Leaders should have chance to die/wounded easier

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

Currently, you need to destroy the entire HQ to kill a leader. I'd spice the pot, make slight change.

Dudes (Generals and so forth) in US Civil War were getting blasted all the time. They weren't sitting in some protective safe WW-2 location (ship, bunker board room). These dudes were in a wagon, pulled by a horse, parked on an elevated position only yards away from the action. One cannon shell, cavalry charge (by either side) and it's off to the next world. Ever been to Gettysburg? I can hit a 5-iron from the top of Little Round Top into the Devil's Den. Was only 150 to 200 yards. All kinds of leaders in the action.

Here's an idea. Instead of requiring the entire HQ to be destroyed, anytime the HQ is "hit with damage" make a percentage chance the leader is either wounded or killed. HQ takes 1-hit of damage, 3% chance of death or injury. Say, 3-hits of damage, 15% percent. (just making up some numbers).

Killed leaders are instantly replaced by random leader. Say, random roll of the Leaders still in the force. Might even help you. There's all kinds of unknowns of leader skill back in 1861.
Wounded Leaders could lessen command skill, but might increase moral (in a weird way).

Additionally, would like to see the good Cavalry leaders start out as 1-star Elites. Forrest, Jeb, Wheeler need their respect.

[Alter Native]

Yes, I think that's a great idea.
Right now it's far to unattractive to ever attack HQs as they have quite strong defenses.

[LoneRunner]

Interesting idea. Might lead to gamey play like placing McDowell on the front line in hopes of gaining a better leader. Also, HQs may become more of a target where everyone is attempting to hit the other guy's HQ rather than conducting a rational battle.

Yes, perhaps a chance of wounding a leader, so that he's out of the war for a couple months. They were tough back then. I read of leaders with one leg or one arm leading charges on horseback. Amazing.

[Platoonist]

I recall in Gary Grigsby's War between the States ACW game each named leader had a mortality rating. It was based on factors like age, actual historical fate or willingness to expose themselves to fire. The numbers ranged between 1 and 18---18 being at death's door. So, for example Union General Winfield Scott, 75 years old and gouty was rated an 18. General John Reynolds, killed at Gettysburg was rated 9...etc.

I don't think I had but one game where Stonewall Jackson (with a rating of only 7) wasn't dead and buried by 1864. I sometimes think he was scripted to die. Leaders could also be wounded, captured or simply be retired from the game for issues of failing health.

[pascalc]

I like this idea. You could also add "captured" to "killed" or "wounded" as a possibility. Of course, if the Rebs captured Nathaniel Banks or Benjamin Butler, they would probably immediately release them!

[battlevonwar]

Leaders in ACW could die or their ratings could go upward or downward as well. There were a lot of great subordinates and a lot of "What Ifs" When Hooker was nearly killed by a Cannon Ball? Some said it may have influenced his poor battlefield decisionmaking.(I've gone into shock before and I was not the man in shock or afterward that I was before... It really wrecks a man's mind) What if he was a lot better than people assume. Lee was virtually waiting to have a heart attack on the field from what I've read. (this may or may not be true) but what I heard was he was a walking Cardiac Patient.(this was particularly more pronounced around Gettysburg??? go figure) Chamberlain had some close calls. . . That guy was crazy for a Teacher ROFL, I mean a bookworm in the field ROFL acting like a Hero!?

All these men had some guts of steel I could never lead men with bullets and grapeshot flying at my face. Put me in the rear with the maps scripting out orders!

Forrest's horse was shot out so many times from underneath him? (won't comment on the man's dreadful politics) but as far as a pain in the ass of the Union Logistics where is that represented? Should be a scripted event in(All Union Units in the Army of the Tennessee suffer to Supply 3 due to CSA Raiders LOL )

I recall in Gary Grigsby's War between the States ACW game each named leader had a mortality rating. It was based on factors like age, actual historical fate or willingness to expose themselves to fire. The numbers ranged between 1 and 18---18 being at death's door. So, for example Union General Winfield Scott, 75 years old and gouty was rated an 18. General John Reynolds, killed at Gettysburg was rated 9...etc.

