There never seems to be a reason to place a commanding officer above a brigade command level in the "front line". Often I see, and use, brigade commanders for the additional 10% bonus they give to either attackers or defenders but otherwise they are the only ones I ever even catch a glimpse of through the fog of war. Players never waste ammo by firing at lone commanders when other, more dangerous, targets are closer shooting at them. This makes any leader casualty about a brigade level very rare or accidental (i.e. failing to move a leader near some trees where the enemy had a unit hidden).
In numerous battles division, corps, or even army commanders picked up battle flags and led from the front with great effect. Lee was only halted by the men around him from leading a charge in the Wilderness and Albert Johnston was shot and mortally wounded leading from the front. But what if there was a way to up the motivational effect of a leader beyond the 10% for brigade? Something like 20% for divisional level, 30% for corps, and a crazy 40% bonus for army. No player would place a Lee or Grant in the front line except in a last ditch, must-win, go for broke moment of truth. But any unit being led into a battle by a Cleburne, a Reynolds, or an AP Hill must have been driven to greater lengths of exertion knowing that their upper echelon commander was there personally leading them. And what a huge morale boost for the opponent as well if they are lucky enough to make a casualty out of one of the leading generals on the other side.
A percentage modifier increase greater than 10% above the brigade level then might prompt desperate players to make desperate choices at key moments to attempt a much needed victory even at the cost of a very huge loss to the army. But the idea that McClellan, leading from the front atop Daniel Webster, sword in hand and screaming for his men to rally and charge the enemy would only give the same 10% boost as Col. Anonymous seems a bit off.
|
