FMG COMBAT UNITS - Rules: COMMANDER

Commanders should not cost anything. These are nothing but remarkable Generals who fought either in the last war or were just full of advanced ideas and knew how to fight using the tools of the day.

They got to give units some advantage of sorts either movement and or combat. Usually, Generals tend to use the tools of warfare in a unique way. Most will benefit with tanks, while others with infantry or artillery.

Perhaps we just drop all the combined arms bonuses and require that the commander facilitate this and invent new combination’s of units.

Or alternatively, the General could just be its own combat roll ( say at 4 or less) or a re-roll of a miss

Or make a list of generals, where each has its own unique bonus to units and by type and employ them by front.

I do know that Infantry don’t need any boost any more than what they currently have. It seems that tanks are the only candidate for some type of boost since these are pricey.

A movement bonus for a General seems to be in order as well.

The most simple KISS is to just make them another unit rolling at 4 or less on land. That would minimize the disruption of the games math. But it seems really too simplistic and bit on the shallow side in terms of modeling some flavor of WW2 warfare.

Perhaps generals can be assigned a leadership rating say 5 and you now got 5 points to use as follows:

use 2 points to move infantry 2 spaces
use 2 points to boost 2 tanks +1
use 1 point to retreat one tank when the enemy counter attacks you
Spend all 5 points

Each turn you get another 5 points to use as you wish

you can either boost a unit on attack or defense, or move a unit +1 space….all using one Leadership point.

Why should commanders be free?  No other unit in the game is free.  No facility is free except the ones you begin and when an MIC is captured you have to pay to replace it.  I think its silly to have this unit be a magical unit that costs nothing.  If you want a historical reason it could be the cost of equipping and transporting a new HQ and all its officers to the front.

On the other hand I really like your idea of tying the combined arms to a commander.  This is a great idea.  What new pairings were you thinking?  Maybe cruisers and carriers (aa escorts)?

Well some nations could not afford a commander at 15. Think Italy or France or Anzac

Perhaps you get one at start and if you lose it, you have to pay?

Combined arms bonus:

1. Fighters boost Tanks +1 in combat 1:1

2. Tanks Boost Mechanized or Infantry +1 in combat 1:1

3. Artillery fires at 3 on first round, then 2 all other rounds ( artillery no longer boost infantry at 1:1)

4. All units moving with commander move 2 spaces

5. One Battleship with commander gets 1st round preemptive fire

6. One Carrier with commander can still launch planes and defend if they take a hit, and the carrier can carry 3 fighters

My ideas was all nations start with at least 1 commander and they only have to pay to buy more or replace ones lost in combat.  I like combined arms bonuses.  Expanding on your ideas…

1. A Carrier with a commander paired with a Cruiser while defending allows the cruiser to shoot an aa shot at each attacking fighter (rolled at 1, casualties taken immediately, only 1 cruiser may pair with carrier, aa shot only before 1st round of combat)

2. I think the artillery bonus should only be when the artillery is tied to (supporting) Inf, Mech Inf, and Armor.  Otherwise you may see commanders with giant stacks of $4 artillery attacking at 3 for 1 round whereas a defender has to pay $6 to defend at 3. Also by tying the artillery to another unit maybe the bonus can continue past 1 round?

3. Tank + fighter boosts tanks?  Is this in addition to tank + tactical boosts tactical?  Let’s keep it as tank + tactical (you can change it to boosting the tank if you want but I don’t see the difference), fighters have so many extra abilities already and are better suited for air to air uses like intercepting, escorting, scrambling, etc.  Instead why not do…

4. Heavy Tanks boost tanks +1 in combat

Questions.  I assume you’re also keeping the bonus fighters + tactical bombers right?  When you say “in combat” (which i decided to use as well for the tank + heavy tank) does that mean both attacking and defending?  If so, some of these bonuses may be too powerful.  If a commander battleship is bombarding the shore for an amphibious attack, does his preemptive fire allow the infantry to return fire if hit or is that piece immediately removed?  Finally, the ability for a commander to issue a retreat order after one round of combat while defending still stands correct?

3. Tank + fighter boosts tanks?

I meant to say fighter-bombers boost tanks.  Sorry i don’t use tactical bombers. That word ( tactical bomber) has no meaning till the 1970’s

fighters + tactical bombers right?

no this is bogus, rather on the first round tactical bombers get to select the naval target ( if used at sea) and against land targets ( if used on land). It would be another form of SBR with these planes making an air strike and bringing escorts and the defender using CAP to defend  ( after one round the tactical planes make the targeted attack)

Also, these would now be 3-2-4 units

IN the one round dogfight, planes use their normal values: fighters escorting at 3, CAP defending at 4.

