AGEOD Forums

after 2 years of gaming - you'll have a large reserve of generals.

Somewhere I do realise that this is mainly due to historical reasons and for randomisation if you want to.

But now I realise I hardly ever lose a general in battles. IIRC in all these games I lost 2 generals.

IIRC casualties for division commanders were not so rare - and even corps generals might take a critical hit - some examples are known.

So my question is - shouldn't chances for casualties for generals be increased ? Due to the absence of killed generals - no new guys can take the vacancies. And it can make the games pretty much the same ... each time.

Luckily, this is something you can mod yourself. In the combat.opt file, the one that contains the turns per battle and hit coefficients, the last line (don't know the name of it off the top of my head, but its the one with a value of 500) determines the rate of leader casualties. Just change it.

Stonewall wrote:Luckily, this is something you can mod yourself. In the combat.opt file, the one that contains the turns per battle and hit coefficients, the last line (don't know the name of it off the top of my head, but its the one with a value of 500) determines the rate of leader casualties. Just change it.

It's probably because english is not my native tongue (or because I am becoming dumb... ) but I do not understand exactly how we should change this 500 number (number of sides of the dice) to get more leader casualties - more or less than 500 ? what do you use, stonewall ?

Franciscus wrote:It's probably because english is not my native tongue (or because I am becoming dumb... ) but I do not understand exactly how we should change this 500 number (number of sides of the dice) to get more leader casualties - more or less than 500 ? what do you use, stonewall ?

Less. I think the number variable is the nuimber of sides a particular dice has that is rolled to determine whether a leader dies. If you want to make leader deaths more likely, reduce the number of sides on the dice to influence the odds of a particular result. Increase the sides to make killing leaders more difficult. Thats my understanding of it sitting here in court waiting for my turn without access to the game in front of me.

Thanks

confirmed.

isn't a tweak in the vanilla version desirable ? In my current game (summer of 63), not a single general died.

I think division command should yield more casualties.

MTTH (mean time to happen) = for division command = 6 months,
MTTH (mean time to happen) = for corps command = 12 months,

Spruce wrote:isn't a tweak in the vanilla version desirable ? In my current game (summer of 63), not a single general died.

I think division command should yield more casualties.

MTTH (mean time to happen) = for division command = 6 months,
MTTH (mean time to happen) = for corps command = 12 months,

Would also like to see an adjustment to the standard version re: casulaties for generals.

I agree. I found my generals have all resorted to starting a football league to get some action.

Pocus wrote:confirmed.

Pocus can you hint on this - I lowered to 400 ... is this likely to bring in the desired result ? About 2 division generals die each year ...

I think that ratings should be based on numbers of battles, numbers divisional commanders in combat during given battles, and casualty rates. When this is done, one can then discover the rate at which generals died per large engagement. Even with 2 dead per year, this seems very low. I think about 1-2 corps commanders should die per year, with substantially more divisional commanders (depending on ferocity of battles).

Spruce wrote:Pocus can you hint on this - I lowered to 400 ... is this likely to bring in the desired result ? About 2 division generals die each year ...

Confirmed, at the end of each battle round you roll a 400 sided dice in this case to see who died from a stray shot.

McNaughton wrote:I think that ratings should be based on numbers of battles, numbers divisional commanders in combat during given battles, and casualty rates. When this is done, one can then discover the rate at which generals died per large engagement. Even with 2 dead per year, this seems very low. I think about 1-2 corps commanders should die per year, with substantially more divisional commanders (depending on ferocity of battles).

yeah, I agree with you.

Pocus, is the "intesity" of the battle also factored in the formula that asses casualties with the generals ?

Stonewall Jackson died as the result of friendly fire, a freakish accident. It seems logical, given average probability factors, that he should be present right though to the end of the game.

Don't forget disease as a cause of death as well. When I was researching my Union leaders mod, I was surprised at the number of leaders who succumbed to disease or illness during the course of the war. Campaigning was a hard life, even on the generals, who had to suffer through the same heat, water-borne sicknesses, and general exhaustion that the men did. I even remember one general (cant recall which one right now) who died as a result of injuries from falling off of his horse.

Bottom line, it is not unrealistic at all if a side loses a corps commander or two a year, as well as several division commanders to boot.

Pocus wrote:Confirmed, at the end of each battle round you roll a 400 sided dice in this case to see who died from a stray shot.

Is the chance the same regardless of rank? Two thoughts about that (Probably not something that could be done): First, Brigadier's had a much higher chance of getting killed than their superiors (in some campaigns i think it was hovering near 50%). Second, some general's would "lead" from the rear, and some were of the type to go to the front and lead personally (Lee and Jackson being the two best examples). Of course, Lee was unique in that his troops practically had to force him to the rear in '64.

Crimguy's thoughts are spot on.

I dont think the game could be made to model this, but in reality, the best leaders, especially at the brigade and divisional level, should be those who have the best chance of getting killed in battle, while incompetents and slackers should be relatively safe, since they rarely got close to the action. The Cleburnes, Kearnys, Barksdales, Sedgwicks, and McPhersons were all leading from the front when they were killed.

