Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Civil War Generals & Leadership Structure

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> Civil War Generals & Leadership Structure Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Civil War Generals & Leadership Structure - 9/20/2006 4:05:55 PM   
dh76513


Posts: 131
Joined: 9/19/2006
Status: offline 		The following site is perhaps the best historical resource for downloadable photographs of American Civil War Generals organized alphabetically as to Confederate and Union generals.

http://www.generalsandbrevets.com/

Among the features boast, “Control the careers of more than 1,000 generals....every general from the Civil War!” Is it possible to restructure, the union or confederate command structure, promote, and/or reassign field generals outside the historical realities or are the players allowed to manipulate the command structure (e.g., is it possible to replace Robert Lee with James Longstreet or Ulysses Grant with William Sherman)?

_____________________________
Post #: 1
RE: Civil War Generals & Leadership Structure - 9/22/2006 3:25:16 PM   
dh76513


Posts: 131
Joined: 9/19/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oldguard

• The McClellan -- A cautious perfectionist and a master organizer, you like to make sure all your regiments are lined up just right and your supplies laid in for a long campaign. You won't make a move without adequate recon first and when you do it's liable to be an indirect movement rather than a frontal assault. It's a good thing the President is a computer program.

• The Lee -- Aggressive and creative. You don't shy from the frontal assault if you think you can carry their works, but you are also adept at Napoleonic timing when you bring your various Corps on the field to carry the day. You give your generals leeway in carrying out your general orders and are hesitant to micromanage.

• The Albert S. Johnston -- a head full of military knowledge and expertise, your plans are often foiled by the chaos of real events. Undaunted by long odds, however, you're capable of your own Shiloh.

• The Ulysses Grant -- You're not adverse to maneuver, but like Lee you're also not afraid of charging fixed positions. You have the tenacity of a pit bull and a common sense approach to figuring out your enemy. You learn from your mistakes and rarely make the same one twice. Given enough manpower you'll pound your way to Richmond regardless of casualties.

• Thomas J. Jackson -- Your real strength is in tactics. You are innovative and bold in your leadership, capable of fooling your enemy into thinking you're doing things you're not and not being aware of what you're really up to. You can make long forced marches with haste and arrive on your enemy's flank when he least expects it.

• "Fighting Joe" Hooker -- on second thought ...

• Nathan B. Forrest -- You identify more with the style of a raider or a guerilla, always trying to be where the enemy least expects you. You pride yourself on the loyalty of your men.

• William. T. Sherman -- You tend to overestimate the strength of the enemy, but you excel on the defensive. When it comes to destroying the enemy's capacity for making war, you have no peers.

Personally, I'm somewhere between a Lee and a Jackson. My nightmare scenario in any wargame is to be short on cavalry so I can both screen and conduct effective reconaissance. I'd rather strike the enemy in detail than receive him on defense. My least favorite opponent would be a Grant type of commander.


Although I find it interesting to examine strategy styles, I would like to know the weights in this game given various commanders? I have played numerous games where generals like Grant and Lee are overrated and in some games players are even given bonuses for just their presence on the battlefield.

Robert E. Lee—the South's most revered military leader—was a true diplomatic genius who received full credit for both his outstanding defensive maneuvers and for his remarkable achievement in holding together a disorganized and often under-equipped Confederate Army. Much like Gen Eisenhower who was also a diplomatic genius, many of Lee’s subordinate generals were better battlefield strategist. In my opinion, the only general in the Confederate High Command worthy of such a position was LTG James Longstreet. The Union High Command was very similar, but none of the four were worthy. This is not to discredit the battlefield brilliance of both the Union and Confederate High Commands. However, it is to note that the High Command on both sides could have had fewer blunders and perhaps benefited more from having commanders who had perfected strategies. So I am very pleased to know that we can change the high command by promoting and assigning generals in this game. However, this still leaves the question of how these generals are weighted according to their abilities?

_____________________________


(in reply to dh76513)
Post #: 2
RE: Civil War Generals & Leadership Structure - 9/23/2006 2:58:28 PM   
PDiFolco

 

Posts: 1200
Joined: 10/11/2004
Status: offline 		Hi,
About generals, I wonder how the game will handle nominations : will the player be able to put any leader in command ? To promote/demote them at will, or will there ne "political" or whatever costs/limitations ?
Total freedom will not be historical for the North, that kept incompetent leaders in command for political reasons instead of promoting the good ones (at least during the first years).


