PDA

View Full Version : War of the Ring: Command and Control



Jorgen_CAB
31-03-2009, 10:30
Without have even read the book or played a game yet I have devised some easy to understand and playable command and control rules since I feel those are always neglected by GW. Despite you can have them and still play with the same speed as before.

Please may I have your comment, and please be gentle you who hate such things. ;-)


War of the Ring: Command and Control
In order to introduce some command and control into the game without making it either slow down or disturb game balance too much, these rules could be applied. In my opinion these rules will give us a better and slightly more realistic battle movement if you look at medieval warfare in history.


Regiments & Battalions
A battalion is a regular formation of troops and a Regiment is comprised of two to five battalions. When you create your army every battalion must be part of a Regiment. A regiment may include any unit type or types. As a special rule you may create "1" unit/battalion Regiments of you only have one unit/battalion of that type (Infantry, Monster or Cavalry) or less than a total of three Regiments.

Ex. A small army of Gondor with three Infantry battalions and one Cavalry battalion may be deployed either as one, two or three Regiments.

Each Regiment must include at least one captain or hero. If there is more than one character in a Regiment designate one as the Regimental commander. It does not have to be the highest ranking model in the Regiment. Regiments that only are made up of monsters are led by one of those monsters. Designate one monster to be the leader of that Regiment. A Regiment that only have one battalion/unit doesn't need to have a leader or a captain to command it.

When a Regiment is deployed on the battlefield any infantry battalion must be deployed 4” from any other battalion in that Regiment, any Monster unit must be placed 6” from any battalion in that Regiment and any Cavalry battalion most be placed at least 8” from any other battalion in their Regiment. You may never place units from different Regiments in between each other during deployment.

If at any time during battle a unit are more than one move distance from any other unit who in turn are connected to the Regimental commanders unit that unit will suffer a -1 to both fight value and courage. This includes characters as well as troops and monsters. Regimental commanders never receive this penalty since they are always in range of themselves.

If the regimental commander is dead or routed the entire Regiment fights on with a permanent -1 to fight and courage for the rest of the battle.


Battlefield areas
Each army has an area designated as center, right and left wing. Unless you can safely place one regiment in each area you will automatically loose the first priority roll and only move half distance first turn. You may designate any impassible or difficult terrain as either right or left wing (or both) instead of designating a regiment to that area if the terrain on the battlefield permits that.


Reserves
If you have at least four Regiments in the army and you fight a regular pitched battle or any scenario that might include any type of reserve troops you may put up to 25% of your companies as reserve troops. Any reserves must be complete Regiments. Each Regiment must be designated as center, right or left wing. Once deployed they enter the battlefield in the area they are designated. Reserve troops may be deployed from turn two and forward and each Regiment enters play on a roll of 3+.
When a reserve force enter the battlefield they move double their movement speed but may not charge. After their first turn they move as any other unit.

lorelorn
31-03-2009, 13:25
Okay, so you haven't read the rulebook yet, but you think you can do better. Not a good start.

(When you do get the opportunity to read it, you'll find it obviates your entire post)


You then present three rules which add layers of pointless, needless complexity - for what?

This is a game. For fun. Try to keep that in mind.

What advantage do you think your rules provide to the players?


When a Regiment is deployed on the battlefield any infantry battalion must be deployed 4” from any other battalion in that Regiment, any Monster unit must be placed 6” from any battalion in that Regiment and any Cavalry battalion most be placed at least 8” from any other battalion in their Regiment. You may never place units from different Regiments in between each other during deployment. WHAT???

How does that morass of text
1. help people choose their armies
2. help people deploy their armies
3. simplify, streamline, and make more realistic the game? -those are your assertions.

On top of that you now think it's a good idea to force players to constantly measure 'one move distance' between their troops you've connected in this convoluted way, to ensure - what? How is any of this bookkeeping improving the play experience?

I won't get started on 'battlefield areas'.

Like I say - pointless, needless complexity. I have no idea why those tedious and fundamentally unclear deployment rules would improve anything. Please explain.

It's quite laughable how you state you want to speed the game up and remove complexity, then present this pointless system to needlessly complicate and slow down the game.

