"Lost of a General." Topic

A question about Generals in command of Division or Brigade.

When you are playing a wargame and you lost your General because of cannor fire or other causes, did you "move" the ranks officers of your Army?.

Or you lost the entire unit?.

Who takes command of a Division or Brigade when the Command of that units died?.

And if you loose your CC?.

Amicalement
Armand

Someone else takes over – like Clausel when Marmont got taken out by a couple of shrapnel balls. Incidentally got wounded himself in the same battle but carried on.

Would you include flakey excuses too? Or like Bonaparte's 'piles' at Waterloo?

Agree with Cacadores – someone else takes over – in our game system, there are things you can't do for a turn and you lose the command bonuses for a turn, but the unit stays around – if you lose the CiC, same thing – some bright young star gets a quick promotion

it is a simple case of the, "chain of command" or in baseball terms, "batter up"

Once again here is an example of how I have worked it in to my rules: "Demi-Brigades in the Desert"!

link

e. Loss of a Commander: -
If a commander is with a unit when it is destroyed do to Shooting Combat. Or a unit forced to retreat/flee do to Close Combat or destroyed in Close Combat. There will be a check made to see if he was killed.

If there is a chance of a commander being killed the winner of the combat will roll 1d6 to see if the commander was killed or not. If the following numbers are rolled the general is removed from play. If the commander survived the die roll he will move immediately to the closest friendly unit.

Die roll needed to kill a commander:
If the unit was destroyed "Shooting Combat": 1
If the unit was forced to retreat/flee: "Close Combat". 1
If the unit was destroyed in "Close Combat". 1, 2, or 3
If a Commander in Chief is killed in battle, a subordinate will automatically replace him on the following turn after his loss. The subordinate commander will come from the subordinate commanders in the army. If a subordinate commander is killed or needs to be replaced do to his becoming the new Commander in Chief, roll a 1d6 to replace him,

1 = Dreadful
2 = Poor.
3, 4 = Average.
5 = Good.
6 = Excellent.
If a Commander is Killed and replaced nark the Command Base with a Black LM.

I've always preferred the speedy simplicity of having the general replaced after a turn of confusion by a generic officer type who carries no bonuses whatsoever but allows new orders to be issued.

Most officers seemed to take the place of their seniors quite well. If they didn't the replacement would be changed. In many battles sergeants were commanding battalions with little difficulty.

There were normaly enough officers so the loss of a couple or even several were not critical to affect the outcome of a battle. There were a few exceptions but thats allways been the case.

The loss of an officer normaly only affects a unit the turn it happens and the following turn(- on morale tests). The new officer is usualy diced for to select his quality and takes over with little disruption or complication to the game.

It should be a period of confussion, probably longer and more harmful in those armies with a unwielding command structure than in those more flexible. Of course, the particular tactical situation should be taken in account also; i.e. it's not the same that a Brigade commander is killed by a cannonball just before he transmits the orders of the CiC to his brigade, than if his troops are already engaging the enemy battleline or if his troops are in reserve.

The loss of some particular officers should be more griveous than others. Say that Napoleon is killed/severely wounded. We can assume that even if a replacement of great tactical ability would be available (Davout, for instance) the moral shock of the loss would be terrible for the Imperial army, as everything in France revolved around him. I understand that this example is very clear, but what if Wellington would have been killed in a battle? How the British would have reacted? I imagine that the particular year would be the relevant issue in this case (i.e. it wouldn't have caused the same effects if Wellington would have been killed in Talavera than in Waterloo)

In any case, a period of confussion -at least one complete game turn, depending on how much time each turn represents- should be considered as penalization for the command that loses its general. Perhaps limiting the number of orders that can be given, or any initiative die roll, ecc (it would depend on the rules being used). I would suggest to limit moral checks only if some very special commander is killed (actually, I would do it only in the case of Napoleon, due to his particular circumstances), as it wouldn't be common that the rank and file would be aware of his general being killed in the middle of the mayhem of a battle; and besides Napoleon himself I can't imagine any other commader so important to his army for the soldiers taking notice of his demise.

A.

I have the replacement of generals with another of the same rating as the original, or selected from the command's general staff. With no orders, or messages possible within the following turns: for "poor" generals taking command: 2 turns, "average" generals taking command: 1 turn.

basileus66
'' I would do it only in the case of Napoleon, due to his particular circumstances), as it wouldn't be common that the rank and file would be aware of his general being killed in the middle of the mayhem of a battle; and besides Napoleon himself I can't imagine any other commader so important to his army for the soldiers taking notice of his demise''.

As soon as he crowned himself, he kind of led from the back anyway (Austerlitz: he was at the Santon, Waterloo; he was mainly back at La Belle Alliance and in fact went to sleep for a time) so it's a question if the troops would notice.
On the other hand, although they might not notice, an on-hand and up-front general certainly gives a boost – if only because he can react quickly at the crucial point.

As soon as he crowned himself, he kind of led from the back anyway (Austerlitz: he was at the Santon, Waterloo; he was mainly back at La Belle Alliance and in fact went to sleep for a time) so it's a question if the troops would notice.

You are right (campaign of 1814 excepted) but still the news of the Emperor being killed or severely wounded could have leaked, and affect the morale of the troops. Also we should take in mind that the bond that gave the marshals unity of purpose was Napoleon. His death in the middle of a battle would have confused them, probably even collapsing their ability to make decissions. Of course, these are just what ifs, so we have no means to actually prove the accuracy of the idea. Still, and just for wargaming purposes, I would penalize a French player if he loses Napoleon in a game. Even if only to represent the probable mayhem to the French command chain.

On the other hand, although they might not notice, an on-hand and up-front general certainly gives a boost – if only because he can react quickly at the crucial point.

I agree that the ability of the affected command to react should be curtailed if the commander is killed. I don't dispute that. What I don't believe is that the command should take any moral check due to the loss. At least for grand tactical level commanders. Another matter would be in games at battalion level or smaller, where it would be more probable that soldiers would notice the death of a leader.

A.

I agree. Just a delay and possible momentary loss of morale while waiting for the new general to get in hand.