Loss of overall commander.

[jamespcrowley]

Is, perhaps, the loss of an overall commander not sufficiently detrimental to the side losing one?

Other than not being present to add modifiers to cohesion, rally and complex move checks, there is no real penalty to the owning player. Should there be?

In an era when leadership was particularly important, you would imagine that such a loss could be potentially catastrophic.

I'm not suggesting it should be so in FoG, as that could lead to ahistoric leader 'hunting' but perhaps the penalty could be increased by, say, adding some additional break points.

Perhaps this could apply to all leaders, on a sliding scale; one additional BP for loss of a troop leader, two BPs for a field commander and three or four for an inspired leader. Might encourage players to really guard their commanders more and only engage them in combat as a last ditch effort - or understand the high risk if they choose to involve them.

[keithmartinsmith]

The effect is much more than I think you realise.

Adjacent units at the time of his loss test cohesion.

The biggy is that he no longer adds his support to to cohesion and complex move tests. The loss of 1 factor across a lot of tests is huge. Basically the same as on the table top rules.

Keith

[76mm]

The effect is much more than I think you realise.

Adjacent units at the time of his loss test cohesion.

The biggy is that he no longer adds his support to to cohesion and complex move tests. The loss of 1 factor across a lot of tests is huge.

I have lost major commanders before towards the end of a battle without significant adverse effects. I think that scenario designers should be able to decide whether the loss of a leader should result in loss of the battle, which I think is realistic for many of the battles portrayed in the game. Also, I guess it is a little hard to know for sure, but leaders seem to die a little too easily, does anyone know how the numbers work?

[batesmotel]

The effect is much more than I think you realise.

Adjacent units at the time of his loss test cohesion.

The biggy is that he no longer adds his support to to cohesion and complex move tests. The loss of 1 factor across a lot of tests is huge.

I have lost major commanders before towards the end of a battle without significant adverse effects. I think that scenario designers should be able to decide whether the loss of a leader should result in loss of the battle, which I think is realistic for many of the battles portrayed in the game. Also, I guess it is a little hard to know for sure, but leaders seem to die a little too easily, does anyone know how the numbers work?

In TT rules, they die on a 12 if the BG did not lose the melee and received at least two hits. They die on 11 or 12 (on 2 D6) if the BG lost that round of combat and lost received at least two hits. A routing BG with pursuers in contact loses the general on 10, 11, or 12. I assume the PC version is close to this.

Chris

[76mm]

In TT rules, they die on a 12 if the BG did not lose the melee and received at least two hits. They die on 11 or 12 (on 2 D6) if the BG lost that round of combat and lost received at least two hits. A routing BG with pursuers in contact loses the general on 10, 11, or 12. I assume the PC version is close to this.

But in the TT rules aren't commanders treated as a seperate entity, rather than part of a BG?

In the computer game, if a commander is a member of a 1000 man BG, I find it hard to see how he could die upon impact or after a round or two of melee, which is often the case. Unless he was fighting in the first rank or something, which behavior should not be the default in my opinion.

[batesmotel]

In TT rules, they die on a 12 if the BG did not lose the melee and received at least two hits. They die on 11 or 12 (on 2 D6) if the BG lost that round of combat and lost received at least two hits. A routing BG with pursuers in contact loses the general on 10, 11, or 12. I assume the PC version is close to this.

But in the TT rules aren't commanders treated as a separate entity, rather than part of a BG?

In the computer game, if a commander is a member of a 1000 man BG, I find it hard to see how he could die upon impact or after a round or two of melee, which is often the case. Unless he was fighting in the first rank or something, which behavior should not be the default in my opinion.

The PC game treatment of commanders is simplified from the TT. Commanders are always attached to a single BG. If that BG is in combat the commander is assumed to be fighting in the front rank. To compensate for this more rigid treatment of commanders, however, the PC game makes it easier to rally troops without the commander being required to be present with the unit being rallied to a better morale state and in addition the commander's cohesion benefit is allowed to apply to adjacent BGs when they or the commander's BG is in combat. Apparently this handling of commanders was chosen for the PC version in order to enhance playability,

Chris

[76mm]

If that BG is in combat the commander is assumed to be fighting in the front rank.

