I have gone back to ACW and played a CSA campaign. During that campaign, I made a mistake, resulting to the starvation of large parts of a stack containing two divisions and lead by Joe Johnston in command of an army HQ.
Here is a more detailed account of what happened:
[INDENT]I had attacked Springfield, ran into some very strange retreat mechanics which kept an inferior Union force that evaded me from retreating out of the area. Johnston himself (probably due to his particular combat avoiding traits) kept abandoning the ordered assault on the town. What was more, my stack couldn't retreat backwards (to Arkansas) either (union military control was too high in those areas). So I finally decided to march for Rolla the nearest source of supplies I could reach inspite of the Union force. I failed to take the city however (the Union beat me back in a low casualty battle). At that point my stack ran out of supplies. I dissolved the Army into its units and tried to escape each unit non its own to Western Kentucky. I managed to save about half my units (the survivors were in really bad shape though). My two former division commanders survived, too. Johnston who was still attached to his HQ disappeared when that HQ was dissolved due to lack of supplies.[/INDENT]
What is bothering me is that the AGE engine seems inconsistent as to when a general will starve alongside his troops and when he will survive.
1) A general will die if he is attached to an army HQ and that HQ is removed due to lack of supplies.
2) A general will die if if he is in command of a division and the last element in that division is removed due to lack of supplies.
3) On the other hand, a general will survive if he is not attached to any units even if all the elements in the same stack are removed due to lack of supplies.
This seems inconsistent: If I disband divisions once I see starvation is imminent, I can save my generals otherwise they die. Actually disbanding divisions is the sensible thing to do since the only hope for survivers is to rush each unit to the next supply source as fast as it can move. When it comes to HQs things are different however: detaching a general from his HQ comes with a big NM hit.
Personnaly I think generals should never disappear due to starvation. Throughout history, generals have always found ways to keep their bellies full while their men starved. In particular, I am not aware of a single general during the American Civil War that starved during while in command of his forces (and I think the same holds true for the other periods AGE games cover).
I know this isn't a big issue. But it might be something the developpers might want to look at for future AGE games. Also, this problem doesn't concern just ACW, but all AGE games since the issue seems to lie within the basic mechanics of the AGE engine.