FMG COMBAT UNITS - Rules: COMMANDER

[Tall Paul]

Everyone,

I like the idea of having Commanders in our A&A games.  And they are already in the “pipeline” to be produced.  In studying all of the above suggestions and adding some of my own thoughts I believe there are certain MAIN ideas that we might agree on:

–-------------------------

1A.  ALL countries in the game start with ONE “commander”,…OR:

1B.  A case could be made for TWO “commanders” like:  US-Pacific, US-Europe, UK-Pacific, UK-Europe, USSR-Pacific, USSR-Europe, Germany-Europe, Germany-Asia, France-1, China-1, Anzac-1.

2.  Any country having forces in a theater(Pacific or Europe) would have the capability of building 3 “commanders”(1-Army, 1-Navy, 1-Air Force) for that theater.

2.  The commander could ONLY be an Army General, Navy Admiral, or Air Force General by choice of each country’s player.

3.  The “commander” should give certain “benefits” to the forces of it’s service, but more along the lines of strategic or tactical capabilities added.  Giving additional attack or defense capabilities, if adopted, should be to a LIMITED extent or this would tend to act like a “tech” bonus and unbalance the game.  Remember, the “commander” represents a Headquaters and it’s functions.

4.  Each “commander” should have a high cost(10-15 IPC depending on value added).

5.  Additional “commander” units could be purchased up to 3 (1-Army, 1-Navy, 1-Air Force) for each “theater” of operations(Pacific/Asia, Europe).

6.  Any “commander” killed would need to be re-purchased like any new one.

7.  The “commander” would ride “piggyback” on an existing unit and adopt it’s movement factor and NOT be allowed to majically be placed anywhere the player choses.  Remember we will soon have the option of adding Air Transports to our games.

8.  Players should be allowed at the start of the game to announce the type(service) of leader and it’s starting location in accordance with their strategic emphasis.

9.  We might consider adding a certain “range” to the effects of these “commander” units.

–---------------------

These are some of my general thoughts on the commander units(pun intended).  IMHO I believe they can add a new and fun dimension to our games.  I think we must also realize that they could very easily unbalance the game if we make their “added capabilities” too strong.  Remember,…all units in combat were lead (supposedly) by a commander.  By making a player PAY to add a commander to the units he wants to emphasize he should accrue some equitable return,…but not overpowering strength.

I think a lot of further discussion is due this important subject.

Like I Say,……What Do YA’LL Think???
                                                                                      “Tall Paul”

[Guest]

When attacked, all land units that have a range of 2 can withdraw 1 territory after the first round of dice if there is a commander.

[Fishmoto37]

Here are our commander rules which we have worked out to keep it as simple as possible. We have used these rules in our 1939 global game using Tigermans map as well as the tactical games like ILs Eastern Front and my N. Africa game. Each of the six major nations get three commanders in the setup phase. France and ANZAC get one each. These commander units are placed by the players before the game starts. For this setup the U.K. Commonwealth includes Europe and the Far East command. So ANZAC is separate and gets its own commander. In total the allies have two more commanders than the axis. Commanders can move one territory on their own or can be transported by any sea vessel, any level bomber or transport plane if you have those in the game. Also on land they can be moved by tank, mech. inf. or truck if you use those. In land combat the commander can target his tanks and dive bombers during the first combat round only. For instance the commander declares that 5 tanks and two dive bombers are trying to hit 5 enemy tanks. If he gets 6 hits then 5 tanks are destroyed and 1 hit is wasted. In sea combat the commander can target his battleships, cruisers and dive bombers. All targets must be declared before dice are rolled. Also commanders have the option to retreat after any complete combat round. If a commanders army or navy is wiped out before they can retreat then the commander is lost for the game and cannot be replaced. Any questions?

[Razor]

@Viracocha:

.  I’m not a fan of giving out more +'s on units - I’d rather have them as abilities, they’re easier to remember, adds more flavour, and I think there are enough +'s floating around already…

Agree with that  8-)

Leader unit: cost 15 (same as a facility), move 2, att 0, def 0, may only control units in its own territory.