Crimguy wrote:Is the chance the same regardless of rank? Two thoughts about that (Probably not something that could be done): First, Brigadier's had a much higher chance of getting killed than their superiors (in some campaigns i think it was hovering near 50%). Second, some general's would "lead" from the rear, and some were of the type to go to the front and lead personally (Lee and Jackson being the two best examples). Of course, Lee was unique in that his troops practically had to force him to the rear in '64.

no it's not - one stars have twice the chance to get killed compared to 2 stars. 3 stars and 4 stars are immune.

check you battle setting file - there's more info on that topic.

but the problem is to get the setting right to get casualties at all - with the setting at 400 ... I'm not happy either. So I'll try 350 ...

Is there any way to alter the immunity of three- and four-stars?

Grotius wrote:Is there any way to alter the immunity of three- and four-stars?

well - I think I can follow you - any general can die of fever, fall from his horse or take the occasional bullet from either side.

Perhaps - a seperate game event should be created to handle this. F.e. an event with MTTH of 4 years - so you'll get it probably once in the game.

"The nation mourns the tragic loss of our beloved army general" ...

with the result that f.e. General Bragg or General Lee dies ...

death of 3* and 4* from stray shots are not there because this can cripple totally a game (say Lee is killed during his first battle). But 3* can still die, if you manage to crush entirely a stack, each leader has another chance to die.

The death chance is the same whatever the intensity of the battle (simple I admit)

how about if a army or corp is surrounded, perhaps besieged, is their a chance to get the Generals to "die" by capture?

I'm in agreement that the better the leader, the more "at risk" he should be in each battle. One of the great tragedies of any war is it often rewards valor with death.

As to Jackson, it is an interesting design question as to whether or not his fate should be "hardwired". Perhaps it is already partly addressed by having the option for randomized leader abilities.

LIke Groundhogs Day? Jackson dies over and over again?

His death was certainly one of the "fortunes of war," and one that might have made a big difference had he been alive later in the war.

I have lost 2 generals in my last game (62 campaign now in late feb 64) as the CSA :
- Magruder was killed in hampton Roads by a bombardment from a Union fleet (way to die for a general !!!)
- Watie was killed during the battle for Fayette, AR, when Van Dorn's cavalry corp with Watie's indians and McCullouch's cavalry, part of the army of the West under Beauregard, beat the Union Forces that were trying to invade...

I like having more generals to play with, and I would really like to lose on average one general every 2 months of heavy campaigning (say 8 months per year of heavy campaigning and 4 months of slow winterish war), that would be around 4 generals a year, say 2 generals in 1861, then 4 per year for 4 years, that's 18 generals dying during the war, sounds balanced to me.

The only problem would be regarding command structure obviously. If if were possible what would be cool would be to avoid the dreaded corp or division dissolution and make it possible to have leaderless corps or divisions with great penalties.

The player or the AI would not be able to create them, but they could result of a battle :
- a division loses its leader : it gets replaced by a generic leader called "brigadier" or "HQ staff" or whatever, with stats of 1-1-1. The div stays as such until a player or the AI dissolves it (making the generic leader disappear) to reform it with a valid leader.
- A corps leader dies, same thing : replaced by a generic "corps staff" with 1-1-1 stats and no ability to benefit from the Army's bonuses...

This would be satisfactory for me an make for a good, balanced possibility to lose leaders... now imagine your unlucky and loose Jackson and say Ewell in 1862.. Well sucks but "c'est la vie"..

take a typical "quite big" battle with 1 army leader, 1 corps leader, four 1* generals : say the corps leader has 2% chances of dying and the 1* 5% chances of havin a battle that costs you no leader are still 80%, I bet in the long run with that kind of numbers losses would still be kept quite low, you might even want to increase the odds...

I agree with those favoring higher casualty rates, especially with the upcoming Napoleon's campaigns in mind. It is more realistic and makes each battle more exiting.

How about halving chances of death for leaders of the winning side of a battle, but doubling it for leaders eager to lead from the front? That should keep Lee in the clear (normal chance) as long as he was winning, but make him very susceptible to catch a bullet in defeat.

I also think that there should be some kind of formula, leading to several checks if a major part of a force becomes casualties!

Is there a possibility to have certain generals more at risk for 'death' and others not so (based on their choice to lead from the front, or from the back). Also, there was a 'luck' factor (even though luck is one of those intangible things) some generals were repeatedly wounded in near-miss situations (truely, some had records of extreme luck!).

Also, I think that wounding (if working on a similar factor as deaths) should be increased significantly. Wounding even includes being sick (Beauregard became sick after Corinth, and was replaced by Bragg, one of the many examples). Wounding factor should be even higher than sick, but, as others have said, just because the general is wounded, does not mean his division fell apart (indeed, another commander always was re-assigned).

Would it be possible to have an auto-reassignment for a division, that takes brigadier generals from the stack and automatically puts them in command of a division when the leader is killed or wounded? Since the AI loves to put extra commanders in a stack, this would appear to be a viable option (if indeed it can be done!).

I agree, but my fear here is that it could become too complicated to handle (for the AI mainly), and require tracking of all leaders, etc...

But it is true that having 1* leaders with say a 5% chance of being killed and 5% chance of being injured in a long battle (more than one round) would be good. Than the question is how long would the injured be locked (4 to 12 turns I would have to say), and where (nearby city, at the risk of being captured ? capital ? regional hubs ?).

so basicly we all agree that some room for improvement is present here. Perhaps we should now rely on the word of Pocus.

Can't do anything, I have Athena's spear pointed on my throat. If I do something else but AI for 2 weeks, I fear for my life