American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)
http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/

Agree or Disagree?
http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=24108		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Blake [ Sun Feb 08, 2026 8:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Agree or Disagree?
From the User's Manual concerning Melee Modifiers:
If the either side has a Leader with them, then 10% is added to their strength.
Only the most senior leader is counted, additional leaders have no additional effect.
The leader does not have to be in the unit's chain of command.

Do you agree or disagree with the idea that any leader, even if not in the chain of command of the units engaged, should give an attacking/defending force a 10% bonus?

Feel free to state your case why or why not in the comments.
Author:  Quaama [ Sun Feb 08, 2026 9:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Agree or Disagree?
There was no 'comments' section in the poll so I guess you'd like them posted as a normal forum comment.

I voted 'No'.
It seems silly that some nobody with command experience (a Replacement Leader) should inspire his men to the same effect as a truly inspiring leader such as J.E.B. It would be better if the Leader bonus was based on a sliding scale related to the Leader rating (probably Leadership). So F-grade leaders only give a 1 or 2% bonus and A-grade could provide a 10% or 12% bonus.

Your quote from the manual also got me wondering about 'Only the most senior leader is counted, additional leaders have no additional effect'. If only the most senior leader is counted, then I'm thinking the game completely ignores any others in the stack. Thus, there is zero probability of the other leaders becoming casualties. It may be a good way to 'bump off' a poorly-rated leader higher up the chain of command who could then be replaced by a better rated one. [Watch your back, Braxton Bragg.]
Author:  Rich Walker [ Sun Feb 08, 2026 9:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Agree or Disagree?
Quaama wrote:
There was no 'comments' section in the poll so I guess you'd like them posted as a normal forum comment.

I voted 'No'.
It seems silly that some nobody with command experience (a Replacement Leader) should inspire his men to the same effect as a truly inspiring leader such as J.E.B. It would be better if the Leader bonus was based on a sliding scale related to the Leader rating (probably Leadership). So F-grade leaders only give a 1 or 2% bonus and A-grade could provide a 10% or 12% bonus.

Your quote from the manual also got me wondering about 'Only the most senior leader is counted, additional leaders have no additional effect'. If only the most senior leader is counted, then I'm thinking the game completely ignores any others in the stack. Thus, there is zero probability of the other leaders becoming casualties. It may be a good way to 'bump off' a poorly-rated leader higher up the chain of command who could then be replaced by a better rated one. [Watch your back, Braxton Bragg.]


If we stay with what is available now and not try to recode for a better way. Then if the question is, should any leader be allowed to inspire and rally the men to charge, then I say yes. I'm sure I could find historical examples if I had the time, but just off the top of my head, I think that any leader is better than no leader and if such leader was willing to enter the fray, then that leader should provide the bonus. Just make sure that that leader remembers to dismount before the charge.

My 2.5 cents!

BTW, I do think that if cavalry is charging mounted into a melee, then the leader should also be mounted to provide the bonus.
Author:  Quaama [ Sun Feb 08, 2026 9:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Agree or Disagree?
Rich Walker wrote:

If we stay with what is available now and not try to recode for a better way. Then if the question is, should any leader be allowed to inspire and rally the men to charge, then I say yes. I'm sure I could find historical examples if I had the time, but just off the top of my head, I think that any leader is better than no leader and if such leader was willing to enter the fray, then that leader should provide the bonus. Just make sure that that leader remembers to dismount before the charge.

My 2.5 cents!

BTW, I do think that if cavalry is charging mounted into a melee, then the leader should also be mounted to provide the bonus.


I agree that any leader is better than none, but some are sure to be more inspiring than others. That's why I think a sliding scale would be better (if possible to introduce). Something like the following bonuses based on Leadership Rating:
A - 12%;
B - 10%;
C - 8%;
D - 6%;
E - 4%;
F - 2%.

Just make sure that that leader remembers to dismount before the charge.

That's very 'gamey'. LOL, J.E.B. riding along with his boys only to dismount and run alongside them as they make contact with the enemy. That would be very uninspiring and should attract a negative modifier equal to his Leadership rating, so about -10%.

BTW, I do think that if cavalry is charging mounted into a melee, then the leader should also be mounted to provide the bonus.

Yes, I see you get it, but the game doesn't.
Author:  Steve Griffith [ Sun Feb 08, 2026 10:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Agree or Disagree?
I can understand a popular leader like a Jackson or Cleburne inspiring troops from other divisions. But if Colonel Whatsit rides up with a parasol he is not inspiring anyone with his battlefield presence. If taken in only the most general sense then the question must be answered NO. If you add some context to it then it becomes more complex. But on the whole as it asked it does not make sense for any leader to be equal to another in terms of inspiring others.
Author:  Jim Pyle [ Mon Feb 09, 2026 10:32 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Agree or Disagree?
Agree with General Walker that 10% is OK if no change is made but General Swanson's idea is fantastic.
Author:  M. Johnson [ Mon Feb 09, 2026 10:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Agree or Disagree?
By making every Leader 10% you then enforce some sort of ridiculous idea that leaders are simply interchangable parts. One is as good as another then and the individual doesn't matter so much as the uniform they have on. If that was the case then Grant would be equal to McDowell who is equal to Banks who is equal to Sherman. The game recognizes differences in leaders for command and leadership purposes but not melee purposes. Leadership mattered in 19th Century warfare but the game dumbs it down for melees to an elementary level which is disappointing given the complexity of other parts of the game design.
Author:  Quaama [ Mon Feb 09, 2026 2:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Agree or Disagree?
It looks like the poll question has changed. It is now more focused on 'chain of command' which is a different issue than that originally polled. My earlier questions relate to the poll as it was previously, not the new one focused on 'chain of command'.