I would repeat this plane on plane dogfight each round till one side had no planes, and if the attacker destroyed the CAP, his fighter bombers can make unmolested targeted naval attacks.

Ok… this hasn’t been posted in awhile, but I hadn’t gotten around to reading it and rather than starting a new topic…

I don’t think this commander piece has to be a ‘general’, it is more ambiguous, it’s a commander which could be a lesser rank yet someone with training, proven capabilities and their own staff (not a whole unit).  Giving them the ability to have whole armies tactically retreat as a defender is a huge bonus in itself.  Imo, I think the commander’s special abilities should be limited to two (though I myself love all the above historical references to generals). One offense and one defense.  Because there are already sooo many +'s on units for this or that already, I would think two abilities would be what is needed.

Attk/Dfnd: 0/0  
Mv: As per the unit it is “paired” with. Otherwise as infantry (can be transported as a paratrooper).

Special abilities: Defensive - after the first round as a defender, the Command unit and all like units it is paired with may tactically withdraw. Offensive - When the unit the commander is paired with gets a successful hit (rolled separately), they may target one defender as the causality, in reverse value of the roll (ie: the commandeered unit rolls a ‘1’ - it can choose any value of defending units as a hit, a ‘2’ at defenders at 3 or less defense score, a ‘3’ at 2 or less defense score, a ‘4’ picks from the defenders defending on a 1 or 0). This is to slightly curb the situation where having a commander unit present means you simply step up and knock out each of the enemies big hitters, yet still representative of the leader’s ability to coordinate tactical strikes.

Only 1 commander’s ability is usable per combat. A commander cannot be paired with aircraft (I don’t consider this unit as an ‘ace’ pilot, and they certainly aren’t flying in on bombing runs). If bunkers/fortifications are used in the game, I’d also have some kind of rule where the commandeered unit can take them out…

Cost: All nations should start with the same amount of commanders (6?).  Once killed, they are removed from the game (I mean c’mon, they can retreat as a defender already).

Thoughts?

Viracocha, I think you got some pretty darn good ideas for the commander unit.  Even though getting all the nation sets from FMG is a ways off yet, it is a good idea to start ironing out some ideas of how to use the new units.
On Defense, so a commander has to attach itself to a certain combat unit (tank, mech, artillery or infantry) and when retreating, only those units can retreat, correct?  Example, a commander attached to a tank would allow all tanks to retreat, but the mechs, artillery and infantry would have to remain in the attacked territory, correct?  Seems a little limited but acceptable.  This would especially be useful to Germany in their advances into the Soviet Union.  Many times I have seen Germany punch into Soviet territory only to lose precious armor to Soviet counterattacks, thus stalling their advance.
On Offense, I like that ability where a roll of 1 chooses any defensive unit, 2 chooses a 3 or less defensive unit, etc.  One question:  You mentioned the commandeered unit hitting up to a 4.  Does this mean that whatever unit is attached to the commander gets boosted up to hit on 4 or less?  Even infantry?  Or does that unit roll normally, and if it gets a hit rolls again to see what it can hit?
I’m not sure about your idea on cost.  I think I would prefer to be able to replace commanders that are lost.  However, if it is a unit that once lost can not be replaced, it would sure make people protect them better.  Also, should every nation really get 6?  I can see that with all the big 5, perhaps even Italy, but ANZAC and France I just don’t see getting 6 commanders.  What about China?  Does China also get commanders?  Not sure that they would really have a need for them.
Going with the idea of each nation getting 6 commanders, would we need to alter the original setup?  Or would it simply be player’s choice as to where commanders are placed at the start of the game?

