Union players

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Union players

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] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States >> Union players

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Union players - 7/2/2008 11:48:30 PM

hgilmer

Posts: 184
Joined: 6/2/2007
From: Birmingham, Alabama
Status: offline

Do you change out Lyons, Mcdowell early? They don't seem to be great as AC's - I really want them to start acting like commanders and getting intitiative more.

TIA.
H Gilmer.

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: Union players - 7/3/2008 1:07:31 AM

Treefrog

Posts: 702
Joined: 4/7/2004
Status: offline

I share your concern about the AC getting the troops moving with help on initiative. It may help to remember that two of the three initiative factors affecting AC initiative have absolutely nothing to do with the AC: TCIB (+0 to +5) and supplied status (+5). The only aspect of initiative that the commander himself influences is his attack rating.

That being said, Lyon's attack rating is "3". This gives Lyon a numerator of 3 (attack) +5 (supply)+4 (TCIB) = 12; not bad, except that the denominator is either 21 or 28 in 1861. Only Grant at "4" is higher in 1861. We don't hear much about Nathaniel Lyon because he had the misfortune to get himself killed in his first battle. I don't know that I'd worry about replacing him until I had a much better candidate.

McDowell's attack rating is "2", not so good. His numerator is typically also 12 (2+5+5) because he is in the Eastern Theatre and benefits from Scott who is typically in the national capital. On the positive side, I think he trains infantry at "4", which is helpful for troops who are probably not moving anyway. Who would you replace him with?

To replace either of these two worthies one might consider that an AC must be either a 3 star general (of which you have exactly none extra in 1861) or possess a command rating of 11 or more (those are few and far between in 1861; even Grant starts at just 10).

Pope has an attack of 3, but is only a two star with less than 11 command rating. The only way he could be an AC is to promote him to three star (ouch that hurts on the PP front

), and I'm not sure the promotion would even take effect immediately. You could attempt to raise Grant's command rating by having him win a battle, but that could backfire or worse yet get him killed; it will be a very long war for you without Grant.

_____________________________

"L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace."

(in reply to hgilmer)

Post #: 2

RE: Union players - 7/3/2008 1:22:55 AM

hgilmer

Posts: 184
Joined: 6/2/2007
From: Birmingham, Alabama
Status: offline

I'm actually in 1862 - halfway through and Grant is 17 and Lyons isn't doing too much.

_____________________________

(in reply to Treefrog)

Post #: 3

RE: Union players - 7/3/2008 1:24:43 AM

JAMiAM

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

I agree about Lyon. There are really no other early war leaders that are better as AC's for the Union, until Grant comes along.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Treefrog
McDowell's attack rating is "2", not so good. His numerator is typically also 12 (2+5+5) because he is in the Eastern Theatre and benefits from Scott who is typically in the national capital. On the positive side, I think he trains infantry at "4", which is helpful for troops who are probably not moving anyway. Who would you replace him with?

Perhaps you're thinking of McClellan? McDowell's historical ITR is 2. Coupled with his other mediocre ratings, and a low Political rating of 1, he's always the first AC that I replace. Usually, I groom Butler for the job of TC, by giving him an Army command. Butler's high Political rating of 4, helps staunch the bleeding of PP's that the Union has each turn, and especially during the Winter of 61/62, when almost nobody seems to move, this is probably the job he can do best.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Treefrog
Pope has an attack of 3, but is only a two star with less than 11 command rating. The only way he could be an AC is to promote him to three star (ouch that hurts on the PP front ), and I'm not sure the promotion would even take effect immediately. You could attempt to raise Grant's command rating by having him win a battle, but that could backfire or worse yet get him killed; it will be a very long war for you without Grant.

Pope, along with a host of other middling Union generals is a poor AC, unless he can be groomed with easy victories, because of his -1 Army modifier. This, essentially turns his 3 Atk rating into a 2. Early in the war, the Union has several other commanders that similarly make decent corps commanders, but are hamstrung by the negative army modifier when they are put in a position beyond their level of competence. The same can be said of some of the otherwise excellent Confederate generals who are deadly as Corps commanders, but somewhat less so, as Army commanders.

