FMG COMBAT UNITS - Rules: COMMANDER

Question for IL.  If a land commander is attached to a tank do all the tanks that hit chose their targets or only the one the commander is attached to?

yes and just tanks and they can target any land unit

Also, does this last every round?

Yes

What if the commander targets only with his unit and any units paired with it the first round of combat (say a tank and a mech inf blitzing with it or an infantry supported by artillery) and an additional unit of the same type for every additional round of combat?  This way the bonus isn’t too overwhelming but it can grow as combat continues on.

no only tanks, other units would make it too powerful

Also, defending commanders should be able to target units.

Too powerful. The defense already has double the firepower on average as the attacker. The retreat option gives the ying yang thing going where you can take a small hit, then retreat and gather tanks for a counter attack and repeat process.

A good commander will know how to counterattack as well as when to tactically retreat.

He can do that on his own turn

And perhaps the amount of units that can retreat should be capped at 1 of each type in the territory, or maybe 2 of each.  Otherwise I see the retreat ability as being too overpowered.  What do you think?

NO cap and he can retreat some or all of them. Their are not tank limits, so no retreat limits

A commander unit that allows all tanks to choose their targets each round is too powerful and will break the game.  It would make them practically invincible with a stack of tanks.  A cap seems better for gaming purposes and it would be more historical.  Or maybe the bonus should only last one round.

Actually i am seeing this.

I plan on making cards but they use the same rules as before, with limits

each nation will have 4-12 commander cards which are separated into early, mid, and late war leaders: game spread into 12 turns 1-4=early, 5-9= mid, 10-12 late

Each leader can boost only 1-3 units of various types depending on his skills

For example: Nagumo would get a boost for tactical bombers and these would override the combined arms thing: 2 tactical bombers at +1 and don’t need fighters
Yamamoto gets +1 for one Battleship and Cruiser

Rommel would get +1 for two tanks, or Artillery.

card would have two tank icons and the word OR and two artillery icons and would say AD for attack or defense. Some generals only work for attack or defense, while the best can effect both.

Chuikov, the hero at Stalingrad would have a card with two infantry icons and have letter D in lower right corner. He can only boost 2 Infantry +2.

The commanders would be drawn only from the available ones in that period of war.

Commanders would be assigned to each front and limitations on numbers imposed.

This is the new idea.

Alternatively, it could be just a random draw each turn and only one General total.

Cards was what I was thinking of doing with pictures of the battles during the time

Although I was thinking that all generals would be activated at the start of the war SU not included

Middle Rommel would be

Passive Power: Panzer warfare
Rommel was a master at using his tanks in the Dessert
For every two tanks on attack add +1 to one tank (excluding Afrika Korps general unit)

Active Power: Cunning Escape (only used once)
Rommel managed to make many daring escapes
Once during a defence Rommel may after 1 round of combat retreat all or some units (must include him and his special unit) All units are subject to retreating fire from the enemy units. Roll 1 dice hitting at 1 for each unit (including rommel) any units hit are destroyed

Its not very KISS but it would make the game interesting and add many extra dimensions to the game.

Also does one turn = 6 months in G40?

yea 6 months.

KISS must apply or this will only be played by few.

The unit icons convey the bonus. no special script or text and only one Rommel card ( midwar)

I think the card idea sounds fun but it seems a little too complicated and restrictive.  I enjoy playing axis and allies because it is a ww2 strategy game that allows you to try new strategies and see if you can change the outcome of the war.  The card idea seems like it would force commanders to be used in certain ways in order to mimic the way the war actually went.  I would like to see the commander unit have across the board rules depending on what type of unit it is tied to (air, sea, land), that way the player has more flexibility on how he uses his commanders.

IL, you can’t allow the French to have a commander, or they will always retreat from Paris G1.

That said however, the only work around would then be to allow encirclement rules. IE, even if you just sent 1 inf to Normandy, and 1 mec to southern france, the french CANNOT retreat, because all the other zones are “engaged in combat”.

Unless the retreat then becomes like aircraft, IE, if there is a viable space, your army can retreat to it, and you hold off the retreat order until the outcomes of the other battles.

De Gualle would be a France commander. They would get probably one pre Vichy commander as well. Probably Gamelin.

Complete Rommel

Special unit type

Afrika Korps Armour att 4 def 3 Rommel often attacked when faced with enemy resistance hoping to suprise the enemy so they couldn’t attack his vulnerable flanks

Early Rommel

Passive power (Used in every battle)
Ghost Division
Due to the fast moving advances Rommel’s Panzer’s were often out of Radio Contact

In the first round of every battle involving Rommel and at least one German tank per tank roll one dice hitting at 1. For every hit one tank is able to fire a suprise shot against an enemy hitting at 3 or less (if firing in this round not allowed to fire in normal combat round)

Active power (Used once)
Attack on Lille
General Hoth placed the 5th panzer division under Rommel’s command for the assualt on Lille

Place a armour unit on the battle board for free attacking at normal stats and destroyed at the end of the turn.