Abilities when defending:

• All units in a territory with a Leader, may retreat after each round of combat.

Abilities when attacking:

• All motorized units (tanks, mechs and self-propelled artillery) that start the attack from the same territory and accompanied by a Leader unit, may continue with one extra move after the first battle in the first territory is resolved. This may be a bonus combat-move into next enemy territory, representing Blitzkrieg with breakthrough and exploitation, or a non-combat move into any friendly territory.

Abilities when Amphibious Assulting:

• Ampibious Assaults is a joint operation that need a Leader unit.

Leaders can only effect land units

[Tall Paul]

Let’s keep it simple guys,

@Tall:

Everyone,

I like the idea of having Commanders in our A&A games.  And they are already in the “pipeline” to be produced.  In studying all of the above suggestions and adding some of my own thoughts I believe there are certain MAIN ideas that we might agree on:

–-------------------------

1A.  ALL countries in the game start with ONE “commander”,…OR:

1B.  A case could be made for TWO “commanders” like:  US-Pacific, US-Europe, UK-Pacific, UK-Europe, USSR-Pacific, USSR-Europe, Germany-Europe, Germany-Asia, France-1, China-1, Anzac-1.

2.  Any country having forces in a theater(Pacific or Europe) would have the capability of building 3 “commanders”(1-Army, 1-Navy, 1-Air Force) for that theater.

2.  The commander could ONLY be an Army General, Navy Admiral, or Air Force General by choice of each country’s player.

3.  The “commander” should give certain “benefits” to the forces of it’s service, but more along the lines of strategic or tactical capabilities added.  Giving additional attack or defense capabilities, if adopted, should be to a LIMITED extent or this would tend to act like a “tech” bonus and unbalance the game.  Remember, the “commander” represents a Headquaters and it’s functions.

4.  Each “commander” should have a high cost(10-15 IPC depending on value added).

5.  Additional “commander” units could be purchased up to 3 (1-Army, 1-Navy, 1-Air Force) for each “theater” of operations(Pacific/Asia, Europe).

6.  Any “commander” killed would need to be re-purchased like any new one.

7.  The “commander” would ride “piggyback” on an existing unit and adopt it’s movement factor and NOT be allowed to majically be placed anywhere the player choses.  Remember we will soon have the option of adding Air Transports to our games.

8.  Players should be allowed at the start of the game to announce the type(service) of leader and it’s starting location in accordance with their strategic emphasis.

9.  We might consider adding a certain “range” to the effects of these “commander” units.

–---------------------

These are some of my general thoughts on the commander units(pun intended).  IMHO I believe they can add a new and fun dimension to our games.  I think we must also realize that they could very easily unbalance the game if we make their “added capabilities” too strong.  Remember,…all units in combat were lead (supposedly) by a commander.  By making a player PAY to add a commander to the units he wants to emphasize he should accrue some equitable return,…but not overpowering strength.

I think a lot of further discussion is due this important subject.

Like I Say,……What Do YA’LL Think???
                                                                                      “Tall Paul”

[Razor]

@The:

Powers start with:
Germany: 3 (2 Land, 1 Air)
US: 3 (1 land, 1 Air, 1Naval)
Japan: 3 (2 Naval, 1 Air)
UK Eu:3 (1 land, 1 air, 1 Naval)
Uk P:1 (1 Land)
Anzac: 1 (1 Land)
France: 0
China: 0
Italy: 1 (1 Naval, 1 Land)
USSR: 3 (3 Land)

I need to come back to this, but lets imagine that a Leader unit represent a HQ that is outstandingly successful. Of course all units was commanded by a inherent HQ, and we dont need specific HQ units to represent each infantry unit, that would be a mess. So a Leader unit is a HQ commanded by brilliant men like Manstein, Rommel, Guderian, Model, Patton, Montgomery, Zhukov etc etc.

I also think that the Air Marshall HQ unit is inherent in the Airbase, wich may scramble fighters, give extra range, launch paratroopers etc. So we dont need more Aircraft Leader units.

