game 4

This forum is for any questions about the rules. Post here is you need feedback from the design team.

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design

plewis66
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Post by plewis66 » Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:01 pm

What should be avoided at all costs? That idea in particular, or anything that's DBMMish? As it happens, I've heard of DBMM, but never seen the ruleset. My inspiration was Warhammer.

sfinn
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:58 am

Post by sfinn » Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:03 pm

Hi there

Can I make a very small point about the use of Hannibal as an IC in the sample Carthaginian list in the latest version.

An FC is compulsory in the list, but not used. Instead the army has an IC and 2 (IIRC) TC's.

Is it worth being able to upgrade an FC to an IC?

Regards

Stephen

shall
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 6137
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:52 am

Post by shall » Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:28 pm

Personally, I think its more general than that - if you will excuse the pun :-). I am not a Roman expert but the armies I know the biggest role a general had was boosting morale in wobbly areas. They were very active at difficult times.

To Steve's point, I actually think an IC is a good deal now at 80 pts. It will be intresting to see the mix of general packages chosen for Usk. I am sure we can put them up for all to see.

Si

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22200
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Post by rbodleyscott » Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:18 pm

sfinn wrote:Hi there

Can I make a very small point about the use of Hannibal as an IC in the sample Carthaginian list in the latest version.

An FC is compulsory in the list, but not used. Instead the army has an IC and 2 (IIRC) TC's.

Is it worth being able to upgrade an FC to an IC?

Regards

Stephen
The plan is that no army should be forced to have an IC and an FC compulsory. I just have not got around to updating the lists yet - been too busy working on the rules.

donm
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 584
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 12:08 am
Location: Clevedon, England

Post by donm » Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:23 pm

What should be avoided at all costs? That idea in particular, or anything that's DBMMish? As it happens, I've heard of DBMM, but never seen the ruleset. My inspiration was Warhammer.
Anything DBMM ish.

Don M

hammy
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 5440
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:11 pm
Location: Stockport
Contact:

Post by hammy » Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:30 pm

plewis66 wrote:What should be avoided at all costs? That idea in particular, or anything that's DBMMish? As it happens, I've heard of DBMM, but never seen the ruleset. My inspiration was Warhammer.
Phil, If you really want to hurt your head the DBMM rules can be downloaded from the DBMM Yahoo group or Phil Barkers website. I suspect however that as you are still working on DBM that you will be horrified by the extra twists in DBMM.

I was involved in trying to get Phil to see sense in the mid years of DBMM's development but gave up after his repeated iniability to comprehend serious problems I had found with the rules despite me posting lots of text and photo's.

Yours

Hammy

plewis66
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Post by plewis66 » Mon Jan 15, 2007 11:02 pm

Sound slike one to avoid!

Though personally, I'd stop short of rejecting an idea just because it appeared somewhere else, and I didn't like that somewhere... but I can also see the 'thin end of the wedge' argument.

madaxeman
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2937
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:15 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Post by madaxeman » Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:16 am

rbodleyscott wrote:
durrati wrote: Role of Generals

Well I guess you either like this concept or you don't.
Indeed. For me though it feels wrong - general jumping from one disordered unit to the next. How about as a suggestion, the general does not have to be with the unit it just has to be within command radius and he can try and rally one unit a turn. Which would mean that he does not have to go rushing around so much and also give Inspired commanders a big advantage over TCs as they can rally units at a longer range. At the moment ICs just do not seem that much better than TCs.
Yes, that would be an alternative possibility. However, my impression is that Caesar, Sulla and other Roman generals (for example) really did ride over to wavering units to bolster their morale. (I could cite you examples from the sources if it wasn't past my bed-time.) This seems eminently reasonable to me - Sending a messenger, blowing a trumpet, or waving a standard from a safe distance seem unlikely to be very morale boosting.

OK, here is a quote from Appian, about the Battle of Orchomenus (Pontics vs Romans):

"The Romans fought badly because they were in terror of the enemy's cavalry. Sulla rode hither and thither a long time, encouraging and threatening his men. Failing to rally them even in this way, he leaped from his horse, seized a standard, ran out between the two armies with his shield-bearers, exclaiming, "If you are ever asked, Romans, where you abandoned Sulla, your own general, say that it was when he was fighting at the Battle of Orchomenus." When the officers saw his peril they darted from their own ranks to his aid, and the troops, moved by a sense of shame, followed and drove the enemy back in their turn. This was the beginning of the victory. Sulla again leaped upon his horse and rode amongst his troops, praising them and encouraging them until the victory was complete."

Need I say more?