Honestly your post is embarrassing to read. Have you designed anything before ever?

Llew
31-03-2009, 13:28
Just out of curiosity -- why do you feel the need to try to write rules for a game you haven't read? Why don't you try at least playing it a time or two and see if the additional complications and rules really add anything to the game, or if they just bog down the setup.

The game is intended to be a fast wargame. Adding a bunch of range checks doesn't speed it up.

Jorgen_CAB
31-03-2009, 14:08
The idea are not entirely mine, I have played with games that used similar rules for command and control. It will not slow down play in a significant way, and we usually go with eye measurement in most instances anyway so that is not a problem.

It will add slight complexity, but not much and it in no way will be everyone's taste.

And I will play the game using the normal rules, that's for sure. I just feel that Command and Control are usually missing in GW games. I did not imply that it would make the game faster in any way, just that it will not slow down very much either.
Testing will tell, but usually you don't have the measure such things in friendly games anyway.

Mr_Rose
31-03-2009, 14:41
The idea are not entirely mine, I have played with games that used similar rules for command and control.
Have you? What would they be, exactly?
Actually, before you answer that, please tell us what exactly you understand the "rules [of] command & control" to be in WotR? Then, maybe, you can help us determine why you think they need fixing.


Also, you have a primary fault in your description; you have renamed "formations" to "battalions" for no reason whatsoever in a throw-away sentence at the beginning of your spiel. This indicates that you are trying to force the existing rules to adapt to your framework, which is both infeasible and rude. It is also potentially confusing to anyone trying to use these rules in an actual game, as orphaned sentences like that are very easy to overlook.

Jorgen_CAB
31-03-2009, 15:09
I do not know the current rules in detail yet since I have not read them except from all the details in the battle reports that I have been able to deduce from.

One game on top of my head are a game called Piquet, or rather FoB (Fields of Battle). Their rules are among the best I have seen. Both fast and produce realistic battle result. But they only provide rules for historic games to date, there are a fantasy version in the works though, one which I have contributed in both beta testing and rules balancing. So yes I have experience in that area.

www.piquet.com

Mr_Rose
31-03-2009, 16:48
I do not know the current rules in detail yet since I have not read them except from all the details in the battle reports that I have been able to deduce from.:eyebrows: I was going to post something vitriolic, but I re-read what I had and deemed much of it excessively harsh since I know as much of your ancestry as you apparently do of the WotR rules, so instead I'm going to try and help.

First, you really do need to get a hold of a copy of the rules beforetrying to muck about with them, if only so you can adapt your terminology to fit that of the game. As I pointed out, arbitrarily renaming things without at least explaining the logic is bad mojo.

Second, clarify your intent; you need to let people know why they want to use these extras, not why you do. That is, sell your idea. This will also solidify for yourself what you are trying to do.

Third, clarity of expression is absolutely clear. I understand that English may not be your first language but you need to read up on English grammar, at least, if you want to get your idea across successfully.

For instance, on the composition of your "regiments", you seem to contradict yourself regarding whether you can nor cannot take mixed regiments. Similarly, your "regimental coherency" rules are unclear regarding whether you can "string out" a regiment into a line with the commander at one end an the rest of the regiment across the width of the table, no more than M" apart. And, typing of regimental commanders, how are you to treat Epic Heroes, since they can join any formation on their side at will during the movement phase?

Rirekon
31-03-2009, 17:22
I just feel that Command and Control are usually missing in GW games.

Have you tried Warmaster? If not I strongly suggest you do :)

Llew
31-03-2009, 17:39
There are a couple issues.

First, you're trying to add more "realistic" command and control over a game that is focused intently on large battles where heroes are still crucial to the overall results and can sway combats dramatically by their presence. These two ideas strike me as being at odds.

Secondly, the rules you've applied are arbitrary. You're forcing the players to have a certain force structure, but there's no apparent reason for it. Would orcs organize themselves this neatly in a structure that uses exactly the same design as humans? There will be enough arbitrary rules on force structure within the game itself, and these are all designed with an eye towards playability and balance, not necessarily "realism".

