Battlefield Leadership: Shouldn't the "Lieutenant" have some significance?

**Alexios** · 05-30-2006, 23:02

Oftentimes while going into battle with multiple generals (a 7-star and 4-star, for example), I wonder if the lower-rank leader should have some significance.

For example, suppose your leading General is killed or captured while in battle. In MTW, you're basically left without any command and there is an immediate drop in troop morale, so much so, that sometimes your entire army routs. Now, in real-life warfare, if the General is killed or captured, the second-in-command (i.e., the First Lieutenant?) takes control.

Wouldn't it make sense for it to work this way in MTW, or was it just not so during the medieval era? Granted, I think there should be some decline in morale when your General is lost in battle, but I don’t think there should be such a huge hit when you have a decent second-in-command on the field.

... just a thought, albeit, perhaps an ignorant one.

**Craterus** · 05-31-2006, 00:18

Hmm, I thought that's what did happened. Seems like common sense to me, and I've been playing to that in my campaigns. If that's not how it works then it appears I've wasted a few alright commanders as second-bests...

**Vlad The Impala** · 05-31-2006, 10:31

Well, having a second-in-command around is one thing, but still: losing your legendary, awe-inspiring General still seems like a pretty heavy hit to morale if you ask me...

**Sirron** · 05-31-2006, 14:45

Especially in the medieval setting with obviously no means of communications except sounding of horns/trumpets and waving of banners...

I suppose you could imagine the loss of a key noble/general as the situation where his banner/standard would fall and dissapear in the middle of the fight while everyone on the field would have seen it.

There is no wonder that some would rout instantly, while other troops could continue fight with some morale penalty.

**Ludens** · 05-31-2006, 18:57

Originally Posted by Craterus

Hmm, I thought that's what did happened. Seems like common sense to me, and I've been playing to that in my campaigns. If that's not how it works then it appears I've wasted a few alright commanders as second-bests...

I am afraid it does not. There is an old post by LongJohn (a CA developer) who states that there is no second-in-command on the battlefield. And personally, I don't see how it could work realistically. Commanding an medieval army was a very personal thing and the new general would have to take this over suddenly, reestablish command and control, formulate a battle plan based on what he knows (which could be very little, even for those in command), let all the men know he has taken over, etcetera, etcetera. Yes, it is possible, but not likely.

**Scurvy** · 05-31-2006, 19:07

after the initial attack/charge etc. i doubt a medieval general would have much control over his own men anyway, his job would simply be to help with the fighting etc. if he did die his standard would fall etc. and so men would loose morale, but i doubt a second-in-command would make any difference after the two armies engaged...

**Mithrandir** · 05-31-2006, 21:04

Originally Posted by Scurvy

after the initial attack/charge etc. i doubt a medieval general would have much control over his own men anyway, his job would simply be to help with the fighting etc. if he did die his standard would fall etc. and so men would loose morale, but i doubt a second-in-command would make any difference after the two armies engaged...

Actually,I have a vague recollection of armies being commanded with flag signals & horn blows. Also usually the standard would be carried by anyone near enough.

Also I don't think that many kings actually died,or participated for that matter, in actual battle.

But it would be nice to have a second in command, could add a tiny bit more strategy to the battles :).

**Banquo's Ghost** · 05-31-2006, 22:19

As Ludens wrote.

Also, a lot of mediaeval armies would have been composed through feudal allegiances, and if the general who commanded those allegiances fell, there may well have been a whole new power structure born there and then. Nobles of the time were not above betraying or haggling on the battlefield itself.

Your second-in-command might just fancy taking the offer he had 'under consideration' from the enemy king once his lord fell.

**Tony Furze** · 06-07-2006, 05:20

Witness what happened in "Braveheart" with Robert the Bruce. There certainly were strong clan-like allegiances in the Medieval kingdoms and the King/General would have had to have an awe-inspiring presence.

A very strong personality(like William Wallays) would have had to rise to the occasion to take over the leadership of a whole army mid-battle.
In MTW/VI as the Muslims I ve often had the general die but I ve pressed on with one of the "ignore routers" units and still won with the whole army behind them.
TF