@knp7765:

Viracocha, I think you got some pretty darn good ideas for the commander unit.  Even though getting all the nation sets from FMG is a ways off yet, it is a good idea to start ironing out some ideas of how to use the new units.
On Defense, so a commander has to attach itself to a certain combat unit (tank, mech, artillery or infantry) and when retreating, only those units can retreat, correct?  Yes Example, a commander attached to a tank would allow all tanks to retreat, but the mechs, artillery and infantry would have to remain in the attacked territory, correct?  Seems a little limited but acceptable.  This would especially be useful to Germany in their advances into the Soviet Union.  Many times I have seen Germany punch into Soviet territory only to lose precious armor to Soviet counterattacks, thus stalling their advance.
On Offense, I like that ability where a roll of 1 chooses any defensive unit, 2 chooses a 3 or less defensive unit, etc.  One question:  You mentioned the commandeered unit hitting up to a 4.  Does this mean that whatever unit is attached to the commander gets boosted up to hit on 4 or less?  Even infantry?  Or does that unit roll normally, and if it gets a hit rolls again to see what it can hit? Only rolls once, the attack value is that of the unit it is paired with. If successful, it may target one unit as per what would be allowed considering the roll (commander unit rolls a 1 = targets any, 2= targets defenders on a 3 or less, etc)
I’m not sure about your idea on cost.  I think I would prefer to be able to replace commanders that are lost.  However, if it is a unit that once lost can not be replaced, it would sure make people protect them better. Yeah… that’s what I was thinking…  Also, should every nation really get 6? Probably not - hadn’t really thought that part out… I can see that with all the big 5, perhaps even Italy, but ANZAC and France I just don’t see getting 6 commanders.  What about China?  Does China also get commanders?  Not sure that they would really have a need for them.
Going with the idea of each nation getting 6 commanders, would we need to alter the original setup?  Or would it simply be player’s choice as to where commanders are placed at the start of the game?

When I said 6, I was thinking along the lines of the big 5 and Italy (though admittedly, its kinda a stretch with Italy… but for the fairness factor has to be considered in my opinion).  I think the commander’s placement should come down to player’s choice.  Hmm… I’m eager to try this… but it will probably be awhile. I love adding new pieces and what not, but I’m also one for very limited scope on the pieces.  I’m not a fan of giving out more +'s on units - I’d rather have them as abilities, they’re easier to remember, adds more flavour, and I think there are enough +'s floating around already…  
Later edit:  Yeah Knp, I personally really like the above mentioned “targeting system”, we’ve used it as an ability with elite infantry in the past… but perhaps it’s better suited for a special forces unit.  I’m starting to sway more toward a ‘commander’ as having a bonus/ability for moving troops, would be more fitting for a commander I think.

How about this:

All land units can only move 1 territory during combat movement phase unless a commander is present.  Armor, mech, motorized infantry, assault guns, heavy tanks etc. may move 2 if there is a commander in the space they originate from at the start of the turn.  They can always move 2 spaces during noncombat movement even without a commander.  The commander can also move up to 2 spaces during noncombat move. This would help put a limit on the effect of adding all these new highly mobile units (which is generally pro-germany).

So no attack or defense value, no special abilities, just facilitates land units under his command being used to their maximum potential.  Commanders should be fairly expensive because they are important and you really don’t want to lose one.

Everyone,

I like the idea of having Commanders in our A&A games.  And they are already in the “pipeline” to be produced.  In studying all of the above suggestions and adding some of my own thoughts I believe there are certain MAIN ideas that we might agree on:

–-------------------------

1A.  ALL countries in the game start with ONE “commander”,…OR:

1B.  A case could be made for TWO “commanders” like:  US-Pacific, US-Europe, UK-Pacific, UK-Europe, USSR-Pacific, USSR-Europe, Germany-Europe, Germany-Asia, France-1, China-1, Anzac-1.

2.  Any country having forces in a theater(Pacific or Europe) would have the capability of building 3 “commanders”(1-Army, 1-Navy, 1-Air Force) for that theater.

2.  The commander could ONLY be an Army General, Navy Admiral, or Air Force General by choice of each country’s player.

3.  The “commander” should give certain “benefits” to the forces of it’s service, but more along the lines of strategic or tactical capabilities added.  Giving additional attack or defense capabilities, if adopted, should be to a LIMITED extent or this would tend to act like a “tech” bonus and unbalance the game.  Remember, the “commander” represents a Headquaters and it’s functions.

4.  Each “commander” should have a high cost(10-15 IPC depending on value added).

5.  Additional “commander” units could be purchased up to 3 (1-Army, 1-Navy, 1-Air Force) for each “theater” of operations(Pacific/Asia, Europe).

6.  Any “commander” killed would need to be re-purchased like any new one.

7.  The “commander” would ride “piggyback” on an existing unit and adopt it’s movement factor and NOT be allowed to majically be placed anywhere the player choses.  Remember we will soon have the option of adding Air Transports to our games.

8.  Players should be allowed at the start of the game to announce the type(service) of leader and it’s starting location in accordance with their strategic emphasis.

