>A commander does not match his tactic/strategic skill mainly vs his
>opponent, but IMO vs his own army. He is trying to force his men to conform
>to his orders, in short time and with the right subtasks in the minds of the
>various lieutenants.
While there are complex official rules for large scale combat things, I think allowing a commander to attempt to augment his troops combat skill is a pretty decent way to go.
It might be seen to underplay the value of good tactics, and also to miss the idea of directly opposing tactical commanders. Ie it sort of misses the idea that you are not just trying to get your troops to do the right thing, but you are also directly confronting an opposing tactician - what seems like a good idea for against a disorganised opposition might be a very bad idea against a cunning commander alert for the obvious.
The alternative would be a contest between two commanders, with the consequences of the contest determining a bonus.
But really, like all things in hero wars, it should really come down to the needs of your narrative, and you can to some extent make it up. If the commander is a PC, make the tactical decisions important, and make the rules for them fairly involved. If the PC is a grunt, you don't even need to roll for tactical consequences, just decide. If the PC is a mid-line officer, let him decide whether or not to follow orders himself (risking court martial etc, but with a chance of being a hero if he saves the day), or have him cut off and he needs to use his own tactical skill, etc.
Cheers David
Powered by hypermail