Becomes Middle Rommel on G2 if in a North African territory or G3 in any other

Middle Rommel

Passive Power: Panzer warfare
Rommel was a master at using his tanks in the Dessert
For every two tanks on attack add +1 to one tank (excluding Afrika Korps general unit)

Active Power: Cunning Escape (only used once)
Rommel managed to make many daring escapes
Once during a defence Rommel may after 1 round of combat retreat all or some units (must include him and his special unit) All units are subject to retreating fire from the enemy units. Roll 1 dice hitting at 1 for each unit (including rommel) any units hit are destroyed

Becomes late Rommel at the end of G6

Late Rommel

Passive power: Normandy defences
Rommel set up many tank traps prior to D-Day around Normandy
On the 1st round of the each invasion of Normandy. Roll a dice hitting at 1 per tank in landing craft

Active power: Reserve forces (used once)
Rommel realised the need for reserve forces if there was a invasion
In the second round of an amphibious assault on either NWE or Normandy send 3 armour free armour into the battle. These are destroyed at the end of the battle

This is WAY too complicated IMO.

It has to be just like another new unit with minimal rules and exceptions.

I think most of the ideas run in two directions.  One is a bonus to attack or defense values of units.  The other confers special abilities to units (choosing units to attack or retreating).  Personally I prefer going the special abilities route as that is the least likely to break the math of the game.  The other debate has been should commanders be purchased or allocated automatically.  I think the obvious thing here is that they should be purchased as any other unit or facility in the game is. 
Here are my latest ideas.  Commander unit costs 10-15 IPC (expensive but not too expensive that only the big powers can replace a commander). Attaches itself to a unit (tank, fighter, carrier, etc.) and is destroyed if that unit is destroyed.  While attacking allows its unit (in the case of a carrier its cargo, the aircraft) to choose its hit(s) or allows all attacking units of the same type to choose their hit(s) on the 1st round of combat only.  While defending allows its unit and any other units in the territory the commander is in to retreat after one round of combat or allows its unit to choose its hit(s). 
Maybe allowing the commander to choose its targets is the KISS way of doing it since the defense and attack bonuses are identical. Ideas?

Commanders should not cost anything. These are nothing but remarkable Generals who fought either in the last war or were just full of advanced ideas and knew how to fight using the tools of the day.

They got to give units some advantage of sorts either movement and or combat. Usually, Generals tend to use the tools of warfare in a unique way. Most will benefit with tanks, while others with infantry or artillery.

Perhaps we just drop all the combined arms bonuses and require that the commander facilitate this and invent new combination’s of units.

Or alternatively, the General could just be its own combat roll ( say at 4 or less) or a re-roll of a miss

Or make a list of generals, where each has its own unique bonus to units and by type and employ them by front.

I do know that Infantry don’t need any boost any more than what they currently have. It seems that tanks are the only candidate for some type of boost since these are pricey.

A movement bonus for a General seems to be in order as well.

The most simple KISS is to just make them another unit rolling at 4 or less on land. That would minimize the disruption of the games math. But it seems really too simplistic and bit on the shallow side in terms of modeling some flavor of WW2 warfare.

Perhaps generals can be assigned a leadership rating say 5 and you now got 5 points to use as follows:

use 2 points to move infantry 2 spaces
use 2 points to boost 2 tanks +1
use 1 point to retreat one tank when the enemy counter attacks you
Spend all 5 points

Each turn you get another 5 points to use as you wish

you can either boost a unit on attack or defense, or move a unit +1 space….all using one Leadership point.

Why should commanders be free?  No other unit in the game is free.  No facility is free except the ones you begin and when an MIC is captured you have to pay to replace it.  I think its silly to have this unit be a magical unit that costs nothing.  If you want a historical reason it could be the cost of equipping and transporting a new HQ and all its officers to the front.

On the other hand I really like your idea of tying the combined arms to a commander.  This is a great idea.  What new pairings were you thinking?  Maybe cruisers and carriers (aa escorts)?

Well some nations could not afford a commander at 15. Think Italy or France or Anzac

Perhaps you get one at start and if you lose it, you have to pay?

Combined arms bonus:

1. Fighters boost Tanks +1 in combat 1:1

2. Tanks Boost Mechanized or Infantry +1 in combat 1:1

3. Artillery fires at 3 on first round, then 2 all other rounds ( artillery no longer boost infantry at 1:1)

4. All units moving with commander move 2 spaces

5. One Battleship with commander gets 1st round preemptive fire

6. One Carrier with commander can still launch planes and defend if they take a hit, and the carrier can carry 3 fighters

My ideas was all nations start with at least 1 commander and they only have to pay to buy more or replace ones lost in combat.  I like combined arms bonuses.  Expanding on your ideas…

1. A Carrier with a commander paired with a Cruiser while defending allows the cruiser to shoot an aa shot at each attacking fighter (rolled at 1, casualties taken immediately, only 1 cruiser may pair with carrier, aa shot only before 1st round of combat)

2. I think the artillery bonus should only be when the artillery is tied to (supporting) Inf, Mech Inf, and Armor.  Otherwise you may see commanders with giant stacks of $4 artillery attacking at 3 for 1 round whereas a defender has to pay $6 to defend at 3. Also by tying the artillery to another unit maybe the bonus can continue past 1 round?

