The Commander Series Forum

Hi,

HQs can only command unit in their formation plus recce unit. CO can command anyone. If the whole formation(minus the exepctions listed in the rules) does the same action one gets +1 CV.

Now regards CO. If a CO commands a formation belonging to a HQ does he get get the +1 or does he get only when commanding his own formation?

iAugustus //who thinks he has possibly intrepreted this wrongly previously in an effort to keep the rigid doctrine rigid and tried keep the +1CV from becoming an every command bonus.

Yes, the +1 for doing the same action counts for the CO too.

I had limited the bonus a formation under direct command of CO if CO had one (p.42). Okay so the Soviet steamroller moves better from nowon on our tables because the CO can use his CV for the whole force and get the +1.

Thank you for the quick reply

iA

“…the Soviet steamroller moves better from nowon on our tables because the CO can use his CV for the whole force and get the +1.”

Bit of an ‘all eggs in one basket’ gamble though isn’t it? OK, you get the +1 but if you fail the roll that’s it – end of turn.

Yes and no In a smaller games you don't often really want a part of your force to start advancing unless the rest come along too. But of course generally it's risky to operate with the CO.

BTW what's the official take on the following?

A CO issues orders to all units in HQ1's formation and to all units in HQ2's formation at the same. Units in HQ1's formation fire and units in HQ2's formation move. +1 to CO's CV or no?

At least the requirement from p.43 "all units in the formation carry out the same action" is met.

iA

A CO issues orders to all units in HQ1's formation and to all units in HQ2's formation at the same TIME.

Oh, the edit fuction where are you...

I'd say yes, you do get the +1 but I'll bet the -1/20cm penalty for distance cancels that out or and more. If it doesn't, you probably have a huge clump of units that is just begging to be shelled with every piece of artillery the enemy has.

My take on that is no. Reason being that the CO must issue the same order to all units to get the +1. Otherwise, some wag will put units from different formations under the CO, and one unit will shoot, another will deploy, and the other will move, but they will still claim the COs +1 saying that they are from different formations.
Paul

Paul I think you're missing the point. In your example CO is picking SOME units from different formations and not issuing orders to ALL units in any formation. Hence obviously no +1 in that case.

iA //hoping Pete will weigh on the issue

Could be but the way I read what you wrote is this, the CO was issuing one order to one formation (move) and another order to another one (fire) at the same time, and getting the +1 bonus. I understand it that ALL units being given an order at the same time, must be given the same order.
Hope you see where I'm coming from
Paul

I'm not advocating either ruling "+1" or "no +1". I understand where you coming from. Yes, what you wrote would be a logical conclusion if you take the "what might be the intention of the rules"-route. But equally well you can take "what is writen in the rules"-route.(and do that without being too ruleslawerish mind you . Rules as writen say all units the formation, one might choose to read the intention to be all units in all formations involved.

Because neither routes above has proven to be the right way in all cases I was and still am interested in hearing what is Pete's intention when he wrote the +1 CV rule.

Here's the situation for spelled out more clerly in case Pete is stil following the topic.

Formation A: CO and UnitA1
Formation B: HQ1, UnitB1 and UnitB2
Formation C: HQ2, UnitC1 and UnitC2

CO issues order to all units in Formation B (i.e UnitB1 and UnitB2) and all units in Formation C (i.e. UnitC1 and UnitC2) with same command roll.

If Formation B moves and Formation C fires does this grant CO the +1 CV bonus?

Sincerely,

iA

"If Formation B moves and Formation C fires does this grant CO the +1 CV bonus?"

No

Roger. Cheers for the reply. I'm sure the need for the ruling will come sooner rather than later in our upcoming games. Our Soviet player is quite talented running his troops so they are in a position to take advantage of the +1.

wait
if the soviet CO gives order tothe whole army and it is a move order her is +1, but -1 for CO giving orders (right?) and then you have distance its going to be hard and probaly unwise to consentrate all your troops into a tiny 20cm circle around your co.

Just my two cents on Baxter's question. But with rules references at least

"if the soviet CO gives order tothe whole army and it is a move order her is +1"

Yes.

"but -1 for CO giving orders (right?)"

Where did you got the -1 from? P. 13 Commanding Officer -1 only applies here if there is a unit(s) that was commanded by an HQ earlier in the turn but failed to receive any commands among the units the CO is trying to command.