(in reply to dh76513)
Post #: 3
RE: Civil War Generals & Leadership Structure - 9/23/2006 7:21:13 PM   
andysomers

 

Posts: 157
Joined: 9/11/2006
Status: offline 		Right - I was wondering that myself. Seems there should be political consequences when a leader is changed, particularly at the high up level (Army, and perhaps Corps).

AS

(in reply to PDiFolco)
Post #: 4
RE: Civil War Generals & Leadership Structure - 9/23/2006 8:12:28 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
quote:

Total freedom will not be historical for the North, that kept incompetent leaders in command for political reasons instead of promoting the good ones (at least during the first years).


Just what qualities did Braxton Bragg have to recommend him as an army commander other than that he was "friends" with President Davis?  

< Message edited by spence -- 9/23/2006 8:15:06 PM >

(in reply to andysomers)
Post #: 5
RE: Civil War Generals & Leadership Structure - 9/23/2006 8:29:02 PM   
Oldguard


Posts: 94
Joined: 9/15/2005
Status: offline 		Don't forget such personality issues as we see in the West between Buell and Halleck, where rivalry both prevented them from direct cooperation and motivated them to surpass the other's accomplishments.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 6
RE: Civil War Generals & Leadership Structure - 9/23/2006 9:02:18 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline 		I would simply hope that the politics of both North and South are emulated such that the North is not faced by some ultimately efficient monolithic South unafflicted with personal rivalries and headstrong generals.  After all Hood might well have won the war for the South by doing nothing but digging entrenchments at Atlanta...he threw away the strength Army of Tennessee in fruitless attacks instead of just holding out for a potential political victory in the Yankee elections...and did so almost at the behest of the Confederate President (who didn't think J. Johnston was aggressive enough). 

(in reply to Oldguard)
Post #: 7
RE: Civil War Generals & Leadership Structure - 9/23/2006 9:34:32 PM   
andysomers

 

Posts: 157
Joined: 9/11/2006
Status: offline 		One of the best ways that I have seen this handled is a seniority system.  The McClellans, Buells, Hallecks, and other losers have seniority at the beginning of the war, and must be given the first field commands.  To remove them, it costs politically, but that's the only way to get your Grants, Shermans, and Mcphersons into high command as they are promoted through the ranks.  Bragg would be a good example on the CS side. 

Anyway, a seniority system I think would be a great addition (and very historically based).

AS

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 8
RE: Civil War Generals & Leadership Structure - 9/25/2006 2:41:06 PM   
dh76513


Posts: 131
Joined: 9/19/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Just what qualities did Braxton Bragg have to recommend him as an army commander other than that he was "friends" with President Davis?  


As a man, I am uncertain; as a commader few if any! Braxton Bragg was a West Pointer (1837) who had earned a prewar reputation for strict discipline as well as a literal adherence to regulations. His pre-Civil War career was highly distinguished. After seeing action against the Seminoles, he went on to win three brevets in the Mexican War, in which his battery of "flying artillery" revolutionized, in many respects, the battlefield use of that arm. In 1856 he resigned his captaincy-he was a LTC by brevet-in the 3rd Artillery and became a Louisiana planter. He won the one major Confederate victory in the West, at Chickamauga, but failed to follow up his success. Instead, his blunders were evident time and time again on the battlefield. For example, he laid siege to the Union army in Chattanooga and merely waited for Grant to break through his lines. In the meantime he had been engaged in a series of disputes with his subordinates especially Leonidas Polk, James Longstreet, and William J. Hardee that severely injured the effectiveness of the Army of Tennessee. Any and all military strategy was undermined by his clear inability to work with subordinates, listen, and his knowledge on a tactical level was very lacking. Repeatedly he showed ineptness at making critical decisions during major battles, including Pittsburg Landing (Shiloh), Murfreesboro (Stone's River), Chickamauga, and Chattanooga.







Attachment (1)

< Message edited by dh76513 -- 9/25/2006 2:43:01 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to spence)
Post #: 9
RE: Civil War Generals & Leadership Structure - 9/25/2006 7:08:29 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		spence and andysomers,
We do not have rivalries between generals factored into the game. The idea didn't occur to us, but as with so many other ideas posted on this forum in recent weeks, we'd consider adding it in a patch if there was clear demand for it expressed by players once the game is released.

We do, however, tie in generals' promotions and demotions to the attitudes of their home states' governors. As I've written elsewhere, governors can help or harm the war effort in a number of ways, and their willing to do so is based on their attitude. So this rule doesn't reflect seniority, but does link politics to generals.