The same with navy. The fleet commander sailed with the flagship, and it looks stupid to put a general next to a battleship and claim he is the captain.

As for the set up, I belive Germany must start with more Leader units than the rest, because they were better prepared and had better training and experience. Lets say Germany start with 5 Leaders.

Russia must start with no Leaders, since Stalin did in fact purge a lot of his officers just right before the war started. He killed 3 out of 5 Field Marshalls and 40 000 higher rank officers. And I belive that was the reason he lost the Winter war against Finland in 1939, and made poor defense against Barbarossa in 1941. Russia may start with one Leader in Amur, representing Zhukov that just won the Khalkin Gol battle against Japan in 1939.

Japan start with one
None of the others should start with Leaders.

[Viracocha]

Hmm… in looking over the most recent adds… here’s my hybrid:

-All nations start with 1
-Mv: 1 (as infantry) or with whatever land unit it is paired with.
-Cost: 10 (can be replaced)
-Attk/Def: 0 (as per unit paired with)
-Offensive ability:  All like units that the commander is paired with, may continue with one extra move after the first battle in the first territory is resolved, providing said units have a ‘2’ movement. This may be a bonus combat-move into next enemy territory, representing Blitzkrieg with breakthrough and exploitation, or a non-combat move into any friendly territory.
-Defensive ability: The commander and all like units it is paired with, may retreat after the first round of combat into a friendly territory, providing said units have a ‘2’ movement.
-More than 1 commander per territory can be used.

To assign numbers to each nation may be more along the lines of historical accuracy in a vague way as to generals, but I fear it starts tampering with balance issues (and the war was just getting into ‘full swing’, we don’t have the development of some of the generals mentioned regardless), and as I already mentioned, they’re not necessarily ‘generals’.  I also think that naval and air command is already represented, so the above is limited to land… and if not, there are other units/minis forthcoming which could fill these roles (and look nicer… like a different battleship amongst the others as a command naval unit for instance).  I think we’re underestimating the power of this extra movement ability, so a limit to like units paired with is perhaps a solution (and there seems to be many who like the idea of pairing it with another unit).  But in turn, the cost is slightly lower - but you can have more than one commander in use. Though I like the idea of targeted attacks… in retrospect, I think it may be too powerful - and it sounds more like a special forces or elite infantry ability.  Though if fortifications are used, I think the commander should have some kinda of ability against them…

[Guest]

Viracocha’s hybrid sounds good but, to clarify:

Would the unit type with which a commander is paired be limited to a total movement of 2, or could they move 2 in combat phase plus one more in the noncombat blitz?

Could this special post-combat blitz allow attacking units to retreat back to the territory where they originated (perhaps leaving infantry etc at the front and pulling armor back)?

If there are 2 commanders, could one allow blitzing and retreating of armor and one allow it for mech?

[Tall Paul]

Razor,

I believe you misunderstood me.  Let me better explain my ideas.

–-------------------------------------

1.  Yes, I take it that it is UNDERSTOOD that all units everywhere are lead by someone and to represent this would obviously be ridiculous.

---------------------------------------

2.  The “Commander” units that we’re talking about would represent SPECIFIC
leaders with SPECIFIC abilities, and have a certain RANGE.  We all agree that many wartime operations took specialists in their field to plan and execute,…such as Paratroop Drops, Large Amphibious Invasions, etc., etc.  And this is only a part of what the “Commander” units could represent.

---------------------------------------

3.  The AIRBASE does NOT represent the funtions of Air HQ, rather it only adds capabilities available through the physical base improvement itself.

----------------------------------------

4.  The Air Force General could add capabilities such as PARATROOP DROPS and other improvements/capabilities within the “range” of his command.

Since there is no “fog of war” in A&A, when a player chooses to place an Air Force General in an area his opponent would have to take into consideration the improved capabilities that the Air Force General would represent , and plan his dispositions accordingly.

–---------------------------------------

5.  As far as a Naval Admiral, Yes, the Fleet (or Task Force) Commander would ride on the ships giving them the improved capabilities of his command.  One of the improvements/capabilities might be LARGE INVASIONS as well as others.

