Page 1 of 1

Command Chain

Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 6:33 am
by marioslaz
FOG lacks totally an effective command chain. Troops should be assigned to generals before deploy.

Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 7:32 am
by philqw78
Why

Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 10:41 am
by olivier
What's is the common denominator between the mongol chain of command and the roman ones or celt ?

Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 12:18 am
by azrael86
Not the original. but the lack of a command structure is odd. It will be interestin to see how H&M fog works, as this was definitely part of the process then. Arguably the medieval period is also valid, would Percy's troops have really responded to Neville as an SG?

Interesting that in the old Lance rules IIRC all medieval troops had to stay in Command radius of their liege.

Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 12:27 am
by philqw78
azrael86 wrote:Interesting that in the old Lance rules IIRC all medieval troops had to stay in Command radius of their liege.
In the old rules you had to write orders for all of your troops as well. And there was only one army list for China, 3000BC to 1000AD. Things may have moved on
Evidence and reason is a better call than an old set of rules.

Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 2:13 pm
by marioslaz
olivier wrote:What's is the common denominator between the mongol chain of command and the roman ones or celt ?
Certainly a rule by which "command chain doesn't exist at all" is not the answer. Troops assigned to a general respond to that general (or the C-in-c unless they are allied troops and so they consider their commander as C-in-c) not to whatever general passes near them. Anyway, stop the nonsense rule which permits to have 2 generals with the same unit so you can use a general in melee and another for CT.

Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 2:26 pm
by olivier
I you consider each BG as a modern division and each general as a part of a modern "Etat major", the line of command is coherent and comphrensive about lone BG wandering on far flank.
If you think for a game where you simulate a division general, the line of command is a bit permissive...
Hey, I rather like to play Alexander than Philotas :wink:

Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 4:52 pm
by hazelbark
I think the way generals work now there are three interactions: manuver, morale and combat. How would these be effected by a CoC.

Manuver.
OK it would curb some of the turn and move. The double move probably wouldn't have too much effect,
The byproduct would be people would prefer LH (and maybe CV) more as the odds of exploiting manuverabilty remain with the faster troops with more simple move choices.
Personally the curb on driled foot isn't all bad, but withou a great curb we make moutend more powerful.
overall impact probably low order of magnitude.

Morale.
harder to bolster. Harder to pass CT. Result more negative impact from shooting. Bias increases in favor of shooty cav armies.
IC as CiC still can effect a lot. More ICs possible result

Combat.
Harder to have generals in right place to commit to combat.
Result players who want combat edge re-rolls buy more superior troops.
Armies with average troops that can be compensated by buying 4 TCs become lesser options.

Upsides:
Possible a greater incentive to take allies. As currently the ally command restrictions are all downside for the 10 point savings.