(in reply to Treefrog)

Post #: 4

RE: Union players - 7/3/2008 1:34:59 AM

UruzSix

Posts: 2
Joined: 1/10/2008
Status: offline

I don't start swapping commanders until I get more two stars with high command ratings. At start, the only guy left available for army command is Butler. With Scott a high risk of getting sent off to the old general's home, I keep ol' Spoons in reserve. That way if Scott does retire, I can move McClellan to TC, Butler to AC, and not have to worry about the PP loss of only having five command generals.

(in reply to JAMiAM)

Post #: 5

RE: Union players - 7/3/2008 1:41:14 AM

hgilmer

Posts: 184
Joined: 6/2/2007
From: Birmingham, Alabama
Status: offline

I'm in June 1862 and Grant is a 16 and it says he is eligible for AC.

_____________________________

(in reply to UruzSix)

Post #: 6

RE: Union players - 7/3/2008 5:29:16 AM

PyleDriver

Posts: 6152
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Occupied Mexico aka Rio Grand Valley, S.Texas
Status: offline

JAMiAm, I like your post about Butler, I do it to. However Pope doesn't have a -1 army modifier...Addition notes, he's exploting me early and plays very well, and all these other posts about bogged down warfare bugs me. If you take the time to learn the game instead of complain, you find the Union has all the advantages. James has, he reminds me of Jan, another "J"...lol...

Jon

(in reply to hgilmer)

Post #: 7

RE: Union players - 7/3/2008 7:02:43 AM

Berkut

Posts: 757
Joined: 5/16/2002
Status: offline

Pyle, could it be that people have taken the time to learn the game, and yet still find that there may be issues?

Making personal attacks on people is almost never a constructive means of refutation. Indeed, it tends to say more about yourself than it does those you slander.

(in reply to PyleDriver)

Post #: 8

RE: Union players - 7/3/2008 7:36:36 AM

JanSorensen

Posts: 3684
Joined: 5/2/2005
From: Aalborg, Denmark
Status: offline

Lyon is the best you have initially. Use him well and he may even serve you throughout the war.

(in reply to Berkut)

Post #: 9

RE: Union players - 7/3/2008 7:49:19 AM

Berkut

Posts: 757
Joined: 5/16/2002
Status: offline

I just promoted Lyon back to AC in late 1863!

(in reply to JanSorensen)

Post #: 10

RE: Union players - 7/3/2008 7:51:51 AM

Habbaku

Posts: 27
Joined: 1/4/2007
Status: offline

As a semi-related question to the AC discussion--is it possible for an AC to become a battle casualty?

_____________________________

"Man is rather stupid than wicked."

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

(in reply to Berkut)

Post #: 11

RE: Union players - 7/3/2008 7:55:57 AM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Habbaku

As a semi-related question to the AC discussion--is it possible for an AC to become a battle casualty?

Yes, but it doesn't happen very often.

(in reply to Habbaku)

Post #: 12

RE: Union players - 7/3/2008 8:12:58 AM

Habbaku

Posts: 27
Joined: 1/4/2007
Status: offline

Some would say that's a shame.

_____________________________

"Man is rather stupid than wicked."

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 13

RE: Union players - 7/3/2008 9:10:53 AM

JAMiAM

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

However Pope doesn't have a -1 army modifier...

You're right. I must have been just making an assumption and lumping him together with so many of the other second-stringers who had the misfortune to lead the AoP against Lee in the early years.

(in reply to PyleDriver)

Post #: 14

RE: Union players - 7/3/2008 2:43:28 PM

Berkut

Posts: 757
Joined: 5/16/2002
Status: offline

So the idea behind the army mod is to make a good Corp commander not so great as an army commander?

What is Stonewalls army mod?

(in reply to JAMiAM)

Post #: 15

RE: Union players - 7/3/2008 3:40:27 PM

dakjck

Posts: 59
Joined: 10/22/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Berkuth

So the idea behind the army mod is to make a good Corp commander not so great as an army commander?

