Re: armies

From: Steve Lieb <styopa_at_...>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 07:33:30 -0800

> >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
> >to his orders, in short time and with the right subtasks in the
minds of the
> >various lieutenants.

It's an interesting viewpoint and a novel way to look at the situation, but I'd slightly disagree.
David Cake's very valid point about narrative need aside, I'd suggest that the BATTLE is a contest between opposing commanders. The formation of an army, its training, etc are all between the commander and his/her troops.
The only time the commander's 'will' and the troops behavior would be opposed are 1) impetuous troops like Orlanthi are likely to get out of control when they sense victory; or 2) troops are routing. Otherwise, an army's (if it deserves to be called such) components should generally do what the commander wants. Anything else is a mob. You could even build a battle into the following stages: Army Formation: Commander's admin or leadership skills against the individualities of the various units - varying levels of success would determine how "well" each unit would contribute to the battle. Strategic Maneuver: Commander's intelligence vs. the opposing commander's, modified by terrain and circumstance to determine who gets the 'better ground' ("In the morning, we knew it would be a hard battle; General Luciex had outmarched us and his troops held the high ground above us...")
Then the battle itself could be fought (depending on how wargamey you want to be) even as commander vs. commander, with the various formations being treated as allies.

Powered by hypermail