KIA and WIA Leaders

[Dan]

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.

Like I said, I have not had this issue come up yet playing 1.06 (been real busy lately and just haven't been able to get much playing in.) Is it confirmed that if a general leading a division is WIA/KIA then if there is another unassigned geneal in the same stack with that division that general will be placed in command of that division? Or does the entire division (with the new genreal) have to be rebuilt the following turn?

I'm just trying to figure out how the game handles this situation.

[Henry D.]

As interesting as the discussion about the fate of divisions whose Commander is KIA/WIA is, I'd like to ask the powers that be (PT, Pocus, etc.) if there is any hope that the definitely unhistoric Issue of nearly invulnerable 3- and 4-star leaders will be adressed in a future patch. To me, having to worry if one of my big shots like Lee oder Grant might be hit by an accidental stray bullet, would add quite a lot of exitement, fun (in a somewhat masochistic way ) and realism. It would be especially nice if the probability to be killed or wounded for a high ranking leader could be modified either by personal traits or their strategic rating, to the effect that more aggressive commanders, who tended to lead closer to the front lines would face a slightly higher risk of getting hit than more cautious or timid ones (like the proverbial Butler "stays in Fort Monroe and listens to the firing, and when his men have met defeat, he then goes out inquiring" ). Also it would be nice if the probability of being hit would be tied to the capacity in which a general is actually employed, rather than merely his rank, so that Army and Corps commanders (even if the latter are only "2-stars") are still less vulnerable than division and brigade leaders...

After all, as has already been mentioned, A. S. Johnston was killed while leading his Army of the Tennessee at Shiloh, J. Johnston was severely wounded while leading the ANV at Seven Pines, Jackson was gunned down by his own nervous pickets while inspecting the front lines for a possible night attack at Chancellorsville and even R. E. Lee had to get very close to the front lines to rally his men on at least two occasions during the Wilderness campaign of '64 where he could easily have been wounded (as was Longstreet, if I recall correctly), etc., etc....

So, is their any hope for adding that little grain of additional realism to an already astoundingly good simulation?

[Jabberwock]

There are also several reports of dud shells landing near generals. Happened to Lee at Fredericksburg.

[Spruce]

I think this discussion comes down to the fact that generals even might get theirselves killed when they are NOT at the front line. F.e. they are visiting their family during leave - what can happen to the poor fellow - falling from the horse, catching a deadly disease.

There's really no sensible argumentation to state that generals at a frontline during wartime are immune to dying.

OMG - Lee has fallen from his horse and has broken his neck - lucky for us he can still command our army ! Even better - Lee was hit by a cannonball and got his neck straigth again - great immune leaders !

I agree that the chances should be very low - f.e. MTTH = 2 years - but having them "immune" is not sensible at all. And is perhaps (no joke here) the worst design choice for this game. Now - you'll always be fighting Lee and Grant ... it takes away the replay ability of the game.

[Henry D.]

There are also several reports of dud shells landing near generals. Happened to Lee at Fredericksburg.

I thought he was almost wounded by an exploding rebel cannon there, but my main source for that is "Gods&Generals", so You might definately be right...

However, IMNSHO it would add an important additional layer of historicity (is that actually a word? ) if the game could simulate the historical decrease of confederate leadership quality due to the loss of some of it's best commanders as the war went on. I feel this is really lacking in an otherwise marvellous game...

Edit: Or simply, what Spruce said...

[Jabberwock]

historical decrease of confederate leadership quality

Let's see now, who can I give command of the Army of Tennessee to in 1864 . . .

[Sean E]

I think this discussion comes down to the fact that generals even might get theirselves killed when they are NOT at the front line. F.e. they are visiting their family during leave - what can happen to the poor fellow - falling from the horse, catching a deadly disease.

There's really no sensible argumentation to state that generals at a frontline during wartime are immune to dying.

And of course don't forget Earl Van Dorn!


I think there has to be a chance of KIA and WIA for all ranks of general. It will just have to be tweaked exactly right to make it work.

[DirkX]

just a short information:
the union lost generals:
1 army commander
3 corps commanders
14 division commanders

the CSA lost generals:
1 army commander
3 corps commanders
7 Division Commanders

skyrocketing a general loss ratio doesnt picture reality.

[Henry D.]

just a short information:
the union lost generals:
1 army commander
3 corps commanders
14 division commanders

the CSA lost generals:
1 army commander
3 corps commanders
7 Division Commanders

skyrocketing a general loss ratio doesnt picture reality.

If I'm not mistaken, these are only KIA figures, aren't they. WIA figures should be somewhat higher, methinks...

