Attaching Commanders

Moderators: hammy, terrys, Blathergut, Slitherine Core, hammy, terrys, Blathergut, Slitherine Core

terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4189
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Re: Attaching Commanders

Post by terrys » Tue Apr 22, 2014 10:21 am

If a commander is with a unit his command range is halved. If the unit is in combat it is reduced to Zero.
Leading from the front or encouraging from the rear would not (does not) change that rule.

A commander 'with' a unit in combat can still permit CMTs to be taken by other units by spending 2 CPs (since all of his other units are 'out of command range')

BrettPT
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:52 am
Location: Auckland, NZ

Re: Attaching Commanders

Post by BrettPT » Tue Apr 22, 2014 10:57 am

terrys wrote: A commander 'with' a unit in combat can still permit CMTs to be taken by other units by spending 2 CPs (since all theis other units are 'out of command range')
With respect, this is not correct. Page 26 "A commander leading a unit in contact with the enemy cannot allocate command points, nor can the unit he is with attempt a CMT"

This is a good rule which helps to provide a quid pro quo for leading a unit into combat. As you will be in contact with enemy at the end of the assault phase, the other troops in the division will not be able to carry out any complex move in the subsequent movement phase.

Cheers
Brett

terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4189
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Re: Attaching Commanders

Post by terrys » Tue Apr 22, 2014 2:01 pm

With respect, this is not correct. Page 26 "A commander leading a unit in contact with the enemy cannot allocate command points, nor can the unit he is with attempt a CMT"
I stand corrected.... He can't allocate Command Points while in combat.
I can't think of a reason why the unit he is with would need to take a CMT though.

Blathergut
Field Marshal - Elefant
Field Marshal - Elefant
Posts: 5873
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:44 am
Location: Southern Ontario, Canada

Re: Attaching Commanders

Post by Blathergut » Sun Jan 18, 2015 3:09 am

I'd forgotten about having a choice for where a commander is if with a unit in combat!!!!

Saxonian
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:00 am

Re: Attaching Commanders

Post by Saxonian » Wed Jan 21, 2015 3:02 am

Blathergut wrote:I'd forgotten about having a choice for where a commander is if with a unit in combat!!!!
As far as I can remember, this has not actually been included in any errata.
The only benefit I can see of having the commander lead "from the rear" is to pass the CMT's to get into contact (defensive fire, disordered/spent, interpenetrations etc).
If he is with a unit that gets shot at, there is a chance to kill him wherever he is in the unit.
It seems a little strange that simply by saying he is at the rear means there is no chance to kill him in combat.

The concept of having a leader either in the rear or in the front rank makes sense in FOG:AM or R because there are regularly melees that extend over several turns, and IIRC a commander must be attached to be able to help a unit in melee recover cohesion in those rules.
I think the current system in FOG:N works fine - and we seem to be able to knock off attached commanders with some regularity!!

terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4189
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Re: Attaching Commanders

Post by terrys » Wed Jan 21, 2015 9:58 am

I agree - a simple rule that "If a commander is with a unit he always counts as fighting , and can be killed in combat" would be simpler.
Although personally, I'd like to make divisional & Corps commanders easier to kill/injure.

MDH
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:00 pm

Re: Attaching Commanders

Post by MDH » Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:18 am

I think we are heading in the right direction here.

re front or rear located leadership I don't feel it makes any real difference in a fire fight where he is . Close combat between two infantry bodies is still mainly a firefight not hand-to-hand - which was pretty rare in open combat ( I exclude sieges and fighting in buildings) .A commander that close can be hit by musketry or grape just as easily wherever he is front middle or back especially as he is usually on a horse - but just as often it seems it is the horse that was shot .

There is a very important distinction here from FoG(AM) et al where leaders in the front rank were literally so and wielding their weapons. It might even be argued for some armies - dark ages and medieval for example - not to do so when the commander could do, so should incur a penalty! But I also think in those eras you could use the idea of the " front rank warrior leader" - Achilles being the benchmark -who may have little or no battle commander skills but is truly inspirational to the fighters.

With cavalry v cavalry on FoG(N) I think it does make a difference. Leading from the front is about encouragement, from the rear more about control and direction . From the front you sacrifice some ( any?)control once going forward but cannot inspire as much .In FOG(N) I am inclined to favour the control model for Divisional and Corp Commanders in what are largish engagements between Cavalry bodies but I suggest charismatic cavalry leaders (Lasalle, Murat) should have little option but to lead from the front!

