Using more than one army list per side.

[Zypheria]

How do you do when you use two or more army list per side (ex Germany + Finland vs Soviets or USA + UK vs Germany), I mean, Do you use only one CO as maximum responsible of all combined forces and follow normal rules? or you use a CO per army list and the turn ends only if all COs fails their command rolls?

I'm curious to know as we usually play mixing list and use the one CO to rule all the HQs option.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

You could use just one CO, or divide the table into sectors and have both sides with a CO.

[Ithoriel]

We've always used one CO per player with each formation having it's own break point, etc.

Worked for us but YMMV.

[fred.]

It depends! Most of the time we have done this we have gone with one CO, but that is when there is an obvious main force, and a support force. Eg US Airborne support by British tanks in Opp Market Garden, or DAK with Italians in the Desert.

But would hardly be game breaking to have multiple COs. The CO failing ending the turn effectively just means the CO goes last. Not really sure what this is meant to represent, or if it is just a carry over from Warmaster. 

[Itinerant Hobbyist]

Depending on the history I would vary the # of COs. For Market Garden, I would use one for a joint British/US airborne battle.

[Big Insect]

Like all such questions it depends upon the context, the size of the forces on the table, the number of players etc.
Generally it is a good idea to have a single CO per side (IMHO) especially if there is only 1 player per side. So you might have a German CO and HQs + some Rumanian HQs etc.
Where you have multiple players per side, having a number of COs can work, but I'd suggest that you nominate one CO as overall commander. The important difference is that a sub-ordinate CO finishing their Command move, should have no impact on the HQ's not under his direct command. But once the overall CO has completed their command orders, that 'sides' turn is effectively over.
You also need to be careful to co-ordinate and ensure that each phase of the game turn are completed for each army simultaneously. If that makes sense.

Cheers
Mark

[Ithoriel]

The multiplayer games I've played we've treated each player's force as separate so some forces would be eliminated while others fought on, We are (or were before Covid, no idea if our little group will re-coalesce post pandemic) a fairly social group so those not playing made coffee, fetched beer, opened crisp bags, chose the music and acted as "tactical advisors."

Usually each side decided a joint plan before the game, then everyone did their own thing  

Worked for us but might not suit everyone.