It is now asking me to submit my vote again. I don't want to vote again; in fact I'd want to remove my previous vote of 'No'. I'm not so sure about chain of command being such an issue, to me it is all about the quality of the leader (i.e. an unknown Replacement Leader is certainly not the same as a General Lee). As this article (https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/command-frictions.html) says:
"Command adjustments in battle, especially during the Civil War, were frequent and constant."

To me, it is all about the quality of the leader, not where they came from in the organisation. If General Jackson was 'on the spot' to lead one of Longstreet's brigades into action I'm sure the men of that brigade would have been mightily inspired to do their best.
Author:  Blake [ Mon Feb 09, 2026 4:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Agree or Disagree?
My question is simply "should any and all leaders be equal in a melee?"

Paul said he would like to factor the quality of the Leader into the equation which is a fair opinion/argument to have.

But taking the games as they are currently designed is what I am looking at. As designed, the games treat all Leaders equally in a Melee.

Do you agree with that approach by WDS or not?

Paul used an example of Longstreet leading Jackson's men into a melee. Paul went to an extreme "what if" which is fair but highly unlikely. I literally can't name a single instance where a Corps Commander on either side in any army personally led a charge into enemy lines. That wasn't their responsibility. I'm thinking of situations where a colonel might run up to some regiments from a different brigade and attempt to take command and lead a charge. Would the men, presuming their colonels would allow this officer to commandeer their units, follow this Leader as loyally as their own Leader?

What I am getting at is the commonly utilized practice in WDS games of using Artillery Leaders, Replacement Leaders, or any other handy commanders, and adding them to any melee situation just to gain the 10% modifier. Whether or not the units are part of that Leader's order of battle does not matter to the WDS games as currently designed.

Paul maybe favors a sliding scale for modifiers based on Leader quality. I'd support that. Or maybe only the units in the Leader's OOB receive a 10% modifier. Lots of possible alternatives. Giving all the units a flat 10% modifier though for the presence of any possible Leader on the battlefield though just seems a bit "lazy." That's no dig at WDS but rather maybe just a holdover rule from long ago which they've grandfather-claused into the rules for many new updates without revisiting it. To say that troops would fight "10% better" under the eyes of a respected and revered leader is a fair statement all things considered. But to say that they would fight equally hard for an unknown leader or a poor leader isn't a fair statement.

I just thought I'd bring it up :mrgreen:
Author:  warbison [ Mon Feb 09, 2026 5:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Agree or Disagree?
Gentlemen, Sirs! <salute>

I just voted YES on a leader bonus for melee attacks and here is my reasoning!

I have owned Joseph H. Crute, Jr's book "Units of the Confederate States Army" for almost as long as I have been in the club.

Whenever I start a new battle I like to look up the Confederate units involved.

Crute always includes where most of the men were recruited and a unit history and of its known leaders.

Most of the time, leaders are elected from within the ranks by the members of that unit.

This leads me to believe that when a new leader assumes command he is known from within that unit and those members will more than likely follow him!

Best regards,

Your Obedient Servant,

General Nick Kunz
Commanding,
Armstrong's Cavalry Brigade,
2nd Corps, AoT
Commandant, ATA
Image
Image
Author:  Quaama [ Mon Feb 09, 2026 6:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Agree or Disagree?
Blake wrote:
My question is simply "should any and all leaders be equal in a melee?"

Paul said he would like to factor the quality of the Leader into the equation which is a fair opinion/argument to have.

But taking the games as they are currently designed is what I am looking at. As designed, the games treat all Leaders equally in a Melee.

Do you agree with that approach by WDS or not?

Paul used an example of Longstreet leading Jackson's men into a melee. Paul went to an extreme "what if" which is fair but highly unlikely. I literally can't name a single instance where a Corps Commander on either side in any army personally led a charge into enemy lines. That wasn't their responsibility. I'm thinking of situations where a colonel might run up to some regiments from a different brigade and attempt to take command and lead a charge. Would the men, presuming their colonels would allow this officer to commandeer their units, follow this Leader as loyally as their own Leader?

What I am getting at is the commonly utilized practice in WDS games of using Artillery Leaders, Replacement Leaders, or any other handy commanders, and adding them to any melee situation just to gain the 10% modifier. Whether or not the units are part of that Leader's order of battle does not matter to the WDS games as currently designed.

Paul maybe favors a sliding scale for modifiers based on Leader quality. I'd support that. Or maybe only the units in the Leader's OOB receive a 10% modifier. Lots of possible alternatives. Giving all the units a flat 10% modifier though for the presence of any possible Leader on the battlefield though just seems a bit "lazy." That's no dig at WDS but rather maybe just a holdover rule from long ago which they've grandfather-claused into the rules for many new updates without revisiting it. To say that troops would fight "10% better" under the eyes of a respected and revered leader is a fair statement all things considered. But to say that they would fight equally hard for an unknown leader or a poor leader isn't a fair statement.

I just thought I'd bring it up :mrgreen:


Yes, that seemed to be the original question (no mention of 'chain of command').

LOL, yes I used an 'extreme example' to demonstrate the point that chain of command is neither here nor there. It's all about the quality of the leader. Brigade Commanders were important people. The men would have been inspired by any one of them who offered to lead them into the fray (less so for a poor leader, more so for a high quality one).
Author:  Tex McSwain [ Mon Feb 09, 2026 8:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Agree or Disagree?
I like Paul's idea that a high quality leader should get a greater bonus in a melee than a poor quality leader. I've had lots of "leaders" where I work and half of them couldn't lead a body of men out of an outhouse if it was on fire. I don't think a flat 10% melee modifier makes a lot of sense. Taken to the next level about chain of command I believe that you would follow the lead of a known commander more than an outsider so I vote no.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/