KIA and WIA Leaders

[bstarr]

I'd like to see leaders get hit more often. I've only seen it happen once.

[Winfield S. Hancock]

Is this under vanilla or the leader mod?

[richfed]

Leaders get wounded quite frequently - at least in my experiences. KIA, not so, but in any given game, a few go down.

[PBBoeye]

Is there some statistical discrepancy from 1-star all the way up to 3-star? I guess Jackson was a fluke, so maybe 3-star should be near impossible. But I'd like to see 1-stars take it on the chin more so than 2-stars.

[caranorn]

3* and 4* generals currently can only die if their force is entirely destroyed. Note that that is the same system that leads to wounded generals (only if their force is whiped out).

And I agree, there are far to few combat casualties and 3* and 4* generals should be at least somewhat vulnerable in normal battle (Jackson would very rarely be at risk in AACW once he reaches his historic rank as the only way for him to get hurt would be the destruction of his entire force).

[Adam the VIth]

and the higher ranks were not immune.....Jackson, Polk, Sedgwick, McPhearson, AP Hill, to name a few above the 1 star level who I could immediately think of....and in none of those cases what the entire force destroyed.

I'm sure it has been said before.

[goodwood]

I'd pay to have George McClellen taken out in the first turn, my dead granny stays active longer than him.

[Spruce]

you can mod this in the battle stat's file

[goodwood]

you can mod this in the battle stat's file

is that fair or doesn't it matter if your playing the AI?

[bstarr]

and the higher ranks were not immune.....Jackson, Polk, Sedgwick, McPhearson, AP Hill, to name a few above the 1 star level who I could immediately think of....and in none of those cases what the entire force destroyed.

I'm sure it has been said before.

And lets not forget that ol' A.S. Johnston was commanding an army when he bit the bullet, so even army commanders can fall to the gunfire (although I read a good article that claimed his wound was minor and that he more than likely died of a heart attack on the battlefield)

[Sheytan]

I agree. The chance to hit should consider a few things, attacking forces offices have a higher chance to get hit, WIA/KIA, chance to die bieng lower of course, defending forces officers lower chance to be hit on the merits of bieng the defender. The rank of the officer should also influence this equation, 1 star bieng the rank most likely, or rather with the higher percentage to get hit, 2 lower, and so on, as the officer is higher in rank his exposure diminishes.

[bloodybucket]

Perhaps certain generals should get a trait that makes them more or less prone to being killed.

[Rafiki]

Perhaps certain generals should get a trait that makes them more or less prone to being killed.

E.g. "reckless"

[Dan]

I have not had this happen yet with the leader mod, but I am curious what happens to the division when a leader is WIA/KIA. Do we 'loss' that division and have to reform with a new leader? Or does the division stay together and a new leader can be moved into it? What happens if there is no other available leader in that region?

[Rafiki]

IMO, the division should then be dissolved into its component parts.

[Spruce]

is that fair or doesn't it matter if your playing the AI?

what's unfair about it ?

[Dan]

IMO, the division should then be dissolved into its component parts.

I guess that is my question. Does the division dissolve if the general leading it is wounded? Perhaps in terms of game play, that may be the best action. However, I was just thinking that if a general is WIA/KIA that the division structure would still be in place (so should the player have to pay to create the same division) and another general would be placed in charge of the division. In games term, would it be possible to replace the WIA/KIA general with another general at no cost as long as the 'replacement is in the same region?

This is not a big issue and I have no real issue with having to rebuild the division. I was just thinking it would be nice if you had an available general in the region to have him move over to the division command (perhaps still suffering from the leader penalties incurred with a new division to reflect him getting adjusted to his new command.)

[Nial]

I guess that is my question. Does the division dissolve if the general leading it is wounded? Perhaps in terms of game play, that may be the best action. However, I was just thinking that if a general is WIA/KIA that the division structure would still be in place (so should the player have to pay to create the same division) and another general would be placed in charge of the division. In games term, would it be possible to replace the WIA/KIA general with another general at no cost as long as the 'replacement is in the same region?

This is not a big issue and I have no real issue with having to rebuild the division. I was just thinking it would be nice if you had an available general in the region to have him move over to the division command (perhaps still suffering from the leader penalties incurred with a new division to reflect him getting adjusted to his new command.)

As McNaughton (not sure of spelling ) pointed out in another thread.
Most times a replacement would come from a brigade leader already inside the division structure. This was especialy true in the southern army. And the same to a lesser extent in the north as well. The thinking (logical most times) being that he would already be known and know the other officers and men in the division and be better able to pull the division together again. How this is or is not modeled in the game structure is not known to me.