(and of course, ICs get an extra +1 on the cohesion test to rally. In practice this makes a huge difference as the CT system seems to be very finely balanced)
Interestiong. I read this example as the general motivating troops who were uncommitted (but not failing) to then attack vigorously. In AoW as currently written, the general patches up units who are already faltering/dirsordered. Subtle difference, but Id like my generals to inspire heroism in my forces as well as prevent disintegration !!

It might even be to do with the use of @disorder@ as the game concept name. All wargamers know what dirorder means in their own minds - and Rallying disordered troops is pretty mundane. :)
http://www.madaxeman.com
Become a fan of Madaxeman on Facebook at Madaxeman.com's Facebook Page.

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22200
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Post by rbodleyscott » Tue Jan 16, 2007 8:31 am

madaxeman wrote:It might even be to do with the use of @disorder@ as the game concept name. All wargamers know what dirorder means in their own minds - and Rallying disordered troops is pretty mundane. :)
But it isn't called "disorder" - it is called "disruption" - to distinguish it from mundane "disorder".

shall
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 6137
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:52 am

Post by shall » Tue Jan 16, 2007 9:16 am

An interesting exchange with lots of different bits. Lots to think about and maybe some changes worthwhile. We'll kick them around at usk. One of the interesting points is how generals are being used in different games, which may in fact be why views differ. I can't speak for many but in my own games actions tend to go as follows:

Early game

BGs formed into BLs which effectively create commands that the general runs for most of the game. These are not listed as such. The mechanism makes it attractive to do so to avoid the need to formalse a command structure on the army list. This is turn is because this is unrealistic as generals changed the commanders and command structures to suit the battle.

So early on I get two sensations:

1. That I have been allowed to create a command structure for the battle in question after having seen the terrain and knowing the opposing army (which feels realistic vs having to build one blind).
2. My generals have clear commands to manouvre and march into the right positions, but have some flex to take over others if need be.

The pre clash shooting

1. Some units drop to DISR - which is not disorder its a cohesion "wobble" if you get my drift
2. General used to urge the troops forward when they are faltering under missile fire (by rallying them from DISR)
3. Generals rarely manage to do this for anything away from their "command" as its too far to do it
4. Generals also used to help get past CMT and manouver troops into useful battle positions

So the sensation I get here is urging troops forward who are faltering under fire and working to get the right match ups.

Main clash

1. TC generals are thrown into the front line to lead charges to try to break the enemy or held with the unit waiting to join if needed
2. FC/ICs are held back to use their influence range to shore thing up if it goes badly

Sensation here of leading the main charges with generals very explicitly and to good effect - but with some risk. So if they are not needed to win the day they tend to hold back unless there is value in ensuring a quick win over an opposing BG.

If it goes well

Generals continue to lead the attack to victory overall

If it goes badly

Generals used to shore up losing combats by joining the units to try to turnaround a crumbling situation - e.g. trying to rally DISR back up and getting the extra re-roll to hopefully win a combat
ICs useful to try to rally some units for a last stand to try to avoid game loss, but difficult to bring back FRAG and BRK troops in practice if the pressure is really on.


So overall I get sensations that:

They have implcit but fairly clear commands to lead once deployed
They are primarily used to press troops forward and through melee victory
When things go badly they are used to shore up crumbling unis
As a last resort they are used to rally broken/frag units to save the game
All generals have the felxibility to cover in some way for each other (allies apart)

Hope that helps. I am interested to know how generals are being used and why other sensations differ at times.

Cheers

Si

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10265
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger » Tue Jan 16, 2007 9:49 am

If I may be allowed to air a view I suggested some years ago as a suggestion for a change to generals for DBM (and indeed later for DBMM) but which came to nothing.

IMO you can, in general, split generals into 2 distinct types.

On one hand you have the "battlefield manager" who acts like the generals in Richards quote above. This was the approach that the Romans expected of their generals from about the mid republic onwards - it was not the generals job to get into the fighting but to ensure that his troops were doing what they were supposed to do. An excellent example of this is Pydna BTW where the Roman general orders the individual maniples to force their way into the gaps in the Makedonian phalanx. In other words Roman generals were expected, to some degree, to micro-manage the battlefield. However, not all Roman generals fit this pattern - Constantine for example often led troops into fights personally for which even his panegyricists chided him.

The second type is what you might call the "heroic leader" who is, usually for cultural reasons, expected to lead troops into the fight personally. Good examples are Greek hoplite generals and Alexander (who set the tone for his immediate successors as well).

IMO you don't tend to get generals exhibiting both types of behaviour in the same battle.