Third, the "realism" isn't necessarily "realistic". It is every bit as abstract as the system already in place. What's the reason for having such a wide minimum spacing between units? And you do realize that with your spacing rules, you couldn't actually play the Charge of the Rohirrim at Pelenor Fields? That's a perfect example of exactly the kind of battlefield spectacle WotR wants to show on the tabletop.

You also seem to place a lot of store on regimental commanders, and being separated from them by distance seems to be important. But this doesn't seem to work with your spacing rules and regiment size. (In other words, your rules are already broken.) If you have a regiment composed of 5 battalions, keeping the minimum spacing you require, and the commander is in the center, the units on the wing are out of command already. If you decide that a commander could be in any portion of his line, then a 5 battalion unit could have far more distance between the commander and his far wing than a 2 battalion unit, but a 2 battalion unit could still easily fall out of command. The penalty for being far from your commander is the same as him being dead. What about if an enemy unit got between you and your commander, but you were still within your move distance? Is being cut off important, or do you just ignore it?

I honestly don't know if English is your first language or not: many of my fellow Americans use it even more poorly. However, even ignoring the vague areas of explanation, the quality of your suggestions is so far divorced from the rules that it's not even of merit at this time.

That's why I say again -- go play the game, then think of changes if it needs any. Heck...you can download the quickstart rules from GW and at least get a handle on some of the basic concepts.

Enthusiasm is good, and there's nothing wrong with wanting to improve something. But you have to know what you're working with first.

Jorgen_CAB
31-03-2009, 19:51
I'm not arguing that ‘Command and Control’ are to everyone’s liking and it certainly will need tweaking to incorporate epic heroes. I have also tested to play with the quick start rules twice already.

I don't feel that the game are either broken or bad, actually I'm very excited about them and feel they are among the best I have seen from GW for a long time.

I have also tried Warmaster, but I feel that LotR is a much more colorful world to play in and the models are just spectacular.

Also, I think that you might have misunderstood some of the rules I tried to explain with my bad English (not my native tongue no…).
What I referred to as a battalion is a formation of companies. You are under no obligation to stay within one move from the chain of command. You simply receive a slight penalty for doing so, other than that you can still move about as before.
The penalty is there to give an incentive for units to move in a “realistic” way to human earth history. Even if we are talking about Orcs they still answer to the same physical reality and the confusion of battle is an army’s worst enemy (read historical battles). Units without order will not fight as well or with very much resolve, the penalty was put there to show that. Heroes with as much influence as Aragorn have existed in reality as well. Perfectly known examples would be Alexander the Great and Attila the Hun. They both inspired and raised their soldier’s morale and fighting prowess beyond what was deemed normal.

I might discover after playing a few games that 'Command and Control' is not necessary. I just threw the idea out in the open to discuss the topic of ‘Command and Control’. My suggested rules are neither tested nor valid in any way, simply a suggestion for a discussion nothing else.

Jorgen_CAB
31-03-2009, 20:06
:eyebrows: I wasThird, clarity of expression is absolutely clear. I understand that English may not be your first language but you need to read up on English grammar, at least, if you want to get your idea across successfully.

For instance, on the composition of your "regiments", you seem to contradict yourself regarding whether you can nor cannot take mixed regiments. Similarly, your "regimental coherency" rules are unclear regarding whether you can "string out" a regiment into a line with the commander at one end an the rest of the regiment across the width of the table, no more than M" apart. And, typing of regimental commanders, how are you to treat Epic Heroes, since they can join any formation on their side at will during the movement phase?

Now, I never stated that you could not mix troops at any point. If I did that then it was a mistake completely. I simply stated that you could divide your troops into several regiments if they were of different type and negate the rule of keeping the regiment at two formations as minimum.

Ex. I have five infantry formations, three cavalry formations and one monster. I could create one Regiment containing three infantry and one cavalry, one Regiment with two infantry, one with two cavalry and finally one regiment containing one monster (even if a regiment would "normally" only be two formations minimum.)

Ex-Blueshirt
31-03-2009, 22:02
As someone who has played WoTR, I can say with hand on heart that the rules are a hundred times better than what is being put forward here.