Brigade Commander trampled by own troops!

[shadowdragon]

Re-reading the rules, I noticed on page 71....

"Broken units lose all attachments other than skirmishers."

Even brigade commanders? I see the logic for removing artillery (left behind) and the small cavalry detachment (scattered). I suppose you could make up one for the brigade commander; although it would be stretched in the circumstances of unit (with brigade commander) breaking for seeing another unit break.

Is the reason for this (unless it's an oversight) to limit the number of chances for recovering broken units to the number of div/corps commanders?

Just seemed strange.

[terrys]

Even brigade commanders? I see the logic for removing artillery (left behind) and the small cavalry detachment (scattered). I suppose you could make up one for the brigade commander; although it would be stretched in the circumstances of unit (with brigade commander) breaking for seeing another unit break.

Is the reason for this (unless it's an oversight) to limit the number of chances for recovering broken units to the number of div/corps commanders?

The main reasoning is that if the Brigade commander failed to stop the route then his troops will have already shown that they have no confidence in him, and will continue to do so.

[shadowdragon]

Even brigade commanders? I see the logic for removing artillery (left behind) and the small cavalry detachment (scattered). I suppose you could make up one for the brigade commander; although it would be stretched in the circumstances of unit (with brigade commander) breaking for seeing another unit break.

Is the reason for this (unless it's an oversight) to limit the number of chances for recovering broken units to the number of div/corps commanders?

The main reasoning is that if the Brigade commander failed to stop the route then his troops will have already shown that they have no confidence in him, and will continue to do so.

Was that really the design reasoning? Yet a div or corps commander leading a unit that breaks can still recover that same unit - i.e., he hasn't lost the confidence of the troops. And on the other hand a unit can break due to hits received breaks - i.e., regardless of whether or not there's an attached brigade commander or div / corps commander leading.

Please don't take this as a criticism. I'm just curious. At first I thought it might have been an oversight in the rules. Since, it's an intentional decision, that's fine. I'm happy to play the rules as they are. I can also see that allowing brigade commanders to stick around and recover their broken units - with typically 1 brigade commander per division allowed - would nearly double the number of potential recovery attempts which would really alter the game (e.g., make games longer for one).

[SirGarnet]

I think the reasoning is that it needs to be that way given the way the game works, points costs, etc., while the historical rationale is that a commander with his unit would have already done his utmost to prevent a break and his troops would have passed him by. Unlike a senior commander approaching the routers from ahead of them, which might give them pause and hearten them, a brigadier attempting to run or ride ahead of them if only to get their attention could be easily misunderstood as having given way to panic himself and accelerate the rout. Awkward situation.

So long as a player remembers that Brigadiers are for mainly for manoeuvre things should go well.

[BrettPT]

I think of it this way:

Every Brigade (unit, or pair of units) has a commander. Most officers in command of a brigade are not modelled and have no effect on the game unless they have "outstanding ability", in which case they are represented on table as a BC attachment.

If however a BC's formation routs, the Commander's performance has clearly been somewhat less than outstanding, therefore he no longer counts as a BC attachment.

[shadowdragon]

I think of it this way:

Every Brigade (unit, or pair of units) has a commander. Most officers in command of a brigade are not modelled and have no effect on the game unless they have "outstanding ability", in which case they are represented on table as a BC attachment.

If however a BC's formation routs, the Commander's performance has clearly been somewhat less than outstanding, therefore he no longer counts as a BC attachment.

Thanks, Brett. I agree. The "brigade commander" attachment isn't about modelling brigade command and control; it's about giving the combination of unit and leadership an "edge". After all, if it were a 2 unit brigade and only about the brigade commander, why wouldn't the other unit in the brigade get that "edge"? But after a unit routs, it's spent. It's lost that "edge" whether due to loss of confidence in the leader or themselves or just plain tired of the battle. Hence, the "brigade attachment" is removed. Otherwise the combination of extra responsiveness with being "spent" is a little incongruous.

I just fell into the trap of thinking lost artillery attachment = guns abandoned; lost cavalry attachment = horsemen galloped away faster than the foot and are dispersed; and lost brigade commander = lost commander. Actually he's still there and "modelled" just like all the other brigade commanders that aren't represented.

However, I'm not sure the "if the brigade commander failed to stop the rout, he loses his influence" is the right way to explain it (well, not to me anyway and not that it really matters) when that doesn't apply to higher level commanders who might happen to be leading a unit when it routs. The games an abstraction and that's fine, but loss of confidence in leaders can as much be loss of faith in superior commanders as the brigade commanders. Take General Hood's disaster campaign in Tennessee.

Sung by Hood's troops after the campaign - to the tune of the Yellow Rose of Texas:

You may talk about your Beauregard, and sing of General Lee,
But the gallant Hood of Texas, played hell in Tennessee.

I don't think the brigade commanders took the blame there - in fact 15 of 28 generals were lost at the Battle of Franklin - but one should remove any "brigade commander" attachments to the units as removing the "brigade commander" attachment is an effective way of reflecting loss of confidence of the troops after they have routed.