Slitherine

What are the pro's and Cons. I have to make up my mind and can't decide. Should I field an army with an IC and 2 TC's or an FC and 3 TC's??

I would say it depends on your army and the type of armies you are likely to face, or have had trouble with.

An IC will give you a +2 pre-battle-initiative which means that the likelyhood of you getting to select the topography of the battle increases. The benefit of this is that you can pick the type of terrain which best suits you and most penalizes your opponent, for example if you have a lot of medium/light foot while you're facing a mounted army you can go for Forest or Hilly which has compulsory terrain pieces that the mounted won't be able to negotiate, and which do not have any "Open Spaces" terrain features. Gaining the PBI also means you will have the option to place terrain features like Coast (which can protect one of your flanks from flank-marches).

Furthermore, the IC will give a big bonus to cohesion and complex move tests to units within his command range, which is very helpful to counter heavy enemy shooting - if you're facing that kind of army I would definitely suggest using an IC.

Having played a number of games, I have come to a few conclusions:

1) Even 4 Generals aren't enough & they can't be everywhere
2) 3 Generals should only ever be taken for 650pts or less
3) Unless you have wall-to-wall Superior Troops, get an IC. Worth their weight in gold.
4) Keep your IC out of Combat. That's what the TC's are for.


Cheers,
XenaJer

FC give +1 Initiative and a bonus on flank marches (note FC sub-commanders can be taken with the CinC as TC). FCs can also be useful for ally contingents. Absent these motivations, usually IC and TC are the options people look at.

Some more notes on commander choices are at Part 5 - Commanders in viewtopic.php?t=6832.

whitehorses wrote:Having played a number of games, I have come to a few conclusions:

1) Even 4 Generals aren't enough & they can't be everywhere
2) 3 Generals should only ever be taken for 650pts or less

Damn, knew I did something wrong at Rampage. Only having 3 commanders is the reason I did so badly, oh hang on a mo ...

A lot does depend on the army. I had 4 commanders at Helsinki with the Seljuqs and pretty much found I had one sitting around doing nothing most of the time so I dropped it for Rampage and suffered no ill effects. However, that is an army where it does not commit a lot of BGs to close combat, and certainly not at the same time. For an army that did I'd be more inclined to use 4 commanders but even then I don't see it as an automatic choice.

whitehorses wrote:
3) Unless you have wall-to-wall Superior Troops, get an IC. Worth their weight in gold.
4) Keep your IC out of Combat. That's what the TC's are for.

The last is just soooo true

I've never used a FC. I just don't see the point of them other than to lead a flank march and I don't believe in flank marches.

An IC is useful for armies with shooters or vulnerable to them as the +2 to morale is invaluable in cohesion tests. They are also indispensable for small armies where recovering a unit from a rout is crucial. However, if your army needs to move first to pin the enemy in his deployment zone then the IC is a bit of a hindrance as it gives you +2 in pre-battle initiative.

How many TCs you take depends on the army. I usually take one per shock BG which is likely to win me a battle. For example, with the Parthians I usually take three BGs of 6 Cataphracts each with its TC to increase my chances of winning close combats. I also take the IC to help out with the skirmishers.

Julian

if your army has lots of superior troops, and/or lots of light troops - LH especially - who can basically be withdrawn from combat at will, and/or you dont expect to fight much hand to hand with your average troops anyway you can get away with less than 4 commanders

If you are expecting to take more shooting than you dish out, or if your troops are types that cannot easily be withdrawn from the front line you, or if you are expecting to fight with some of your average troops (es[pecially if they come in blocks of 8-12 rather than 4-6's) you should be looking at 4 generals.

I suggest having a roster for each option. Once a given general has earned the IC title...surprise an opponent.

The Historicon FoG theme tournament (Immortal Fire + Rise of Rome) was won by an Alexandrian Army with an FC+TC+TC.

What I like about FCs:

If you get some TCs stuck in, then you (read, I ) may be wishing your free TC had 4 more MUs of range to influence a CMT or a non-close combat CT. 15 points for 4 more MUs of range looks pretty good then.