Nial

[KillCalvalry]

I agree having 4* and 3* vulnerable is more realistic, but it could also really screw with a game if a "magic bullet" nails Lee, or Grant, or someone very important, early-on.

Also makes you wonder how far someone like Lyon would have gone had he not been shot early-on. Methinks he would have risen to a significant army command sometime in '62, when Lincoln was seeking aggressive leaders.

[McNaughton]

IMO, this is a big problem regarding the removal of Divisional HQs, as the destruction of divisions, even disassembling them to component parts, is a major disaster for gameplay.

The problem isn't necessarily the loss of the division as a division (into its component parts), but that it can happen for such a prolonged period. Turns run for 15 days, battles can happen any time. A battle happens on turn 2, resulting in a wounded general, this effectively takes this 'division' out for the remaining 13 days.

The old system would retain the composition of the division, as the loss of the division HQ would be required to shatter the force (something that was rare to happen, rarer than losing a general).

Realistically, almost immediately after the loss of commander a suitable replacement was found and assigned (historically). The chain of command was usually briefly interrupted (moreso the higher up the chain, but even with Jackson's death, the battle still was favourably inclined).

The current system has the force generally 'shattered' for upwards of 15 days of gameplay (i.e., in its component parts).

I think it would be best, given the current circumstance, that there be something in game that immediately assignes a brigadier from the stack to command any 'shattered' force due to the killing or wounding of a general, re-creating the division during the turn. Cost or penalty shouldn't really matter or apply, since all that is lost is the individual commander, with the divisional structure intact. This can help the situation by not destroying combat formations for the duration of the days left in the turn.

[McNaughton]

I agree having 4* and 3* vulnerable is more realistic, but it could also really screw with a game if a "magic bullet" nails Lee, or Grant, or someone very important, early-on.

Also makes you wonder how far someone like Lyon would have gone had he not been shot early-on. Methinks he would have risen to a significant army command sometime in '62, when Lincoln was seeking aggressive leaders.

The interesting question would also be, would he be any good? A lot of commanders, who performed brilliantly at their lower commands, met with absolute failure in larger commands. It takes a different ability to lead armies than it does to lead brigades, that is what separates the Jackson's from the Hood's.

[Dan]

The current system has the force generally 'shattered' for upwards of 15 days of gameplay (i.e., in its component parts).

And then if there is no spare general in that region you lose another 15 days (the next turn) getting a general there to reform the division. That means a fighting force could be rendered useless for at least a month because the leader was WIA. That does seem to be a bit extreme.

Does anybody know if the system has the ability to replace a WIA/KIA leader with a truely 'generic' leader at the time of the wounding? I'm talking about a blank 0-0-0 leader (maybe even stick him with some of the negative traits to reflect the shock of being thrust into a large leadership position.)

This would allow the formation to stay together during the current turn which is what historically happened. Plus it would give the player a chance to make the needed adjustments to the command structure during the following turn(s) but the player would have no desire at all to leave the generic general in place since he would have a negative affect on the formation. Would this be possible?

[KillCalvalry]

Having an 0-0-0 generic leader just to hold the division together is a good idea; IRL, there would be a brigade commander ranked at Brigadier General, or even Colonel, who could take over temporarily, until a permanent replacement was found. Doesn't seem right to have to blow up the division, just because someone is out.

I saw on an AAR that someone lost an Army from McClellan running for Pres, which also seems unrealistic.

[McNaughton]

And then if there is no spare general in that region you lose another 15 days (the next turn) getting a general there to reform the division. That means a fighting force could be rendered useless for at least a month because the leader was WIA. That does seem to be a bit extreme.

Then I guess you had better keep brigadier generals in your stack then! If there was nobody to take over, then a division should fall apart, otherwize, it should assign a new commander.

Does anybody know if the system has the ability to replace a WIA/KIA leader with a truely 'generic' leader at the time of the wounding? I'm talking about a blank 0-0-0 leader (maybe even stick him with some of the negative traits to reflect the shock of being thrust into a large leadership position.)

I doubt that this could be done easily (where does this 0-0-0 leader come from?) nor do I think it would really solve the problem (as you would still have this division fall apart to be rebuilt again).

This would allow the formation to stay together during the current turn which is what historically happened. Plus it would give the player a chance to make the needed adjustments to the command structure during the following turn(s) but the player would have no desire at all to leave the generic general in place since he would have a negative affect on the formation. Would this be possible?