(in reply to andysomers)
Post #: 10
RE: Civil War Generals & Leadership Structure - 9/25/2006 8:07:55 PM   
dh76513


Posts: 131
Joined: 9/19/2006
Status: offline 		Spence,
Concerning Bragg, I thought you might enjoy some input in words from someone who personally knew him.

"You have played the part of a damned scoundrel, and are a coward, and if you were any part a man I would slap your jaws and force you to resent it...I say to you that if you ever again try to interfere with me or cross my path it will be at the peril of your life."

-- Nathan Bedford Forrest, to General Braxton Bragg (his commanding general at the time)

Gil,
Great move linking politics to the generals!



_____________________________


(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 11
RE: Civil War Generals & Leadership Structure - 9/25/2006 8:14:33 PM   
andysomers

 

Posts: 157
Joined: 9/11/2006
Status: offline 		Gil,

Thanks for the reply - no worries on the small issues - get this bad boy released!!!  Some link between politics and generalcy is the main thing I was looking for, it sounds like you accommodated that to some degree.  I'm sure we'll all have feedback when it comes out.  Again, my thanks for your patience on the multitude of questions and your diligent work on responding and developing the game.  It is very much appreciated.

AS

(in reply to dh76513)
Post #: 12
RE: Civil War Generals & Leadership Structure - 9/26/2006 7:14:36 PM   
dh76513


Posts: 131
Joined: 9/19/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
These are the ratings for generals along with the numerical values:

Terrible = 0
Bad = 1
Poor = 2
Normal = 3
Fair = 4
Good = 5
Great = 6
Excellent = 7
Superb = 8


Just out of interests (and perhaps to satisfy some of my personal curiosity), please rate the following 11 Union and Confederate generals on a scale of 0 – 8.

Union:

George Thomas
William Tecumseh Sherman
Ulysses S. Grant
George B. McClellan
Benjamin Butler
Ambrose Burnside
George Gordon Meade
William Rosecrans
Winfield Scott Hancock
General Joseph Hooker
Lewis Addison Grant

Confederate:

Robert E. Lee
General Joseph Johnston
Thomas J. Jackson
James Longstreet
John Bell Hood
Patrick Ronayne Cleburne
Toutant Beauregard
A.P. Hill
Jeb Stuart
Braxton Bragg
Nathan Bedford Forrest

…and accordingly to the criterion below. Each criteria or area is based on a rating from 0 – 8 and the actual score is obtained by then dividing this total by 4 or 5 depending on if the general is a cavalry leader or not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
And these are the five areas for which each general is rated according to that system:

Initiative: Adds to the movement of brigades in detailed combat; affects the movement initiative of the division/corps/army on the main map

Leadership: helps disorganized units regain order; gives morale boost for rallying; has chance of negating effects of fatigue from forced march

Tactics: Increases damage done by brigades in combat

Command: Determines the chance of bringing out-of-command units back into command; helps brigades change formation; helps units resist charges; enables units to enter dangerous zones (i.e., certain hexes where they ordinarily would be at a penalty because of terrain type and/or proximity to enemy units)

Cavalry: Increases damage done by charging cavalry in combat


_____________________________


(in reply to andysomers)
Post #: 13
RE: Civil War Generals & Leadership Structure - 9/26/2006 7:51:26 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		I can't tell -- are you asking me, or is this for others to chime in on?

I'm still waiting to hear back from the Matrix people about getting a "Generals" sub-forum and authorizing me to start poll threads so that we can vote on generals' ratings. (As I mentioned in the other thread, for some reason my account isn't configured so that I can start polls, even though the forum FAQ suggests that anyone is able to do this.) I'm cautiously optimistic that one of them will get to my plea sometime today, and we can get started...

< Message edited by Gil R. -- 9/26/2006 8:01:17 PM >

(in reply to dh76513)
Post #: 14
RE: Civil War Generals & Leadership Structure - 9/26/2006 8:17:47 PM   
dh76513


Posts: 131
Joined: 9/19/2006
Status: offline 		Sorry for the confusion Gil, but I was just asking anyone and everyone for their input to assess general consensus regarding the above noted leaders.

_____________________________


(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 15
RE: Civil War Generals & Leadership Structure - 9/26/2006 9:15:20 PM   
andysomers

 

Posts: 157
Joined: 9/11/2006
Status: offline 		I am going to cannibalize from a few other Civil War games that I have to help on this. 

