Matrix Games Forums

My apologies if this has been asked and answered already - I wasn't able to find anything on it.

I was reading about the Battle of the Wilderness and noted that officer attrition had a major impact on the course of that battle. Gen. Longstreet was wounded at the moment when a flank attack threatened to roll up the Union positions. The Union lost Gen. Wadsworth and Alexander Hays. Confederate generals John M. Jones, Micah Jenkins, and Leroy A. Stafford were also killed in that battle.

And of course, Jackson died at Chancellorsville which seriously harmed the cause of the Confederate Army of N. Virginia.

How is officer attrition modelled in FoF? Is it random? Does it rely on terrain (the Wilderness area seems to have been especially deadly for commanders due to the limited visibility)?

Generals can be wounded/killed in combat.  In quick combat, only 1-star generals (brigade commanders) can be killed outright, 2-star generals can be wounded, and higher ranking generals cannot be harmed.  (It made our beta testers very upset to lose their high level generals in quick combat.)  In detailed combat, any general can be wounded/killed, and the chance is proportional to the amount of damage the brigade to which the general is attached sustains.

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

Generals can be wounded/killed in combat.  In quick combat, only 1-star generals (brigade commanders) can be killed outright, 2-star generals can be wounded, and higher ranking generals cannot be harmed.  (It made our beta testers very upset to lose their high level generals in quick combat.)  In detailed combat, any general can be wounded/killed, and the chance is proportional to the amount of damage the brigade to which the general is attached sustains.

So, if you play the game using nothing but quick combat, you’re guaranteed never to loose a 3 or 4 star general. But, if you take over the battles on your own, you risk loosing everything? That doesn’t seem right to me.

There should be some chance of anyone being killed even in quick combat. Maybe weigh the chances of loosing high ranking generals as slim to none, but there should always be an outside chance of have Lee or Grant KIA no matter how you play the battles. Stonewall Jackson was shot by his own troops for cry out loud.

ORIGINAL: Slick91
So, if you play the game using nothing but quick combat, you’re guaranteed never to loose a 3 or 4 star general. But, if you take over the battles on your own, you risk loosing everything? That doesn’t seem right to me.

There should be some chance of anyone being killed even in quick combat. Maybe weigh the chances of loosing high ranking generals as slim to none, but there should always be an outside chance of have Lee or Grant KIA no matter how you play the battles. Stonewall Jackson was shot by his own troops for cry out loud.

Of course, in detailed battle you would have more control over the placement of your generals. If you keep them out of range of enemy artillery and muskets, he'll stand a much better chance of surviving.

Jackson was shot by his own people, this is true -- but he was also reconnoitering across his own lines after dark. If you don't want your Stonewall to get shot, send some lieutenants

Eric, doesn't the sharpshooter upgrade also increase the chance to kill enemy generals?

ORIGINAL: Oldguard

Of course, in detailed battle you would have more control over the placement of your generals. If you keep them out of range of enemy artillery and muskets, he'll stand a much better chance of surviving.

That's exactly why we have the rule protected top generals from being killed in quick combat -- the player has zero control over them, so it's quite irksome when they get killed. I was playtesting a PBEM game with one of our testers and he and I both lost 4-5 major names, guys like Lee and Grant. (I can't remember who at this point.) It was absolutely no fun to lose them, which is why we've made them invulnerable in quick combat. Once the game is out we'll see if people like or dislike this rule and perhaps adjust it, but for now we believe that the best option is to keep things as they are. (I'll add that none of our beta-testers has objected to this rule, and some were very much for it.)

ORIGINAL: pixelpusher

Eric, doesn't the sharpshooter upgrade also increase the chance to kill enemy generals?

I'll field that one: yes.

If one equips a brigade with sharpshooters they have a better chance of killing generals within four hexes, and of causing morale loss among infantry more than one hex away.

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

That's exactly why we have the rule protected top generals from being killed in quick combat -- the player has zero control over them, so it's quite irksome when they get killed. I was playtesting a PBEM game with one of our testers and he and I both lost 4-5 major names, guys like Lee and Grant. (I can't remember who at this point.) It was absolutely no fun to lose them, which is why we've made them invulnerable in quick combat. Once the game is out we'll see if people like or dislike this rule and perhaps adjust it, but for now we believe that the best option is to keep things as they are. (I'll add that none of our beta-testers has objected to this rule, and some were very much for it.)

I understand the logic behind the decision, but it just seems to me that there should exist an slim outside chance of losing no more than one major general in a quick battle, say 1/1000 (or whatever) chance on a dice roll. I agree that to do a quick battle and loose three or four major generals is excessive and extremely frustrating. But, it seems to me it should be more of a very slim realistic possibly rather than setting the same possibility to zero is to remove a big part of the "what-if" playability of a historic game.

Maybe just consider testing the possibility in an update patch? You guys are the ones who are holding the keys to the car. Just my two cents…and a nickel more.

