FMG COMBAT UNITS - Rules: COMMANDER

@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:

@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.

:-)

@Viracocha:

-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.

Sorry, but I dont like your hybrid. No sane general would retreat the tanks only, or retreat the artillery only, or attack with mech. infantry only. Any sane general would make Battle Groups from Combined Arms, both for tactical retreat and attack. Infantry alone is not strong, as artillery alone is not strong. They are only strong together, in joint operations. Its like concrete and iron.
Also, I dont know of any Army Group with two Commanders. It would be like D-day where Patton commanded all the tanks, and Monty commanded all the artillery, one retreating the other attacking at the same time. Make no sense.

I say only one Leader can have command in his space, and he should command a Task Force of all the fighting power in that space, both fighters, tanks and inf. This will reflect the traditional chain of command.

@Razor:

@Viracocha:

-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.

Sorry, but I dont like your hybrid. No sane general would retreat the tanks only, or retreat the artillery only, or attack with mech. infantry only. Any sane general would make Battle Groups from Combined Arms, both for tactical retreat and attack. Infantry alone is not strong, as artillery alone is not strong. They are only strong together, in joint operations. Its like concrete and iron.
Also, I dont know of any Army Group with two Commanders. It would be like D-day where Patton commanded all the tanks, and Monty commanded all the artillery, one retreating the other attacking at the same time. Make no sense.

I say only one Leader can have command in his space, and he should command a Task Force of all the fighting power in that space, both fighters, tanks and inf. This will reflect the traditional chain of command.

Well… it’s not necessarily a general is it… it’s a commander. Mentioned before how it’s more ambiguous than a Patton or a Rommel.  There were and still are, tank commanders, platoon commanders, etc. And as far as ‘no sane general would retreat the tanks only -’ eh eh eh … sometimes that wasn’t an option.  I find it a little more unrealistic to move whole vast armies to different territories, but eh, to each his own.  In regard to the attack capability, there were many attacks with only Armor for instance, as the vanguard.  Not to mention the fact that A&As units are not just all of the unit represented… recall that you can shoot down a fighter with an infantry?  Yeah… it is more vague than that.   Reading too much into it I think.  But again, it’s a house rule so you can like whatever you want.

@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 know this question was addressed to Viracoccha and his hybrid rule, and you can read his answer below your post.

In case you would ask me that same question, but to the clean rule, I would say:
A Leader will make a Task Force of all units in his own space, and them only. When Rommel was in Libya, he did not commandeer tanks in Russia, because they had another Leader. It would ruin the game playability if 4 different Leaders was commandeering each of their unit type from a bunker in Berlin, with a range of 8 spaces for their influence, and at the same time the 3 different Leaders in Moscow was denying the German Leaders their abilities. Also I think YOU act as the Supreme Field Commander when you move units around on the map, and you dont need a specific plastic unit to represent yourself. The Leader unit must be a skilled general commandeering a limited Battle Group, not the whole theater.

So to your specific question, the Leader in Southern Greater Germany could only commandeer the 6 inf, 2 art and 2 tanks in Southern Greater Germany. He could attack Yugoslavia and later retreat with his Tanks (they got 2 movement points) or continue into Romania with his tanks only. If he would join the attack on Eastern Poland with his 2 tanks, they could not retreat nor continue attacking since now their 2 movement points would be used.

@Razor:

So to your specific question, the Leader in Southern Greater Germany could only commandeer the 6 inf, 2 art and 2 tanks in Southern Greater Germany.

Well no… not according to the house rule he was questioning.  It was answered.  But again *sigh, it’s whatever one wants.

@Viracocha:

Well no… not according to the house rule he was questioning.  It was answered.  But again *sigh, it’s whatever one wants.

I know that. You did answer his question, and then I told him how my House Rule would have resolved that situation. I am not against you, I just like my proposal better.

I’m glad you’re not against me… and I like mine more - of course. eh eh eh Fair enough Razor, good times.  You play AA50th?  I have some house rules that have been ‘sealed down’ over time (unlike some of these for global that I’ve been throwing around…).

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/69861/expansion-rules

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/70044/aaa50-expansion-rules-tech-chart

Check 'em out if interested.  Be interested to hear what ya think.

Viracocha,

I RESPECT your opinion, as I do everyone’s.

I thought this discussion was how we could best use the commander units in our games, that might lead to their adoption as “normal” rules,…not just “house” rules.

I know that we can all help and learn from each other.  That is the great thing about this forum.  That and the fact that there are so many good players with a real understanding of the rules and their influences on the gameplay.

As for the “paratrooper drop” capability,…the US Set (including C-46 Commando planes and Airborne Infantry) that HBG is producing will hopefully be out VERY soon.