I'd recommend Goldsworthy's "In the Name of Rome" for an insight into this BTW as he covers what was expected from Roman generals and some who did not conform. Keegan's "Mask of Command" has some useful bits as well.

I'll let you mull over how well AoW represents these two styles.

shall
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 6137
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:52 am

Post by shall » Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:39 am

I agree nick with one addition: the normal leader who heads a charge but is nothing special and cannot be a battle field manager to save his life - so no alexander but your typical warrior leader, front mand of a knight charge etc. Such a 3 type view was very much behind AOW in that:
  • A Troop Commandr you can afford to put into combat at 35pts to get the charge benefit. If he dies you are not losing too much influence. This is the warrior leader. Basically he can affect the troops he is with and little more - hence the name.

    An Field Commander is exactly the battlefield manager you desribe. Roman armies would not generally have TC but rather have FCs. FCs ave wider influence and once the points are correct you tend to want to keep them back behind the lines rather than risk them in the way you would a TC. You then stick them in if there is a crisis or a sure bet.

    An IC is multi-capable. You don't want to risk him due to his wide influence, but if you do the added +1 tends to mean he can fight and rally troops that others cannot.
To take one of my games the old Roman vs Ancient Briton Game
  • Romans had 2FCs and a TC. FCs stayed behind the fight until it became a crisis and then got drawn in as roman commnders tended too.

    Britons had Bodicae as an IC and 3 TCS. All TC warrior leaders were set up to lead charges. Bodicae roamed around on her chariot urging everyone on and would only have joined a combat in a crisis.
If anything we perhaps might want to look at the lists a little more with this in mind, but at present we have tended to keep the generals failry flexible. If we wanted to force a little more of the above behaviour I believe it can be done:

Early Imperial Roman

0-1 TC
0-1 IC (Cesar)
2-4 FC

The Ancient Briton on
0-1 IC or FC (bodecae)
1-4 TC

Maybe such bold move would add to the character and style of the armies. Or perhaps it would detract from their attractiveness. I haven't got to a firm view myself either way. views?

Si

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10265
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger » Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:48 am

Mulling it over and trying to think how AoW handles generals or might do so I think my model might look something like this:

The "Heroic Commander" - essentially, as Si says really, these are the current TC chaps. From what I've seen of the battle reports so far these TCs are really only useful in beefing up a combat unit and fit. Their minimal command radius is acceptable in that they can exert some influence over other units that are very close.

The FC category is close to the "Battlefield Manager" concept due to their larger command radius, however, the BM concept would really mean they have littel to no influence if they joined a unit for melee.

I would then have an "Inspirational" addition to either one of the above for the greats - Alexander, Caesar, Hannibal, etc. - who are better than their contemporaries at their particular style of leadership. So you could have an Inspirational Heroic Leader or an Inspirational Battlefield Commander. Not sure how I'd do it in term of actual mechanisms though :?

I would avoid dual ability generals (Heroic and a manager) - leave them for scenarios, etc. if people think they are justified.

vincent
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 7:27 pm
Location: Paris, France

Post by vincent » Tue Jan 16, 2007 8:59 pm

I tend to use the generals as described by Simon in his post.
With experience, I think that one IC is a necessity if you play an undrilled army. The extra +1 on CMT and the wide control area are useful to help in maneuvering the opponent's flanks and exploit any opportunity.
With a drilled army, a single FC is usually enough.
Always add 3 TC, they are good value for money.

I like Nik's proposal of 2 kind of generals. I would represent them as follow:
  • Battlefield manager: control range of 12, provide a bonus on CMT to all troops in range, no bonus for troops in melee

    Heroic leader: no control range, provide a bonus on CMT only to troops led personnaly, increase the quality of troops by one in melee.
We could introduce the quality of general in the following way:
  • Battlefield manager: poor have a range of only 8 (6?), good provide an extra +1 on CMT

    Heroic leader: poor: no bonus on CMT, good have a range of 4 for CMT.
I agree that dual capacity leader should then be left to scenarios.
Best regards


Vincent

shall
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 6137
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:52 am

Post by shall » Tue Jan 16, 2007 9:58 pm

Interesting stuff. We developed a role playing style for generals with a view to the camapign supplement but felt it too complex for the main game. The idea was that generals had characterstics which might be:

All basic generals have 4MU range for CMT, +1 re-roll if in combat, +1 on cohesion test to 4MU

Exceptional warrior - expert at leading charges. Adds a dice to any combat he joins
Combat genius - Adds 2 dice to any combat

Battlefield Manager - +4 MU distance for CMTs
Strategic Genius - + 8MU for CMTs

Popular leader - +4MU for cohesion effect
Living Legend - +8MU for Cohesion tests

So you would develop generals in a campaign through experience. We felt anything more than 3 was a bit much for the main game but maybe it would add richness to create more variety from the generals. More views welcome.

