Leader wounded/death

[Titanwarrior89]

Why in Area combat(quick combat) is it that the leaders are "not" killed or wounded? I read somewhere in the threads here that the beta testers didn't like it. Why?

Read on what happened too General Lannes from a artillery wound if I remember. Leaders I think should have the chance of being killed or wounded in quick combat.

I get the feeling this was removed in the game because some players wanted too increase their odds of winning.

"What happened with this"[&:]

[Alaric_31]

Greetings, I think is tough to lose a leader in this game, maybe i have will prefer very much leaders for all nations, there are few leaders in the game, and you never have enough to command all forces, some forces are to be without leaders, so i do not have none
problem, in my opinion with restricted leader losses,

with best regards,

Alaric.

[Titanwarrior89]

This war and including the american civil war had a whole lot to do with leaders and the units they lead.


I understand what your saying but it just does't feel right.[&:]

[Svend Karlson]

Is it perhaps because whilst in detailed combat you have the choice of whether or not to place your leaders in dangerous positions, whereas in quick combat you cannot? (since you cannot assign them to units)

[bluemonday]

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

Why in Area combat(quick combat) is it that the leaders are "not" killed or wounded? I read somewhere in the threads here that the beta testers didn't like it. Why?

The comment from the developers was that the beta testers found it "frustrating."

My guess is that this is because it was a random element completely beyond the player's control - in detailed combat you at least know which leader is with which division, and therefore it is easier to accept that if you charge with that division there is a decent chance your leader will be killed. In quick combat it's just completely random.

Read on what happened too General Lannes from a artillery wound if I remember. Leaders I think should have the chance of being killed or wounded in quick combat.

I realize that random events do happen in war but I don't think this kind of thing translates well to a game. Players inevitably find it arbitrary or capricious.

I think a possible solution would be to allow players to place their leaders in Quick Combat - thus in order to get their full tactical/morale benefits they would have to expose them in battle. So the player could connect the increased risk to increased benefit, and would have some control over it. If he wanted to keep his leaders clustered in the rear, fine, but it would result in penalties to tactics and morale.

[jchastain]

I can understand not wanted to have senior leaders lost in quick combat because you have no chance to protect them. In detailed combat, Napoleon could be assigned to a reserve unit where he would not be at risk. In quick combat, no such protection exists. That said, I can't imagine that no leader at all can be killed. One possibility to be to not mke the single highest ranking officer at risk but allow others to be killed. But I think the easiest route would be to select only from among the one and two star leaders if a random check indicates that one was lost.

I posted an earlier thread about leader promotions ( LINK ). I think I would also add in a configuration switch for allowing leader deaths and promotions. If switched off, leaders would be static. None would die and none would be promoted. If turned on (default behavior), then they could be killed or promoted as discussed here and in my other thread. This would give players the option. I know that leader deaths can be bothersome to some - they don't like random events that have such a significant impact. The loss of a significant leader can mean the difference between winning and losing. So, for those who think such a loss ruins their game, why not just allow them to turn that off? But for those who wish to incorporate the full range of fate, then include the promotion schemes so that there is a potential upside as well as down and to ensure that quick battles have at least some risk as well. That would be my advice anyway.

[Titanwarrior89]

I like your ideal in the last paragraph of your response. If I remember correctly in EiA, a leader could be killed or wounded in it and there seemed to be no problem with it. However I am speaking of the board game and I think the leader loss was random in it also. [&:]

ORIGINAL: bluemonday

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

Why in Area combat(quick combat) is it that the leaders are "not" killed or wounded? I read somewhere in the threads here that the beta testers didn't like it. Why?

The comment from the developers was that the beta testers found it "frustrating."

My guess is that this is because it was a random element completely beyond the player's control - in detailed combat you at least know which leader is with which division, and therefore it is easier to accept that if you charge with that division there is a decent chance your leader will be killed. In quick combat it's just completely random.

Read on what happened too General Lannes from a artillery wound if I remember. Leaders I think should have the chance of being killed or wounded in quick combat.

I realize that random events do happen in war but I don't think this kind of thing translates well to a game. Players inevitably find it arbitrary or capricious.

I think a possible solution would be to allow players to place their leaders in Quick Combat - thus in order to get their full tactical/morale benefits they would have to expose them in battle. So the player could connect the increased risk to increased benefit, and would have some control over it. If he wanted to keep his leaders clustered in the rear, fine, but it would result in penalties to tactics and morale.