In some ways, the import of this question [IC vs. Fc vs. TC] is offset by the omniscient intel collection and command and control [C2] capabilities that the player has in FoG gaming. Seems like the player is a true super-IC in many ways with a command range over the entire board [and even further for flank marches]. So perhaps having as many TC as possible to do the player's bidding, and for those CMT and CT/Rallying events, is the way to go. Or maybe having as many TC and perhaps an FC as allowed by the army lists is preferred. Given the FoG player's innate capabilities, IC, and maybe FC, seem like expensive luxuries at 80 and 50 points each. Maybe the points are better spent on some more HF or Cv - or Arty.

An interesting question is whether the use of more IC or FC by a less-experienced player would offset the operational knowledge of a more experienced FoG player [viz., does having more capable subordinates help or not help the less experienced player]?

The modern day FoG player knows where all the friendly and threat units are, what their numbers and capabilities are, what all the terrain on the board looks like, and what the allegiances of the allied units are. The player has a unified operational picture of what is happening on the board at any time - rather like in Chess, except the FoG rule set is much more complex than the relatively simple Chess rule set. The FoG player exercises complete well-organized [of course!] control of his forces, and those forces do exactly as he commands [for better or worse]. There are no misunderstood messages/communiques and/or squabbling with "equals". The FoG player faces few of the operational confusions of ancient and medieval warfare, but rather confusions over the meanings and interpretations of the complex rule set.

In contrast, ancient and medieval warfare leaders' intel collection and C2 capabilities often involved eyeball intel or hearsay/rumor, numerous conspicuous large banners as organization/rally points, runners with scribbled or verbal messages, misunderstood orders, shifting alliances, misidentification [of friends, foes and neutrals], friendly fire accidents. poor knowledge of the terrain, fractious allies, superstition, fragile morale, good fortune, bribery/ransom, etc. etc. etc. Poor weather and visibility added to the enjoyment and confusion. On the other had, historical commanders typically had years of combat and leadership experience with the forces of their era. They would have had a working understanding of the capabilities of their forces and those of their traditional threats in terms of strategy, tactics, organizations, employment, weaponry, morale, religion, et al. Few, if any, FoG players have the knowledge and experience levels of the major and minor historical commanders.

Comments?
Cheers!

You are right, Claudius. The commanders are merely henchmen of the omnipresent and omniscient (yet, like Greek gods, at times inattentive and foolish) player overlord - so the question is what is needed to fit a particular army's doctrine as others have posted. Most players seem to rely mainly on ICs and TCs, but I hypothesize that good players who really know their army are more likely to find ways to stretch points by substituting a single FC in a role suited to an IC or two TCs.

ethan wrote:The Historicon FoG theme tournament (Immortal Fire + Rise of Rome) was won by an Alexandrian Army with an FC+TC+TC.

And 2nd place had 4 TCs 1 being an ally.

I don't think an IC is required at all. It is pretty accurately priced if you ask me.

I do think that the newer the player the more generals allow you to manage mistakes.

hazelbark wrote:

ethan wrote:The Historicon FoG theme tournament (Immortal Fire + Rise of Rome) was won by an Alexandrian Army with an FC+TC+TC.

And 2nd place had 4 TCs 1 being an ally.

I don't think an IC is required at all. It is pretty accurately priced if you ask me.

I do think that the newer the player the more generals allow you to manage mistakes.

I took third with IC+TC+TC. I bought the IC thinking that I would face some shooty cav armies: Parthians, Bosporans, etc. As it turned out, I did not see a one. I wish I had saved the 30 points and bought an extra BG instead; it might have saved my bacon in the game I lost to Payne.

Marc

For me and my Medieval Germans.. A IC was money well spent.. For one, both of the guys i play against regularly use shooty armies. At the tourney at Origins.. 2 out of the 3 were shooty armies. Then when i went down to the Garage Open. I faced 2/3 shooty armies again. HF armies really should have an IC.