Decision Games - "War Between the States"
Victory Games - "The Civil War"
"From Sumter to Appomattox"

Also - I think that 1-8 may be a bit meticulous.  Usually 1-5 is about the only discernible difference.

To illustrate:
McClellan, on either scale will be ranked by almost all as a 1 for "initiative" or whatever moniker it goes by.  Lee and Jackson on the other hand, will rank most likely the highest in either.  I think that an "8" may perhaps by judged 8 times better than a "1,"  whereas it would only be 5 times as better on the 1-5 scale.  Does that make sense?

AS

(in reply to dh76513)
Post #: 16
RE: Civil War Generals & Leadership Structure - 9/26/2006 9:45:48 PM   
dh76513


Posts: 131
Joined: 9/19/2006
Status: offline 		FYI - the rating suggested by Gil is 0 - 8.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dh76513
…and accordingly to the criterion below. Each criteria or area is based on a rating from 0 – 8 and the actual score is obtained by then dividing this total by 4 or 5 depending on if the general is a cavalry leader or not.

< Message edited by dh76513 -- 9/26/2006 9:53:40 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to andysomers)
Post #: 17
RE: Civil War Generals & Leadership Structure - 9/26/2006 10:02:28 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		Yeah, 0-8 is in the game and there's a 0% chance that we'd rework that.

I'll try to get to some of your (collective) questions later. It's a busy day, here in WCSland. (I'm editing the final draft of the manual. The existence of a final draft of the manual should be taken as a positive sign in terms of where the project stands.)

(in reply to dh76513)
Post #: 18
RE: Civil War Generals & Leadership Structure - 9/26/2006 10:04:36 PM   
andysomers

 

Posts: 157
Joined: 9/11/2006
Status: offline 		I like the 0% chance comment!  That means that you are through tinkering and ready to publish to me!

AS

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 19
RE: Civil War Generals & Leadership Structure - 9/26/2006 10:11:19 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		Well, we are pretty much through tinkering, but the reason not to go from 0-8 to 0-5 is much simpler: we have 1000 generals each of whom is rated in five categories, which means having to review 5000 cells in our generals spreadsheet to figure out what needs changing.

(in reply to andysomers)
Post #: 20
RE: Civil War Generals & Leadership Structure - 9/26/2006 10:13:09 PM   
andysomers

 

Posts: 157
Joined: 9/11/2006
Status: offline 		Ouch - good point!

AS

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 21
RE: Civil War Generals & Leadership Structure - 9/27/2006 6:48:35 PM   
dh76513


Posts: 131
Joined: 9/19/2006
Status: offline 		I think that a rating system for general officers as noted by Gil in an earlier post is very important, but will there be any overall “prestige” scores for these generals? In addition to the ability of general officers defined as by rating system, I think a prestige rating should also be given or is it? Prestige could be directly linked to either a general officer’s success or failure on the battlefield. For example, battlefield failure should diminish a general officer’s status and combat success should amplify any their standing in prestige while not altering their combat abilities. In reality, a general officer’s prestige rating might increase or decrease for a number of reasons (via promotion, demotion, recognition, replacement, battlefield success or defeat, commanding soldiers from his state, experience, etc), but their skill or ability should remain the same. For example, an excellent general might lose an engagement due to just overwhelming numbers. While this defeat on the battlefield might decrease his “prestige” rating, it should not change his ability as a general officer and he would still retain his “ability” rating as an excellent tactician. Do prestige ratings exist? If not, how does the rating system for general officers work concerning battle victories, promotions, and other game dynamics such as “the careers of more than 1,000 generals....every general from the Civil War?”

_____________________________


(in reply to andysomers)
Post #: 22
RE: Civil War Generals & Leadership Structure - 9/27/2006 7:03:38 PM   
andysomers

 

Posts: 157
Joined: 9/11/2006
Status: offline 		That seems in concept like a pretty good idea to me. Tie battlefield success, political pull, and seniority into a prestige rating, or something of the like. Helps to determine political repercussions of removing a politically important general, and justify promotions (once a one-star leader makes a certain prestige, he can be considered for is promotion to two-star, etc.)

AS

(in reply to dh76513)
Post #: 23
RE: Civil War Generals & Leadership Structure - 9/27/2006 7:07:28 PM   
andysomers

 

Posts: 157
Joined: 9/11/2006
Status: offline 		Also, one other idea - I think that general's ratings should change to some degree as they are promoted. The prime example, John Bell Hood. Excellent as brigade and division commander, very mediocre as Corps commander, abysmal as Army commander. I realize this puts a whole new fold into the game (rate 1000 generals at 4 different rankings = potentially 4 times the work).

