Officer Attrition

[andysomers]

I think the proper thing here is killed in action - other than wounded. Killed in action should be still quite rare, but wounded should be common. Unbeknownst to me, I actually named previously ALL US and CS Corps and army commanders killed in action in a previous post, with the exception of Leonidas Polk. That I named those led me to think there were several others that I had not considered - I was wrong there.

If a player is more aggressive - then yes he should lose more generals. And yes, there should be battles where five or more generals are taken out (see Franklin 1864). Just because we have war games, does not mean that we fight all of the time. Management should be as important as tactics in my book.

Anyway - to quit rambling on - I guess what I am saying is that wounded generals should be fairly common, even up to the Corps, and very occasioonally the Army level. And a few should be killed from time to time I think. I think that's probably what everyone is saying here.

AS

Edit to add: I see the previous posted specifically said MAJOR generals. However, at Gettysburg, the US had at least that many casualties at division level command or higher

Reynolds - I Corps (KIA)
Hancock - II Corps (WIA)
Sickles - III Corps (WIA)
Webb - II Corps, 2nd div (WIA)
Barnes - V Corps, 1st div (WIA)
Barlow - XI Corps, 1st div (WIA, POW)

Also - the game referred to earlier - BoA. What game is that?

[anarchyintheuk]

Birth of America. Set in French and Indian war and the Revolutionary war. Great game.

[dh76513]

Despite the Union High Command's many tactical blunders (like the Seven Days Battles), those committed by the Confederate High Command (such as Lee's miscalculations at the Battles of Gettysburg and Antietam) were far more serious—if for no other reason than that the Confederates could so little afford the loss of experienced soldiers. The CSA put forth one hell of a fight considering the union outnumbered the Confederacy at Antietam almost 2 to 1, but the losses had a much greater impact on the South. The Union, on the other hand, could absorb the losses better as they had large pools of season troops to rally. But Gettysburg would be the straw that would break the Confederacy. Although Meade had greater losses (killed, wounded, and/or captured) than Lee at Gettysburg, the confederacy would never again be able to adequately replace their ranks with seasoned troops.

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: andysomers

I think the proper thing here is killed in action - other than wounded. Killed in action should be still quite rare, but wounded should be common. Unbeknownst to me, I actually named previously ALL US and CS Corps and army commanders killed in action in a previous post, with the exception of Leonidas Polk. That I named those led me to think there were several others that I had not considered - I was wrong there.

If a player is more aggressive - then yes he should lose more generals. And yes, there should be battles where five or more generals are taken out (see Franklin 1864). Just because we have war games, does not mean that we fight all of the time. Management should be as important as tactics in my book.

Anyway - to quit rambling on - I guess what I am saying is that wounded generals should be fairly common, even up to the Corps, and very occasioonally the Army level. And a few should be killed from time to time I think. I think that's probably what everyone is saying here.

AS

Edit to add: I see the previous posted specifically said MAJOR generals. However, at Gettysburg, the US had at least that many casualties at division level command or higher

Reynolds - I Corps (KIA)
Hancock - II Corps (WIA)
Sickles - III Corps (WIA)
Webb - II Corps, 2nd div (WIA)
Barnes - V Corps, 1st div (WIA)
Barlow - XI Corps, 1st div (WIA, POW)

Also - the game referred to earlier - BoA. What game is that?

one question on this kind of thing, if you are playing the game and have a battle come up that is in effect Gettysburg, are you going to play it in detail battle or are you going to roll the die and do a quick combat ?

[Williamb]

I think the odds should change based on the victory level of the battle and losses taken.
 
Most of said generals were killed trying to rally troops as I recall. Generals mostly are suppose to be planners but when things went wrong they would enter the fray to give their troops morale when it was low.
 
So technically it was usually only when things are going bad that generals were forced to be exposed to fire. Should reflect this in the rules.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

one question on this kind of thing, if you are playing the game and have a battle come up that is in effect Gettysburg, are you going to play it in detail battle or are you going to roll the die and do a quick combat ?

Frankly, I anticipate using quick combat for all battles. Otherwise the game will go on forever. Furthermore, my interest is in strategy, not tactics.

[Oldguard]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

Frankly, I anticipate using quick combat for all battles. Otherwise the game will go on forever. Furthermore, my interest is in strategy, not tactics.

Hopefully the results you get won't be appreciably different either way. However, I was a huge fan of sticking to the strategy until I did my first detail battle in CoG. That hooked me. I'm hoping that reinforcement arrival timing/position will somewhat reflect the strategic situation in FoF because that would make it absolutely the best 19th century combat system ever.

Nothing quite matches the thrill of massing your artillery on a dominating ridge or sending your cavalry against their flanks at precisely the right moment to start the route.

[dh76513]

ORIGINAL: Oldguard
Nothing quite matches the thrill of massing your artillery on a dominating ridge or sending your cavalry against their flanks at precisely the right moment to start the route.

I agree. I am looking forward to “total” control of one side in the game – playing both the tactical and strategic elements – but I was saddened to learn that the tactical level is not available in head-to-head games.

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
Yes, human opponents are certainly possible: we have hot-seat, TCP/IP, and PBEM. In PBEM, sadly (for programming reasons), the AI resolves battles for both sides, so it's a purely strategic game. But in the other options you can fight the battles yourself.

Nonetheless, it still sounds like a fantastic game!

[spruce]

I think leader attrition should be rare on corps or army level. Perhaps a very little to simulate the chance for getting shot by your own troops (like Jackson) or even something stupid like falling from a horse or dying from contagious disease.
 
But in battles with higher loss ratings, the amount of killed/wounded generals, on both brigade, division and corps level should be higher. Army command would not be influenced by this I would say.
 
So you might lose Lee or Grant, even they might have done something really stupid like falling from their horse - or just plain bad luck like Jackson faced. If Jackson was shot on a nighty patrol in his role as corps commander, an army commander would also have been shot.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

To quote a convenient Web page:

"Summer, 1863, Following a fall from a fractious horse in New Orleans, Grant spends the summer with his family in a house near Vicksburg. His leg is so badly swollen that he is bedridden for weeks and uses crutches until October."

[dh76513]

spruce,
I agree!