The -1 for commanding units that are not part of your own formation (p. 43) only applies to HQs of armies that use Normal Tactical Doctrine.

"then you have distance its going to be hard and probaly unwise to consentrate all your troops into a tiny 20cm circle around your co."

Yes. But with the mew Commanding Officer rules I think people are going to try large force with CO more ofthen now. And what it's worth I can see almost all Soviet attack scenarios begin with a CO moving two formations in the first turn with his higher CV. Place him in the between the formations inside the 20cm command range and there you go. Either on purpose or because botched up commanding by HQs.

One thing though I think you are ignoring is the law of averages, in your example you are assuming that both HQ's will fail?

If the HQ has a rating of 7, then with no other factors, there is a 20 in 36 chance each that the formations will move, using a CO of CV8 this goes to 25 in 36, but if one or both fail on the first attempt, then you have a second go at 20 in 36. If you fail the CO roll, thats it, turn over.

So it all depends if you thing you are gong to fail three 55% rolls or pass one 69% chance?

Am I missing something on the meaning of the word "Formation" in the rules?

P4 says "A Formation is a convenient term to use for all the units you will issues orders to at any one time during a turn".

So if you have a battalion of 9 infantry units and give them all a order on a single command roll, they are a "formation". But if you only try to order 6 of them, those 6 units are now a "formation". If you pass and then go on to give a command to the other 3 units, those 3 are now a seperate "formation".

That's how I am reading the rules as written, I'm not thinking of the historical use of the word "Formation" to describe any military organisation.

Graham

Lonnie:
"If the HQ has a rating of 7, then with no other factors, there is a 20 in 36 chance each that the formations will "

First off, I think you have your probabilities wrong. I recon it's 21/36 and 26/36 if it the target number is 7 or 8.

Secondly, you might be right if one looks to maximize the expected number of successful commands. If one looks the situations "2 formations under HQ each +plus extra go with CO in the middle if HQ(s) fail(s) the first command roll" VS "One formation under HQ and one formation under CO plus extra go with CO if the HQ fails the first command to its own formation" VS "CO commands two formations straight off without any HQs trying". There is all sorts of interesting factors involved like whether the HQ(s) fail(s) only by on their second attempt so the CO can't try to issue commands for those unit involved where as it's more likely to achieve a longer streak of successes from a higher CV (read: straight from the CO's higher CV).

To be frank I can't be arsed to make the statistic analyzis what route of action gives the most highest expexted number of successful orders or the nicest distribution for the succesful orders even I can at this point. It's after all a question of what human players percieve to be the chances when they do certain things.

Sunjester:
"Am I missing something on the meaning of the word "Formation" in the rules?

P4 says "A Formation is a convenient term to use for all the units you will issues orders to at any one time during a turn"."

Yes, I dare to state you have missed something. In away at least. P. 4 reference was there in the BCK1 already when the fixed formations were an optional rule.

When BKC II talks about formations in page 43 under heading Tactical Doctrine it's clear that it's refering to "formations" as defined in page 42 under heading Formations. Why, you ask? Otherwise every command could fullfill the requirement "same action for all units in the formation" by just issueing the same action for all units "under command" even if they not commanding the "all units in the formation"(p43 and p42 combined).

iA

iAugustus I'd missed that on p42. So actually we have two different definitions of a "formation" in the rules!
No wonder we seem to be crossed purposes.

It hasn't been a problem with our games yet, because we tend to ignore the Tactical Doctrine rules and just use fixed formations.

Graham

“So actually we have two different definitions of a "formation" in the rules!”

Yes, I remember it being discussed on the CWC board back in ’08 as to just which definition of ‘formation’ was being invoked in this rule (for instance here: http://www.coldwar-commander.com/Content/Forum/... and in a few other threads). It became clear that players had been using both.

Sorry, I pasted in the wrong link above. It's: http://www.coldwar-commander.com/Content/Forum/...

Hey Guys!

Yes, there are two uses of the word formation (just as there are two for cover) - this presents a wondeful opportunity for confusion and interpretation (for those who like that sort of thing)!

All the best

Pb

PS Thanks stu_dew for pointing out the CWC thread. I had thought (wrongly as it turns out) that the "same action" modifier applied to formations in the sense of units "under command" rather than in the fixed formation sense.

Pb