View Full Version : What is the right size for C-in-C command?
04-26-2003, 08:06 PM
Given the discussion in other threads regarding the multi-general option, I have a question for debate:
What is the right size for the C-in-C command given the current multi-general victory condition rules (demoralization of this command = game over)?
Obviously, many would say 1 -- just the C-in-C element located far to the rear.
But Snowflake has raised a good point that this is a huge waste of movement points in a big-battle setting.
I'm guessing that the "right" number will be one of these:
I think I would lean toward B or C so that the C-in-C command becomes the reserve force that will likely be able to move nearly every single element each turn.
04-27-2003, 01:37 AM
I don't think there is a "right" answer. It depends on the armies involved, your style, your strategy, etc. Personally, I generally have my C-in-C by himself, but not always. I have had a small group of say 4 Psiloi with a general defend a forest or had a large group of 20 units with my C-in-C. It just depends on what you are going to do with the troops your C-in-C is with.
khwchan888 the Dragon
04-27-2003, 02:04 AM
In the BBDBA section of the DBA 2.0 rules, a general cannot control less than 6 elements. As BBDBA calls for 36 elements, I think between 4 to 7 is reasonable or we can stick to the paper rules to have minium 6.
04-27-2003, 03:45 AM
Ask yourself what the results of different command organizatios are? The less the CinC commands personally, the more stiff his army will resist, but also the more stiff the movement of the army will be (although he will be quite mobile himself). If the CinC commands a larger part of the army personally, the more flexible the army's movement will be but the weaker its resistance will be. So then you have to ask yourself the question, which is more important movement or moral? I'm not sure why they would have made a rule about it in 2.0, because it is obviously a trade-off which the individual player should decide to make or not. Is it better to move efficiently to fight the combats that you want, or to be more resistant in combats you didn't desire to fight?
05-31-2004, 06:31 PM
In Big Battle DBA On-Line, demoralization seems to come only when your command loses _more_ than one third, so it makes sense to have commands of size 3, 6, 9, 12, etc.
A command of 3, I've just found, seems too weak to do much.
For an army of size 24, three generals works pretty well: typically, a main group of 12 and two corps on the flanks or trailing with 6 each -- or else 9, 9, and 6. That's because your generals can all help maneuver.
For our Nine Hills Tournament army of 19 units of 176 Hussites, I could really use a second general!
An army of 36 really seems too big, as you end up with wall-to-wall units; that's the same problem your basic 12-unit army has on the small maps.
*Note: In BBDBA On-Line, only the Commander-in-Chief adds +1 to combat; so don't be surprised!
*Bug (well known): In BBDBA On-Line, the program does _not_ assign the highest pip count to the main army.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.