Earl Van Dorn

[eleven_west]

From Wikipedia :

"It was Van Dorn's reputation as a womanizer, not a Union bullet, that led to his death. On May 7, 1863, he was shot at his headquarters in Spring Hill, Tennessee, by Dr. George Peters, who claimed that Van Dorn had carried on an affair with his wife."

Shouldn't then Van Dorn be removed by event around May 63.. especially if his division contains a hospital unit

[arsan]

Mmm i think he was removed because of that on previous versions but later the event was eliminated as seemed too deterministic.
There was some other cases like this on game (can't remember the names now).

Cheers!

[richfed]

That would mean Jackson ought to be removed around the same time, etc., etc.

I believe this was discussed long ago --- I would be all for an INCREASED chance of death/removal for leaders killed during the course of the war. But KNOWING they would be removed at a certain point would cause one to think twice about where that particular general would be at the time of his scheduled demise.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[soloswolf]

I like the current system. Largely due to what richfed said. Also, we change history at the end of every turn, so it's not like we're following in anyone's footsteps.

Maybe Jabber's...

[vonRocko]

Knowing the date of a generals death is just as unrealistic as having Jackson
alive in 65! Since the game allows us to explore different results then the historical ones, the knowledge of someones death would hamper decisions and prove to be more unrealistic then letting someone live past their historical death date. I suppose increasing their odds of death somehow in the game after their death date,would be appropriate.But I don't like having a god-like knowledge of their death.

[CWNut77]

I agree with multiple posts above. Generals should not be removed via special event due to their death historically, but they SHOULD NOT start in scenarios that start after their deaths occurred.

Look at VG Civil War (one of the inspirations for this game) -- in that game, the only way you lost a general was due to a bad roll. No events declaring that they were removed because that is what happened "in history".

If that was the case, Nathaniel Lyon would be practically useless for the Northern player. He would be removed 4-5 turns after entry as the Battle of Wilson's Creek took place in August '61.

PS -- on that note, I am a proponent of having Lyon and Price from the beginning. I still don't get why the St. Louis event is randomized every game, seeing as how it was such a big event (perhaps the biggest event) that shaped the war in the trans-Mississippi region.

[eleven_west]

we change history at the end of every turn

Just to clarify 2 things :

1. I totally agree with what soloswolf says, of course ths game would be considerably less fun if a 1000 avenues to victory were sacrificed to strict historical accuracy

2. This post was supposed to evoke some light joke reaction or some kind of pondering on the futility of everything we do in life thinking of Van Dorn's demise, who managed to survive the better part of a bloody war only to be killed by a jaded cuckold

I actually like this feature of the game as it is at the moment. But on the same note, I can't think of a reason why Samuel Cooper should be removed from play before he ever commands an army. An uninteresting general, but an interesting "what if"

Additional option to "play with historical events" or "play with random events" in the menu? Anyone? CWNutt77 may agree with me

[Carnium]

Additional option to "play with historical events" or "play with random events" in the menu? Anyone? CWNutt77 may agree with me

This may require FAR too much time which AGEOD probably cant afford.
It can actually open a big can of worms as one may wonder about just how historical correct can these events be if we are changing history every turn.
This game already has some events that are a bit unusual if you play the grand campaign from the start. One of these is the "McLellan removed from command of the Army of the Potomac" when I never ever gave him the command
War and historical games are meant to be played to change the curse of the history our way and not to re-enact the situation as it really was. So I agree with richfed and soloswolf in this metter.

Just my 5 cents

[Jabberwock]

I'd like to see leader death and removal handled in a moddable way. Maybe use two variables, battleDeathChance (checked only in combat), nonBattleRemovalChance (checked once a turn). Then we could write events to our hearts content(s) changing and using those variable values.

Solo - whiffling through the tulgey wood is not healthy for humans.

EDIT: Reading back, I don't think I stated this idea clearly. Ideally, the variables would be available in each leader model. That way, if someone was doing a historical realism mod, they could change A.S. Johnston's battleDeathChance to 100 right about the time of Shiloh. Alternatively, they could permanently or temporarily increase it to 50, or whatever number suited their purpose.

[Doomwalker]

Additional option to "play with historical events" or "play with random events" in the menu? Anyone? CWNutt77 may agree with me

I will agree with you on this. I myself like the "what if" situations. As stated above, we rewrite history every turn, and I would like all the options available to me that I can have. That is one reason I would like the map to be the entire US. Especially for those times when I get the Brits and French to help me in my War of Northern Agression. But that is another fight entirely.

I will have to say that I don't care for the pre-determined death events.

[CWNut77]

This may require FAR too much time which AGEOD probably cant afford.
It can actually open a big can of worms as one may wonder about just how historical correct can these events be if we are changing history every turn.
This game already has some events that are a bit unusual if you play the grand campaign from the start. One of these is the "McLellan removed from command of the Army of the Potomac" when I never ever gave him the command
War and historical games are meant to be played to change the curse of the history our way and not to re-enact the situation as it really was. So I agree with richfed and soloswolf in this metter.

Just my 5 cents

I agree with you -- except I will say that there is a certain pleasure to be had from re-enacting things more or less as they did happen, and saying you were able to pull it off. To that effect, the historical deaths would help.

Unfortunately, like you said this would be way too much to handle program-wise (and it would probably require an overhaul of the game engine). Perhaps if there is a AACW2 this feature will be included.

[TommH]

Another factor to consider is that given the way the leader pools work in AACW having random leader out of combat deaths even if historically accurate would still add a very large element of chance to the game. The number of players available to lead corps and armies is very limited and promotion is restricted so the loss of a leader do th chance could be devastating to a players strategy.

[Ethy]

wat we gotta remember is that this game is purely a "what if" game, the game does have to have historical accuracy but not at the expence of loosing the "what if" factor, otherwise a lot of generals would just suddenly disapear leaving armies on the field without good leadership.

[Daxil]

I really wish this could be expanded a step further and leadership values not only mixed, but masked until combat. I feel playing with historical values and un-bending scripted events gives too much of an edge to veteran players in PBEM.