I don't think I had but one game where Stonewall Jackson (with a rating of only 7) wasn't dead and buried by 1864. I sometimes think he was scripted to die. Leaders could also be wounded, captured or simply be retired from the game for issues of failing health.

[Bobo2025]

Yes, I think that's a great idea.
Right now it's far to unattractive to ever attack HQs as they have quite strong defenses.

Someone at some point needs to explain why some of the toughest things to kill are leaders (and in SCWW2 the damn airforces). I get they have some sort of native combat units but assuming the HQ represents the staff, some of the C3I type elements, logistics and some sort of security detail if I ride down a HQ with a Cavalry Brigade I should never get the 1:1 ratios I am seeing.

[battlevonwar]

I think allowing Cavalry to 1 shot an HQ or smash it up is a bit gamey ... Leadership often were on horse and would of run, perhaps a retreat with a 20^% retreat would be ample to fulfill a historical feel. With the improved techs HQs don't have this they get smashed bad so you should the play the game further along... +2 damage or more is quite frequent in Inf Tech +1 or +2.

Killing leaders wouldn't be bad but often they were not in their HQ, they were in the field with their men or at home on leave, talking to another leader...on a boat... so maybe making a % chance on terrible overall results in the field killing them would be more accurate? Do you really think Jackson/Lee/Grant were in HQ they were out in the field, the officers and staff were in HQ. Some Generals had a higher likeliness of getting sniped too. Those who got too far forward and others probably literally zero.

If you see Stuart riding down the road with 150 Scouts as General Grant you're going to be raced out of that HQ with his best men to safety. (often was the case) How many Cavalry Scouts killed Generals?

(most of the time it was accidents, indirect fire, or the fighting Generals who got killed that or illness)

Yes, I think that's a great idea.
Right now it's far to unattractive to ever attack HQs as they have quite strong defenses.

Someone at some point needs to explain why some of the toughest things to kill are leaders (and in SCWW2 the damn airforces). I get they have some sort of native combat units but assuming the HQ represents the staff, some of the C3I type elements, logistics and some sort of security detail if I ride down a HQ with a Cavalry Brigade I should never get the 1:1 ratios I am seeing.

[Bobo2025]

I think allowing Cavalry to 1 shot an HQ or smash it up is a bit gamey ... Leadership often were on horse and would of run, perhaps a retreat with a 20^% retreat would be ample to fulfill a historical feel. With the improved techs HQs don't have this they get smashed bad so you should the play the game further along... +2 damage or more is quite frequent in Inf Tech +1 or +2.

Killing a HQ is less about killing <Named General> than destroying the ability of that HQ to exert command and control. Given the slow rate of movement this isn't "a general and ADC on horses" but represents some sort of supply train (since they add to supply) and other less mobile administrative units that should suffer greatly under attack from units of any substantial size.

[battlevonwar]

Are you talking about the exploit people use with HQs as secondary Units on Objectives? which would hospital men, house staff, Supply trains, perhaps even be small training facilities for recruits, POWs Camps, etc...

I'd imagine there would be a few hundred fighting men or some elite guards as well in them..

They wouldn't put up much a fight vs anything real on the field but some portion of them would probably retreat and run like hell off the field and take massive damage, Yes... you're right... Though even Artillery, Arty Trains, Engineers and several other support units would also end up running quickly?

Generally by the time you get +1 or especially +2 Infantry ... HQs really get smacked by these, I suppose cause they themselves don't upgrade. I usually see +2 or +3 damage upon them or worse.

I think allowing Cavalry to 1 shot an HQ or smash it up is a bit gamey ... Leadership often were on horse and would of run, perhaps a retreat with a 20^% retreat would be ample to fulfill a historical feel. With the improved techs HQs don't have this they get smashed bad so you should the play the game further along... +2 damage or more is quite frequent in Inf Tech +1 or +2.

Killing a HQ is less about killing <Named General> than destroying the ability of that HQ to exert command and control. Given the slow rate of movement this isn't "a general and ADC on horses" but represents some sort of supply train (since they add to supply) and other less mobile administrative units that should suffer greatly under attack from units of any substantial size.