Genius generals

Just got back from Cancon where I was using an army with a genius general.

My opinion is that the benefits are undercosted at 40 points - specifically the ability to leave initiative to the opponent. Basically it means that whenever you want you can make an opponent move all his commands before you move yourself which is a very powerful tool.

(It also removes some of the uncertainty and fun from the game too)

Perhaps in version 2 they could be costed higher, or perhaps there could be a limit on the number of times initiative can be handed over.

We never find that benefit very helpful. It might be useful early in the game to allow the Genius command to have a double turn. But generally, once the two sides get stuck in with each other one almost always wants to go first. The real problem becomes having to decide which of your commands should be chosen first for activation (they all usually need to go first.)

Heh heh. GC, Accard runs an army that NEVER wants to get stuck in and he runs them bloody well. A grade Byzantine cavalry that shoot and scoot and hit if and only if you're troubled.

Plus he loves the flank march with the Genius/Charismatic so you end up with a whole lot of fricking nasty guys behind your lines with a commander who can call the order of play.

Nasty combo, very nasty.

But always leads to very tough hard fought game.

We just play the rules in the rulebook, I don't think Genius commanders get more than a +4 to initiative.
But the other thing is that if you've got multiple commands then that weakens the general's influence as well

I still hold that the relative cost of generals should not be arithmetic in scale (0, 10, 20, 30, 40).

Logarithmic or multiple would make much more sense (0, 10, 20, 60, 80 for instance (2x multiple).

Genius commanders should be very rare, particularly in small battles. The larger the points value of a given battle would make the purchase of such a commander more likely.

Yes, that sort of point system makes sense to me.

Granicus Gaugamela wrote:Heh heh.  GC,  Accard runs an army that NEVER wants to get stuck in and he runs them bloody well.  A grade Byzantine cavalry that shoot and scoot and hit if and only if you're troubled.

Plus he loves the flank march with the Genius/Charismatic so you end up with a whole lot of fricking nasty guys behind your lines with a commander who can call the order of play.

Nasty combo, very nasty.

But always leads to  very tough hard fought game.

I play Nikephorian Byzantines a lot so I know this army well. With a table of only 4' depth you're going to get stuck quickly with any army. Once stuck you always want to go first.

With respect to the flank march only a C-in-C commander can be a Genius. We understand that the C-in-C has to be in a command on the table top. So no Genius commanders can lead a flank march. Charismatic flank commander yes. But then you lose the benefit of a Charismatic C-in-C (presumably one can't afford to buy two Charismatic commanders in one list.) One usually attaches the +4 commander to the largest command to get the most benefit.

Mm, I cant see anywhere that Genius commanders can't flank march - has to be on table. Do you have a reference?

In the topic "Flank march leaders" Lorenzo states that Genius commanders (As with charismatic and expert commanders) can't reroll their dice on a flank march - implying that have the ability to flank march.

With my byzantines, depending on who you are fighting you dont always want to go first. Well I don't. If heavy infantry attack me it often seems better to let them initiate combat- then withdraw, rally and shoot. Whittle them down and then charge to finish. If they are way to strong for that (Such as pikes) then I don't stand in front of them.

I should point out that this at 15mm where there is more room on the table than in 28mm.

Genius commanders must the C-in-C. Yes, I agree that I cannot find any reference saying how the C-in-C has to be deployed. Probably more a club convention.

The idea that the C-in-C is leading a flanking attack seems a bit sketchy.

The flanking command cannot have more VD than the commands deployed on the table. So it does limit the total effect of the flank march.

I have never seen a game where any army doesn't want to go first after 3 or 4 turns. But we do play 28mm so that may account for the difference.

Gaius Cassius wrote:
The idea that the C-in-C is leading a flanking attack seems a bit sketchy.

Alexander and the Agema, Hasdrubal (or Mago?) Barca ordering Hannibal to hold the line regardless are two that spring to mind.

It is the game mechanic that drives it, being a Genius Army Commander isn't really a requirement for being a very driven lower level commander who hustles his troops around a flank but given the need for a roll of 12+ inc leadership ability it is very risky to trust a flank march to anyone of lower grade.

Glen tried one on me in our last game, and even with an Expert (+3) Commander they never came on allowing me to break his army realtively easily.

Gaius Cassius wrote:
The flanking command cannot have more VD than the commands deployed on the table. So it does limit the total effect of the flank march.