Not sure I liket he no bonus for troops in melee. There are lots f examples of Roman generals fighting in combat even though theu are battlefield managers in style. They definitely had a positive effect on th troops whent hey did. The difference as I red it is that they went in when there was a crisis whereas a heroic style leader would go in anyway.

Out of interest what would you guys classify Alexander as with your splits. It seems to me that he is both a battlefield commander and a heroic leader - which is what an IC is today in AOW.

Cheers

Si

vincent
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 7:27 pm
Location: Paris, France

Post by vincent » Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:38 pm

shall wrote:Not sure I liket he no bonus for troops in melee. There are lots f examples of Roman generals fighting in combat even though theu are battlefield managers in style. They definitely had a positive effect on th troops whent hey did. The difference as I red it is that they went in when there was a crisis whereas a heroic style leader would go in anyway.
Agreed. I might have gone too far in that direction. Building on the idea of an extra dice in combat, we could then have BM generals have the usual increase quality effect, with the heroic leader giving the extra dice. On the other hand this extra dice really smells like WHAB where generals can single handedly defeat enemy units (I did it once in the only occasion I played WHAB) and I do not like this trend (too much fantasy IMO).
shall wrote:Out of interest what would you guys classify Alexander as with your splits. It seems to me that he is both a battlefield commander and a heroic leader - which is what an IC is today in AOW.
IMO, Alexander is a high quality heroic leader, but the battle management might not be his acts, but rather those of his sub generals (Ptolemy or Parmenion...). This would give us a heroic leader CinC, able to inspire troops but with limited control and 1 or 2 good quality BM sub generals. With such a classification, the players will not hesitate to charge with Alexander at the head of the companions since Ptolemy is keeping the control behind. With the current classification, if you charge with Alexander, you lose the battle management capability. In the only game I played with Macedonians, I engaged Alexander only reluctantly, late in the game and at the head of a pike block which was disrupted, to ensure that it did not fail another CT.
Best regards


Vincent

shall
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 6137
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:52 am

Post by shall » Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:45 pm

shall wrote:
Out of interest what would you guys classify Alexander as with your splits. It seems to me that he is both a battlefield commander and a heroic leader - which is what an IC is today in AOW.

IMO, Alexander is a high quality heroic leader, but the battle management might not be his acts, but rather those of his sub generals (Ptolemy or Parmenion...). This would give us a heroic leader CinC, able to inspire troops but with limited control and 1 or 2 good quality BM sub generals. With such a classification, the players will not hesitate to charge with Alexander at the head of the companions since Ptolemy is keeping the control behind. With the current classification, if you charge with Alexander, you lose the battle management capability. In the only game I played with Macedonians, I engaged Alexander only reluctantly, late in the game and at the head of a pike block which was disrupted, to ensure that it did not fail another CT.
I suspect he was one of the most able battle management generals in history. His organisation of the army and pre-battle planning was exceptional. There is a strong view currently that Parmenio was the better battlefield commander - some say he took the lead at Ganikos and that jealousy was the rason for the end result.

It is pretty implausible to think that top generals in history were not both types IMHO. There are definite Samurai examples that are both. Ghengis Khan was both IMHO. I am sure several medieval generals were but I don't know the period well enough. the Romans - with their particualra organisation and tendency to have consuls in charge - are morfe the execption than the rule perhaps.

Hence the current IC idea who is both really. Not to stop the ideas coming as I am keen to see what alternative structure for generals comes out of it.

And yes I don't lik the extra dice in the base game - hence the idea for the campaign supplement where generals may grow over time.

Si

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10265
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger » Wed Jan 17, 2007 10:20 am

I'm in agreement with Vincent. There is little or no evidence IMO that Alexander acted in the battlefield manager role in the way that the typical Roman general did - probably as much because it was not in the Greek tradition to do so (if we can sidestep the issue of whther Makedonians were Greek :) )

IMO cases of generals managing battles in the Roman model and also leading in the Greek model are like hens teeth when you actually look at what happened in large battles. Currently AoW seems to make all generals that exception rather than what was the norm.

