Generals

[Christolos]

Hi,

Just got this gem of a game and I am trying to learn the various aspects of game play.

For those of you who may be interested, I am also on the Strategic Command WWII in Europe forum as CC1.

I am trying to understand the importance of having units attached to generals, but I am confused in that it seems that the only units that benefit are non-light units in that they gain a free 45 degree turn, whereas light units always get a free 45 degree turn (whether they are attached to a command or not) and maneuverable units never get a free turn.

The Manual states:

12.4.1. Free Turns

Each game turn non-light units that are in command range are allowed one free turn
of up to 45 degrees. Units that are out of command range of their general lose this.

Light troops (light foot and light horse) are allowed one free turn in any direction.

12.4.2. Unmanoeuvrable Units
Some units are Unmanoeuvrable and never get a free 45 degree turn.

So my question is, what benefits do light troops and Unmanoeuvrable Units get when attached to a command when the only benefit seems to be for non-light units to get a free 45 degree turn as I understand from the above mentioned excerpts from the manual, including:

10.1. Command Range
Units that are out of command range of a general in line of command have
reduced command control. They lose the free 45 degree turn that is allowed to
troops that are in command range. (This may sound like a minor handicap, but
in practice it can cause significant inconvenience). The exception is that they
can move at least one square even if this does involve a turn of 45 degrees.

Also, I know that generals help to rally the unit the are directly attached to...but shouldn't they also have a slight effect or ability to rally routed troops that are attached to the general, and in command range?

C
___________________________

“Excellence is never an accident. It is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, and intelligent execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives - choice, not chance, determines your destiny.”

-Aristotle-

[jomni]

Light troops do not need to join a group under a commander. They have their own skirmish group if you haven't noticed. This is only for the convenience of group move at the start of battle.
Unmaneovrable units stay that way, no free 45 degree turn. No movement benefit except for the convenience of group move.

Commander improves rallying only for the unit they occupy. The mere presence of a nearby commander in another unit does not help rally troops. He is a normal human being and does not have a "magical aura" that inspires people miles away like you see in many games. Just imagine the commander physically rallying (shouting, whipping) the troops himself so only the unit he occupies is affected. But the death of a commander will affect the unit he occupies and adjacent units.

Take note that if the commanders were made more influential, it would then be very crucial for the AI to learn how to use them properly. The developers made the effects important but subtle so that the AI won't be handicapped severely. AI in many games break because of many rules and details that the AI cannot handle. Keeping the rules manageable makes the AI in this series (Pike and Shot, Sengoku Jidai, Field of Glory 2) plausible and puts up a good challenge without "cheating" (die roll bonuses).

[the_iron_duke]

Generals give a combat bonus to the unit they are attached to (the square they are in). They also provide a morale bonus, but only when they themselves are fighting, that being a +1 to cohesion tests in a radius of command range / 4. So a Troop Commander with command range of 4, would give the morale bonus to troops one square away, while a Field Commander with command range of 8 would give the morale bonus to troops two squares away.

[Cumandante]

Right now, some armies have very little incentive to keep their general out of combat. Armies with lots of pike or warbands benefit a lot more from having the general fighting than having him actually commanding.

I feel that this is unfortunate. Perhaps something could be done to make the decision of committing your generals to combat more risky and/or not as beneficial.

[Scutarii]

Right now, some armies have very little incentive to keep their general out of combat. Armies with lots of pike or warbands benefit a lot more from having the general fighting than having him actually commanding.

I feel that this is unfortunate. Perhaps something could be done to make the decision of committing your generals to combat more risky and/or not as beneficial.

Something to test is reduce the general command range when his unit is in combat... 2-3 squares less or something similar.

I see general like a "buff" for a combat unit more than a real general... maybe we can have 2 levels of generals, generals that give command radious but no combat bonus and commanders with no command range (or a range of 1 square), they simple offer the combat bonus and mantein the unit they command allways in command (if has 1 square of range mantein the units here in command but with no bonus).

Instead have in a 1200 points battle 3 generals we can have 1 general, 1 sub-general and 3-4 unit commanders.

PD: you can transfer generals to any unit (except unis with commander) but the commander in a specific unit cant be transfered.

[Cumandante]

Something to test is reduce the general command range when his unit is in combat... 2-3 squares less or something similar.

Generals don't provide command while in combat.

[JorgenCAB]

This is my major gripe with the game. We as players can perfectly move and coordinate our troops over the course of the battle like clockwork, this never was the case during ancient and medieval battles.

Most table top games have some form of command and control mechanic that makes sure you can't move troops in complete freedom.

Generals did have a sphere of influence of their command in reality this should be reflected by your line of vision and their ability to send out runners to give orders to unit commanders. Also armies almost never moved in small individual cohort sized units but where divided into battles or smaller sections. As battle progressed it would become more chaotic and difficult to control. A commander leading from the back like Ceasar did have an important advantage over leading troops from the front such as Alexander, this is also evident in the way Caesar managed to react to battle conditions over more involved generals.

[TDefender]

Is the morale test for nearby units after geneal's death still in at least? I didn't experience it yet...

[JorgenCAB]

Is the morale test for nearby units after geneal's death still in at least? I didn't experience it yet...

If a general die then all units within a certain distance must make a cohesion test, don't remember the distance though.

[Cumandante]

Is the morale test for nearby units after geneal's death still in at least? I didn't experience it yet...

If a general die then all units within a certain distance must make a cohesion test, don't remember the distance though.

2 squares if C-in-C, 1 square if sub-general.

[rbodleyscott]

He is a normal human being and does not have a "magical aura" that inspires people miles away like you see in many games.

Nicely put.

