, the more mounted, the more superior the army then less need for points on quality generals.

An additional point is that an army with significant quantities of protected/unprotected non-skirmishers can gain a significant protection from shooting with an IC

sagji wrote:

hazelbark wrote: But the more drilled, the more mounted, the more superior the army then less need for points on quality generals.

An additional point is that an army with significant quantities of protected/unprotected non-skirmishers can gain a significant protection from shooting with an IC

I was just thinking that while contemplating a Norse Irish army. An army consisting of 80% Unprotected MF with heavy weapon. Ooer missus.

sagji wrote:

hazelbark wrote: But the more drilled, the more mounted, the more superior the army then less need for points on quality generals.

An additional point is that an army with significant quantities of protected/unprotected non-skirmishers can gain a significant protection from shooting with an IC

What's that? How does that work? I don't get it.

Peter

Extra +1 on CT for IC means they pass CTs more easily and they are more likely to have to test facing shooters.

nikgaukroger wrote:Extra +1 on CT for IC means they pass CTs more easily and they are more likely to have to test facing shooters.

Not to be underestimated.