The Commander Series Forum

Can my Battlegroup have more than one CO?

Thank you

No, but you can field more than one battlegroup, each one with it's own CO.

Weird, that's the reverse of the question I just posted

Two questions on having more than one CO:
1. If you do have more than one CO on a side, does the first battle group complete all of it's turn before the second?
For example, does the first CO complete its scheduled phase, initiative, and command phases as normal and then the second CO does its own scheduled, initiative, and command phases, and once both CO's have completed their turn, the side performs the End phase, removing hits etc.
2. Would I be right to assume that command units in one battlegroup can never order any units in another battle group even if they are the same nationality, regardless of doctrine?

We played a multi-player game where each player had their own CO for their battle group. All players on one side made their command rolls sort of at the same time and did not wait for one battle group to finish before the next one moved. For one player vs one player with multiple battle groups it would probably be better to do the command rolls for each group sequentially except for the CO's.

We just kind of all "muddle in together" to keep the game moving, only "pausing" to let others finish something if it might impact elsewhere.

I had two CO's the other night, cause we had British and French as the Allied force at Arras, mainly cause it's all the early allied stuff I had.

IanS

An alternative to the queried process in Q.1 would be to conduct the phases simultaneously for example:
All schedule assets are assessed with any overlapping templates (rockets always deviate) being assessed as one action (thus no suppressing with one asset and falling back with another, unless it's a different type of asset, of course).
All initiative actions (for both battle groups) are performed, one action at a time.
Then, during the command phase, the player(s) decide the order command units are activated and work through each in turn (multi-player games can permit simultaneous activation of command units if they can agree how targets are selected). Once a CO has failed a command roll, any unactivated HQ's under his command cannot issue orders that turn (as normal).
This method would be almost identical to the usual method but with two CO's and extra restrictions as to who can order who.
I think the second method is better as it is closer to the normal method but I would be interested in what you think.

By the way, if you wondering if there is any real difference, then I have the following points:
1. If both battle groups plan their own assets and they then happen to overlap, then under the first method you could end up suppressing during the first schedule/initiative/command phases and cause fall-back under the second set of assets (not normally possible).
2. Smoke assets from the 2nd BG will not affect the first BG as their smoke is removed at the end of the opposing sides turn (resolved if you take your smoke off at the beginning of your turn instead).