I would also suggest that if you split generals more clearly between the Battlefield Manager and Combat Commander types (I changed the name here to avoid "heroic") it would present players with clear cut choices when picking armies and deploying the generals which may be interesting.

madaxeman
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2937
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:15 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Post by madaxeman » Wed Jan 17, 2007 12:14 pm

shall wrote:An interesting exchange with lots of different bits. One of the interesting points is how generals are being used in different games, which may in fact be why views differ. I can't speak for many but in my own games actions tend to go as follows:
(snip)
So overall I get sensations that:

They have implcit but fairly clear commands to lead once deployed
They are primarily used to press troops forward and through melee victory
When things go badly they are used to shore up crumbling unis
As a last resort they are used to rally broken/frag units to save the game
All generals have the felxibility to cover in some way for each other (allies apart)
Hope that helps. I am interested to know how generals are being used and why other sensations differ at times.
Cheers
Si
My view so far is that the "early game" bit you describe is pretty short lived - they stick with groups to get the 2nd move, but by turn 2 or at latest 3 this function is gone, as ever unit can only move once. I dont really see this as "leading commands", just an in game necessity to allow me to get a free 2nd move. And once you get into single moves, the entire feel/concept of "commands", and of Generals "leading" commands is totally gone - you have a load of units all walking forwards independantly (keeping formation because its tactically clever to do so). By turn 3 the generals function from then on is almost totally the "NKVD backstop", wherever it needs to be done, irrespective of any previous command structure.

This is maybe psychological/semantic, but the second point you make about being "used to press troops forwards" isn't (for me) a readily-made interpretation of them moving around to rally troops from DISR (which is damn close to "disorder" :lol: ) - the wording and the mechanic means they are fixing something broken, not encouraging my men beyond their normal state (of superd readiness and efficiency..) to heights of extraordinary heroism. Or put another way, unless all troops started as DISR, repairing them cannot be equated to encouraging them.

As for the rest, the shoring-up bit, yep, I can see it as an in-extremis measure and role, and leading charges, again, neat and I get it, but back to the main job, as regards the "leading", nope, I don't feel that this is represented particularly well if at all.

Reading some of the later posts, there is an interesting distinction between styles of generalship that maybe needs to be (IMO) explored and extended (explained) further - maybe the answer is actually MORE types of generals - or even to change the wording and stop referring to them as types of "generals", but representations of different levels/functions of command - some of which will not have been represented in an ancients wargame (to my knowledge) before. Therefore you could get (to borrow more modern parlance and change the game scale totally as well :oops: ) "NCO's" - a function of mid-ranking unnamed officers under direction of the army command whos job was to refocus DISR units but not lead battles (maybe even they can only repair DISR units and not FRAGGeed ones??), "combat leaders" who are good at fighting but cant repair units, and I am sure a few others I cant think of right now 8) Maybe even take the DISR-fixing element out of generals powers entirely, and allocate an ability to fix a set number of DISR troops each turn, in a pip-type stylie ... ?

Maybe this extra messiness even ends up freeing up the main general to do more "positive" things that are about going forwards faster and making my lads to mightily smite the enemy, rather than being a backstop with a larger catching mitt than the other characters...?
http://www.madaxeman.com
Become a fan of Madaxeman on Facebook at Madaxeman.com's Facebook Page.

shall
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 6137
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:52 am

Post by shall » Wed Jan 17, 2007 1:20 pm

I think is worth a full debate when we are together a Usk. One of the starting principles of AOW was to make much more of generals and make them feel as realistic as possible. All and any input hat helps us get to that is much appreciated.

On Tim's point about my feeling I am pressing forward I wonder if one issue is perhaps the way we explain the cohesion levels. In my mind we have:
  • Steady = top shape BG
    Small Drop
    DISR = BG still a capable fighting unit at reduced effect
    Big Drop
    FRAG = BG is close to breaking and no longer and effective fighting BG
    Small Drop
    BROK = unit has given up and is running
So to me the top two level are generally OK and the bottom two generally lost. This is why I feel like I am pressing on when DISR but rescuing a problem when FRAG. This shae is delibrate as what we care about is really top shape/ a bit rattled/ almost gone/gone. Maybe some words on this are worthwhile.

On the command issue we have so far veered away from explicit command structures. In my own games the number of times a general finds himself helping troops away from his original deployment is quite rare until there is a crisis somewhere. Is this not what you are finding? If so then the command effect is there but it is more informalised than in DBM - but no less so than most other rules I have played. I am interested in options that might increase the command feel if there are any out there......as long as they are not too complex.

Keep it all coming as I think this is an area worthy of a fair bit of thought. The more energetic real and fun we can make the use of generals the better IMO.

Cheers

Si

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”