I couldn’t agree more that it would look stupid putting an Army General next to a Battleship and claiming he is the captain.  The ship already has a captain.  And I certainly didn’t propose that.  The player could easily paint or lable the “Commander” as a Navy Admiral.  The Fleet (or Task Force) Commander is what I was representing with a Navy Admiral commander unit.

That is why there are ARMY Generals, AIR FORCE Generals and NAVY Admirals in my plan.  They each have something in the form of improvements and/or capabilities that they would add to the forces under their command.

–----------------------------------------

There are many “improvements” or “capabilites” that each commander might be able to add to the units under his command(in his “range”).  Obvious ones would be:

Paratroop Drops, Large Naval Invasions, Encirclements(?), Etc., Etc.

-------------------------------------------

I think we should discuss further what “capabilities”,…and what “combat enhancements” we would want.  Remember, we need it to be Logical, Simple and Fast in gameplay terms to be most useful.

Thus, simply the presence an Air Force General would allow Paratroop Drops, Etc. within the “range” of his command.

Remember, by adding all of these new units, and their capabilities,…we are not only complicating the gameplay, but potentially making the games much loooonger.  I think it would be in everyone’s interest to keep in mind “the big picture” of TIME and COMPLEXITY.  IMHO we would be best served by making any changes we add as simple and streamlined to USE as possible.

There are several people with really good ideas concerning these “Commander” units.  IMHO we should discuss which of these would be best to include BASED on the SIMPLICITY and SPEED of there execution in our games.

As I Say,…What Do YA’LL Think???
                                                                                  “Tall Paul”

[Tall Paul]

As for an Air Force General being unneccessary,  just think along the lines of:

Paratroop Drops aren’t alowed unless there is an Air Force General within “range” to make this capability available.

And as for game BALANCE,…that was why I suggested a possible maximum limit to the amount of “Commanders” so as to allow the potiential levelling of the gameplay.  Like all strategy decisions, it would be up to the individual player to decide.

I think GAMEPLAY considerations should always trump HISTORIC accuracy IF it’s necessary to make an equal playing field.

Like I Say,…What Do YA’LL Think???
                                                                                          “Tall Paul”

[Viracocha]

@Vance:

Viracocha’s hybrid sounds good but, to clarify:

Would the unit type with which a commander is paired be limited to a total movement of 2, or could they move 2 in combat phase plus one more in the noncombat blitz?

Could this special post-combat blitz allow attacking units to retreat back to the territory where they originated (perhaps leaving infantry etc at the front and pulling armor back)?

If there are 2 commanders, could one allow blitzing and retreating of armor and one allow it for mech?

Good question Vance… I am thinking that the movement of 2 is necessary in order for the ability to function.  In effect, to do the extra combat move or retreat, it is only 1 extra space - this is regardless of how many movement spaces they have already taken.  The fact that they have/are paired with a unit which moves 2 spaces, allows them the ability to use their ‘special’ command ability.  So no… they wouldn’t be able to retreat 2 spaces or blitz 2 spaces - only 1.  Yeah, 2 commanders could effectively move two different types of units.  I could foresee main ‘battle groups’ forming with these rules, more than one commander moving amongst the armies - re-positioning them as needed.

[Guest]

OK Viracoccha this sounds good, just let me picture it with an example because the possibilities are complicated.  Suppose it is G1 with the alpha 3 setup with the addition of 1 commander in Southern Greater Germany. The German player decides to attack East Poland with all the land units from Poland, Hungary and Romania, and the 2 Sgr tanks plus their commander.  After crushing the 2 Soviet infantry with 5 tanks and 7 infantry, the infantry stay put in E Poland.  My question is can the German commander pull all 5 tanks back to Hungary, or the just the 2 that started out with him in Sgr, or just the 3 that came from Pol/Hun/Rom, or none of them?

