Generals' Ratings (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865



Message

Gil R. -> Generals' Ratings (9/25/2006 8:29:01 PM)

One of the most important elements of "Forge of Freedom" is the ratings system for generals, which dictates the effect each one has in combat and in leading his army across the strategic map. As I've noted elsewhere, we have 1000 historical generals in our database, and players will have the option of having those generals appear with random ratings or historically-based ratings. We thought we would give all of you a chance to have input into the historical ratings of the most important generals, who will appear in every game. (Less famous generals have a 9% chance of appearing in a game; obviously, we can't have 1000 generals with a 100% chance of appearing.) So, as soon as I am able, I'll be posting the first two polls, letting you discuss and vote on the appropriate ratings for Lee and Grant. I'll introduce two new generals each day, until I've exhausted the list of "100-percenters" (our technical term for them).

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

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


We can use this thread to discuss how generals function in the game, and devote the poll threads to discussion of the generals themselves.



Gil R. -> RE: Generals' Ratings (9/26/2006 2:15:33 AM)

Quick update: it looks that it will take me a bit longer to start posting these polls (partly because I seem not to be authorized to create poll threads for some reason, and partly because this should be done in a sub-forum that still needs to be set up), so we'll have to wait just a bit.

We can continue discussing cotton and blockade-runners in the meantime.



*Lava* -> RE: Generals' Ratings (9/26/2006 2:46:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Quick update: it looks that it will take me a bit longer to start posting these polls (partly because I seem not to be authorized to create poll threads for some reason, and partly because this should be done in a sub-forum that still needs to be set up)


[:)]

Gil,

How many generals can participate in a battle?

Ray (alias Lava)



Gil R. -> RE: Generals' Ratings (9/26/2006 2:59:19 AM)

I don't believe that we have a hard upper limit. If you've got a large army (Army of Northern Virginia, for example), it will be led by a general, and each corps (ideally) will have a general, and each division (ideally) will have a general, so that can be something like 15-20 generals.



spence -> RE: Generals' Ratings (9/26/2006 5:57:47 AM)

Would the 15-20 generals be involved in quick combat in some fashion or only be involved in the detailed battles?



Gil R. -> RE: Generals' Ratings (9/26/2006 6:06:59 AM)

Generals in quick combat do provide bonuses or penalties, but their potential impact is much greater in detailed battles.



dh76513 -> RE: Generals' Ratings (9/26/2006 8:02:21 PM)

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

I am assuming these overall scores (or perhaps tactical abilities) appear to be grounded in the criterion below. Each criteria or general officer’s ability is based on a tactical rating from 0 – 8. The skill score is then obtained by dividing this total by 4 or 5 depending on if the general officer 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

Although I think that some rating system as noted is very important, will there be any overall “prestige” score for the generals? I think a prestige rating should be directly linked to either a general officer’s success or failure on the battlefield. In short, I think battlefield failure would diminish any general officer’s status and combat success would amplify any their standing. 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). Therefore, a general officer’s prestige rating may change while their skills or tactical abilities remain the same. High prestige points might even inspire (or force) promoting a general officer (much like the reality that exists today in the U.S. Armed Forces) to satisfy political demands. Nonetheless, a skilled general with a tactical rating of 7 (excellent) would likely lose prestige points after suffering a defeat on the battlefield while remaining an excellent tactician. In other words, without a prestige rating for general officers, how are such “ratings for generals” or dynamics (promotion, battle success, defeat, etc.) defined in the game?

Just Curious,

David



*Lava* -> RE: Generals' Ratings (9/26/2006 9:17:56 PM)

Hi!

Will the Generals be represented by a figure in the battles?

If so, how do they work? Will they move about close by their troops or will the player have some control?

Ray (alias Lava)



ericbabe -> RE: Generals' Ratings (9/27/2006 6:22:24 PM)

Generals are always attached to a brigade in detailed combat.  Players can move them from one brigade to another.



dh76513 -> RE: Generals' Ratings (9/27/2006 7:44:19 PM)

I just thought I would add some trivia concerning general officer ranks. While majors outrank lieutenants at the company grade, lieutenant generals outrank major generals among general officers. This comes from the British tradition in which general officers were appointed for campaigns and often called "captain generals." Their assistants were, naturally, "lieutenant generals." During this time, the chief administrative officer was the "sergeant major general." Somewhere along the way, "sergeant" was dropped from the title leaving just major general. In the Union Army, for most of the war, the Union had only two general officer ranks – brigadier (BG; 1 star) and major general (MG; two stars). Toward the end of the war, the Union added the rank of lieutenant general (LTG) providing Ulysses S. Grant with his third star. In the Confederate Army all four grades of general officers existed – BG, MG, LTG, and GEN – like we have today in the U.S. Army.



dh76513 -> RE: Generals' Ratings (9/28/2006 2:27:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

.....it looks that it will take me a bit longer to start posting these polls (partly because I seem not to be authorized to create poll threads for some reason, and partly because this should be done in a sub-forum that still needs to be set up), so we'll have to wait just a bit.

