-
My apologies if this should be in strategy, and also for this being kind of a stupid question (especially for someone who's played this game several times)...as I understand the rules, having a subordinate doesn't increase maximum army size or movement like in Clash of Monarchs, and doesn't add battle modifiers or anything of the sort...in fact if the subordinate had brigades, there's a good chance the whole formation will slow down, and the subordinate can't be moving his own forces around the map, limiting your schwerpunkt number.
Am I dumb or is subordination kind of a silly tactic?
-
-
You can activate the subordinate general alone and move away from the larger force. I.e. what you gain is flexibility (since a general cannot release command of any of his brigades).
edit: messy writing...
-
Charles Vasey
Scotland
Mortlake, London
-
Norbert714 wrote: My apologies if this should be in strategy, and also for this being kind of a stupid question (especially for someone who's played this game several times)...as I understand the rules, having a subordinate doesn't increase maximum army size or movement like in Clash of Monarchs, and doesn't add battle modifiers or anything of the sort...in fact if the subordinate had brigades, there's a good chance the whole formation will slow down, and the subordinate can't be moving his own forces around the map, limiting your schwerpunkt number.
Am I dumb or is subordination kind of a silly tactic?
The main reason to take on a subordinate is that he already has brigades, he may not drop them off, and you need them to get to (say) four brigades because at that level you can cow the opposition. As you note taking on too many may be unwise (it depends on your hand) but it's a good way of building bulk without spending lots of cards.
-
Jack Smith
United Kingdom
-
You often have little choice in the matter as it may be the only way you can make a sufficiently sized army for the intended task. It is also great for large armies as you can easily split them off later. This really counts if you find yourself with a few campaign or '3' cards in your hand and need a large army fast. You can reinforce two Armies and combine them for a major attack. Then you split them off later unless you're happy to take the desertion losses (which sometimes is fine when planned for)
I have played this game several times now and each time I find new nuances. Everything has purpose, even the so called chrome rules which I now consider potentially game changing when understood. An example is the Navy rules which can be crucial to the success of a siege or even to the decision to have one. I have even known the Queen have a major impact on this where a pivotal siege was lost which would otherwise have been won had she not been captured. Yet I have seen people say the Navy rules have no importance. I don't think they are playing the same game as me.
-
-
Halfinger wrote: Yet I have seen people say the Navy rules have no importance. I don't think they are playing the same game as me. Agreed. The naval situation really dictates whether coastal sieges are futile or not - definitely affecting the strategy for both sides.
-
Andy Daglish
United Kingdom
Cheadle
Cheshire
-
Halfinger wrote: Yet I have seen people say the Navy rules have no importance.
Can you think of two fortress ports that are worth besieging, in themselves?
-
Andy Daglish
United Kingdom
Cheadle
Cheshire
-
Norbert714 wrote: Am I dumb or is subordination kind of a silly tactic?
Failing to evade a nine-brigade army, or being intercepted by one, can be game-ending, and without subordinates you won't be able to put together one of these. Local notables can act like immobile but somewhat less vulnerable subordinates, with their resident brigades ready to swell your army. Massey at Gloucester is useful in this regard. Subordinates also allow you to divide larger armies into smaller ones as the occasion demands.
-
Chris Stimpson
United States
Westminster
Colorado
-
aforandy wrote: Halfinger wrote: Yet I have seen people say the Navy rules have no importance. Can you think of two fortress ports that are worth besieging, in themselves?
For the King, I would say Bristol, followed by London and Hull. The trouble with the latter two, of course, is that while they are very valuable prizes (in terms of recruitment and, for London, for preventing isolation also), they are very tough nuts to crack. Would any Parliamentary army let the King sit around long enough to build up 11 points without interfering? Bristol is somewhat easier, and worth going after if you have also reduced Massey (or if NMA is in effect).
For the Godly, I would say Newcastle (economic area plus the top half of the North is threatened if it falls) and Chester (recruitment plus it's a favorite spot for the Irish to land plus there are times when keeping half of Wales on the King's side depends on a line from Preston running through Chester).
-
-
Thanks everyone! Helped me think about the game in new ways for sure. The flexibility in dropping off is something in particular that I hadn't considered.
-
Jack Smith
United Kingdom
-
aforandy wrote: Halfinger wrote: Yet I have seen people say the Navy rules have no importance. Can you think of two fortress ports that are worth besieging, in themselves?
This was replied to earlier in much more detail but Bristol springs to mind. It is one of the early ports the King can go for if the Navy is on his side with a good chance of success. Without that support it tends to be a lot harder as it is unlikely to fall before it can be relieved or the Royalist lack of armies elsewhere start to cause problems.
Of course London or one of the Northern coastal cities are the others.
The more I play this game the more I am liking it. I even needed, for the first time, to do an Assault in my last game. Complete failure but great fun.
-
Charles Vasey
Scotland
Mortlake, London
-
Halfinger wrote: aforandy wrote: Halfinger wrote: Yet I have seen people say the Navy rules have no importance. Can you think of two fortress ports that are worth besieging, in themselves? This was replied to earlier in much more detail but Bristol springs to mind. It is one of the early ports the King can go for if the Navy is on his side with a good chance of success. Without that support it tends to be a lot harder as it is unlikely to fall before it can be relieved or the Royalist lack of armies elsewhere start to cause problems. Of course London or one of the Northern coastal cities are the others. The more I play this game the more I am liking it. I even needed, for the first time, to do an Assault in my last game. Complete failure but great fun.
I've never managed to succeed with an Assault either. Dreadful game!
-
|
|