[Viracocha]

@Vance:

OK Viracoccha this sounds good, just let me picture it with an example because the possibilities are complicated.  Suppose it is G1 with the alpha 3 setup with the addition of 1 commander in Southern Greater Germany. The German player decides to attack East Poland with all the land units from Poland, Hungary and Romania, and the 2 Sgr tanks plus their commander.  After crushing the 2 Soviet infantry with 5 tanks and 7 infantry, the infantry stay put in E Poland.  My question is can the German commander pull all 5 tanks back to Hungary, or the just the 2 that started out with him in Sgr, or just the 3 that came from Pol/Hun/Rom, or none of them?

I would say all of the tanks as they are in the same territory and can therefore, be put under that (tank) commander’s command.  They are ‘like’ units to the unit type the commander is paired with, so the other tanks can be ‘commandeered’ by the commander.

[Viracocha]

@Tall:

As for an Air Force General being unneccessary,  just think along the lines of:

Paratroop Drops aren’t alowed unless there is an Air Force General within “range” to make this capability available.

And as for game BALANCE,…that was why I suggested a possible maximum limit to the amount of “Commanders” so as to allow the potiential levelling of the gameplay.  Like all strategy decisions, it would be up to the individual player to decide.

I think GAMEPLAY considerations should always trump HISTORIC accuracy IF it’s necessary to make an equal playing field.

Like I Say,…What Do YA’LL Think???
                                                                                          “Tall Paul”

I think having multiple commander types is veering away from the whole notion of keeping it simple.  I do like the idea of having a cap on how many can be produced each game though…  I also agree that gameplay should trump historic accuracy if its necessary for an equal playing field.

[Tall Paul]

Viracocha and others,

I fear that MAJOR CHANGES are being made in our gameplay methods.

And IMHO we would be better served if we DIDN’T change things in a MAJOR way.
That is why I think the commander should only allow STRATEGIC capabilities and/or MINOR rules changes.

IMHO all of the + or - in attack/defense improvements are changing the too radically.

“Tall Paul”

[Viracocha]

@Tall:

Viracocha and others,

I fear that MAJOR CHANGES are being made in our gameplay methods.

And IMHO we would be better served if we DIDN’T change things in a MAJOR way.
That is why I think the commander should only allow STRATEGIC capabilities and/or MINOR rules changes.

IMHO all of the + or - in attack/defense improvements are changing the too radically.

“Tall Paul”

Uhhh yeah, I agree.  As I said quite awhile back in this very thread, that there are too many +'s in the game already and that I’d prefer abilities….

So how tall are you?

[DFWSupertrooper]

What I’m doing is creating a Field Commander unit (using FMG piece) and a Fleet Commander unit using a gold chip from HBG (would love to have a piece for this):

Both units cost 12, have no attack, no defense, and provide the same basic benefits: in the presence of either Commander unit, the other units under its influence (who all get a gold chip placed underneath them) possess:

• When gathered together in an offessive, the ability to sneak attack (all defending units defend at 1 on the first round of combat).

• When gathered together defensively, the ability to retreat after any round of combat.

The presence of a Field Commander/Fleet Commander on the other side of the battle negates this ability for both.
Additionally, the Field Commander/Fleet Commanders allow certain nations to assume the command of other nations pieces as follows:

• German Commanders may take direct control of Italian units

• US Commanders may take direct control of French or Canadaian units (I have Canada in my game)

• UK Commanders may take direct control of ANZAC, SEAC (India), French, or Canadaian units

The Fleet Commander must always be assigned to a naval unit (his flag is transferred).  Generally, the Fleet Commander’s flag would be on a Capital Ship, unless the Capital Ship was destroyed in which case the “flag may be transferred” to another ship.

[Tall Paul]

Viracocha,

I’m not that tall,  only 6’-4".  I’m the shortest in my family.  But most times when I’m in a group, I’m the tallest of several Pauls, so that’s what they call me, “Tall Paul”.

–----------------------------

Yes, I’d agree completely with you on there being way too many +s in the game already, and IMHO the ideas for these commander units has gone TOO FAR perhaps.

I really like the SIMPLICITY of ideas like you can’t do PARATROOP DROPS unless you have an Air Force General within range.  Simple, Logical, and Fast in gameplay terms.  I think everyone could come up with some excellent ideas like these without radically changing the game and making it even more complicated.