9.  We might consider adding a certain “range” to the effects of these “commander” units.

–---------------------

These are some of my general thoughts on the commander units(pun intended).  IMHO I believe they can add a new and fun dimension to our games.  I think we must also realize that they could very easily unbalance the game if we make their “added capabilities” too strong.  Remember,…all units in combat were lead (supposedly) by a commander.  By making a player PAY to add a commander to the units he wants to emphasize he should accrue some equitable return,…but not overpowering strength.

I think a lot of further discussion is due this important subject.

Like I Say,……What Do YA’LL Think???
                                                                                      “Tall Paul”

When attacked, all land units that have a range of 2 can withdraw 1 territory after the first round of dice if there is a commander.

Here are our commander rules which we have worked out to keep it as simple as possible. We have used these rules in our 1939 global game using Tigermans map as well as the tactical games like ILs Eastern Front and my N. Africa game. Each of the six major nations get three commanders in the setup phase. France and ANZAC get one each. These commander units are placed by the players before the game starts. For this setup the U.K. Commonwealth includes Europe and the Far East command. So ANZAC is separate and gets its own commander. In total the allies have two more commanders than the axis. Commanders can move one territory on their own or can be transported by any sea vessel, any level bomber or transport plane if you have those in the game. Also on land they can be moved by tank, mech. inf. or truck if you use those. In land combat the commander can target his tanks and dive bombers during the first combat round only. For instance the commander declares that 5 tanks and two dive bombers are trying to hit 5 enemy tanks. If he gets 6 hits then 5 tanks are destroyed and 1 hit is wasted. In sea combat the commander can target his battleships, cruisers and dive bombers. All targets must be declared before dice are rolled. Also commanders have the option to retreat after any complete combat round. If a commanders army or navy is wiped out before they can retreat then the commander is lost for the game and cannot be replaced. Any questions?

@Viracocha:

.  I’m not a fan of giving out more +'s on units - I’d rather have them as abilities, they’re easier to remember, adds more flavour, and I think there are enough +'s floating around already…

Agree with that  8-)

Leader unit: cost 15 (same as a facility), move 2, att 0, def 0, may only control units in its own territory.

Abilities when defending:

• All units in a territory with a Leader, may retreat after each round of combat.

Abilities when attacking:

• All motorized units (tanks, mechs and self-propelled artillery) that start the attack from the same territory and accompanied by a Leader unit, may continue with one extra move after the first battle in the first territory is resolved. This may be a bonus combat-move into next enemy territory, representing Blitzkrieg with breakthrough and exploitation, or a non-combat move into any friendly territory.

Abilities when Amphibious Assulting:

• Ampibious Assaults is a joint operation that need a Leader unit.

Leaders can only effect land units

Let’s keep it simple guys,

@Tall:

Everyone,

I like the idea of having Commanders in our A&A games.  And they are already in the “pipeline” to be produced.  In studying all of the above suggestions and adding some of my own thoughts I believe there are certain MAIN ideas that we might agree on:

–-------------------------

1A.  ALL countries in the game start with ONE “commander”,…OR:

1B.  A case could be made for TWO “commanders” like:  US-Pacific, US-Europe, UK-Pacific, UK-Europe, USSR-Pacific, USSR-Europe, Germany-Europe, Germany-Asia, France-1, China-1, Anzac-1.

2.  Any country having forces in a theater(Pacific or Europe) would have the capability of building 3 “commanders”(1-Army, 1-Navy, 1-Air Force) for that theater.

2.  The commander could ONLY be an Army General, Navy Admiral, or Air Force General by choice of each country’s player.

3.  The “commander” should give certain “benefits” to the forces of it’s service, but more along the lines of strategic or tactical capabilities added.  Giving additional attack or defense capabilities, if adopted, should be to a LIMITED extent or this would tend to act like a “tech” bonus and unbalance the game.  Remember, the “commander” represents a Headquaters and it’s functions.

4.  Each “commander” should have a high cost(10-15 IPC depending on value added).

5.  Additional “commander” units could be purchased up to 3 (1-Army, 1-Navy, 1-Air Force) for each “theater” of operations(Pacific/Asia, Europe).

6.  Any “commander” killed would need to be re-purchased like any new one.

7.  The “commander” would ride “piggyback” on an existing unit and adopt it’s movement factor and NOT be allowed to majically be placed anywhere the player choses.  Remember we will soon have the option of adding Air Transports to our games.

