Art De La Guerre

[SteveR]

In a discussion over on the rules forum Dan Hazelwood wrote

[SteveR]

sorry - missed the end quote

only this was Dan

[DarkBlack]

As someone who doesn't get to play much ADLG and therefore mostly experiences the game vicariously (thanks Madaxeman), this is an interesting topic, thank you.

I did play loads of DBM, though.
I think that the DBM command structure is where the design of: mounted command + infantry centre + terrain command comes from.
Especially for competitive play;
DBM favours 3 commands of similar size, to optimize losses required to break the army and because of the command system.
In DBM, either PIPs can be allocated in game, or are an even probability in each command.
DBM discourages "mixed function" commands, because a command breaks as one. Which means that if a command has troops for multiple roles, failure in one means the failure in the rest. For example, you don't want to lose the Kn in a command because the terrain troops lost.

In ADLG: command ability can be designed into a list.
Everything keeps going until the whole army breaks.
Which means that a versatile core is more viable because the command to control multiple roles can be designated during list design and each part of a corps keeps going even if another part is destroyed.
Small corps with a dedicated role are also more viable; because it doesn't cost points just to have it and it's not brittle due to a low "break point".

[SteveR]

Good points.

I did not play much DBM but did play a lot of DBR and agree with you that I made much more use of single purpose commands in that set.

Many armies I used were highly homogeneous and I took that philosophy onto ADLG with poor success. In DBR it was perfectly feasible to fight with only part of the army and break successive commands.

in ADLG you have to plan on just about every unit fighting. Ideally you time it so the favorable fights happen first and the unfavorable match ups are delayed but just about every unit will be in combat at some point.

I have a slight disagreement about the utility of small commands. In DBX the micro pip dump command was viable. In ADLG I find small commands are more viable because they are not easily broken (as you say) but this is counterbalanced by the waste of 1/3 of the commanders base CP. An army with two large brilliant commanders can work but the small command will still often have CP going to waste while the large ones starve.

[DarkBlack]

[SteveR]

I struggle with small command design

Ideally I would like it to be 4 units. Flexible. So it can ambush as a single group or act as a flank march.

I've done this with Siamese - 1 El, two escorts and a LI for example

But again, that wastes a generals excess CP - it usually needs 1, no more than 2 to maneuver.

And my smallest small command is now around 5 or 6 to share the CP around better

[KevinD]

If your other two commands have good commanders (Brilliant, Strategist) then a small command of about 4 under an included Ordinary can be relatively efficient. (I like 4 to ambush or FM or 5 so you’ve got a surprise extra guy in a nearby ambush). You’ll get a guaranteed 2 every turn (general plus one) making sure they can move 2 groups or do a double move or move the main group while detaching one guy to cover a flank. It also means that you will usually be able to commit the attached general without too much fear that a number of other units will be CP starved if he gets locked in melee. That extra +1 in melee can be handy but can turn into a nightmare if 5-7 other units are starved of CPs.

[Hazelbark]

Related

When an army is designed. I think both how it will deploy and how it will operate.

The mixed corps even with a strategist will require discipline in movement.

4 MI and 1 LI
4 CV and 2 LH
seems manageable for a strategist who always should have 2 CP plus the internal. 84% of the time it will have 3 CP and 1. So the above looks manageable.

But once units move to flanks, evade, separate and all that. it quickly has needs that start to overwhelm the 3 CP and 1. That is why players prefer the mono-dimensional because the 6 Battle and 2 skirmisher with a brilliant tends to have less demands on the CP.

So if you go for a mixed corps, you are also requiring yourself to be efficient in the groups particularly in the first 2-3 turns to limit the moments where demand of CP exceed supply.