Gil,
My concern with polls in rating the generals is that many generals will be elevated to unrealistic levels based on their notoriety and popularity instead of those areas of competency as you define within the “rating” system for general officers below:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

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

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

While I do think the great many of those 1008 general officers who served during the Civil War should mass toward the middle of your scale (between 3 and 5), very few should reach that level of “superb” (or be rated as an 8). Nonetheless, below are those generals who definitely rate an “8” in my opinion (i.e., there is no rank order to the list):

Patrick R. Cleburne, MG, CSA
Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, BG, USA
Philip Henry Sheridan, MG, USA
Nathan Bedford Forrest, LTG, CSA
William J. Hardee, LTG, CSA
Albert Sidney Johnston, GEN, CSA
George H. Thomas, MG, USA
John Buford, MG, USA

I found it very interesting that the USA and CSA were balanced in these final numbers with four on each side as this was sincerely unintentional. No doubt, I will likely have a great deal of criticism regarding my choices as this is certainly a passionate and controversial subject for most who love American Civil War history.



Gil R. -> RE: Generals' Ratings (9/28/2006 7:24:45 PM)

You're right that we can't go overboard giving everyone an '8' -- but I doubt that will happen. Once I get the poll threads up and running, I figure that if the 20-30 of you who routinely visit this forum vote we'll have a pretty accurate set of ratings.

And those ratings can always be modded by individuals with tremendous ease, and can be changed in future patches once the game is out and more people come to this thread. (Let's just hope that we don't have a Stephen Colbert/Hungarian Bridge or Ataturk/Man of the Century situation in which a bunch of deranged partisans of one general visit the site and start messing with the voting...)



dh76513 -> RE: Generals' Ratings (9/28/2006 8:34:11 PM)

Perhaps you'll be correct. I am now working on researching the "terrible" which I think will also be few.



spruce -> RE: Generals' Ratings (9/28/2006 11:24:25 PM)

hm, we have to take care of the bigger picture imho. We have to avoid to make a polarised landscape based on all time favourite and all time hated generals.

I think we have to see to it that most of the generals population are between 3-6 and a handfull 2 and 7 and the very few 1 and 8. We need to get some kind of Gaussian curve, otherwise game results will be "weird".

And also what about the general accepted fact that confederate generals were better then Union generals? Do we make some kind of seperate Gaussian curve for confederate generals and a seperate one for Union generals and then ad 1 "bonus" point to that curve ? off course 8 points remains 8 points,[:'(] but confederacy will get more skill 8 generals, but the differences shouldn't be exagerated.




andysomers -> RE: Generals' Ratings (9/28/2006 11:33:47 PM)

Wow - never thought I'd see the term "gaussian curve" in a Civil War post!  Spruce - I agree and think that you are dead on. 

Check my statistics, is a Gaussian curve a "normal distribution" or even more simply put a "bell curve"?  Or was it the half-bell?  I know that's technical but I'm trying to see the point you are making.

AS



spruce -> RE: Generals' Ratings (9/28/2006 11:43:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: andysomers

Wow - never thought I'd see the term "gaussian curve" in a Civil War post!  Spruce - I agree and think that you are dead on. 

Check my statistics, is a Gaussian curve a "normal distribution" or even more simply put a "bell curve"?  Or was it the half-bell?  I know that's technical but I'm trying to see the point you are making.

AS


well Gauss was just a smart mathematician, it's just a smart word to use and I used to know all about it - long time ago[:o]. I think normal distribution would also fit the description. A normal distribution just stands for some "natural source of variation" ...

I think making a popularity poll could result in some weird distributions and would cause players to get confused on a total biased and polarised distribution.

Off course I'm not opposing the poll itself, it's just it shouldn't result in some weird distribution of general skills ...



Gil R. -> RE: Generals' Ratings (9/29/2006 12:02:59 AM)

I was a humanities type as an undergrad, so I don't know much about Gaussian Curves, but I do know that Eric is always muttering about them, and the game is full of them.



Hard Sarge -> RE: Generals' Ratings (9/29/2006 12:19:46 AM)

Well, I not sure if the game is full of them, but I sure do know that Eric is full of them

hehehehe

ducks and runs away, again and again

[sm=00000028.gif]




andysomers -> RE: Generals' Ratings (9/29/2006 1:01:03 AM)

I won't play ANY Civil War game whose Gaussian curves fail a Chi-squared test at anything less than a 95% confidence level.  I simply will not lower my standards to such mediocrity - be warned.

AS



Hard Sarge -> RE: Generals' Ratings (9/29/2006 2:04:11 AM)

Don't get Eric on a Gaussian curve rant

we got too much work to do and not enough time to get it done, for him to go off on another one

[sm=00000028.gif]

[sm=00000016.gif]



TexHorns -> RE: Generals' Ratings (9/29/2006 7:56:36 AM)

Weren't the Gaussian Curves a French light cavalry brigade from the Napoleonic era?[:'(]



dh76513 -> RE: Generals' Ratings (9/29/2006 4:27:47 PM)

And all this time, I thought the Gaussian Curves referred to the French women of the Napoleonic era. How disappointing!



