Page 1 of 1
Adding Generals Bonus
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:29 pm
by philqw78
Must you add a CMT or CT bonus for a general if he is in range or can you choose not to?
Re: Adding Generals Bonus
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:37 pm
by lawrenceg
philqw78 wrote:Must you add a CMT or CT bonus for a general if he is in range or can you choose not to?
Yes you must, and if there are several in range you must use the best one.
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 4:14 pm
by philqw78
Why? What if it is part of your (generals) cunning plan that it is better if that BG routs?
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 5:43 pm
by nikgaukroger
Keep him away from the BG then
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 3:20 am
by ejacobs
Such is the dicipline of the armies that even noticing the presence of their General forces them to "shape up" and act accordingly. No troops expect their general to plan on their losing a fight to advance his master plan. That would be "silly."
E
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 1:43 pm
by philqw78
No troops expect their general to plan on their losing a fight to advance his master plan. That would be "silly."
William I at Hastings
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 2:10 pm
by nikgaukroger
Cannae.
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 2:25 pm
by MarkSieber
Feigning loss and losing are two different things. I've yet to come across a rules set that properly allows for troops to pretend to rout. It's so rare that you wouldn't want it to be a common tactic, yet it did happen.
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 2:31 pm
by daleivan
MarkSieber wrote:Feigning loss and losing are two different things. I've yet to come across a rules set that properly allows for troops to pretend to rout. It's so rare that you wouldn't want it to be a common tactic, yet it did happen.
Exactly. The Mongols were said to employ the feigned rout tactic
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 2:55 pm
by lawrenceg
MarkSieber wrote:Feigning loss and losing are two different things. I've yet to come across a rules set that properly allows for troops to pretend to rout. It's so rare that you wouldn't want it to be a common tactic, yet it did happen.
DBMM has it.
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 4:51 pm
by Draka
In Asiatic practice the "feigned rout" tactic was extremely familiar - it was mentioned in all Chinese known military manuals for instance, and commomly used by all horse archer Steppe armies - yet as has been mentioned is not truly portrayed in rule sets in wargaming. Any planned rearward movement in the face of the enemy appears to be a taste of the cowardly or silly to the modern ruleset writers and is not allowed for - any such movement is only caused by adverse moral effects and is perceived by anyone else in sight to be an adverse action - not always the case.
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:30 pm
by Redpossum
The difference between Hastings and Cannae was worth mentioning.
At Hastings, William the Bastard suckered the Anglo-Saxons off their hilltop by feigned retreats, exploiting the classic weakness of the undisciplined "warband" style troops, and using the superior discipline of his own Normans to out-manuever them. And so he got to shed his unfortunate epitheton necessarium and instead be remembered as William the Conqueror.
At Cannae, Hannibal Barca ruthlessly used the Gauls as fodder/bait. The Gauls were not in on the plan, you can be sure, and they did not feign retreat, they got chopped into dogfood and forced back.
Granted, the net effect was about the same (unless you were one of the Gauls).
Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:04 am
by ejacobs
Just what I was saying. Either the troops are in on the plan and it is a feigned rout or they aren't in on the plan. The plan doesn't work if the fodder knows it's job is to be expendable.
"Here we go boys! Try not to die too quickly to allow our venerable leader to maneuver his chosen noble troops to a most advantageous position!"
LOL
E