The Commander Series Forum

I didn't find anything in the book about mixing armylists.
to me it would be logical to be able to mix the american airborne list with american army NWE. so the infantry would be para's with all the benefits (or at least some para stands), and equipment of the army (tanks, ...)

Have two separate battlegroups when you want to do this - there are problems in co-ordinating two different types of division, such as Armoured and Airborne, so having two separate battlegroups will give you enough to worry about

so a para hq with para stands
and a American army CO with his own elements in support?

Two battlegroups, so each have their own CO and HQs.

I understand.
so not possible in one game then. (can't have 2 co's on table or can I?)
pity

If you had multiple players, more than one CO can work, and you could also have two break points, one for each battle group. If your opponent agrees, then do it how you wish!

think I'll play like I suggested first. I'll take a CO or Hq from one army lsit and take units friom that list under his command. the other HQ from the other list will only take units from that particular list under his command.

"can't have 2 co's on table or can I?"

Yes, by having two battlegroups, you get one CO per battlegroup and each have their own breakpoint. I've done it that way a few times before and it works well.

I'd second what Pete says there. We are gaming Russians versus Germans/ Romanians on the Kerch Peninsula as a campaign and use two battlegroups with it's own CO and structure for the Axis side.

Makes it more interesting as well with regards to breakpoint as there always seems to be more Romanian kit on the table and therefore can soak up more casualties although they do die quicker than the Germans, Whilst the Germans have better kit, but when they start taking casulaties tend to break slightly quicker.

IIRC, historically, it was difficult enough to get two units to operate properly together never mind two different divisions

Cheers

Gerry

I don't want to "argue" here or start discussions, but I'm puzzled with what Pete said about:

"there are problems in co-ordinating two different types of division, such as Armoured and Airborne"

in the game it wouldn't make any difference in my opinion. just para stands tahat tend to fall back less easy. they get support from shermans that roll in from the beaches (see band of brothers episodes).

or did you mean in real life Pete?

Guess he means real life.

Anyway, unless I'm mistaken there are rules for fighting multiplayer battles, battles with more than one army per side. You could always use those but instead of having one player for each battlegroup, one player could take command of all the battlegroups on his side. I believe there was something about a -1 penalty on command rolls for giving orders to units from another army.

Just mixing units from different armies is IMO a bad idea as it opens the door for cheesy play, even if those different armylists represent the same country in the same theatre such as the US Airborne and US Army in NWE. As you said yourself, bjorn, the US Airborne Infantry is considerably better than the Infantry in the US Army. This however is balanced by their lack of armour and their not so great arty/air support. Suppose you could freely mix units from said lists, then most US players would probably take Airborne Infantry and HQ's, while taking US Army FAC\FAO's, airsupport, artillery and tanks.

I think Pete means that different battlegroups were harder to control in real life, and this should be represented in the rules, by making them different battlegroups, each with their own HQs and COs.

This means (in the rules) that the US Paras would have to be under 1 HQ, and that the tanks under another. This would make coordinating actions harder, as the units can't be mixed under the same HQ.

I understand the last arguement, and that's what I intended to do. each Hq its own battlegroup.