Court Martials

[Brochgale]

Would like the ability to have some Generals court martialed for various things!Been playing CSA on a hard level in 1863 and I just lost Bowling Green, Donnelson, Clarksville and Nashville in the space of 4 turns due to inadequate Geneals not performing it seems! Grrrr!!!
In addition I would like to have suitable animations of having them put against a wall and shot!
Might say I am a little intolerant at moment watching Yankee Victory points and morale points no doubt escalating at my expense

[Aurelin]

A courts martial will do one of two things. Either remove him or keep him. And being that you are the one in charge, you can do that yourself. Provided you are willing to pay the political cost.

Incompetent generals were kept mostly for political reasons. Even Grant, who pretty much had his own way in 1864, had to put up with Butler.

[McNaughton]

IMO it is already represented somewhat in losing seniority. If a top general loses enough seniority then they can easily be replaced without any NM/VP penalty (since they are now lower in seniority).

[Brochgale]

IMO it is already represented somewhat in losing seniority. If a top general loses enough seniority then they can easily be replaced without any NM/VP penalty (since they are now lower in seniority).

It is just more fun putting them in front of a firing squad!As it was I put Buearegard in Charge of My western Armies and Hardee a Corps and they stopped the rout at Pulaski and Winchester in Tennessee - It did help getting ASJoHSTONE and Polk wounded though before hand!

[Guru80]

It is just more fun putting them in front of a firing squad!As it was I put Buearegard in Charge of My western Armies and Hardee a Corps and they stopped the rout at Pulaski and Winchester in Tennessee - It did help getting ASJoHSTONE and Polk wounded though before hand!

I hear ya I would love to put some US high level generals court martialed just for their completely idiocy in all things warfare!

I do my own version of court martialing though. For instance, if a Corps commander has a 0 strategy (lots of Union early generals here!) and they just NEVER become active they get replaced and sent off to plow land up north somewhere or put somewhere that they will most likely not have to see action. McDowell in one of my games was not active a SINGLE turn from start of the game through a few months in 62. He is most likely having a good ole time with the ladies in a pub in Michigan talking about his heroic actions in the battle field as he observed it from his tent.

[doktor57]

I'd like to see the House Committee on the Conduct of the War modeled. Perhaps if a Union General has a very bad day the committee would be activated. Subsequently, any generals being defeated might be sacked by the committee.

[Guru80]

I'd like to see the House Committee on the Conduct of the War modeled. Perhaps if a Union General has a very bad day the committee would be activated. Subsequently, any generals being defeated might be sacked by the committee.

Now that is a good idea. I thought the same thing after I read about it and the results of its formation. Having your Generals in danger of being investigated and removed from the game would definitely slowed and down right prevented some of my attacks that were iffy. It would definitely model the circumstances better I believe and add that extra bit problems the Union faced.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Calhoun]

I'm no expert on 19th century military justice, but today's code punishes moral and disciplinary failings, not tactical incompetence. Assuming the code then was reasonably close to what it is today, court martialing a general for losing a battle just doesn't make sense. (If there's some disciplinary failing that can be shown to be the cause of the loss, that's a different story, but such things aren't really modeled in AACW.) The proper remedy for incompetence is removal and replacement.

In order to model courts martial, you'd have to assign the generals personal vices like drunkenness and whatnot, then come up with a system to determine how far those vices affected a battle, how likely the general's superiors were to prosecute him for them, etc.

I think doktor57's Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War idea is more like what you're looking for, except that it didn't execute people and often did more harm than good by saddling the Union with incompetent but politically correct (i.e. hardcore abolitionist) generals.

That said, string the bastards up!!!

[Guru80]

But, if you read further into Shelby Foote's Narrative, a lot of their (Committee on the Conduct of the War) recommendations were blocked by Lincoln. Now, that probably cost him political capital to do so, so if that was modeled into the game also with this idea, then it might be acceptable.

Yeah, that is true. The first inquiry and the questioning of McClellan are what immediately came to mind. I can think of a few ways it could be worked into the game but it isn't a must have feature.

There are already a lot of things that simulate the pressure the north was under to get things going and to win some battles all basically NM related. The thought I had with the above was to include something that doesn't affect national morale but still put some pressure on the Union player. Being investigated and possibly losing an otherwise competent General would make me think twice as the Union simply because there isn't enough good ones to go around (though plenty of mediocre and downright terrible ones). I have lost many a battle with otherwise favorable circumstances except my 0-1-1 General leading the way. Those that are better and worth their weight in GOLD for the US.

[doktor57]

I'm no expert on 19th century military justice, but today's code punishes moral and disciplinary failings, not tactical incompetence. Assuming the code then was reasonably close to what it is today, court martialing a general for losing a battle just doesn't make sense. (If there's some disciplinary failing that can be shown to be the cause of the loss, that's a different story, but such things aren't really modeled in AACW.) The proper remedy for incompetence is removal and replacement.

In order to model courts martial, you'd have to assign the generals personal vices like drunkenness and whatnot, then come up with a system to determine how far those vices affected a battle, how likely the general's superiors were to prosecute him for them, etc.

I think doktor57's Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War idea is more like what you're looking for, except that it didn't execute people and often did more harm than good by saddling the Union with incompetent but politically correct (i.e. hardcore abolitionist) generals.

That said, string the bastards up!!!

Drunkeness? Hmm, what Union general would be in danger of that charge,
I wonder?

[tagwyn]

Sounds like something Hitler or Stalin would do? t

[Rafiki]

Holy thread necromancy, Batman!

[Barker]

thionk of the debacle at henry and donelson..pilloe...floyd......crying shame a general pass the buck then high tail it