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
If one equips a brigade with sharpshooters they have a better chance of killing generals within four hexes, and of causing morale loss among infantry more than one hex away.

I like that idea. You could call it "Berdan's rule"

Armed with Sharp's rifles, Whitworth rifles, sporting arms, and custom-made, privately owned target weapons (some weighing over 30 lbs) Northern and Southern marksmen performed efficient service at Yorktown, Gettysburg, Vicksburg, Chattanooga, Atlanta, Spotsylvania, the Wilderness, and Petersburg, and were valued in any protracted battle or small combat. The unpleasant results of this service and the moral climate of the day make finding specific records of sharpshooting duty a rarity, but the efficiency of Confederate sharpshooters in the Devil's Den at Gettysburg and the demoralizing effects of the sniping deaths of such prominent soldiers as Union Maj. Gen. John Sedgwick demonstrate the sharpshooters worth.

Source: "Historical Times Encyclopedia of the Civil War" edited by Patricia Faust

ORIGINAL: Slick91

Maybe just consider testing the possibility in an update patch? You guys are the ones who are holding the keys to the car. Just my two cents…and a nickel more.

This is definitely the sort of thing that could be changed with in the first patch. We're not fiercely opposed to it -- at this point, we're only fiercely opposed to any new programming that pushes back the release date...

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

ORIGINAL: Slick91

Maybe just consider testing the possibility in an update patch? You guys are the ones who are holding the keys to the car. Just my two cents…and a nickel more.

This is definitely the sort of thing that could be changed with in the first patch. We're not fiercely opposed to it -- at this point, we're only fiercely opposed to any new programming that pushes back the release date...

A-men to that!!! That's why I suggested the patch route. [;)]

You could also make it a selectable option in the game setup for players to pick.

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

ORIGINAL: Oldguard

Of course, in detailed battle you would have more control over the placement of your generals. If you keep them out of range of enemy artillery and muskets, he'll stand a much better chance of surviving.

That's exactly why we have the rule protected top generals from being killed in quick combat -- the player has zero control over them, so it's quite irksome when they get killed. I was playtesting a PBEM game with one of our testers and he and I both lost 4-5 major names, guys like Lee and Grant. (I can't remember who at this point.) It was absolutely no fun to lose them, which is why we've made them invulnerable in quick combat. Once the game is out we'll see if people like or dislike this rule and perhaps adjust it, but for now we believe that the best option is to keep things as they are. (I'll add that none of our beta-testers has objected to this rule, and some were very much for it.)

In discussing such a rule designed to protect generals, I agree with Gil that the game should include this protection. Such a protection reflects greater historical accuracy in the game as both the Union and Confederate High Command (Corps Commanders and above) were well protected. Furthermore these High Command operations were establish well in the rear and generally at elevations providing the leadership a grand view of the strategies and movements. Usually runners on horseback carried their orders to and from the battlefield commanders based on their observations. As such, the High Commands (again, corps level commanders and above) on both sides were very rarely in a path of harm. Nonetheless, with 1008 general officers on both sides it may be helpful information to know that only 73 Confederacy General Officers and 67 Union General Officers were actually killed in action during the entire American Civil War. More importantly, it should be noted that most of these were not in the high command. In fact, no Union general in the High Command was killed on a battlefield during the entire war. The South lost four from their high command from which only one was an army-level commander (GEN Albert Sydney Johnston at Shiloh). The other three were corps-level commanders (e.g., LTG Ambrose P. Hill at the Fall of Petersburg; LTG Thomas J. Jackson at Chancellorsville; and LTG Leonidas Polk at Pine Mountain). So, I do agree that losing four or five high command generals (like Lee and Grant) in a battle would not only be “absolutely no fun” in the game, but also a major historical flaw.

Agree dh.  While killing high ranking officers might seem like a good idea in theory, it is far less appealing in practice.  In detailed combat with this engine, one has the ability to place high ranking generals in the rear as was often done in the ACW or to get their full benefit but thereby risk them at the front line.  In Quick Combat on the other hand, if it is done as it was in CoG, one has no such control.  If it is possible for an 80K men Army to encounter a single aimless brigade and route them but lose R E Lee in the process because the computer decided that he should lead the charge personally, that is not only highly unrealistic but it is also no fun.  As I have said countless times, there will always be and needs to be a random element in strategy games, but the outcome should be primarily determined by the strategy and not simply by whomever gets lucky on one random roll of the dice.

I disagree on this thread - particularly with respect to Corps commanders.  Virtually EVERY Corps commander in the war was at least slightly wounded once, and several were killed, including the brightest.  I could make a list, but I will just use these names for now:
CS Corps commands - Jackson (chancellorsville), AP Hill (KIA Petersburg), Longstreet (wounded at least twice), Stuart (KIA Yellow Tavern)
US Corps commands - Reynolds, Sickles, Hancock (killed or wounded at G'burg), Sedgewick (KIA near Spotsylvania), McPherson (KIA Atlanta Campaign), Mansfield (KIA Antietam). 
 
