The Commander Series Forum

Hi guys

I just wanted to find out if I have been playing the rules for modified command rolls correctly. An example of my dilemma follows: A Russian CV8 commander orders his company of 3x T-72 tanks and 1x BMP-1 forwards. He wants the BMP to enter a wood while the tanks manoeuvre in the open so he rolls CV8-1(for entering bad-going/high area terrain) and the units do as wished. As the BMP cannot move further this action he now orders only the tanks to fire. What is the CV for this roll? Is it 8-1 for terrain, -1 for second order = 6? Or is it simply CV8 -1 for second order = 7?

I'd appreciate your comments.

Cheers

Jules

CV8 -1 for second order = 7?

Cheers!

A follow on question.

My Soviet CO, CV 8, orders the three T72's under his command up to a hilltop on CV8, he then orders them to fire twice on CV 7(8-1 for second order) and CV 6(8-2 for 3rd order).

He then decides he is done with the tank formation, but wants to order some BMP's up to support them. Can I declare the BMP's are a different formation, and go back up to CV8?

G.

atBiggoober, I have just the same question.

Can a CO/HQ issue orders to a formation and then to another totally different formation with its original CV??

Thanks for the answers!

No

IF you did that you could end moving your whole battle group with just one commander.

OK, thanks!

Yes. When an HQ orders units that have not yet been ordered he starts with his original CV value.

'IF you did that you could end moving your whole battle group with just one commander.'

Technically you could, but realistically the distance modifiers would make it unlikely.

Can a CO/HQ issue orders to a formation and then to another totally different formation with its original CV??

Answer: YES!

It is not explicitly stated anywhere, but this is possible. This is what makes the command system so interesting! Please read the last paragraph on page 17 (the command example).

16 seconds too late...

Still don`t think so . You get a -1 for each order doesn`t matter who to . It`s a core principle been playing warmaster / cwc / bkc for ages and you can`t go back to your starting cv just because it`s a different formation. If that was the case all you do is have one base as a formation and move your whole army as single bases.

"you can`t go back to your starting cv just because it`s a different formation"

Yep you can do exactly that, but only if you don't fail a command roll, which is the key thing. You can order one formation a couple of times (for example), and then do you make that third roll, or move on to another formation with a reset CV?

This is true for HQs or the CO.

Well, if you move the whole army base by base, you have a lot of decicions to make. Do I move this base again (with an increased chance of failure) or do I stop, and go on to the next. The -1 is for each next order to the same unit (or formation). You really go back to the starting CV if you switch to another unit. It says so on page 17.

Yep - 'fraid you've got this wrong jim...

They're right Jim-
BUT! - If it seems slightly bizarre to you (and it does to me- despite the whole level of abstraction thing) use the 'Fixed Formations (optional rule)'. p.47.
This means that the HQ for that formation cannot issue order to other formations. I think you can still work the reversion to base CV within say a battalion but it does cut down on the idea of an HQ swapping between all the units in a battlegroup and reverting to the original CV each time.
Guy

"This means that the HQ for that formation cannot issue order to other formations."

Not quite. If the Army is a ridid tactical doctrine one that is indeed true, otherwise the attempt to order units from a different formation can be made (with a -1 to the CV for normal doctrine armies).

Sorry- yes (I don't use thats bit of the tactical doctrine rules as written too often, I think it makes most command systems too flexible- although I do differentiate between Soviet and NATO.)

I may come over all Puzzled myself at this point -
reading it again the fixed formation rule says:
'Fixed formations may only be issued orders by their own command unit' - no equivocation, no 'subject to the tac doctrine rule, or anything like that. The only derogation from this is the line 1 note 'except when using Guerrilla tactical doctrine'.

However the (non-optional) doctrine rules directly contradict this in the case of normal and flexible doctrine, saying HQs may issue orders to other formations, in the one case with a penalty and in the other without penalty. Perhaps this needs a clarification in a second edition?

But, does that mean that you can have seperate formations being issued commands by "their" command unit? If you have a force of, say, BMP's, with attached ATGW and mortars, could you issue a couple of orders to the BMP's then issue an order to the ATGM and then issue an order to the mortars, resetting your CV as you moved from formation to formation, but each being controlled by their command unit?

I only play fixed commands so thats why I was talking b******s. You can do it in warmaster it`s hard to find but it`s there. I don`t like floating commanders I prefer them to be attached to historical tactical units.

Jim

"But, does that mean that you can have seperate formations being issued commands by "their" command unit? ... resetting your CV as you moved from formation to formation, but each being controlled by their command unit?"

Yes, you could activate 'formations' (p. 4) within a 'fixed formation' (p. 47) separately, resetting the CV between each one. Remember, though, that you cant go back to a formation once you move on from it and attempt to issue orders to another.

Guy, I think it does need a little clarification. Whilst your right that there's no 'subject to the doctrine rules' statement in the fixed formations rule, the notes in the table on p. 55 make it clear that some army's command units can offer orders to other fixed formations, tells us which doctrines can do it and lists any applicable modifiers to the CV when doing so.

Clearly, one could use the fixed formations rules without the tactical doctrine ones but not vice versa. Perhaps the problem is that the former is shown as being optional whilst the latter isn't?