Can Divisional commanders get killed or wounded?

[epic96]

I’ve had brigade commanders get wounded but I’ve never had a divisional commander get wounded or killed despite intentionally exposing them to harms way. Is it a luck thing or are divisional and Army commanders immune?

[Oubley]

I don't know if it's a bug, but yes Division commander can be killed.

I had one of my division commanders apparently get hit by a "missed" artillery fire.

He was between two brigades some decent distance between each. dead horse, dead commander. I don't know what else would have hit him other then artillery.

[drzom]

I am pretty sure anyone on the battlefield can be killed. Rallying increases the chances. I gather that being close to a target increases the chances.

The real question is whether one can target a division/corp/army commander and cause a casualty.

[epic96]

I’m pretty sure you can’t target division/corp/army commanders. I’ve tried using sharpshooters and artillery. For that matter I’ve had Calvary run over HQ’s during charges.

[Balanced Integer]

Sherman intentionally shelled a group of Rebel commanders while they were surveying fields outside of Marietta, Georgia, killing Leonidas Polk (the highest ranking casualty of the war, iirc) in particularly gruesome fashion.

Seems like we should get a crack at the record, in game terms.

[Oubley]

Originally posted by Balanced Integer:

Sherman intentionally shelled a group of Rebel commanders while they were surveying fields outside of Marietta, Georgia, killing Leonidas Polk (the highest ranking casualty of the war, iirc) in particularly gruesome fashion.
.....

Wasn't Jackson and/or Reynolds higher rank? AS Johnston even? Wasn't the AS Johnston guy out west in charge of the entire CSA army / #1 on that list of of the 4/5 high ranking generals the CSA had?

not to jinx things, I have yet to see a corps or army commander get killed on either side. I'm not even sure I've wounded one.

[crono900]

I've had a division officer die over night for no reason. Must have choked on dinner or something. It would be nice if they actually told you what killed them.

[VTH Gaming]

Originally posted by Balanced Integer:

Sherman intentionally shelled a group of Rebel commanders while they were surveying fields outside of Marietta, Georgia, killing Leonidas Polk (the highest ranking casualty of the war, iirc) in particularly gruesome fashion.

Seems like we should get a crack at the record, in game terms.

Albert Sidney Johnston would like a word about the highest ranking casualty of the war part.

[Lt_Hommel]

Pre 1900's killing commanders was not something that was normally purposely done. As without command whole armies would route and it was considered "against the rules of war" before there really where any.

[Oubley]

Originally posted by Lt_Hommel:

Pre 1900's killing commanders was not something that was normally purposely done. As without command whole armies would route and it was considered "against the rules of war" before there really where any.

I don't think it ever was a rule, just heavily frowned upon from "civilized" nations. Generals of armies typically aren't on front lines so it's hard to hit them.

I think in the game the AI gets some extra buffs to prevent them from getting snipped. I'd imagine players typically don't get their army/corps commanders to close to the conflict the majority of the time.

personally wish there was more of a Sierra Civil War Generals or Paradox hearts of Iron type of army/corps impact where stats cascaded.

They don't really seem to have much of an impact in my tactical battles. Or maybe I just choose good leaders so don't notice?

[Balanced Integer]

Originally posted by VTH Gaming:

Originally posted by Balanced Integer:

Sherman intentionally shelled a group of Rebel commanders while they were surveying fields outside of Marietta, Georgia, killing Leonidas Polk (the highest ranking casualty of the war, iirc) in particularly gruesome fashion.

Seems like we should get a crack at the record, in game terms.

Albert Sidney Johnston would like a word about the highest ranking casualty of the war part.

I stand corrected. Point being, if the player should get a wild hair and decide to lob a few three-inch shells at a divisional HQ marker, there ought be some effects other than pretty boom-booms.

[crono900]

Originally posted by Lt_Hommel:

Pre 1900's killing commanders was not something that was normally purposely done. As without command whole armies would route and it was considered "against the rules of war" before there really where any.

Here is what Bing has to say about it.

'During the Civil War, commanding officers were not targeted on the battlefield because it was considered dishonorable and ungentlemanly to do so. The idea was that the officers were the leaders of their men and should be respected as such. It was also believed that killing an officer would only lead to more violence and bloodshed. Instead, soldiers were encouraged to aim for the enemy’s ranks and file, which would have a greater impact on the enemy’s ability to fight.'

Note; despite what Bing say, President Lincoln (The Union's Commander and Chief) was targeted by a sniper and was later assassinated.

During the Revolutionary War however, Americans often targeted officers because that was the quickest way to get the British regulars to retreat. Of course, only snipers were able to target the officers successfully, as the smoothbore muskets that the rank and file had were often too inaccurate to fire at long distances. Once the Continental Army was trained in European Warfare and rule of engagement the targeting of officers was lessened, but stilled continued.

Most of the time, targeting an officer is a sure way to win, except for the officer being targeted. In Europe (who has a much longer history than America) most officers came from Noble houses and therefore were considered above the common man, thus their concept of targeting officers as bad was put in place. Though throughout history, COs often stayed back out of range for that very reason. But, with every advancement in weaponry range and accuracy, opposing COs become a prime targets for attackers again.

If you think about it, Chess is a game where you play as the king and have to target the opposing King to win.

[drzom]

Originally posted by crono900:

If you think about it, Chess is a game where you play as the king and have to target the opposing King to win.

But you never kill the king in chess; you only put him in jeopardy that he cannot escape.

[lasmith03]

*** JEB Stuart and John Reynolds walk in.

[crono900]

Originally posted by drzom:

Originally posted by crono900:

If you think about it, Chess is a game where you play as the king and have to target the opposing King to win.

But you never kill the king in chess; you only put him in jeopardy that he cannot escape.

Check out battle chess (1992).

[Oubley]

Originally posted by crono900:

During the Revolutionary War however, Americans often targeted officers because that was the quickest way to get the British regulars to retreat. .

Funny you should mention this... so from the USA, what I remember from grade school we were told we'd actually target officers back in those british wars because the british were well disciplined. They'd stand under fire awaiting orders.

I say wars because we also count that war around 1812ish which I think europeans/some places call it more a conflict.

Anyways, I digress, well no orders would be coming, cause officer is dead, so easier to fire away.

////////////////////////
and correct the next step is follow up chaos/confusion, easier to get them to retreat.