Thanks for the explanation, but the assumption that the commander is in the front rank defies common sense and makes his powerful BG much too fragile.

[Morbio]

Personally, from my experience I question the statement that: '....I find it hard to see how he could die upon impact or after a round or two of melee, which is often the case'.

I agree that statistically a commander in a BG of 1000 should be unlikely to die in the 1st couple of rounds (which obviously depends on how hard the hits have been). I suspect that it is more the case that you notice it when it does happen because it is such a big bit of bad luck, I certainly do!

It is unlikely, but it will happen, for example, if a 1000 BG gets hit for 100 on 2 successive melee rounds then the chances of the commander dieing are 21%, so just more than 1 in 5, so not that unlikely to be that much of a surprise.

If it were 2 hits of 50 then it would be 9.75%, so about 1 in 10, which again shouldn't be that big of a surprise.

[batesmotel]

If that BG is in combat the commander is assumed to be fighting in the front rank.

Thanks for the explanation, but the assumption that the commander is in the front rank defies common sense and makes his powerful BG much too fragile.

The fighting in the front rank is not meant to be taken literally . In the TT rules this is how commiting the commander to the combat is represented as opposed to having him remain in the rear of the troops who are in combat where he can have more command and control but where he is not encouraging them to fight more fiercely. While the TT rules provide a finer grained representation of the details like this, the PC rules work reasonably well as is and certainly make for a more simpler game UI. (I prefer the TT rules for commanders, just to be clear, but can also understand and accept the way the designers chose to represent this in the PC game.)

Chris

[Paisley]

the assumption that the commander is in the front rank defies common sense

Tell that to Alexander!

And to his father. Philip. And to Antigonus, and Leonidas, and Caesar and Pompey (on occasion)... or Coeur de Lion, or several Kings of France... etc etc.

[Morbio]

Just to be clear..... I'm in a bunker about 1 mile behind the action

[CharlesRobinson]

Two points:

1) The issue I think that a lot of players face is that they do not get to place the commanders in the units that they want - they are stuck witht he historical setup. This often meens the commanders are in key units (normally cavalry). You have to use these key units to win - they cannot just set their, especially cavalry whoes key abiliity was speed and maneuverability. By placing the commanders in these key units, the game sort of forces you to deploy your commanders in a nonrealistic way.

2) It still gets me when you charge in with your commander and do awesome damage to a unit and take just a scratch and still loose the commander - ouch!

[76mm]

Tell that to Alexander!

And to his father. Philip. And to Antigonus, and Leonidas, and Caesar and Pompey (on occasion)... or Coeur de Lion, or several Kings of France... etc etc.

Can't speak about the Kings of France, not familiar with medieval history, and while Alexander and other great captains were certainly right up there in numerous battles, I still think that it defies common sense to have game mechanics that puts all leaders in the "front rank" in every charge in every battle. In any event, given this game's mechanics, I don't think that any of these commanders would have survived more than a couple of battles...

batesmotel said that the "front rank" comment should not be take literally, which I'm not sure how to interpret...I think he's saying that a commander in a 1000 man BG has a 1-in-a-thousand chance of dying per hit. I don't think that this equal treatment makes sense, at least for major commanders, given their presumed position within the BG, bodyguard, etc., and at least major commanders should have a less than proportionate chance of being killed. ("troop level" commanders would probably be more likely to be up front and thus die more quickly).

My initial post asked if anyone knows how the numbers work--without knowing this, it is impossible to speak very intelligently about whether commanders die too easily or not, although from my limited experience it feels like this is the case. For instance in a recent battle, two out of three commanders died within one or two rounds of melee, although perhaps as Morbio points out maybe these instances simply stand out more in my memory.

My druthers would be for commanders to be a bit harder to kill, but for there to be more signficant consequences if they are killed.