AS

(in reply to andysomers)
Post #: 24
RE: Civil War Generals & Leadership Structure - 9/27/2006 10:09:13 PM   
Oldguard


Posts: 94
Joined: 9/15/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

spence and andysomers,
We do not have rivalries between generals factored into the game. The idea didn't occur to us, but as with so many other ideas posted on this forum in recent weeks, we'd consider adding it in a patch if there was clear demand for it expressed by players once the game is released.

We do, however, tie in generals' promotions and demotions to the attitudes of their home states' governors. As I've written elsewhere, governors can help or harm the war effort in a number of ways, and their willing to do so is based on their attitude. So this rule doesn't reflect seniority, but does link politics to generals.

I was thinking about this issue last night. I think rivalries would be an unnecessary complication in a game that has this kind of emphasis on political influences. Having their demotions/promotions tied to their home state's governors makes plenty of sense.

If anything, I'd think an "ego" rating would be more than sufficient. Many of the personality conflicts in the ACW were basically little more than ego clashes (Helleck & Buell is my favorite example). A commander with a high ego rating like, say, Beauregard, would have certain possible behaviors that were out of control of the player - such as moving slowly, attacking too quickly or not at all, not coordinating with other commanders and so forth.

I'm much less concerned about this kind of fancy gingerbread, however, than I am with seeing a final game released. I'm ready to play!


(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 25
RE: Civil War Generals & Leadership Structure - 9/28/2006 2:30:46 PM   
dh76513


Posts: 131
Joined: 9/19/2006
Status: offline 		Perhaps, I should ask the question again.....Do prestige ratings exist? If not, how does the rating system for general officers work concerning battle victories, promotions, and other game dynamics such as “the careers of more than 1,000 generals....every general from the Civil War?” Please see my previous post for an explanation.

_____________________________


(in reply to Oldguard)
Post #: 26
RE: Civil War Generals & Leadership Structure - 9/28/2006 7:24:46 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		Sorry, I've been busy...

"Prestige" strikes me as a really interesting idea, but it's not in the game. As for the other aspects of your question, I had been hoping that Eric would respond, since he knows all of the ins and outs of how generals are programmed.

(in reply to dh76513)
Post #: 27
RE: Civil War Generals & Leadership Structure - 9/28/2006 8:26:14 PM   
dh76513


Posts: 131
Joined: 9/19/2006
Status: offline 		Gil,
I know you are very busy, but don’t’ think for a moment that your efforts go unnoticed. Furthermore, they are greatly appreciated. Concerning prestige, I like to use the Eisenhower analogy. For example, in World War II game Eisenhower would have been rated with very high prestige; perhaps higher than any other Allied general officer. As a battlefield commander, however, he would have been likely rated as a “Good” as compared to warriors like George S. Patton or Heinz Guderian who would have been rated as “Superb” (based on your criteria).

_____________________________


(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 28
RE: Civil War Generals & Leadership Structure - 9/28/2006 10:06:29 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		dh76513,
Thanks for your comments. Regarding Ike, in our game (if he were teleported back to the ACW) he'd get a "Superb" for logistics, even if in tactics he were just "Great" or "Good." The truth is, we don't know how Eisenhower would have done as a battlefield general; similarly, some of the ACW generals we have in our database of 1000 saw little of battle but played essential roles in procurement, etc., so they'd get good logistics ratings and "normal" for some of the others.


(in reply to dh76513)
Post #: 29
RE: Civil War Generals & Leadership Structure - 9/28/2006 11:15:54 PM   
andysomers

 

Posts: 157
Joined: 9/11/2006
Status: offline 		Yeah I like this thinking.  Lee I would give an average, to maybe even below average for logistics (his quartermaster and supply skills left a lot to be desired), but obviously the highest marks for initiative, inspiration, and tactics.

David - Check your research on Thomas.  The "Rock of Chickamuaga" was nearly removed from command during the Nashville campaign.  I'm with you - in that I am a Thomas fan, but I don't think he'd make my top 4 US generals, and definitely not an 8 out of 8.  I'm still going to try and come up with a matirx on gnereals ratings from the other games that I have in my collection.

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> Civil War Generals & Leadership Structure Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.141