Rallying with commanders

[Brainsnaffler]

Does anyone else on this forum have an issue with battle groups only being able to rally when a commander is there? I'm not trying to start an uprising or anything , but some of my friends who I am trying to entice into playing FOG have a big issue with it. They say that for example Rome, with one of the finest armies in the world with some of the best quality troops, find it impossible to rally themselves without a commander with them.

Personally, I think the commander aspect add's a larger level of strategy to the game, but I can see where they are coming from. Is there strong justification for the rule as it is, or should there be a possibility (even if it is hard to do so) of Battle Groups rallying themselves?

[SirGarnet]

Historical Rationales: The BG's commanders are captured, stricken, themselves fleeing, or exhausted their ability to restore the situation - fragmented is as far as they could hold the men.
Stemming a rout requires external intervention - this is represented by the Commander joining them.
If not in panic, they are probably heading for the camp to retrieve personal property belonging to them, or others.

Game Rationales:
Commanders are valuable and have some stark choices to make because only they can bolster/rally, boost quality in close combat, or enhance movement capabilties.

Currently routers can be picked up when it's clear nothing will affect their rout before they leave - this speeds and simplifies the game.

Self-rallying would make slow routing speed, distance to the rear edge, and bad terrain in the way assets for the side that has them by allowing more turns before the routers get off table. People would be miffed when troops rallying themselves to fragmented and safely sitting on the board edge turn the tide in attrition points, or saving the camp from a raid, and thus decide the battle being fought in the front lines. Currently fragmented troops (unless being rallied by a commander) are near the fight where the enemy can target them.

Those are my thoughts why the mechanism seems OK as is.

Mike

[KingHassan]

Have your friends played 1 game of Field of Glory yet?

[Brainsnaffler]

Yeah they have each played one game, but that doesn't really mean much. The principal is that the rules make it look like the troops have no ability to think for themselves, almost robotlike. Granted, this is what a large formation of men should act like, but perhaps they should recognise that they have some human qualities as well. Anyone who has never played a single game can see that.

As I said, personally, I don't really see a problem with the system, but I need ammunition to back up WHY the rule is as it is when trying to entice my friends into taking up the game.

Perhaps as Mike K says, the commanders of the BG's ARE trying to turn the situation round, which is why there is a disrupted and fragmented option, but past that, they cannot talk to the men and reason with them, taking a much larger commander to do this. That makes sense to me.

[nikgaukroger]

No problems for me.

If your friends cite Rome as an example BTW I would refer them to the comments on Roman command style made by Adrian Goldsworth in, I think, "In the Name of Rome" where he makes the point that running around and influencing units was exactly what a Roman general was meant to do

You could point out to examples of Ceasar, Sulla and Julian persoanlly rallying broken units BTW.

[neilhammond]

They say that for example Rome, with one of the finest armies in the world with some of the best quality troops, find it impossible to rally themselves without a commander with them.

I agree with Nik's comments. All my recent reading (incl Goldsworthy) indicate that Roman units could panic and start to disintegrate when things went wrong, and it was intervention by the CinC or an appointed sub-commander that stabalised the situation.

The role of a roman commander was to ride behind the front line, but close to the action so he could see what was happening at both the troop level and the general tactical situation. He was expected to intervene as appropriate (i.e. either to personally stabalise wavering troops, or to lead reserve to a key point, or, if really desperate, get stuck in and set an example to the troops).

[flameberge]

No problems for me.

If your friends cite Rome as an example BTW I would refer them to the comments on Roman command style made by Adrian Goldsworth in, I think, "In the Name of Rome" where he makes the point that running around and influencing units was exactly what a Roman general was meant to do

You could point out to examples of Ceasar, Sulla and Julian persoanlly rallying broken units BTW.

I'm reading this exact book right now and he's right. It was a huge job of the Roman General to personally go from group to group rallying his men. This was part of the Roman idea that you knew your General was always watching you and so he could punish or reward you bravery because he would see it himself. If you read about Caesar at Alesia his personal intervention to rally a point of his collapsing line is what quite possibly saved the battle for him.