We certainly need to be able to attach and detach leaders other than in the active player's movement phase and the logical time is in the recovery phase when you can also move commanders 4 MUs on both sides. And we need to be consistent about what being attached means in the historical context.I tend to feel this is an evolutionary period between the heroic style of leadership of earlier times and the later more detached type ( US Grant being a classic example of the leatter ) with a bit of both around.

Re general vulnerability of leaders I am bit agnostic on that and would want to do a bit of research. There are instances of senior commanders being hit by random or stray cannonballs when in no way directly in the front line - Brunswick the elder, Lannes, Bessieres, Duroc (ok not a commander as such) but those are hard to recreate .And just how many Corps level commanders were killed or severely wounded as a result being too close to the front line? A minority I would imagine. Div commanders rather more of course.

Certainly the use of 3,2 and 1 D6, each needing a five or six (depending on circumstance ) is a fairly crude method of resolution and may have led to the taking of promiscuous risks with senior commanders by gamers. Fire and Fury for ACW does it differently and you throw to see what type of hits as well - useful for campaigns of course - if wounded and off the field as opposed to killed and/or captured) .

Of course one little wrinkle it seems to me is that if you have only, or too many, competent commanders throwing them in is maybe a risk worth taking !

The question is should we simplify it or make more sophisticated? ( I always prefer the latter I have to confess :oops: )And will player behaviour still act contrary to our intentions as Terry has already pointed out :evil:

MDH
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:00 pm

Re: Attaching Commanders

Post by MDH » Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:21 am

MDH wrote:I think we are heading in the right direction here.

With cavalry v cavalry on FoG(N) I think it does make a difference. Leading from the front is about encouragement, from the rear more about control and direction . From the front you sacrifice some ( any?)control once going forward but cannot inspire as much
....but cannot inspire as much - FROM THE REAR . I meant to say :oops:

deadtorius
General - Elite King Tiger
General - Elite King Tiger
Posts: 4176
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:41 am

Re: Attaching Commanders

Post by deadtorius » Thu Jan 22, 2015 1:14 am

Certainly the use of 3,2 and 1 D6, each needing a five or six (depending on circumstance ) is a fairly crude method of resolution and may have led to the taking of promiscuous risks with senior commanders by gamers. Fire and Fury for ACW does it differently and you throw to see what type of hits as well - useful for campaigns of course - if wounded and off the field as opposed to killed and/or captured) .

Of course one little wrinkle it seems to me is that if you have only, or too many, competent commanders throwing them in is maybe a risk worth taking !
I have killed more of Blatherguts divisional commanders than I can recall. Last one was last Saturday. Blathergut likes to have a 2 unit cavalry division, one unit gets a brigadier the other the division commander so he can split them up. Thats part of the reason he has such a high mortality rate with high command. Nappy has even led more than one charge since the rules came out. I am all for making it easier for me to kill the French high command :twisted:

MDH
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:00 pm

Re: Attaching Commanders

Post by MDH » Thu Jan 22, 2015 8:45 am

deadtorius wrote:
Certainly the use of 3,2 and 1 D6, each needing a five or six (depending on circumstance ) is a fairly crude method of resolution and may have led to the taking of promiscuous risks with senior commanders by gamers. Fire and Fury for ACW does it differently and you throw to see what type of hits as well - useful for campaigns of course - if wounded and off the field as opposed to killed and/or captured) .

Of course one little wrinkle it seems to me is that if you have only, or too many, competent commanders throwing them in is maybe a risk worth taking !
I have killed more of Blatherguts divisional commanders than I can recall. Last one was last Saturday. Blathergut likes to have a 2 unit cavalry division, one unit gets a brigadier the other the division commander so he can split them up. Thats part of the reason he has such a high mortality rate with high command. Nappy has even led more than one charge since the rules came out. I am all for making it easier for me to kill the French high command :twisted:
In which case It appears your dice are lethal and sufficient Sir ,even if, in those lights, something wanting in the way of a gentleman in those times . :lol: Nosey would not have approved. :( I should feel blessed that there are 3,000 mile of ocean between us :lol: . Quelle braves gens Blathergut. 8)