8.  Players should be allowed at the start of the game to announce the type(service) of leader and it’s starting location in accordance with their strategic emphasis.

9.  We might consider adding a certain “range” to the effects of these “commander” units.

–---------------------

These are some of my general thoughts on the commander units(pun intended).  IMHO I believe they can add a new and fun dimension to our games.  I think we must also realize that they could very easily unbalance the game if we make their “added capabilities” too strong.  Remember,…all units in combat were lead (supposedly) by a commander.  By making a player PAY to add a commander to the units he wants to emphasize he should accrue some equitable return,…but not overpowering strength.

I think a lot of further discussion is due this important subject.

Like I Say,……What Do YA’LL Think???
                                                                                      “Tall Paul”

@The:

Powers start with:
Germany: 3 (2 Land, 1 Air)
US: 3 (1 land, 1 Air, 1Naval)
Japan: 3 (2 Naval, 1 Air)
UK Eu:3 (1 land, 1 air, 1 Naval)
Uk P:1 (1 Land)
Anzac: 1 (1 Land)
France: 0
China: 0
Italy: 1 (1 Naval, 1 Land)
USSR: 3 (3 Land)

I need to come back to this, but lets imagine that a Leader unit represent a HQ that is outstandingly successful. Of course all units was commanded by a inherent HQ, and we dont need specific HQ units to represent each infantry unit, that would be a mess. So a Leader unit is a HQ commanded by brilliant men like Manstein, Rommel, Guderian, Model, Patton, Montgomery, Zhukov etc etc.

I also think that the Air Marshall HQ unit is inherent in the Airbase, wich may scramble fighters, give extra range, launch paratroopers etc. So we dont need more Aircraft Leader units.

The same with navy. The fleet commander sailed with the flagship, and it looks stupid to put a general next to a battleship and claim he is the captain.

As for the set up, I belive Germany must start with more Leader units than the rest, because they were better prepared and had better training and experience. Lets say Germany start with 5 Leaders.

Russia must start with no Leaders, since Stalin did in fact purge a lot of his officers just right before the war started. He killed 3 out of 5 Field Marshalls and 40 000 higher rank officers. And I belive that was the reason he lost the Winter war against Finland in 1939, and made poor defense against Barbarossa in 1941. Russia may start with one Leader in Amur, representing Zhukov that just won the Khalkin Gol battle against Japan in 1939.

Japan start with one
None of the others should start with Leaders.

Hmm… in looking over the most recent adds… here’s my hybrid:

-All nations start with 1
-Mv: 1 (as infantry) or with whatever land unit it is paired with.
-Cost: 10 (can be replaced)
-Attk/Def: 0 (as per unit paired with)
-Offensive ability:  All like units that the commander is paired with, may continue with one extra move after the first battle in the first territory is resolved, providing said units have a ‘2’ movement. This may be a bonus combat-move into next enemy territory, representing Blitzkrieg with breakthrough and exploitation, or a non-combat move into any friendly territory.
-Defensive ability: The commander and all like units it is paired with, may retreat after the first round of combat into a friendly territory, providing said units have a ‘2’ movement.
-More than 1 commander per territory can be used.

To assign numbers to each nation may be more along the lines of historical accuracy in a vague way as to generals, but I fear it starts tampering with balance issues (and the war was just getting into ‘full swing’, we don’t have the development of some of the generals mentioned regardless), and as I already mentioned, they’re not necessarily ‘generals’.  I also think that naval and air command is already represented, so the above is limited to land… and if not, there are other units/minis forthcoming which could fill these roles (and look nicer… like a different battleship amongst the others as a command naval unit for instance).  I think we’re underestimating the power of this extra movement ability, so a limit to like units paired with is perhaps a solution (and there seems to be many who like the idea of pairing it with another unit).  But in turn, the cost is slightly lower - but you can have more than one commander in use. Though I like the idea of targeted attacks… in retrospect, I think it may be too powerful - and it sounds more like a special forces or elite infantry ability.  Though if fortifications are used, I think the commander should have some kinda of ability against them…

Viracocha’s hybrid sounds good but, to clarify:

Would the unit type with which a commander is paired be limited to a total movement of 2, or could they move 2 in combat phase plus one more in the noncombat blitz?

Could this special post-combat blitz allow attacking units to retreat back to the territory where they originated (perhaps leaving infantry etc at the front and pulling armor back)?

If there are 2 commanders, could one allow blitzing and retreating of armor and one allow it for mech?