[veji1]

Noone wants to play a game where Lee, Beauregard, Jackson, Longstreet, Stuart and Johsnton die in 1862, the point isn't in having skyrocketing losses but rather in having slightly bigger ones.

As said before, losing 2-3 generals per year would be a good ratio by my standards..

[Spruce]

skyrocketing a general loss ratio doesnt picture reality.

sorry to say it straigth to you - but that's off topic.

We are discussing the fact that general immunity for 3 and 4 star should be changed. We are not talking about skyrocketing anything at all.

BTW - if we are lucky - we can also mod the MTTH (mean time to happen) for the death of a 3 and 4 star general.

[DirkX]

If I'm not mistaken, these are only KIA figures, aren't they. WIA figures should be somewhat higher, methinks...

its only KIA

[McNaughton]

sorry to say it straigth to you - but that's off topic.

We are discussing the fact that general immunity for 3 and 4 star should be changed. We are not talking about skyrocketing anything at all.

BTW - if we are lucky - we can also mod the MTTH (mean time to happen) for the death of a 3 and 4 star general.

Hmmm, for the fact that only 2 of the entire set of 3-star generals were killed during the war the system should be changed? I wonder if the massive negative effect in regards to gameplay would not over-ride the rare historic benefit of having this chance in?

[Henry D.]

Hmmm, for the fact that only 2 of the entire set of 3-star generals were killed during the war the system should be changed? I wonder if the massive negative effect in regards to gameplay would not over-ride the rare historic benefit of having this chance in?

Such as? (not trying to be snarky here, I'm genuinely curious... )

And, it's not just about killed Leaders, it's about wounded ones as well...

[Spruce]

Hmmm, for the fact that only 2 of the entire set of 3-star generals were killed during the war the system should be changed? I wonder if the massive negative effect in regards to gameplay would not over-ride the rare historic benefit of having this chance in?

"massive negative effect" ... oh my god, that's a little bit too much exageration for a friday afternoon .

even more - I'm tired of always fighting the same 3 or 4 star generals - why would that be a problem if sometimes the 3 or 4 star general gets killed ?

And let's face it - this discussion is NOT about the frequency of getting those 3 and 4 star leaders killed (? massive negative effects ?). This discussion narrows to the principle - are some leaders immune - yes or no ?

We are talking about improving the game and have more gameplay. I don't recall that anybody is immune to dying - yet.

And why would that be a problem that f.e. you lose Lee in 1 out of 5 games ?

Is this discussion about icons and worshipping them ? I don't mind winning the war with the Longstreets or Beauregards ...

[McNaughton]

I believe it is a documented fact that AGEOD does not have 3 and 4 star generals killed or wounded in game (they also eliminated events killing off most 3 or 4 star generals in command of an army).

This is generally pharaphrasing what I understand the reasons why AGEOD does not have 3 or 4 star generals dying in the game...

A 3 star general in command of an army gets killed/wounded on day 4 of a turn.

Immediately the army is disbanded (i.e., Army of the Mississippi at Shiloh given the Johnston historic situation).

Immediately corps are now commands.

The effectiveness of the corps is neutered by two effects. First, the commanders no longer get the strategic bonus of their army commander. Second, the corps no longer can support nearly as many men and face command penalties.

This turns an effective army into a rabble, and there are still 11 days left in the turn.

Also, what happens if you happen to get the odds that you no longer have any promotable generals to 3 or 4 star and just ended up with your last one killed? I know this is very rare, but it can screw up an entire game based on the loss of a few critical players. Years ago, I played a computer game tournament with some friends based on the game 'Blood Bowl'. It ended prematurely when one of the players had every one of their kickers and recievers from their pool to recruit killed in game. Their team was effectively eliminated from play based on a random event of chance (in reality, killing off those players would have been a rare chance).

Historically, someone would have been promoted via necessity, the game cannot recognize this. It is much easier to promote someone to 2-star, try and get someone to 3-star!

I don't know about you, but I think that this is a fairly "massive negative effect on gameplay"...

[Spruce]

McNaughton,

I don't know what you are searching for - but we were talking about having a very small chance to have a 3 or 4 star general killed.

F.e. that means MTTH of 2 to 8 years (mean time to happen).

With a MTTH of 4 years, probably you'll lose one of your 3 or 4 star generals during the entire war.

I'm sure nobody will run out of 3 -4 star generals ... (well you can always promote new ones) and if so - they should play the lotterie asap.

I'm sure the death of a 3-4 general will impact severly one round of combat - and I like your description of the negative side-effects - because that's just the logic behind such a dreadfull event.