However, I can think of only one Army commander killed during the war - AS Johnston at Shiloh.  JEJohnston was seriously wounded at Fair Oaks in the Seven Days as well.  Lee a few times exposed himself to enemy fire as well and could have been easily wounded. 
 
That said - I definitely think the possiblity should be there for Corps commanders to be casulaties.  However, army casulaties should be either non-existant I think, or have a very slight risk. 

Thanks andysomers for making me do some work and I do stand to be corrected. The US lost four from their high command: one army-level commander (James B. McPherson at Atlanta) and three corps-level commanders (Joseph K Mansfield at Antietam; John F. Reynolds at Gettysburg; and John Sedgwick at Spotsylvania). This is very interesting and that both had the same losses. However, to the best of my knowledge only one – John Sedgwick – was thought to be shot by a sharpshooter. As for those wounded, like Winfield Hancock, the focus is on death.

I would make the case that wounding should be fairly common, at least 4-5 times more common than death.  So many generals were wounded, even at the Corps level.  Wounding and knocking a general out for a few months should be fairly standard I would think. 
 
McPherson - is he technically an army commander?  In function I would say a Corps commander, with Sherman functioning as Army commander.
 
Anyway, good discussion.  Perhaps this would be an easy turn off or turn on option, or even three levels.  probability high, slight, or none.  Either way, whatever the case I would prefer to see Corps commander casualties at a MUCH higher frequency than Army commander casualties (almost no chance).

[font="times new roman"]Well, I’m not approaching it from a 100% historical perspective.  I’m more simplistic and want more entertainment than a historical lecture.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]I think that it is more unrealistic to have the quick battle at 100% impossibility of ANY major generals being wounded or killed, than setting the same percentage to 0.1% and/or limiting the causality to one general (or a reasonable facsimile thereof).[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]I just question the thought process that says, “If I take control of this battle, I may get my generals wiped out, but if I hit quick battle then they’ll ALWAYS be safe from harm.”  That just seems like flawed logic to me…there should be a simple compromise or adjustment somewhere down the road.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]I don’t want a game that recreates the war from start to finish and follows the history book’s timeline and facts, I’d like to see it offer the same historical dynamics, but entertains with a historical what-if possibility.[/font]
[font="times new roman"][/font] [font="times new roman"]
Just trying to offer a little constructive criticism, its not a deal breaker for me, but I’d like to see it tweaked a little.[/font]

Slick,

That's pretty much my thoughts - nail on the head.  The history I quote is more for example and to establish probabilities and such - definitely not which generals and when.  I think that what we all look for is an alternate history, based on historical realism and limitations. Again, I think this may be a good on/off type option.

AS

Games with leader casualties usually have a problem with the disparity in the amount of historical vs. game combat. Although there were hundreds of skirmishes in the ACW, there were few major battles (> division-level). I'm only assuming that there will be more, rather than less, combat in the game.

BoA is one of the best games that I've ever played, but by the end of a campaign 1/2 to 2/3 of my officers are toast due to the large amount of game combat vs. the admittedly few large scale battles of the RW.

There was a great board game about the ACW by Victory Games (appropriately titled The Civil War) that had the same problem but it had a kind of work-around. At the beginning of a turn you received x number of leaders from the reinforcement pool for placement during the game's unique-for-the-time pulse system. In the course of a turn you would place your reinforcement leaders with whatever army you wanted and try to get them promoted as soon as possible. In order to promote them they had to survive one battle (casualties were rolled per battle) and next turn they would receive their promotion. Like most systems the greater the rank the lesser the chance for casualties, which led to a kind of truce for the rest of the turn after one combat. Having Sherman or Jackson getting whacked as a brigadier was bad for the morale. The casualty rate was somewhat severe. IIRC a brigadier was dead on a roll of 2-6d role of 4, wounded on a 5, a division commander was dead 3, wounded on a 4 and a corps or army commanders only had to worry about a bullseye. The truce period usually happened in the early part of the game when the players were getting their leaders promoted and then moved to where they were needed (i.e. Freemont, Banks and Butler were often protecting Philadelphia). The system was about as good as you could get but it did lead to the oddity of seeking combat in order to be safe from future casualty.

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Games with leader casualties usually have a problem with the disparity in the amount of historical vs. game combat. Although there were hundreds of skirmishes in the ACW, there were few major battles (> division-level). I'm only assuming that there will be more, rather than less, combat in the game.

Good point. A gamer typically is going to be much, much more aggressive that any real person would have been in history. That begs the question that if the Civil War had played out with more major battles, would the casualties of the generals been much higher? I seriously doubt that you would lose five major generals in one battle, but through the course of the war who knows what the outcome would have been, but I’d bet that no battle would have had a 0.0% chance of something happening.