What is Stonewalls army mod?

This excellent idea is not new. In the Victory Games board game The Civil War, some officers would become worse as they got promoted. Hood was an excellent division commander, but a real problem when promoted to army command, just like what happened in History. Hooker, similarly, could command a corps well, but not an army. This games goes one better by allowing random leader factors and sub-commanders, something we did by house rules in the old Victory Games game, using a double blind system.

I do have one question about sub-commanders. If you pick the option, do you have to have all units commanded by 2 star leaders have sub-commanders (forcing you to use bad leaders as well as good, something that should be encouraged)? Or is the only penalty for not having a subcommander the loss of the potential combat modifier?

(in reply to Berkut)

Post #: 16

RE: Union players - 7/3/2008 3:47:55 PM

Berkut

Posts: 757
Joined: 5/16/2002
Status: offline

That is a good question - I've been parking my crappy commandes into sub-commanders - is a bad sub commander worse than no sub-commander?

And how many subs should you have in a Corps, anyway?

(in reply to dakjck)

Post #: 17

RE: Union players - 7/3/2008 4:53:44 PM

RedArgo

Posts: 524
Joined: 8/2/2004
From: Illinois
Status: offline

I believe Stonewall and Longstreet are both -1 Army mods, but their high ratings still make them viable ACs and once they win a few battles the army mod will go to zero.

Lyons problem, besides dying easily, is his low command points. He needs to win some battles and get those raised. Pope's problem is his low defense which leaves him vulnerable to counter attack. You definately don't want Lee with a 4 attack going after Pope with a 1 defense.

Bill

(in reply to Berkut)

Post #: 18

RE: Union players - 7/3/2008 4:59:25 PM

mavraamides

Posts: 447
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

The minute I get Grant I fill him with 8 trained infantry and 2 arty even if I have to steal them from other generals, get him in the front line and get him fighting so he can bump up to 2 stars. Then I sack the weakest link and promote Grant to AC and pop open a can of whoop ass on the CSA. Usually in central or western Kentucky.

Seems like I always lose Scott at some point and then I promote whoever has the highest admin and command rating. The one game that I decided to get 'clever' and move a bunch of guys around, I ended up losing so many PP's that I was never able to recover.

I'd rather use those PP's for a draft and to violate KY neutrality so I can grab 1/2 the state before the CSA responds.

(in reply to Berkut)

Post #: 19

RE: Union players - 7/3/2008 5:38:47 PM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

One thing I still don't the hang of is the optional rule to let generals be attached to other generals -- i.e., to make Corps commanders. I'm still not sure I understand the advantage of doing this.

(in reply to mavraamides)

Post #: 20

RE: Union players - 7/3/2008 6:20:10 PM

WarHunter

Posts: 1207
Joined: 3/21/2004
Status: offline

If you are using "Unknown Leader Ratings, you reaally need to be flexible as you find out who is competent and who fails. Even if you see that "4 attack rating" for your AC, You could be in for a letdown when you discover the -1 Army Mod.

The biggest hurdle is dismissing a General. You really want to know all the ratings before you choose that road. You have to take chances to find out the ratings, even if they might result in a battle loss.

In my latest game as the Union, the following are my current leaders.
AC's, Lyon, Halleck, Mcdowell, Grant. Lyon is the only AC that is unknow for Army Mod. The rest all have -1. Which is sad, cuz Halleck and Mcdowell have a 4attack rating, while Grant has a 3ar. But, in the case of McClellan, i found his 1 attack rating, 1 political rating and 2 Inf training, just to poor and booted him early.

TC's are Scott and Fremont. Total political ratings for all generals: 15

Also until you actually reveal the ratings, you will be faced with a "NA" instead of an easy to read formula to calculate your inititive. Just makes you put the numbers together the old fashion way, I use my fingers & toes.

As the Rebels, i had my AC Beauregard, take a mortal wound in the 1st battle of the entire game. Lucky for me, i was still learning how to play and was ignorant of the ramifacations.