I don't think it would be possible, unless they create enough 0-0-0 generals to equal those of all of the existing ones, plus create events that replace the general, and what to do with all of these 0-0-0 generals floating around, plus the AI's reaction (can it be trained to assign new generals to remove these 0-0-0 leaders?).

I think that something like this should be simple. If there is already a general there, apply them, if not, the division is disbanded. At least there would be a chance that the division retains its form when there would be no chance otherwize (even if you had 4 free brigadiers).

[PBBoeye]

McNaughton makes good points here. This is an area of the game I think must absolutely be addressed. It wrecks the validity of unit organization and hence combat, IMO.

I really hope they get on this. An entire division 'wrecked' for half a month or longer.

[James D Burns]

I'd like to see leaders get hit more often. I've only seen it happen once.

The problem with trying to increase leader casualties in this game is that your leadership is a very finite resource. Both sides have very few leaders to begin with, and killing off as few as 5-7 is fully 10% of your total available commanders for the entire game. Actually if you take into account naval leaders and withdrawn leaders, I bet it’s far more than 10%.

If there is no mechanism to replace killed leadership and you up casualties, you’re basically going to just break the game. You have to view leaders as simply the personality of each side’s army and not really an expendable resource.

Personally I think it’s a smart and elegant design decision considering the glut of leaders you get in a game like Forge of Freedom. You get so many leaders in that game, the leadership pools tend to blend into the same thing no matter which side you’re playing and there isn’t really a different feel to the two opposing armies.

AACW armies feel and act differently because of the limited and unique leadership. I’d hate to see that part of the design lost because a bunch of generic leaders get dumped into the game to fix the break that will occur in the game by trying to satisfy a few players desire to kill off more leaders.

I vote we keep things as they are and not force a glut of 1-1-1’s or 0-0-0’s on everyone by upping the casualty rates of the leadership.

Jim

[Clovis]

It shouldn't be certainly impossible to build a list of reserve leaders with different ratings who would be randomly choosed to replace a dead one.... Where's my encyclopedia about leaders in Civil WAR ??

[McNaughton]

It shouldn't be certainly impossible to build a list of reserve leaders with different ratings who would be randomly choosed to replace a dead one.... Where's my encyclopedia about leaders in Civil WAR ??

Actually, they already did this. There are many generals who are just 'generic' 3-1-1 who are designed to 'fill holes' in commands left by the well known ones with specified stats and traits (all those 61' generals and such). I think that adding a glut of hundreds of leaders will not really add to things (more isn't always better).

I don't think that the casualty rates should be high enough to warrant the need for additional generals to appear, as based on historic death rates, we should be given adequate numbers in-game (as generals appear via historic dates, which means you could, in theory have more generals than you would ever need if death rates are too low).

Basically, death rates need to be tuned to equilibrium with the number of generals involved. Too high, and you won't have enough, too low and you will have too many.

[PBBoeye]

Yes, there is a fine line for play balance here. I have a thought.

Suppose a 'biggie' gets KIA. What would be nice is if the game then rolls a die to see if a hypothetical 'biggie' appears at a somewhat later date. We're not talking a 3-0-0 here. More like an AP Hill or some such. Obviously, you'd have the odds be low, but by doing this you create the ahistorical possibility for a leader to emerge to replace an ahistorically KIA'd historical leader.

You'd want to define the parameters for what makes a 'biggie'. Like cumulative value of Strat-Off-Def ratings or something in that regard. Then create a lookup table for replacement generals of value and use some list to randomize a name, giving him some random time of appearance. Players can assume him to have been a 3-0-0 who shined in battle somewhere....

There needs to be a balance, because if you create the possibility of leaders being killed or permanently taken out of play, there needs to be the possibility that another leader rises up. Remember, we're in control of odds, so these can be very rare occurences. But just killing off leaders doesn't work, neither does making them invulnerable.

There has to be an appropriate balance to the possibility of KIA that keeps the game 'in balance'.

[Clovis]

Actually, they already did this. There are many generals who are just 'generic' 3-1-1 who are designed to 'fill holes' in commands left by the well known ones with specified stats and traits (all those 61' generals and such). I think that adding a glut of hundreds of leaders will not really add to things (more isn't always better).

1) with some research, the leader mod has introduced more variety. It should be possible to do the same with new.

2) hundreds of leaders are n't necessary. I guess 20 to 30 by side would be largely sufficient.

After all, the leader mod has removed some leaders. Others aren't into game.