Anyhow, it's a temporary effect and doesn't crash your overall game cause you'll have other generals still. Both the Union and Confederacy have enough candidates to take the place of the great icons of that war.

By the way, for the same money - your crappy 3 star general gets killed and an able replacement can fill his rank.

ps = I do recognize one little issue - we don't want general Lee to get killed when he attacks a small militia garrisoned city. Perhaps the engine can check for "great" or "major" battles.

[McNaughton]

Spruce,

The logic behind the event, to expect that 1 of your army commanders will die or be wounded in the midst of a heavy battle.

This would be fine, if the game system could handle it. But, it cannot. Every example I can think of in the Civil War, from Jackson to Johnston's deaths, resulted in very minimal effect on the course of the battle, let alone the course of command. Someone else immediately jumped in command and continued the battle, corps and army formation fully in tact.

I would support your proposal if and only if it would not affect the stability of the army command system during the turn. If someone dies or is incapacitated, and is a 3-star or more, then another 3-star MUST be immediately placed in command of the army, without losing any corps command organization for even one day of a turn. If there isn't a 3-star, then a 2-star is immediately promoted and given the role (their Corps becomes the new Army HQ). Good, or Bad, I don't want my command system to fall completely apart due to the death of one individual.

Unless something like this is implemented, the benefit of having the chance of a 3-star general killed is significantly less than the effect it has on gameplay. By your admission, you should expect this to happen at least once per game, if not more. Once per game, for me, is once too often.

You can only promote new 3-star generals if you happen to have a 2-star general with enough seniority to promote them. If not, you are out of luck. Also, maybe one front has been hit harder than the other, and it will be 1 month before a suitable 3-star can be sent out, meaning for this 1 month, there can be no army organization. When you factor odds, there is always a chance for the absurd to happen. When it does, it becomes very frustrating.

The effect, for me, isn't that you lose a particular general, but that your command system is destroyed because of the loss of this individual.

[PBBoeye]

The logic behind the event, to expect that 1 of your army commanders will die or be wounded in the midst of a heavy battle.

This would be fine, if the game system could handle it. But, it cannot. Every example I can think of in the Civil War, from Jackson to Johnston's deaths, resulted in very minimal effect on the course of the battle, let alone the course of command. Someone else immediately jumped in command and continued the battle, corps and army formation fully in tact.

I would support your proposal if and only if it would not affect the stability of the army command system during the turn. If someone dies or is incapacitated, and is a 3-star or more, then another 3-star MUST be immediately placed in command of the army, without losing any corps command organization for even one day of a turn. If there isn't a 3-star, then a 2-star is immediately promoted and given the role (their Corps becomes the new Army HQ). Good, or Bad, I don't want my command system to fall completely apart due to the death of one individual.

The effect, for me, isn't that you lose a particular general, but that your command system is destroyed because of the loss of this individual.

Yes, while I'd like the system to have been different for leader loss and what happens in the game regarding commander replacement, I agree with MCN here that it would basically wreak ahistorical havoc upon an entire army or several corps. You think not having 3-4 stars susceptible is bad? You cannot imagine the noise that would go up if what MCN mentions would occur. It would render the game unplayable.

I just don't see the system changing for AACW. I think it is something that the devs need to look at for future consideration, because to some degree they've painted themselves into a corner. I think their system of command is great; it is not, however, without flaws in concept or design.

That said, it would take a HELL of a lot of coding to alter the current system (just guessing). I would honestly prefer that time and effort to go to many other areas of the game right now. Fix this, or fix a lot of other, smaller (maybe not so much smaller) issues and improve the game vastly.

[Spruce]

you guys are overlooking the single fact that for every game you'll have to face Lee (as Union) or Grant/Sherman as Confederacy. Because mathematically spoken, you would be stupid not to use these guys.

As these guys are immune at 3-4 star - each game is the same.

And most often all corps commanders are also similar.

I don't think this is amusing - repeatability is at stake. In fact, I stopped playing this game a few weeks ago due to that reason.

Same problem for Forge of Freedom.

[Nial]

you guys are overlooking the single fact that for every game you'll have to face Lee (as Union) or Grant/Sherman as Confederacy. Because mathematically spoken, you would be stupid not to use these guys.

As these guys are immune at 3-4 star - each game is the same.

And most often all corps commanders are also similar.

I don't think this is amusing - repeatability is at stake. In fact, I stopped playing this game a few weeks ago due to that reason.

Same problem for Forge of Freedom.

