Slitherine

I was just wondering there is really no rules for leaders dying in combat other than a cohesion check within 3 MUs. I am more on the aggressive side and always have my commabders in the front fighting and was wondering what would happen if I lost 2 out of the 3 or even all of them? Within the rules there is no really bad result other than I cannot bolster and rally and a modifier for the cohesion table which is bad in itself but not devastating. I would have thought that the affect would have been far more pronounced. If I did lose all my commanders is there any way to promote in the field an overall CinC? or do you just fight leaderless?

Has anyone ever had this happen to them in a game?

Brian

Not being able to bolster is a serious,you will end up breaking before the opposition.You will probably end up not being able to manoever effectivly either,once down to fragmented for example you can't move without a CMT apart from a simple retire
David

IMO not being able to bolster is in fact a very significant penalty - not immediately catastrophic but the cumulative effect is bad.

If you lose all your commanders there is no way to get another one, you fight leaderless.

LOL I know not being able to rally or bolster is bad. I was looking for something more like if your CinC dies then every unit has to do a cohesion check sort of thing. It just seems like if your commanders die you simply carry on like nothing happened other than no longer being able to influence the battle. I would have thought that Hannibal being killed would have had a demoralizing effect on his army.

You are correct regarding the demoralizing effect, but these people don't carry radios around. The news of a general dying on the other end of the battlefield isn't going to affect the troops fighting on this end. A CT within 3" is pretty bad, especially since you don't have a general anymore to give the +1. For example, in Chalons, the Visigoths only learned their king had died on the day after the battle!

Another erason we didn't do this is our view as that locally it wouldhave an effect - that might spread (this is represented by the Cts)

It is only likely to spread badly if the army is alredy suffering (which the Cts handle as DISR troops can actually break in one roll when testing so if you are waek alraedy it can spred like a plague).

An army is likely to fight on if it is in good shape, but if not in good shape then the loss is likely to be a more rapid army detrerioration - the loss of bolster ability effectively creates this.

Wait til you lose a general early in a game and then see the effect and hour or two later - it really isn't good. If its an IC its a huge loss to the army. But if you lose one late while winning then, hey, he died a hero and I am sure they woud have one hell of a wake after the battle. Too many rules have had catarphic effects where defeat is snatched from the jaws of victory by a general going down - I really don't see an army that is winning turning flight if even Hannibal, Cesar or Alexandr fell over. And anyway they probably wouldn't even know until after the battle as long as locla troops held up.

Overall the feel is very good when tested over many games. I did lose Bodecae once in bound 3 and it really made the game very hard from then on.

Si

To be honest I have not had it happen yet. My last game I had all my commanders fighting in the front line and no deaths. But I was just wondering. I think I might be a little more cautious next game.

It depends on the army a lot

With my Gauls I can't afford not to risk the generals, so they always go in whatever - true to history. And I usually lose 1 a game.

Si

I saw a game at the Burton doubles where four commanders died, two from each side and all on the same half of the table......

With my Gauls I can't afford not to risk the generals, so they always go in whatever - true to history. And I usually lose 1 a game.

You do of course remember the game at Usk where our Gauls lost 3 commanders in the same game (with only the alied commander still standing). Fortunately 2 of them were rather late in the game, when our win was already certain.
We did however lose all the BGs on the side of the table that ended with no commanders - due to the additional CTs we had to take, and the lack of an ability to bolster our BGs.

It may be the agressive way I use my commanders, but I always seem to lose twice as many as I kill over a weekend.

With my Gauls I can't afford not to risk the generals, so they always go in whatever - true to history. And I usually lose 1 a game.

You do of course remember the game at Usk where our Gauls lost 3 commanders in the same game (with only the alied commander still standing). Fortunately 2 of them were rather late in the game, when our win was already certain.
We did however lose all the BGs on the side of the table that ended with no commanders - due to the additional CTs we had to take, and the lack of an ability to bolster our BGs.

It may be the agressive way I use my commanders, but I always seem to lose twice as many as I kill over a weekend

Yes it was rather exciting but showed that if you got far enough through winning you can lose a few and get away with it...

You surely should forgive me forgetting ... after all it was happening on your side of the table in the main. There we were winning nicely and took one look tio our right and you had vanished!!

Si