3. Tank + fighter boosts tanks?  Is this in addition to tank + tactical boosts tactical?  Let’s keep it as tank + tactical (you can change it to boosting the tank if you want but I don’t see the difference), fighters have so many extra abilities already and are better suited for air to air uses like intercepting, escorting, scrambling, etc.  Instead why not do…

4. Heavy Tanks boost tanks +1 in combat

Questions.  I assume you’re also keeping the bonus fighters + tactical bombers right?  When you say “in combat” (which i decided to use as well for the tank + heavy tank) does that mean both attacking and defending?  If so, some of these bonuses may be too powerful.  If a commander battleship is bombarding the shore for an amphibious attack, does his preemptive fire allow the infantry to return fire if hit or is that piece immediately removed?  Finally, the ability for a commander to issue a retreat order after one round of combat while defending still stands correct?

3. Tank + fighter boosts tanks?

I meant to say fighter-bombers boost tanks.  Sorry i don’t use tactical bombers. That word ( tactical bomber) has no meaning till the 1970’s

fighters + tactical bombers right?

no this is bogus, rather on the first round tactical bombers get to select the naval target ( if used at sea) and against land targets ( if used on land). It would be another form of SBR with these planes making an air strike and bringing escorts and the defender using CAP to defend  ( after one round the tactical planes make the targeted attack)

Also, these would now be 3-2-4 units

IN the one round dogfight, planes use their normal values: fighters escorting at 3, CAP defending at 4.

I would repeat this plane on plane dogfight each round till one side had no planes, and if the attacker destroyed the CAP, his fighter bombers can make unmolested targeted naval attacks.

Ok… this hasn’t been posted in awhile, but I hadn’t gotten around to reading it and rather than starting a new topic…

I don’t think this commander piece has to be a ‘general’, it is more ambiguous, it’s a commander which could be a lesser rank yet someone with training, proven capabilities and their own staff (not a whole unit).  Giving them the ability to have whole armies tactically retreat as a defender is a huge bonus in itself.  Imo, I think the commander’s special abilities should be limited to two (though I myself love all the above historical references to generals). One offense and one defense.  Because there are already sooo many +'s on units for this or that already, I would think two abilities would be what is needed.

Attk/Dfnd: 0/0  
Mv: As per the unit it is “paired” with. Otherwise as infantry (can be transported as a paratrooper).

Special abilities: Defensive - after the first round as a defender, the Command unit and all like units it is paired with may tactically withdraw. Offensive - When the unit the commander is paired with gets a successful hit (rolled separately), they may target one defender as the causality, in reverse value of the roll (ie: the commandeered unit rolls a ‘1’ - it can choose any value of defending units as a hit, a ‘2’ at defenders at 3 or less defense score, a ‘3’ at 2 or less defense score, a ‘4’ picks from the defenders defending on a 1 or 0). This is to slightly curb the situation where having a commander unit present means you simply step up and knock out each of the enemies big hitters, yet still representative of the leader’s ability to coordinate tactical strikes.

Only 1 commander’s ability is usable per combat. A commander cannot be paired with aircraft (I don’t consider this unit as an ‘ace’ pilot, and they certainly aren’t flying in on bombing runs). If bunkers/fortifications are used in the game, I’d also have some kind of rule where the commandeered unit can take them out…

Cost: All nations should start with the same amount of commanders (6?).  Once killed, they are removed from the game (I mean c’mon, they can retreat as a defender already).

Thoughts?

Viracocha, I think you got some pretty darn good ideas for the commander unit.  Even though getting all the nation sets from FMG is a ways off yet, it is a good idea to start ironing out some ideas of how to use the new units.
On Defense, so a commander has to attach itself to a certain combat unit (tank, mech, artillery or infantry) and when retreating, only those units can retreat, correct?  Example, a commander attached to a tank would allow all tanks to retreat, but the mechs, artillery and infantry would have to remain in the attacked territory, correct?  Seems a little limited but acceptable.  This would especially be useful to Germany in their advances into the Soviet Union.  Many times I have seen Germany punch into Soviet territory only to lose precious armor to Soviet counterattacks, thus stalling their advance.
On Offense, I like that ability where a roll of 1 chooses any defensive unit, 2 chooses a 3 or less defensive unit, etc.  One question:  You mentioned the commandeered unit hitting up to a 4.  Does this mean that whatever unit is attached to the commander gets boosted up to hit on 4 or less?  Even infantry?  Or does that unit roll normally, and if it gets a hit rolls again to see what it can hit?
I’m not sure about your idea on cost.  I think I would prefer to be able to replace commanders that are lost.  However, if it is a unit that once lost can not be replaced, it would sure make people protect them better.  Also, should every nation really get 6?  I can see that with all the big 5, perhaps even Italy, but ANZAC and France I just don’t see getting 6 commanders.  What about China?  Does China also get commanders?  Not sure that they would really have a need for them.
Going with the idea of each nation getting 6 commanders, would we need to alter the original setup?  Or would it simply be player’s choice as to where commanders are placed at the start of the game?