This is not exactly true. You could just play with max leader randomization. That would make it more random as to who the best leaders are. Of course, then you would have no idea when or where that exceptional leader would pop up at. Even more, with the starting seniority, it might be nigh on impossible to promote that exceptional leader. Making it a much more diverse and different game. *small smile*

Nial

[McNaughton]

you guys are overlooking the single fact that for every game you'll have to face Lee (as Union) or Grant/Sherman as Confederacy. Because mathematically spoken, you would be stupid not to use these guys.

As these guys are immune at 3-4 star - each game is the same.

And most often all corps commanders are also similar.

I don't think this is amusing - repeatability is at stake. In fact, I stopped playing this game a few weeks ago due to that reason.

Same problem for Forge of Freedom.

Well, both PBBoeye and I fully support the idea, if it will not have a catastrophic result to gameplay when it does happen.

I don't think that your plan addresses the major problem that 3 and 4 star deaths bring about.

However, increasing corps commander's deaths won't result in as major problems as that of 3 or 4 star generals (the death of a corps commander affects only a few divisions).

In the end, players would still use their 'best' generals in command of armies. And, as you said, it would be a 1 or 2 general death experience in the entire set of games, who knows if it will be Grant, Sherman or Lee, maybe it will be Beauregard, McClellan or Bragg? So, chances are you will face the same generals, maybe one might be different, or removed from command earlier than historic.

I know what you are trying to do, but maybe there is an alternative that could be developed without it being so damaging to gameplay?

[RegularBird]

Is there anyway to hide leader stats? The best thing for replayability is hidden random stats, I love that feature in FOF, I just wish they would stay hidden.

[anarchyintheuk]

The McNaughton effect (should be trademarked) is a dreadful one to contemplate. Besides, almost all the useful Union 3-4 stars serve their time as 1-2 stars. They still have plenty of opportunities to get whacked prior to their 3-4 star days. It's been a while since I played the CSA so I don't remember their command structure as well.

[Spruce]

hm guys, I really can't follow your reasoning here.

If an army general would get killed during a battle - historically spoken - it would for sure have severe consequences. A new commanding general should be appointed and should start taking decisions and for sure a long period of chaos and ineffectivity would be imposed on this army.

Now in the game - the same event would cause also dramatic consequences if we read the "McNaughton effect".

What's the problem here ? First of all, the chance that this happens if very small. Second - it only happens during one game turn. Third - some challenge and repeatability is welcome here.

Or are you all so afraid to lose your "icon" - as such being afraid NOT to win the war due to this.

wasn't there a famous CSA army general killed ? Johnston ? So what's the real problem then ?

BTW - did you guys ever consider your 3 or 4 star general to become really badly wounded - or just get captured during the operations? During that movie about Gettysburg - Lee tells Longstreet "stay behind the lines, we've lost already too many good field commanders".

Now - something tells me that Lee was aware of the fact that his generals were not immune to bullets and cannonballs.

[veji1]

If I may add a comment, I share Spruce's desire for the change, and obviously understand the fact that right now the game wouldn"t be able to handle it. The question for me is would it be possible to make the changes in the game to allow that to happen without wrecking it ?

Would it be possible to code that when an Army commander gets killed, and if there is another general (without a command) in the army stack (and if it was possible all players would do it), the other general, whether 1 or 2 stars, takes command of the army with major penalties ?

Say the in the east you have Beauregard and B.Johnson in the army stack (+ a couple of divs) and Beauregard happens to get killed : B. Johnson gets to become the commander with minus 2 across the board, in effect commanding the army with 1-0-0 stats. To avoid exploits, armies with a temporary commander like that would always be inactive and be unable to create extra-corps.

Now with the "relocate general" button that is set to appear at some point in developpment, the player would be able to send a 3* general from another theatre to take command of that army.

If that means that he suddenly finds himself short on 3* gens, (a risk for the CSA), well I gues he might have to decide which army to shut out : probably the Missouri one or a southern defense army he might have created).

If the MTTH is low, ( ie happening once every 2 games to a 3* general), I would love such a system to be implemented.

Now is this possible ? that I don't know.

[Rafiki]

(Part of) the problem is that in-ganme, it'll take you a while to get that army up and running again.

Turn 1: you loose the army commander
Turn 2: you move the new commander to link up with the Army HQ
Turn 3: you re-create the army

Step 2 requires that you actually have a 3 or 4 star close by, otherwise it may take a longer while. Granted, there would be some confusion/disorder upon an army commander being taken out, but enough to potentially give the corps an command penalty of 35% for several turns? That's what needs to be discussed, IMHO.

EDIT: heh, I see veji touched in on this in the post he posted while I was writing this

[PBBoeye]

I'd prefer that the highest ranking officer assume leadership of the army for the duration of the turn. If a corps commander, he does not lose control of his corps. Remember, this is just to finish out the turn. We need to have a 'commander' so the army structure does not fall to hell during the turn. Army command will have to be resolved after the turn completion by the player.