“Tall Paul”

Virachoca, my proposal is basically the same as Imperial Leaders house rule that was playtested for years in his playgroup, and I think they are good. I will look at your links at BGG later. Thanks  :-)

Paul -

If we’re talking a whole set of rules to encompass all the cool new minis/representations coming out… I agree that you’ve offered the one commander rule that is streamlined enough to be part of it.  I mean… we’re talking a lot of add on rules so the simpler the better - but I still don’t think there should be three types of commanders.  But having it one simple ability somewhat like the one you describe… yeah, my opinion that that is the way to go.  One stream lined rule.  But, I’d rather have it effect troop movement - personal opinion.  And you know what I’m talk in’ about in regard to the planes and the airborne… that would be a lot of doing to drop paratroopers.  Granted, historically it was a huge undertaking, but as far as translating that into the A&A game…

Good stuff this thread… I haven’t been participating this much on here for some time, just lurking in recent months.  I like reading everyone’s ideas on house rules, whether I would use them or not.  Its one of my favorite parts of this forum.  8-)

-V

Thanks to both of you for answering my question.  Your answers make the differences between your approaches clearer.  MY opinion (for what it’s worth) is that these commander units are a dumb idea all around.  The assault guns and trucks are cool, but it feels like people are trying to find a job for these commander guys when there really isn’t a need for them.

@Tall:

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.

I remember World in Flames had 58 different Leaders, who all had 4 to 5 different and person specific abilities, wich made more than 250 different options, and that was so messy to keep track of that WiF later abandoned the Leader rule. The Wif Leaders only got abilities after what they did in the real war, like Rommel could only commandeer tanks, but nothing else, and Sprague could retreat with an empty carrier, but never do surprice attacks, and Nagumo would always attack Pearl with a minus modifier. This kind of lame rules made the game historically correct scripted, but was not fun to play.

My group never finished a game with this Leader rules, because they was too complex and booged the game down, and p!ssed me and my buddies off. So I am against person specified rules, like Rommel can move 3 spaces and give 1 + modifiers to tanks that attack in forest during night and that kind of things. I want Leaders to be a generic piece, and all Leaders to have the same ability.

Posted pic of WiF Leaders as a warning  :wink:

@Vance:

Thanks to both of you for answering my question.  Your answers make the differences between your approaches clearer.  MY opinion (for what it’s worth) is that these commander units are a dumb idea all around.  The assault guns and trucks are cool, but it feels like people are trying to find a job for these commander guys when there really isn’t a need for them.

Eh eh eh  - straight up Vance, and I respect that.

Razor - Imp posted a lot of commander rules on this very thread…. but if they are part of some of the older ones he’s had on here for awhile, chances are I’m already familiar with them (some of his are incorporated into mine in the links above - including his nifty background for the page itself).   But offhand, not sure which ones you’re referring to.  Are there +/- 's involved?  Not a fan of adding anymore of those…

Yeah…. that’s waaaay too much leadership going on (WiF), lotta chiefs and not enough injuns as they used to say.  Gotta admit to liking the chits though… kinda cool looking on the board.

You both have creative and insightful ideas.  I just remember trying to teach myself to play Third Reich and i think it would a shame if A&A were to evolve into something so complex that no one can learn to play it.  I never did ever get to play third reich LOL

@Vance:

MY opinion (for what it’s worth) is that these commander units are a dumb idea all around.  The assault guns and trucks are cool, but it feels like people are trying to find a job for these commander guys when there really isn’t a need for them.

There is need for them, man.

The out of box rules come with two major flaws.

• Defenders are not allowed to retreat. Dunkirk is impossible to do in an A&A game.
  and
• Attackers are not allowed to do Blitzkrieg attack with breaktrogh and exploitation. Now Barbarossa is impossible to do.

This Leader house rule can fix that without departing too far from the current game playability.

• Defending units that are in a territory with a Leader unit, are allowed to retreat into any friendly adjoining territory after any round of combat are resolved. This kind of tactical retreats happened all the time during WWII and all other wars at any time in history. This is common. If you are a General, and you figure the battle is going bad, what do you do ? Fight to your army is utterly destroyed, or retreat to fight another day ?

• Attacking motorized units (tanks, mechs, selfpropelled artillery, fighters and tac’s) that start the attack toghether with a Leader unit, and the initial combat move is into an adjoining territory, may do a second legal move as a combat move into next enemy territory after the initial battle is won and the enemy destroyed, to represent the Breakthrough, and resolve a second battle there, representing the Exploitation. Or they may use their second move to non-combat move back to a friendly territory, representing the mobility and versatility of motorized units. Of course all leg moved units of this Battle Group are stuck in the first territory, where they was used as fodder for the Panzer Group.

Other friendly motorized units in adjoining territories are not allowed to join this special attack, since they are not committed to this Battle Group. If they were, that would mess up game balance too much.

OK so why not just allow motorized units to breakthrough or retreat without a commander?  Let them do it all the time.

@Vance:

OK so why not just allow motorized units to breakthrough or retreat without a commander?  Let them do it all the time.

Yes, but then we would not need the Commander piece, see ?

right.