[Titanwarrior89]

I agree! I like your ideal as well. I hope they change it in a future patch.[:D]

ORIGINAL: jchastain

I can understand not wanted to have senior leaders lost in quick combat because you have no chance to protect them. In detailed combat, Napoleon could be assigned to a reserve unit where he would not be at risk. In quick combat, no such protection exists. That said, I can't imagine that no leader at all can be killed. One possibility to be to not mke the single highest ranking officer at risk but allow others to be killed. But I think the easiest route would be to select only from among the one and two star leaders if a random check indicates that one was lost.

I posted an earlier thread about leader promotions ( LINK ). I think I would also add in a configuration switch for allowing leader deaths and promotions. If switched off, leaders would be static. None would die and none would be promoted. If turned on (default behavior), then they could be killed or promoted as discussed here and in my other thread. This would give players the option. I know that leader deaths can be bothersome to some - they don't like random events that have such a significant impact. The loss of a significant leader can mean the difference between winning and losing. So, for those who think such a loss ruins their game, why not just allow them to turn that off? But for those who wish to incorporate the full range of fate, then include the promotion schemes so that there is a potential upside as well as down and to ensure that quick battles have at least some risk as well. That would be my advice anyway.

[Titanwarrior89]

Thanks for your Imput guys. [:D]

[marc420]

In another thread I went a typing about what I think a cool leader system should be.

Historically, in this and the civil war, there should be a pretty decent chance of a leader getting killed in battle. Div commanders should be at fairly high amount of risk. Corps commanders less so, but still they tended to get killed at times.. Maybe Army commanders are less, since they are usually at an HQ behind the lines or on a hill-top. IIRC, Napoleon had a couple of close calls in his career.

And when there are pursuit casualties, there should be much higher chances that any leader could get captured. Its just a guess, but for an army leader, getting captured or killed in the confusion of a rout would be the biggest threat.

The problem with this game right now as version 1, the way the leaders come into the game is locked down and limited. So I'm guessing the frustration is that when you lose your leaders you don't get replacements. I don't have a problem with that as I view an Army without a leader really is just an army that has an average leader that isn't worth mentioning. (0 ratings across the board).

But at best, this should be an option a player should turn on and off. Regardless of what the beta testers felt, I find the lack of leader casualties a big hole in the game. If its an option, then people who don't like it can turn it off.

[bluemonday]

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

I like your ideal in the last paragraph of your response. If I remember correctly in EiA, a leader could be killed or wounded in it and there seemed to be no problem with it. However I am speaking of the board game and I think the leader loss was random in it also. [&:]

I think the difference between boardgame and computer game design is that random events are easier to take in such games, simply because the player is rolling the dice. There are a lot of random factors in boardgames, but because the player is always involved (dice can't roll themselves!) there is a greater level of acceptance. You roll for reinforcements but you don't get them. Oh well - you get another try next turn. Your leader got killed - well, you are the one who rolled the dice. In computer games, you just have to take it on faith that the results are being applied fairly. What if it's a bug? There is no way to be sure.

Boardgames impose a lot of random events, but because the events chart is public and everyone can see the die roll, it is much better accepted. In fact, it's almost an event in itself, and benefits from the interpersonal dynamic. Boardgames and computer games have completely different strengths and weaknesses.

[Titanwarrior89]

Maybe with any luck they will turn the leader loss back on in the next patch.[X(]

ORIGINAL: marc420

In another thread I went a typing about what I think a cool leader system should be.

Historically, in this and the civil war, there should be a pretty decent chance of a leader getting killed in battle. Div commanders should be at fairly high amount of risk. Corps commanders less so, but still they tended to get killed at times.. Maybe Army commanders are less, since they are usually at an HQ behind the lines or on a hill-top. IIRC, Napoleon had a couple of close calls in his career.

And when there are pursuit casualties, there should be much higher chances that any leader could get captured. Its just a guess, but for an army leader, getting captured or killed in the confusion of a rout would be the biggest threat.

The problem with this game right now as version 1, the way the leaders come into the game is locked down and limited. So I'm guessing the frustration is that when you lose your leaders you don't get replacements. I don't have a problem with that as I view an Army without a leader really is just an army that has an average leader that isn't worth mentioning. (0 ratings across the board).

But at best, this should be an option a player should turn on and off. Regardless of what the beta testers felt, I find the lack of leader casualties a big hole in the game. If its an option, then people who don't like it can turn it off.