So I'd prefer the highest ranking officer to assume command, and when in a tie for rank, seniority rules.

The player's replacement army commander (for that turn only) gets a penalty to his Strat-Off-Def ratings. Say -1 across the board if he is naturally a 3-star general; -2 across the board if a 2-star general.

Now, how you resolve the army command afterwards is altogether another thing. I am not sure what state the command would be left after such a leader loss occurence.

[McNaughton]

hm guys, I really can't follow your reasoning here.

If an army general would get killed during a battle - historically spoken - it would for sure have severe consequences. A new commanding general should be appointed and should start taking decisions and for sure a long period of chaos and ineffectivity would be imposed on this army.

Now in the game - the same event would cause also dramatic consequences if we read the "McNaughton effect".

What's the problem here ? First of all, the chance that this happens if very small. Second - it only happens during one game turn. Third - some challenge and repeatability is welcome here.

Or are you all so afraid to lose your "icon" - as such being afraid NOT to win the war due to this.

wasn't there a famous CSA army general killed ? Johnston ? So what's the real problem then ?

BTW - did you guys ever consider your 3 or 4 star general to become really badly wounded - or just get captured during the operations? During that movie about Gettysburg - Lee tells Longstreet "stay behind the lines, we've lost already too many good field commanders".

Now - something tells me that Lee was aware of the fact that his generals were not immune to bullets and cannonballs.

Spruce, this is probably the last time I can explain it, as I think I was pretty clear before.

It has nothing to do with my desire to have leaders killed. In fact, check out other threads and I am one of those who was keen on stating that there were too few generals killed or wounded. Frankly, I am getting annoyed that you keep on stating that this is my motive (accusing me that I cannot stand a game without my precious particular general), and not the one I say over and over again (the command problem).

You can cite examples in history till you are blue in the face, and I have totally agreed with you every time (this isn't a concern on my part, historically it did happen). The fact is, we are talking about a game, and how this would affect the game.

Currently, your proposal hurts gameplay more than it adds. You say that the chance it happens is small, but you also said it is pretty much guaranteed once per game. If the chance is so small, then why have it when the result is always catastrophic? That's my stand.

[Spruce]

Spruce, this is probably the last time I can explain it, as I think I was pretty clear before.

It has nothing to do with my desire to have leaders killed. In fact, check out other threads and I am one of those who was keen on stating that there were too few generals killed or wounded. Frankly, I am getting annoyed that you keep on stating that this is my motive (accusing me that I cannot stand a game without my precious particular general), and not the one I say over and over again (the command problem).

You can cite examples in history till you are blue in the face, and I have totally agreed with you every time (this isn't a concern on my part, historically it did happen). The fact is, we are talking about a game, and how this would affect the game.

Currently, your proposal hurts gameplay more than it adds. You say that the chance it happens is small, but you also said it is pretty much guaranteed once per game. If the chance is so small, then why have it when the result is always catastrophic? That's my stand.

chill people !

Hey, don't take it so hard McNaughton. I was merely getting amused with the "axioma = generals are immune to bullets and cannonballs".

Anyhow, I'm not "agitated" to change other peoples view or believe. It's just my style to let everybody see the big picture.

For me - it's pretty clear - the immunity of 3 and 4 star generals is a gameplay "killer" as it removes replay-ability from the game. Each time it's the same OOB - an OOB is just an exercise in mathematics in this game. Lee is the best, then Jackson, etc. etc. you ought to have Longstreet as defensive army commander because he's like the best goalkeeper in the world.

And I'm not talking about the option "randomize stats", no - I just love to play with the historical leaders but with some unexpected changes of fortune when an army general perishes. F.e. Jackson commands the army of Tenessee and gets shot ! Ouch ! That hurts - how to react - a nice change to the game.

Please note that I don't want to discuss the "change" into detail - how it should or could work. That's the responsibility of others.

I'm just opposed to the static math game we are having now - and if a 3-4 star can get killed on your side. Remember the AI will also be faced with this problem ! Suppose your Confederate forces are able to defeat Shermans army in Georgia and Sherman gets "killed" (either captured - severly wounded - or dead). Now this for instance would create a whole new scope on the game - that would lift this game even higher.

Sorry - the game is too static in that field - and other games (like FOF) have the same problem. So it's not that I'm bashing this game. I want to further improve this game.

Now - I always fight Grant, Sherman, Thomas and Sheridan - every single time ! And strange enough I'm always using the same guys to counter them.

And - perhaps it could be an option you can turn on or off. And then everybody will be happy.