-------------------------------

For example along the lines of Simple, Logical, and Fast thinking,…In the game that Tigerman and I are designing of The Solomons Campaign, We’re probably going to adopt some of the House Rules(sometimes modified) from this forum(giving credit where it’s due), like:

All Infantry have an attack factor of 1.  When attacking they are boosted to a 2 by
a like number of ANY MECHANISED, NON-INFANTRY COMBAT units.

We might even include Tac-Bombers in this boosting for the Infantry.

This represents the combined arms approach and is very Simple, Logical, and Fast to implement.

Another SL&F idea:

All Tac-Bombers have an attack factor of 3.  When attacking they are boosted to a 4 when there are NO ENEMY FIGHTERS present.

I think these are two of the Imperious Leaders best suggestions that I’ve heard.  There are more HRs from other people as well, but these seemed to illustrate the Simple, Logical, and Fast method best.

As I Say,…What Do YA’LL Think???
                                                                                      “Tall Paul”

[Viracocha]

@Tall:

Viracocha,

I’m not that tall,  only 6’-4".  I’m the shortest in my family.  But most times when I’m in a group, I’m the tallest of several Pauls, so that’s what they call me, “Tall Paul”.

–----------------------------

Yes, I’d agree completely with you on there being way too many +s in the game already, and IMHO the ideas for these commander units has gone TOO FAR perhaps.

I really like the SIMPLICITY of ideas like you can’t do PARATROOP DROPS unless you have an Air Force General within range.  Simple, Logical, and Fast in gameplay terms.  I think everyone could come up with some excellent ideas like these without radically changing the game and making it even more complicated.

-------------------------------

For example along the lines of Simple, Logical, and Fast thinking,…In the game that Tigerman and I are designing of The Solomons Campaign, We’re probably going to adopt some of the House Rules(sometimes modified) from this forum(giving credit where it’s due), like:

All Infantry have an attack factor of 1.  When attacking they are boosted to a 2 by
a like number of ANY MECHANISED, NON-INFANTRY COMBAT units.

We might even include Tac-Bombers in this boosting for the Infantry.

This represents the combined arms approach and is very Simple, Logical, and Fast to implement.

Another SL&F idea:

All Tac-Bombers have an attack factor of 3.  When attacking they are boosted to a 4 when there are NO ENEMY FIGHTERS present.

I think these are two of the Imperious Leaders best suggestions that I’ve heard.  There are more HRs from other people as well, but these seemed to illustrate the Simple, Logical, and Fast method best.

As I Say,…What Do YA’LL Think???
                                                                                      “Tall Paul”

Simple yet memorable.  Agree.  But I simply don’t like messing with the paratrooper rule and commanders.  You’re dividing the commanders into 3 types first off, and so we have that many more abilities for each one - that’s not my idea of simplicity.  Second off… it doesn’t do anything for me - just my opinion, might as well not even have it.  My third reason for not being a fan of it may only be an isolated reason, but I plan on having actual paratrooper representations and planes for the task someday, and an air force commander will be necessary as well?  No… think I’ll stick to the hybrid commanders rule I mention above - which I feel is an apt representation.  But they are house rules so hey, whatever you like (I’m thinking that DFW’s cancel out rule would go nicely with the commander rules as well - nice one Supertrooper).  That’s why it’s all good, such as using the other rules you mentioned - it’s all about finding what suits your game, or particular group.  I have one crew who doesn’t accept any house rules or tech., NA’s or NO’s.  While another likes adding heaps of rules - and admittedly, some of them are really cool - but strings out the game even more.  While others just add slight tweaks that are barely noticeable.  I seek the in-between for (ultimately), a nicely edited pdf for my own house games  :wink:

[Razor]

@Viracocha:

But they are house rules so hey, whatever you like

Totally agree. House Rules are optional, and people are free to pick simple rules or advanced rules as they like. So we should not kill each other with arguments, just share our best ideas, and let people pick what they like.

:-)