Hard Sarge -> RE: Generals' Ratings (9/29/2006 4:54:30 PM)

Silly Rabbits, this is a Gaussian Curve

[image]local://upfiles/1438/D99542638F0C4952A6D450E9F2B266E5.jpg[/image]



Oldguard -> RE: Generals' Ratings (9/29/2006 5:53:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce
And also what about the general accepted fact that confederate generals were better then Union generals?

This is "generally accepted"? From whom?

Any study of the relative performance of Union vs. Confederate generals must take into consideration the political landscape on each side as well. In that respect, it would be true that the North had slightly more political chaos going on than did the South (though only a little - the South's governors were independent barons). Radical abolitionists and power-hungry Congressmen were the bane of Lincoln's existence, and Lincoln was in turn the bane of McClellan's. However, I would put the likes of Reynolds, Grant, Sheridan, Hancock and Buford up against any equivalent set of Confederates in terms of generalship and warcraft any time.




andysomers -> RE: Generals' Ratings (9/29/2006 7:40:52 PM)

I'm with oldguard here.  But I will make this caveat.  At the START of the war through, say, mid-1863, the Confederacy IN GENERAL had better general officers, primarily in the eastern theater.  Once Union high command was sifted through, and each side lost generals through attirtion, I would say that qualities equalled out, with US generalcy probably even trumping CS generalcy in the 1864-65 part of the war. 

This is typically simulated by giving the CS a better selection of generals at the start, and then slowly making better US generals available as the game progresses, through promotion of junior officers.

AS



spruce -> RE: Generals' Ratings (9/29/2006 9:24:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oldguard

quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce
And also what about the general accepted fact that confederate generals were better then Union generals?

This is "generally accepted"? From whom?

Any study of the relative performance of Union vs. Confederate generals must take into consideration the political landscape on each side as well. In that respect, it would be true that the North had slightly more political chaos going on than did the South (though only a little - the South's governors were independent barons). Radical abolitionists and power-hungry Congressmen were the bane of Lincoln's existence, and Lincoln was in turn the bane of McClellan's. However, I would put the likes of Reynolds, Grant, Sheridan, Hancock and Buford up against any equivalent set of Confederates in terms of generalship and warcraft any time.




look, if you read most historical books or works on the time frame they come up with this.

I'm not even a US - citizen so I don't want to be part of any rant on this topic - I was just offering my ideas as a humble way of assistance.




*Lava* -> RE: Generals' Ratings (9/29/2006 9:37:08 PM)

Hi!

Actually, it is a very good question.

Overall, the rebs probably did have better generals at the beginning of the war, however, a couple of "non-general" factors were at play as well:

First, the North was on the offensive... and it is far more difficult to attack than defend.

Second, the Confederacy had much better cavalry in the first couple years of the war. When you are able to figure out where your enemy is and he doesn't know where you are.. it makes being a "good" general a whole lot easier.

These two factors, the yanks attacking "blindly" (almost) combined with the rebs having a very good scouting ability gave the CSA a very big advantage in the Eastern theatre.

The Western theatre was, however, quite a bit different.

Ray (alias Lava)



Gil R. -> RE: Generals' Ratings (9/30/2006 1:26:05 AM)

In case anyone is wondering, I'm still waiting for the "Generals" sub-forum to be created by the moderator (who, I think, is on vacation, since he's been offline for several days). Likewise, I can't start any poll threads to get the voting going until my account's configuration is changed. However, since I don't want to lose more time on this, I'm wondering if any of the regulars here (e.g., Oldguard, dh76513, andysomers, etc.) is able to start poll threads, and would be willing to do so until I'm able to start adding them. Please private message me and I can tell you what should go into the thread.



jchastain -> RE: Generals' Ratings (9/30/2006 2:11:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

In case anyone is wondering, I'm still waiting for the "Generals" sub-forum to be created by the moderator (who, I think, is on vacation, since he's been offline for several days). Likewise, I can't start any poll threads to get the voting going until my account's configuration is changed. However, since I don't want to lose more time on this, I'm wondering if any of the regulars here (e.g., Oldguard, dh76513, andysomers, etc.) is able to start poll threads, and would be willing to do so until I'm able to start adding them. Please private message me and I can tell you what should go into the thread.


Nothing against any of the posters referenced - they all have made GREAT contributions to this forums and I respect their insights and comments immensely. But they have less then 120 posts between them on this board and only 1 of them has been registered here for more than a month. I know you are workingg hard on the game Gil, but are you so exhausted as to seriously think any of them might have this authority when they do not carry the staff tag, they have all been registered for less time than you, and they combine for less than a third the number of posts as you have? [&:]

[8|]



Hard Sarge -> RE: Generals' Ratings (9/30/2006 2:19:12 AM)

Come on JC lighten up a little

the number of posts means nothing (all it means is someone posts alot)

I also think back in the old days, we used to be able to set up our own polls, but with the change over to the newer forum, it was not there anymore

for me, this is my 2nd name (nothing shady, my one was HARD_Sarge, but when I was asked to do a beta, they had linked the beta to this name instead, so I had to drop the one I normally used)





Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.21875