In AW and MW, we have been criticized by some for 'micro-managing'. this is a valid criticism, given that the respondents are used to playing a grand tactical simulation with rules that are very stylized. In this large-scale type of game, the details that I find so important to a tactical simulation are missing. When I explain that our rules are tactically orientated, the respondents reply that they cannot then duplicate warfare in the ancient period, anyway.

Battles were large, with massive numbers of men. Certainly, there were smaller battles throughout the ancient period, and it is possible to portray portions of larger battles using AW and MW as well. We can easilly replicate a portion of a larger battle, but even then, why have order markers, when units should be able to have their local commanders decide what to do? This caused me to look back on my design philosophy. What I realized was that I had determined to not have the gamer be simply the CiC, but actually act as each unit leader and sub-commander as well.

Instead of sitting on high, simply moving your troops as you wish them to move, you must get down to the lowest level of command and decide what you want that unit of skirmisher archers to do, and then give them the appropriate orders. Of course, they may ignore them if attacked (they will be forced to retreat). But you do have to make decisions for them.

Now as the CiC and sub-commander, you will be limited in your order giving abilities. Some units will not get orders. Usually you will not have enough to go around (command control problems). There is still the chain of command, which must be followed.

So you see, as a commander playing AW/MW, you are actually playing many roles, from CiC to unit commander. Playing each of them to the best of your abilities will help ensure battlefield success.