American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

_________________
Gen. Blake Strickler
Confederate General-in-Chief
El Presidente 2010 - 2012

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.]

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia

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.

_________________
Brigadier General Richard Walker
II Corps, 4th Division, 6th Brigade
Army of Tennessee
(JTS/WDS Scenario Designer)

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.

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia

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.

_________________
Gen. Steve Griffith


Army of Northern Virginia Commander

Agree with General Walker that 10% is OK if no change is made but General Swanson's idea is fantastic.

_________________
Lt. Col. Jim Pyle
3rd Div
XVII Corps
Army of the Tennessee

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.

_________________
Gen. Mitch Johnson
GENERAL IN CHIEF

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.

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia

_________________
Gen. Blake Strickler
Confederate General-in-Chief
El Presidente 2010 - 2012

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).

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia

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.

_________________
BG Thomas "Tex" McSwain
Kansas Raiders