"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.

I've seen players "break" at the beginning of the game from bad die rolls.
And I have too.

Frederick the F'n Great broke, fer heaven's sake!

I don't need a rule for me to make bad decisions. I make planty all by myself.

+1 And I can't fall back on bad die rolls either!
Not that I like to think about it, my tabletop victory ratio doesn't come close to 50%.
BUT, I have painted a lot of armies, run games and … show up.
So, in ACW and AWI terms, I am a POLITICAL General. To quote Simmerson, "I have a cousin at Horse Guards!"

I have a simple die roll factor…in reality its the roster program on computer. Every commander from colonel, to brigade, divisional, corps, army, to nation leader (Tsar, Emperor) has a effectiveness in command rating. typically .8 or 80% for most, a 1 or 100% rating is a "perfect" commander. Most commanders have additional 1 or maybe 2 factor for combative adjustment added to the unit's rating (1-10 scale) with line grade 5-7 point value range, elites 8, militia 3-4 number. But before the scenario starts the effectiveness rating is determined and rolled for, if failed the commander's rating drops one value…so most become zero or no direct influence on tabletop plus takes extra time to change orders etc. A .8 or 80% commander is effective 80% of the time on the scenario battlefield, a 60% poor commander is 60% effective in command abilities. Failure means they are ineffective on the battlefield, just a placeholder in the command chains.

This is all helpful and it ties into something a few rules already do.

In a number of rule systems, if a general is killed, he's replaced by a subordinate, after a delay & usually with reduced command ability.

Does that get us part of the way there?

It represents a loss of effectiveness without removing player control—but it's triggered by physical loss, not loss of nerve or confidence.

So is that a workable proxy for "general morale"? Or is it really modelling something different?

Would a temporary loss of command efficiency (hesitation, delay, inactivity) achieve the same effect without taking the player out of the game? And would this make the side with the unreliable general too hard/not fun to play?

Latest Prime and Load Podcast is on Mollwitz, his first bug out.
Does Charles Jean Clément Piroth committing suicide at Dien Bien Phu count?

Just play campaigns, when the army has to fight again another day, then you'll soon see players crack and withdraw from the field (table).

WRG rules used to apply Rash, bold, or cautious to commanders. Empire made all non-French commanders smelly, atrocious, despicable, blah-blah. Too complicated and fiddly.

Better to model HQ staff moral panic/breakdown/failure on receiving a reverse (1s, or snake-eyes), or giddiness/over-confidence on a success (6s, or box-cars).

Panic/gidddiness should create some foul-ups:

- withdrawing gun battery to replen from park
- ordering best troops to occupy unimportant village/wood
- re-facing cavalry brigade to deal with non-existent threat
- putting troops into march columns ex square with enemy cav sniffing around
- charging gun line up the wrong valley
- etc, etc – snafus.

Anyhows it should give the overall wargamer commander something to do – such as send new orders – getting a senior commander to sort them out, etc, etc.

I have been talking about player morale for years. I have had players on my side have their morale break. They leave and I take over their command. I have seen players give up the game when they are winning or still have a chance to turn the tables. I don't know if its fatigue of a particular long scenario or they lose interest. Sometimes it is one die roll lost and they are gone. I am not immune to this. But I generally keep playing if there is any chance to pull out a victory or a draw.

As far as generals on the table, I just assume his morale is part of his rating.

I do something of the kind very occasionally and selectively in historical scenarios. A typical way to do it would be that, if a certain condition is met by a certain point – say, taking or losing some key location by Turn 5 in an 8-turn game -the formations under the command of the general in question all suffer some negative modifier (in BBB, becoming either 'Passive' or 'Fragile').

I've been thinking about Horatio Gates, whose army was routed at the battle of Camden. He is alleged to have turned his horse and fled at full speed, covering 200 miles (320 kilometers) in three days.
Usually, defeated generals don't accomplish something like this after losing the battle, but it seems like there should be some opportunity for this.

Grelber

I am not one for rating generals by their level of command. You know- a brigade general gets rated despite nationality because they are all rated the same, etc. In reality, many got wounded when they were lower ranking officers. Recovering from their wounds was not always total recoveries! As time passed, those wounds raised their ugly heads and came back to haunt the men often imparing their otherwise excellent judgement.

A recent book published by Helion (Generals in White by Daniel Clarke; ISBN 978-1-804519-87-5, Volume 1) is a study of Austrian Generals targeted at the Napoleonic wars. One of 3 books to cover them all, Mr. Clarke goes into great detail providing biographical and geneological details (many served in the SYW and conflicts inbetween) and many are mentioned about the wounds they received coming up thru the ranks. Pain can be a powerful obstical to overcome during times of stress and can affect judgement at a critical time.

Taking this into account, sufficient evidence exists now to change the way we rate leaders in our games. Now should be the time to trash the idea that all generals be rated equally regardless of their nationality! Now, of course, if you are only wanting to push around lead and toss a few dice, then you must realize that you are not playing a historical game! (Using well researched historical minis with wonderful paintjobs does NOT make a game historical!)

Incorporating the biography of the leaders, one should be able to modify the general's abilities up or down, depending on his past recorded performance. Of course, discovering those bios of the generals who are in today's game can be a difficult research project as such information is not always handed to you like Mr. Clarke has done for the Austrians! Yet, it exists but you will need to find it.

We can also take this further and look at the concept that all ratings of units get valued the same regardless of nationality, training and experience and how long have the men and leaders worked together as a unit seems bogus! That's a topic for another post but suffice to say that the longer an officer has served that came up thru the ranks the greater the chances he was wounded in some heroic feat/performance that saw him get promoted. Those wounds frequently have ways of resurfacing years later and as Murphy's Law points out- it happens at the worst possible time.

I'm with Robert, if the general in question is the player my unstable psyche does not need interference from the rules writers. Otherwise subordinate behaviour should be part of the command and control rules. Detail obsessives will have 6 tables for this; those of us who focus on results will consider it part of the factors involved. If the brigade doesn't advance does it matter if it's the troops or the general who have lost their bottle, the result is the same.