You appear to share this tendency with my FOG(AM) opponent whose ability to roll 11'as. and 12's against my commanders does my blood pressure no good at all. I suspected his dice but they won't serve so for me, and my own do serve as well for him , so he is obviously a witch and in league with the horned one or a heretic depending on the era . Maybe a white cockeral sacrificed at dawn on the step would help. A cat did kill and consume a pigeon on my table once when I used to have it in a garden tent in the summer , Claret everywhere on my greensward terrain :twisted:

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: Attaching Commanders

Post by hazelbark » Thu Jan 22, 2015 8:16 pm

MDH wrote:Re general vulnerability of leaders I am bit agnostic on that and would want to do a bit of research. There are instances of senior commanders being hit by random or stray cannonballs when in no way directly in the front line - Brunswick the elder, Lannes, Bessieres, Duroc (ok not a commander as such) but those are hard to recreate .And just how many Corps level commanders were killed or severely wounded as a result being too close to the front line? A minority I would imagine. Div commanders rather more of course.
When you look at the mortality rate of the French brigadier and divisional level officers. Its pretty daunting. Just look how many didn't make it past 1807

Add on that a commander falling in action may mean unhorsed, concussed, injured and not dead. We have too few losses now except cavalry officers.

I would be fine seeing the number of hits required to cause an officer loss test reduced by one.

MDH
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:00 pm

Re: Attaching Commanders

Post by MDH » Thu Jan 22, 2015 10:31 pm

hazelbark wrote:
MDH wrote:Re general vulnerability of leaders I am bit agnostic on that and would want to do a bit of research. There are instances of senior commanders being hit by random or stray cannonballs when in no way directly in the front line - Brunswick the elder, Lannes, Bessieres, Duroc (ok not a commander as such) but those are hard to recreate .And just how many Corps level commanders were killed or severely wounded as a result being too close to the front line? A minority I would imagine. Div commanders rather more of course.
When you look at the mortality rate of the French brigadier and divisional level officers. Its pretty daunting. Just look how many didn't make it past 1807

Add on that a commander falling in action may mean unhorsed, concussed, injured and not dead. We have too few losses now except cavalry officers.

I would be fine seeing the number of hits required to cause an officer loss test reduced by one.
I don't disagree that mortality among field and more senior officers in these wars was high. Though maybe not as high as the ACW.

The question for me is in what circumstances was it highest ? The further up the command chain then possibly (?) the less risk possibly because they tended to be further back by comparison. But it my be marginal . That may be measured by looking beyond anecdotal at the causes of fatal or severe injury - small arms or artillery ( edged weapons much rarer) . Artillery was the bigger killer overall by far for all ranks compared with small arms in this period ( see the late Col Dupuy's works) and it may be a field or higher commander was at much the same risk as any other soldier just by being within the line and arc of fire of artillery whether leading from the front, back or side, ie random - from that source at any rate.

The nearer to the source of small arms then the higher the potential risk ,that seems clear ,but the range attenuation is much more marked or extreme. So being in front at close range will be much riskier than even a bit further back especially if sharpshooters are deliberately trying to hit them .( There is a quote in Ken Burns Civil War series from a Confederate soldier who said he always shot at privates - officers he regarded as "harmless individuals" but I have never read such a laconic thing in these wars. )

But I do not actually know what the comparative risks were over the whole period much less in a single engagement and I fancy, just for the crack , doing some digging to see if there are any longitudinal studies around that have looked at this, maybe the footnotes in some of the books I have will offer some stuff or may there is a PhD thesis out there to look at.

But that said so what :shock:

Our risk to commanders system is unsophisticated in those terms and is a tip of the hat in that direction. Would tinkering with it for game purposes really reflect any real difference given rthe statistical probabilities whatever they actually may have been? It is just a proxy. That is where I am agnostic . I don't mind making attached officers more vulnerable . I just don't know if they really were compared with Div commanders located in the same space.

The trade off between risk and benefit in a game is not a reflection of the face of battle as it actually was I suggest in these times.

deadtorius
General - Elite King Tiger
General - Elite King Tiger
Posts: 4176
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:41 am

Re: Attaching Commanders

Post by deadtorius » Fri Jan 23, 2015 12:40 am

The only reason Blathergut has such a high mortality rate of commanders is his choice to constantly put them into battle and get them killed. I tend to keep mine out of action more often than not so I think his kills are maybe 2 or 3. My commanders are there to rally and give out command points. I try to keep them out of harms way unless I feel it is really warranted to stick them into harms way. Based on that all his commanders, division or brigadier should probably have the same chance of being a casualty. My Austrians are much more conservative and stay out of harms way.

