Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 10/22/2002 22:03:55 Central Daylight Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

> Yes, lots. I've run many generals as single unit (ok, body) commands.
> Different to having a CinC on a command stand who has not even himself as
> a fighting unit - sorry if I gave a different impression; this was what I
> suggested would rarely/never be a good idea.
>

As such a stand does not take a waver for seeing a body routing, it can make
the perfect recovering general while not affecting any command's breakpoint.
This is in addition to joining a unit to put A's in its front rank - not to
mention the stuff it could also do as a 2E unit: getting a PA nearer the
enemy anywhere or, as us Chinese love to do, serve as that mobile cause of
unease.

I am surprised that someone who likes fighting CINCs as little as you do
wouldn't consider this option....


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Don Coon]

I run a 5 command Fuedal English army that the 2E EHK L+Sh CINC is his own
command (as well as 2 of the subs). What tactical benifit do I gain by
giving him direct control over more troops? He performs all of his
functions as an independant (he can rally, he can provide eagerness by
moving the standard forward, he can instill impetuousness (not needed in the
FE BTW). He gains the ability to not be under retreat orders and forced off
table by his demoralized command. He gains the ability to set up alone
first and survey the enemy deployment, even when he is little "o" outscouted
(more than, but less than 3X).

Can you give me a reason to put a command under him? He is his own command.
The only thing is prompt minutes. The FE have adequate prompting for their
composition with 2 subs, and if I found myself short on minutes regularly I
could give some troops to the 2 lone subs.

Single body command are the most mathematically superior in terms of
quantity required before going demoralized (100%).

I am not saying my army composition is the best, but I think running my CINC
as a single body command has merit.

Counterpoint?

Don

> This I strongly agree with, and am grateful for. Of the two that Jon
> noted, one (that the CinC does not have to be given a command) I knew
> about, but would submit that it's in the same league as shieldless
> Thorakitoi: possible in theory but I've never seen it done and would
> think it silly.

[Ewan McNay]

On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 jjendon@... wrote:

<snip sensible stuff>

> I am not saying my army composition is the best, but I think running my CINC
> as a single body command has merit.

Yes, lots. I've run many generals as single unit (ok, body) commands.
Different to having a CinC on a command stand who has not even himself as
a fighting unit - sorry if I gave a different impression; this was what I
suggested would rarely/never be a good idea.

I also agree that the math has changed on optimum command sizes; used to
be that two units was the 'best' size.

E