Dismounted leader

[LarkinVB]

What is the advantage of a dismounted leader? I can find no reason to do so.

[Gary McClellan]

I THINK that dismounted leaders are less vulnerable to incoming fire. So if you have one stacked with infantry, that would be the purpose.

[krmiller]

According to the documentation leader losses are strictly percentage chance of kill, wound from fire and kill, wound and capture for melee, no mention of mounted being more vulnerable.

There is a modifier for fire for mounted cavalry, whether or not that is used for officers is not mentioned.
It was always felt that mounted officers seemed more likely to be casualties even back in the old BG days.

[-72-]

According to the documentation leader losses are strictly percentage chance of kill, wound from fire and kill, wound and capture for melee, no mention of mounted being more vulnerable.

There is a modifier for fire for mounted cavalry, whether or not that is used for officers is not mentioned.
It was always felt that mounted officers seemed more likely to be casualties even back in the old BG days.

From what I recall from the Overland test, Mr Miller, nailed it. I think the mount/dismount is just something from the old coding used in the versions Talonsoft published, but now it no longer has any effect*

* The one exception being is that mounted leaders use the cavalry movement class, so it is possible that if you have something that cavalry cannot move through (in this case it was a damaged bridge)  -then the leaders would have to dismount to continue moving.

Combat-wise, I don't think there is any change to vulnerability.