When the buggers show up in your rear they disrupt the entire game no matter how small they appear....

Gaius Cassius wrote:
I have never seen a game where any army doesn't want to go first after 3 or 4 turns. But we do play 28mm so that may account for the difference.

One strategem to perhaps consider is the benefit of a double full move. Your opponent is committed, you gift him the initiative then you have a full turn and then you have another full turn. Can be exceptionally nasty.

Having fought Accard in the last two 15mm CanCon tournaments we have danced around each other on both occassions to try and get the other to commit followed by then trying to get the first initiative. Definitely 2 of the best games I have ever played, both were draws as the pike could hold their own but not pursue well enough to catch him, esp now CM can also evade.

New thinking will be required for CanCon 2017...

At what battle did Alexander and the Agema do what might be called a "flank attack?" Can't think of one off the top of my head (ie. leaving the field of battle and then returning to it.)

As I said above, only a C-in-C can be a Genius commander. I can't really think of any ancient battle where the C-in-C left the field of battle and did an end run around his opponent.

I agree that the flank march when it arrives is pretty powerful to deal with. It seems to me that either one has to trust only a few troops to flank attack under a 40 point general or one has to commit to a very large flanking force to get the full benefit. 40 points represents 10% of the entire army in one commander.  

I also agree that a double move can be great when it occurs. If a Genius commander can hold back and move second until the two sides collide and then go first that is great. But after that I haven't ever seen any player choose to go second. While accard's tactic of going second allows him to rally up his CM it is also true that there are usually a lot of disorder troops needing rally. Personally I like going first because I can rally up my boys and send them in my opponents disordered troops.

Gaius Cassius wrote:At what battle did Alexander and the Agema do what might be called a "flank attack?" Can't think of one off the top of my head (ie. leaving the field of battle and then returning to it.)

Real battles don't have table edges.

A flank attack doesn't actually represent leaving the field of battle and doing an end run, it just simulates working around a flank.

Granicus Gaugamela wrote: Real battles don't have table edges.  

A flank attack doesn't actually represent leaving the field of battle and doing an end run, it just simulates working around a flank.

Please show me a battle where the C-in-C did as you suggest (I don`t agree necessarily with your assessment above about what flank attacks represent in Impetus but am willing to go with it for the moment?) In the link below from the Battle of Gaugamela you will notice that Alexander is nowhere near the edge of the battle line. If you look through his major battles you'll see that Alexander never attempted to work around the flanks of his opponent. Using him as an example of C-in-C involved in "flank attacks" is inaccurate. In fact, I'd be curious about what battle a C-in-C ever did what is being suggested. There is probably one out there but I can`t think of it.

Battle_of_Gaugamela,_331_BC_-_Opening_movements by Eusebeia2002, on Flickr" />

The Riders of Rohirrim at Helm's Deep? 
That's history isn't it? 

Probably the most common example would be Hasdrubal and Mago is Spain.

They happily had the Celt-Ibereans lure the Scipio brothers into a battle and then popped up in very inconvenient flanking operations to the extent it could be said that was their preferred mechanism of fighting.

In our game terms a flank attack simply represents an attempt at these and other workaroundtheedges kind of operations, simple as that.

If you were going to choose someone to lead such an operation you would presumably choose someone who would press the operation with a high degree of vigour. In Impetus terms that can only be done by sending a highly rated general to do it, thus flank attacks require a significant investment in points.

The battles in Spain that you refer to GG are commonly understood as two separate battles, not one. Interestingly, at Gaugamela it seems that if any side attempted a flanking maneuver it was the Persians, not Alexander.

I don't agree with your assessment of what a flank attack represents. Work arounds are really what occur on the table top, especially in 15mm. But even in 28mm there is often enough room on the table top to attempt to work around an opponents flank. I think flank attacks represent something more substantial.

The battles in Spain were PLANNED that way. To try and claim they are not a flank attack in Impetus terms is to deny flank attacks.

To satisfy the absolutely pedantic and if you want one where Alexander himself did the end run then look up Hydaspes. At the river crossing Alexander started with the main body, he moved upstream and crossed the river whilst the main body harassed and pinned the enemy.

During the actual battle that followed Alexander went around one flank, Cronus went around the other for a double envelopment.

I agree that flank attacks represent something substantial, what happens on the table itself is a wing attack against substantial forces, a flank attack represents anything from a significant force pushing through a light screen of enemy troops to the classic end run of greater distance.

