Command and Control

[Dog Soldier]

Using the Command and Control option in games can lead to a more challenging game or frustration.

The command rules allow that a foot commander can command (allow the player to give orders) to units in his command range that are foot units.
A mounted commander can command (allow the player to give orders) to any units in his command range.

Since commanders are assigned to each group at the beginning of a scenario by the designer, there are no real issues early in a game.

But not all commanders are equal. They can have different command ranges. Having a commander with a command range of only 5 -7 hexes in a group of cavalry can be challenging to keep the end units of the formation in command while on the move.

What does one do to maximize the benefits of command control while minimizing the penalties?

Sound off!
Do you think the command control rules work well in the game system? Add your vote to the poll in this thread and comments below.

Dog Soldier

[TJD]

What does one do to maximize the benefits of command control while minimizing the penalties?

Do you think the command control rules work well in the game system? Add your vote to the poll in this thread and comments below.

Dog Soldier

I think the command rules work quite well, with one exception, that occasionally, when using Group movement, leaders can get ahead of their companion units and wind up alone and exposed and quickly dead. When leaders are destroyed their units can become fixed in place, and there's nothing more frustrating.

This problem of leaders running ahead of their units is soon to be fixed, I'm sure.

Tim

[Dog Soldier]

Good point. The group movement issue you outline Tim is very frustrating. I have experienced the same thing.

It seems to me that leaders can command any unit (except as noted for foot leaders) that falls inside their command range. I have tended toward making two different groups interlocked so if one leader gets whacked, then the other wil still control the bulk of the group. This has obvious drawbacks though...

Dog Soldier

[Titus]

First and foremost I want to enjoy playing the game, I do not want to be frustrated by a lack of control of my units because the wrong commander was in the area of some units I wanted to move. I would rather sacrifice reality for game play even though I do want the game to truely represent combat in ancient times. HPS are great at developing realistic war gaming simulations but I sometimes wonder about the complexity of it all.
What do others think?

[TJD]

HPS are great at developing realistic war gaming simulations but I sometimes wonder about the complexity of it all.
What do others think?

Peronally I don't think command and control issues in this game are that complex or cause that much frustration. Compared to other problem areas, C&C is transparent and works well.

It's not that the game is too complex but that it's opaque. Too often it is not really clear why things happen the way they do in this game, even when you know the rules pretty well. That's the biggest frustration and worry, to me.

My .02

Tim

[Cats]

Believe it or not I get the Command and Control. I think it is a good representation of the period.

What I still am struggleing with is movements, when to, which command to order and what happens when I give the command.

This game is good. But it might be a bit on the complex side for newbies which is what I am.

There are some bugs in the game. Somewhere something lurks that seems to rear its ugly head on my PBEM games. I know Paul is working on it so it will be fixed.

I have to remind myself that to put things in a word, most of the fighting at this time was melee. I get confused when the troops get close. The 4 part fighting sequence is lost to me.

But after saying all that, I will give these AW games my 100% all, because the have the porential of being great war games.