Razor,

I believe you misunderstood me.  Let me better explain my ideas.

–-------------------------------------

1.  Yes, I take it that it is UNDERSTOOD that all units everywhere are lead by someone and to represent this would obviously be ridiculous.

---------------------------------------

2.  The “Commander” units that we’re talking about would represent SPECIFIC
leaders with SPECIFIC abilities, and have a certain RANGE.  We all agree that many wartime operations took specialists in their field to plan and execute,…such as Paratroop Drops, Large Amphibious Invasions, etc., etc.  And this is only a part of what the “Commander” units could represent.

---------------------------------------

3.  The AIRBASE does NOT represent the funtions of Air HQ, rather it only adds capabilities available through the physical base improvement itself.

----------------------------------------

4.  The Air Force General could add capabilities such as PARATROOP DROPS and other improvements/capabilities within the “range” of his command.

Since there is no “fog of war” in A&A, when a player chooses to place an Air Force General in an area his opponent would have to take into consideration the improved capabilities that the Air Force General would represent , and plan his dispositions accordingly.

–---------------------------------------

5.  As far as a Naval Admiral, Yes, the Fleet (or Task Force) Commander would ride on the ships giving them the improved capabilities of his command.  One of the improvements/capabilities might be LARGE INVASIONS as well as others.

I couldn’t agree more that it would look stupid putting an Army General next to a Battleship and claiming he is the captain.  The ship already has a captain.  And I certainly didn’t propose that.  The player could easily paint or lable the “Commander” as a Navy Admiral.  The Fleet (or Task Force) Commander is what I was representing with a Navy Admiral commander unit.

That is why there are ARMY Generals, AIR FORCE Generals and NAVY Admirals in my plan.  They each have something in the form of improvements and/or capabilities that they would add to the forces under their command.

–----------------------------------------

There are many “improvements” or “capabilites” that each commander might be able to add to the units under his command(in his “range”).  Obvious ones would be:

Paratroop Drops, Large Naval Invasions, Encirclements(?), Etc., Etc.

-------------------------------------------

I think we should discuss further what “capabilities”,…and what “combat enhancements” we would want.  Remember, we need it to be Logical, Simple and Fast in gameplay terms to be most useful.

Thus, simply the presence an Air Force General would allow Paratroop Drops, Etc. within the “range” of his command.

Remember, by adding all of these new units, and their capabilities,…we are not only complicating the gameplay, but potentially making the games much loooonger.  I think it would be in everyone’s interest to keep in mind “the big picture” of TIME and COMPLEXITY.  IMHO we would be best served by making any changes we add as simple and streamlined to USE as possible.

There are several people with really good ideas concerning these “Commander” units.  IMHO we should discuss which of these would be best to include BASED on the SIMPLICITY and SPEED of there execution in our games.

As I Say,…What Do YA’LL Think???
                                                                                  “Tall Paul”

As for an Air Force General being unneccessary,  just think along the lines of:

Paratroop Drops aren’t alowed unless there is an Air Force General within “range” to make this capability available.

And as for game BALANCE,…that was why I suggested a possible maximum limit to the amount of “Commanders” so as to allow the potiential levelling of the gameplay.  Like all strategy decisions, it would be up to the individual player to decide.

I think GAMEPLAY considerations should always trump HISTORIC accuracy IF it’s necessary to make an equal playing field.

Like I Say,…What Do YA’LL Think???
                                                                                          “Tall Paul”

@Vance:

Viracocha’s hybrid sounds good but, to clarify:

Would the unit type with which a commander is paired be limited to a total movement of 2, or could they move 2 in combat phase plus one more in the noncombat blitz?

Could this special post-combat blitz allow attacking units to retreat back to the territory where they originated (perhaps leaving infantry etc at the front and pulling armor back)?

If there are 2 commanders, could one allow blitzing and retreating of armor and one allow it for mech?

Good question Vance… I am thinking that the movement of 2 is necessary in order for the ability to function.  In effect, to do the extra combat move or retreat, it is only 1 extra space - this is regardless of how many movement spaces they have already taken.  The fact that they have/are paired with a unit which moves 2 spaces, allows them the ability to use their ‘special’ command ability.  So no… they wouldn’t be able to retreat 2 spaces or blitz 2 spaces - only 1.  Yeah, 2 commanders could effectively move two different types of units.  I could foresee main ‘battle groups’ forming with these rules, more than one commander moving amongst the armies - re-positioning them as needed.