Also my dice are not that great, about 2 games ago we had a cavalry melee and I won. His brigadier rode off and he killed mine :oops: So much for lucky die rolls....

MDH
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:00 pm

Re: Attaching Commanders

Post by MDH » Fri Jan 23, 2015 9:22 am

deadtorius wrote:The only reason Blathergut has such a high mortality rate of commanders is his choice to constantly put them into battle and get them killed. I tend to keep mine out of action more often than not so I think his kills are maybe 2 or 3. My commanders are there to rally and give out command points. I try to keep them out of harms way unless I feel it is really warranted to stick them into harms way. Based on that all his commanders, division or brigadier should probably have the same chance of being a casualty. My Austrians are much more conservative and stay out of harms way.

Also my dice are not that great, about 2 games ago we had a cavalry melee and I won. His brigadier rode off and he killed mine :oops: So much for lucky die rolls....
I think you and I are pretty much on the same page when it comes to the use of our commanders! Too valuable I deem to waste in close combat except in dire need, and my attached officers are more to add a" free " CMT or rally attempt, or boost conscripts for cohesion tests, as to enhance combat, sometimes I wish I could hold even them back from that!

shadowdragon
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2047
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:29 pm
Location: Manotick, Ontario, Canada

Re: Attaching Commanders

Post by shadowdragon » Fri Jan 23, 2015 12:46 pm

Too valuable??? Aren't these Austrian commanders? LOL

MDH
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:00 pm

Re: Attaching Commanders

Post by MDH » Fri Jan 23, 2015 2:12 pm

shadowdragon wrote:Too valuable??? Aren't these Austrian commanders? LOL
And French, and British, and Prussian, and Russian and Bavarian la la la la etc - and Spanish - oh wait... :lol:

In my last 1806 two corps game both my Russian Corps Commanders and the C-in C were only competent so maybe.... :twisted:

shadowdragon
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2047
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:29 pm
Location: Manotick, Ontario, Canada

Re: Attaching Commanders

Post by shadowdragon » Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:45 pm

MDH wrote:
shadowdragon wrote:Too valuable??? Aren't these Austrian commanders? LOL
And French, and British, and Prussian, and Russian and Bavarian la la la la etc - and Spanish - oh wait... :lol:

In my last 1806 two corps game both my Russian Corps Commanders and the C-in C were only competent so maybe.... :twisted:
Perhaps one could modify the U.S. civil war comment to officers being mostly harmless or in some cases officers being worth more to the other side alive than dead. Of course, in our games, other than their numeric benefit they are no better or worse than the player in charge. Perhaps this is why Carthaginian wargames armies have done so poorly. :D

MDH
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:00 pm

Re: Attaching Commanders

Post by MDH » Fri Jan 23, 2015 5:16 pm

I found these data in the Napoleon series .

Officer-Losses by Ranks, French and French Allies, 1805-1815

Rank Killed Wounded Total
Army Commanders ----- 3 3
Marshals of France 3 20 23
Corps Commanders 3 19 22
Division Commanders 41 197 238
Brigadier-Generals 124 498 622

Rank Killed Wounded
General Officers 171 908
Other Superior Officers 1,130 5,352
Total Superior Officers 1,301 6,260

But over 10 years of continual land warfare the rate among French officers of Divisional level and above being killed is just under 5 a year. And this is probably higher than nations not so continuously engaged in the same period .Wounding is clearly much more likely by about 5 times but the data do not indicate if those were wounds serious enough to cause the commander to have to leave the field. In the case of Marshals know who they were and in one case it was a wound that proved mortal subsequently .

MDH
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:00 pm

Re: Attaching Commanders

Post by MDH » Fri Jan 23, 2015 5:18 pm

Re the above despite spacing the figures myself on screen the site system reverted to the chaotic misalignment I got when copying and pasting the data :evil:

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: Attaching Commanders

Post by hazelbark » Fri Jan 23, 2015 8:00 pm

As I said make it one hit easier to force an officer death test from shooting.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”