[rbodleyscott]

Generals did have a sphere of influence of their command in reality this should be reflected by your line of vision and their ability to send out runners to give orders to unit commanders. Also armies almost never moved in small individual cohort sized units but where divided into battles or smaller sections. As battle progressed it would become more chaotic and difficult to control. A commander leading from the back like Ceasar did have an important advantage over leading troops from the front such as Alexander, this is also evident in the way Caesar managed to react to battle conditions over more involved generals.

As jomni said above, the reason we did not make the effect of generals more important than we did (in Sengoku Jidai and FOG2) was to avoid degrading the AI compared with a player.

It isn't an oversight, it is a deliberate design decision for the overall benefit of the game as a game.

[Cumandante]

As jomni said above, the reason we did not make the effect of generals more important than we did (in Sengoku Jidai and FOG2) was to avoid degrading the AI compared with a player.

It isn't an oversight, it is a deliberate design decision for the overall benefit of the game as a game.

You just didn't design the AI well enough.

[TDefender]

The gameplay is someway streamlined to have a better experience vs the ai compared to FoG 1 and I have to say that the goal is perfectly achieved. On the other hand, playing vs human it's not so exciting as it is with FoG 1, at least for me , considering there are too much "mechanics" missing (second line heavy infantry bonus, commander's major role , camps, flank bonus on missiles etc etc) and the gameplay overall seems less dynamic and varying imho .

[Scutarii]

I read it but maybe made commander radious be OFF when unit is in melee... and to be fair i didnt notice a great diference betwene general in combat or not.

[TheGrayMouser]

This is my major gripe with the game. We as players can perfectly move and coordinate our troops over the course of the battle like clockwork, this never was the case during ancient and medieval battles.

Most table top games have some form of command and control mechanic that makes sure you can't move troops in complete freedom.

Generals did have a sphere of influence of their command in reality this should be reflected by your line of vision and their ability to send out runners to give orders to unit commanders. Also armies almost never moved in small individual cohort sized units but where divided into battles or smaller sections. As battle progressed it would become more chaotic and difficult to control. A commander leading from the back like Ceasar did have an important advantage over leading troops from the front such as Alexander, this is also evident in the way Caesar managed to react to battle conditions over more involved generals.

I have always been a fan of "phase based" turn based games for this reason. Example: Move all units, opponent can "opportunity fire", you then charge and or declare melees with all units, then the results. Perhaps your foe get s a "counter charge phase squeezed in their too. Not perfect but it prevents the on the fly "command decisions" like Hey, that one combat went so well that now I'm going to use that support unit that was ready to join somewhere else now.
Phase based games though can be cumbersome and I suppose would be a real turn off in PBEM.

A nice alternative could be limiting actions to one "command" at a time. So if an army was divided up into appropriate division of whatever 2-6 8 10? units? you would have to activete a "command " and then do ALL the actions for the units in that command at the same time. Once done you go to the next command, no going back to units in the first. Maneuvering would likely be more realistic as again, players would not be able to do things on the fly and give armies way more flexibility than they currently have.

I often play FOG1 hotseat that way, organizing individual units into commands as if they were "bases" part of a cohesive battlegroup, as in the TT.

[lapdog666]

why not have a special Multiplayer option to allow us who play mp to play with more important generals.

make general's units unmovable if they are not in his command range and reduce the range, so that even sub generals become more important

also if comanded unit is not in LOS of its commanding general, they get penalty to movement or something similar

why not make it more complex where you can , nobody is gona lose anything

edit: generals in general could see more choices like quality of a general and perhaps some special traits, like agressive,defensive,coward etc

[TheGrayMouser]

The gameplay is someway streamlined to have a better experience vs the ai compared to FoG 1 and I have to say that the goal is perfectly achieved. On the other hand, playing vs human it's not so exciting as it is with FoG 1, at least for me , considering there are too much "mechanics" missing (second line heavy infantry bonus, commander's major role , camps, flank bonus on missiles etc etc) and the gameplay overall seems less dynamic and varying imho .

Apart from camps and the subjective role of commanders, I don't think those other things were part of FOG1, perhaps the TT game though... You would need to elaborate on the etc etc

Perhaps the battles feel less dynamic to you as they are not as fluid and or fast than FOG1? Double moves were designed for "faster play" not any realism mechanic, plus units were way more maneuverable and could attack from further out, despite the same equivalent range in grid or hex ( because in FOG 2 one needs to have enough AP's to enter the enemies grid, where as in FOG1 merely entering an adjacent hex means you got stuck on any and all enemies BG's.

[TheGrayMouser]

why not have a special Multiplayer option to allow us who play mp to play with more important generals.

make general's units unmovable if they are not in his command range and reduce the range, so that even sub generals become more important

also if comanded unit is not in LOS of its commanding general, they get penalty to movement or something similar

why not make it more complex where you can , nobody is gona lose anything

Ive never like a mechanic where units cant move at all if out "command range", too many weird things can happen but perhaps moves would be limited to changing face and or shooting, charging an enemy or moving closer to the commander unit? I kinda doubt we can expect different rules for SP and MP. Might not even be possible.

[lapdog666]

why not have a special Multiplayer option to allow us who play mp to play with more important generals.

make general's units unmovable if they are not in his command range and reduce the range, so that even sub generals become more important

also if comanded unit is not in LOS of its commanding general, they get penalty to movement or something similar

why not make it more complex where you can , nobody is gona lose anything

Ive never like a mechanic where units cant move at all if out "command range", too many weird things can happen but perhaps moves would be limited to changing face and or shooting, charging an enemy or moving closer to the commander unit? I kinda doubt we can expect different rules for SP and MP. Might not even be possible.

any changes of that kind would make me happy,doesnt need to be ultra restricting