Josh Jansen wrote:
I like that the computer does it. On a real battlefield the next senior man would take over. You cant stop battle and say, hey now your in command. Its not football, cant just put a new QB in on the fly. Sometimes I believe we have too much control over the battle field in these games. I know another post has been talking about command and control variants. Interested in some of the ideas.
Agreed, it should be a pre-determined thing. If not, then I think you will find that people sacrifice a poor leader if they know he will be replaced by one who has better ratings. They may stack a bad Corps or Army Commander with regiments in fire-prone situations or leading risky charges.
From Campaign Antietam:
Leader Loss Values
Fire Wound: 2% Fire Kill: 3%
Melee Wound: 3% Melee Kill: 4% Melee Capture: 5%
So, in that title (different in others), there's a 5% of becoming a casualty due to fire and a 12% chance in a melee. Any poorly rated Army or Corps Commander (served by highly-rated subordinates) will be leading every charge into the enemy. I'll get a 10% bonus for having him in the melee and 12% chance that he'll become a casualty and be replaced by a better commander.