[Paisley]

I'd tend to the view that commanders who were very much not involved with the fighting fall into two groups. Those like Darius at Issus who lurked with his bodyguard behind the front, but was eventually engaged (and the game represents that well enough - you don't have to have your commander's units charge the enemy, though they may be charged if you miscalculate) and those like, say, Xerxes at Thermopylae who were so distant from the fighting as to effectively be off map.

For Hellenistic generals and Medieval generals (who often fell in battle leading from the front), the current system works well. It's only really the 'back seat drivers' who occasionally plunged into the fray (mainly Romans and Pyrrhus and Hannibal) and who didn't really have large bodyguards (though many of the Roman-era commanders had bodyguard cavalry who could fairly be represented on the map and the number of Roman commanders who were killed in battle is quite high really, I think).

A unit may represent 1000 men. But if cavalry, they'd be eight ranks deep, typically. So if the general's in the front (as he'd often be) then the chances of him being hurt are nearer 1 in 100 than 1 in 1000. Add to that he's be a natural target... Same if you have Antigonas or Philip II fighting with their pikemen (as they did when not leading their cavalry in person).

In the end, you choose whether to commit your leader's unit or not. It's probably wisest to keep him in reserve.

[76mm]

In the end, you choose whether to commit your leader's unit or not. It's probably wisest to keep him in reserve.

Paisley, you raise good points, but while I try to keep my commanders in reserve as long as possible, generally I cannot afford to keep the powerful cavalry units of the commanders out of the line throughout an entire battle.

Another irritation is that if I use my commander's cavalry to chase off some pesky light units on a flank, for instance, I can put half of my army out of command radius, while in reality a commander would probably dispatch his cav unit on this mission but would himself remain with the bulk of his army.

As an aside, I agree that Romans seem to have lost lots of commanders, but my recollection (perhaps flawed) is that these losses were typically sustained in crushing Roman defeats, which I guess raises the question of whether the defeats caused the commander losses or vice versa.

[Paisley]

Wherther a general would expose himself is entirely a cultural thing. Greek and Hellenic generals frequently (indeed more often than not) freely exposed themselves to the same risks as their men. The numbers killed and wounded in battle speak for themselves. Even Roman generals were killed quite frequently.

The notion of anyone who charges into the thick of the fray being a 'poor general' is a modern one (again... culture). Was Alexander a poor general because he charged at the head of his Companions in every major engagement? Most certainly not. It allowed him to dictate the timing and direction of the charge far better than a 'back seat' general (Charge of the Light Brigade, anyone?). Same when Philip fough in the front ranks at Charonaea, Or Antigonus at Ipsus, or the Greek generals at Marathon and Plataea (etc etc).

In fact we could say such 'heroic' leadership was very much the norm for the period, right into the late middle ages, and the 'back seat drivers' very much the exception, and even they would plunge into the fray when necessary. The only consistent 'back seaters' I can think of off the top of my head would be Hannibal, Trajan and erm, um... Darius, Xerxes, some of the other Romans, I suppose (though many of them would expose themselves to melee, as Goldsworthy shows.

and this is the only personal account of ancient warfare from a general that has come down to us

Well except Xenephon of course. And Thucydides...

[Morbio]

Some great points raised in this discussion, but what it boils down to is:

In any situation the general can only use the troops available. Sometimes he'll have a sufeit of good troops and can use these to dictate the battle as he'd like. Sometimes he'll be outclassed, or things just don't go to plan, and may have to use his bodyguard, including himself, to make things happen.

Ultimately, it is for the general (you) to decide whether to get involved and lead from the front, with its inherent risks, or whether you add more value staying in command and exhorting your troops to greater efforts.

One thing for sure, it can't be one way all the time.

Those that make the right decisions will build empires, those that don't are soon forgotten

[jamespcrowley]

'[Scipio Africanus] refrained from exposing his person without sufficient reason......conduct characteristic not of a commander who relies on luck but of one gifted with intelligence' - Polybius

[deadtorius]

Intelligent Generals??? Hmm will that be a new option in the drop down menu of the RoR expansion??