The two battles in Spain are two battles, not flanking attacks GG. They would be represented in Impetus as two different games, not one.

The attack at Hydaspes was a strategic flanking manoeuver not a flank attack in Impetus terms. The battle itself was fought between the army of Alexander and Porus without intervening elements from the Macedonian army on the far bank lead by Craterus.

There was a flanking attack at Hydaspes by a subordinate Macedonian commander named Coenus that works well within Impetus terms. Take a look at the map. Notice the flank attack wasn't lead by Alexander.

Battle_hydaspes_combined_at by Eusebeia2002, on Flickr" />

starkadder wrote:The Riders of Rohirrim at Helm's Deep? 
That's history isn't it? 

You got me there starkadder!!

GG, if you take a look at Hannibal's War by J.F. Lazenby on pp.130-31 you'll discover that the Publius and Gnaeus Scipio fought two distinct battles many miles apart as part of a larger campaign against Carthaginian forces in Spain. Nothing at all like what is represented in Impetus flank marches.

As I understand it, Coenus' action was the result of a series of deliberate probes almost twenty miles upstream and was anticipated by Porus (however disastrously).

I feel that too much is read into the word "flank" in Impetus. As I play only 28mm, I rarely think of 350-400 pt battles as the whole field.

To me, it represents a part of the battlefield. Hence, when attacks appear from a flank they represent something freed or made available from another sector.

This is a rationalisation, I know, but it is the only way I can justify the sudden mysterious appearance of a substantial force on the table. For instance, I have been flanked and outpaced by a Scottish infantry force while playing with Seljuq CL. It doesn't make sense without thinking that they are "already there".

starkadder wrote: I feel that too much is read into the word "flank" in Impetus. As I play only 28mm, I rarely think of 350-400 pt battles as the whole field.  

The armies tend to deploy armies in Impetus as if they are modelling the whole front of the battle line. We at least see heavy infantry in the middle and lighter troops and mounted units on the flank.

I would prefer a slightly less dramatic flank march rule. Easier to show up (and not requiring Genius generals to necessarily pull off) but also a bit less decisive in the result. As fit stands, flank marches are high risk maneouvers that bring a big impact on the game.

41% chance per turn for a level 4 general to show up.

I think that should be reduced, and less dramatic might be good too. I think not showing up should be a real possibility.

Possibly +1 penalty to show if FM includes infantry (+2 if FP?) Maybe limit bonuses to +1 if any general above fair.

to limit effectiveness you could possibly limit its size - maybe 2-3 units?

I would perhaps prefer it doesnt get placed until the following turn after it has rolled, so the 'defending' player gets at least a turn to prepare. Presumably it could be seen before it actually arrives on table.

Hi Accard,

Just curious what is the balance of your other generals in your army if you have a genius off table coming in on flank march? Understand that you want a genius status in order to add +4 to the flanking arrival roll and also have the ability to nominate first move to your opponent, but presumably you are only applying this when you are rolling initiative for that command?

Just interested in the balance of the command points for your army - 40 points for a genius commander and therefore must have good command structure 20 points. Do you play with two other fair commanders?

A playing 400 point 25mm game this weekend and thinking about Expert CinC and 2 x fair generals. Once I add in command structure and 3 re-rolls it will be at least 100 points gone. Cant bring myself t play Carthaginians with a poor general though ...

Cheers Jez

I'm rather conflicted on this one.

On one side at least in the "meta" I play (hate that phrase) flank marches are a valuable and much used gimmick. A single Experienced General in a heavy cavalry unit arriving on or behind a flank on turn 3 is pretty devastating because your opponent is usually seriously committed. I personally would not send a C-in-C on the off chance I rolled snake eyes, but the rules allow it and so it is legit.

The problem is, it is a gimmick. I don't really agree with GC as a matter pf principle (!), and I don't think posting diagrams of deployments we have only the scantest and uncorroborated sources for, particularly with no ground scale) actually helps, but I do think he has a point that FMs are a little bit too common.

There ARE flank marches in history - Thermopylae springs to mind immediately and I'm sure there are others, but I suspect the reason that we have them in Impetus is because it is the sort of thing players expect to have in rules rather than something we need, and as a result something that is a rarity in history becomes abused by players, because that is what we do.

Getting back to the OP I dont see a problem with the cost of a Genius general, but that's in my meta (agh). The real bargain is a good command structure which to me is ridiculously cheap in comparison to the advantages it grants.