Generals in captured cities...

[jsaurman]

I took Norfolk. Left no garrison, except one solitary one-star general. Rebels came and took it back. What do you know, their garrison was there, and so was my general! I went and recaptured the city, and he was still there.
Is this intentional?
Shouldn't a general who falls into enemy hands be removed from the field of play?

[ericbabe]

Maybe he was hiding in a woodshed the whole time, or had dressed himself up as a Southern belle to avoid capture [:)]  There presently is no rule for generals in garrison that is captured to be captured and disbanded -- it wouldn't be too hard to add if people would prefer it that way.

[elmo3]

My vote would be to remove him from play.

[spruce]

yeah, get rid of him (or her ? [:'(])

[jsaurman]

I agree, as it stands now, the generals are totally immune to anything realistic, they can jaunt about the map wherever they want, run all around the enemy's territory without a care in the world about getting captured or shot. 
I would change the rules that a solitary general (that is not with an army) is "captured" and disappears from play if he even steps into enemy territory.
Perhaps, even if he is alone in friendly territory, and there is an enemy brigade in the same province he should have a 10% chance of being captured.

[ericbabe]

We used to have the rule that generals in enemy territory were removed from the game, but players found it frustrating.  I can see zapping generals in captured cities though.

[Crimguy]

I think it should be a % chance of capture, otherwise the general ends up in the closest friendly province.