"When Generals break" Topic

I've been reading Dennis Showalter's "Frederick the Great". In it, he describes the titular hero who, at points in the Seven Years' War (e.g. after Kunersdorf), effectively lost confidence in the situation and withdrew from the battlefield.

We often model troop morale in our games—but what about the morale of commanders themselves?

History gives us some striking examples: Sir John Cope at Prestonpans, Darius III at Issus and Gaugamela, and Leonidas Polk at Chickamauga—criticised for failing to attack when ordered.

But how often do we reflect this on the tabletop? Most rules assume commanders function reliably, issuing orders and influencing events throughout. At worst, they are removed as casualties, rather than losing confidence or effectively deciding the battle is lost before the majority of their troops do.

So, should generals have a morale of their own?
How would you represent loss of nerve, hesitation, delay or outright inaction?

Would this add realism, or just frustration to our wargames? And is it better suited to campaign-level play rather than tabletop battle games?

Johnny Cope- Ruith e cho luath ri gaoth.

Many wargames have morale at various levels. Regiment, division and army for example. I have often taken those rules to in part reflect this. Casualties have reached a threshold. Does the commander hold his nerve or live to fight another day?

Some times the troops decide – your left wing has fled. Other times the army is intact and in relatively good order. If the army retreats in this case it may be the commander.

Thinking about Hooker at Chancellorsville. The porch pillar he was leaning against took a hit, and he was unconscious for a while and pretty much not with it for the rest of the battle. This sounds more like drawing an event card than standard morale declining with increasing casualties.

Grelber

Good topic, and yes, but I wonder to what extent the morale of the Player replicates this? I get discouraged and am ready to quit playing.

I feel about the general's morale pretty much like I feel about "command ratings" for the CinC. At what point have we taken the wargamer out of the game? And if I don't get to be the general, why am I pushing all the little soldiers around?

I agree with Robert.

doc mcb hit the nail on the head.

Most wargames assume a player is standing in for a titular commander. The player's morale is the commander's morale.

I've seen plenty of players break long before their army or command does. No commander morale rules necessary.

The unit/command/army morale rules are really there to prevent suicidal devotion. They are there to stop competitive players who will happily fight to the last soldier standing just to say "I WON!"

That said, plenty of rules systems these days also give command personalities unique traits. There's no reason bad morale reactions couldn't be among them. It depends on what is being simulated.

If your prime directive is the old Avalon Hill slogan "Can you do better?", commander morale rules would be inappropriate.

If you're trying to include specific personality traits or flaws in your recreation of history, commander morale traits would be apropos.

I agree with those who are basically saying as general, I don't need a rule for me to make bad decisions. I make planty all by myself.
One othe rpoint, if you make a commander bad enough nobody wants to use them. It may be a good simulation, but it's no fun. There's an old ACW board game out there with a basic morale scale for generals. Nobody ever uses the real bad ones (Butler et al) in a realistic way.