RE: 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. -> RE: Generals' Ratings (9/30/2006 2:29:49 AM)

I've been assuming that my account is incorrectly configured, since the FAQ for the forum makes it seem as if anyone can start a poll. If there was some software changeover and people now can't do that without authorization and we're all in the same boat then the FAQ is less informative than it should be.



Hard Sarge -> RE: Generals' Ratings (9/30/2006 3:20:13 AM)

yea, I think it has been turned off (maybe they forgot to turn it back on ???



[image]local://upfiles/1438/4AE9BF8E1D2D455F80A332400E55266B.jpg[/image]



Gil R. -> RE: Generals' Ratings (9/30/2006 3:25:50 AM)

Yeah, that's the same configuration I have.

I'll try to find out from the Matrix people what's going on. It seems to me that if anyone can start a thread then anyone should be able to start a poll thread.

Anyway, my guess is that it won't be until Monday that I can get the polls up and running, but we can make do with that -- there should be enough time to vote on all of the generals who need to be voted on.



jchastain -> RE: Generals' Ratings (9/30/2006 5:47:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Come on JC lighten up a little

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


I wasn't intending to criticize those with low post counts. In fact, I tried to stress that point. I was just attempting to suggest that if Gil did not have the authority to post polls, it was highly unlikely that brand new people without a lot of history on these boards would.



Oldguard -> RE: Generals' Ratings (10/1/2006 12:40:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce

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.

This isn't a personal or emotional issue at all - it's an interesting historical question. IMO, The relative quality of Southern commanders may have been slightly higher at the start of the war but gradually declined (death of Jackson, A.S. Johnston, others) at the same time their instrument of war was degrading through attrition (promotion of commanders like Early beyond division level did not improve the quality of command). Meanwhile the Union commanders were learning their craft on the job and gaining promotions based on performance - the wheat was separating from the chaff. So yes, I'd say there was a shifting equality over the course of the war but the South had their share of mediocre, even bad, leaders.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jchastain
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?

FYI, I mostly lurk unless there's a subject or game that I'm excited about. I'm a veteran of about 15 years on Usenet, IRC, Compuserve and the Internet, and "number of posts" has never been a fair measure of a member's worth although it's usually thrown out at some point by older members as a way to assert their authority. Having said that, I don't care to create polls here and while I appreciate all of Gil's great feedback I don't want any of the dev team or testers to waste one minute here that doesn't advance the release of FoF.



spruce -> RE: Generals' Ratings (10/1/2006 1:20:03 PM)

fact is that the South had access to some excellent leaders at the start of the war and it had a big impact on the war effort. Off course "Southern" genes were not superior to Northern ones [:)] so the South had their share of poor generals.

But on the other hand, it's pretty difficult to make the game balanced if Union and Confederacy have exactly the same quality of leaders - given the fact that Union manpower and industry outranked the Confederacy.

My approach would be to either =

- make a "normal" distribution of generals for both Union and Confederacy - and give the right hand side of the CSA distribution a shift of one point upwards.

- make a "normal" distribution of generals for both Union and Confederacy - and just give the South a "bonus pack of generals" - those are good generals that are available to the South at the start of the war. Like an "extra" group of high rated generals to have a few random picks from,

Suppose there are 1000 generals in the game - chances are that the South never will get the "few better" generals, because that would be like a lottery. So basicly I'm in favour of my second proposal, there's a "bonus pack" where some extra generals are selected to perform for the South (f.e. Jackson, Lee, Stuart, etc) from the start of the war. Just a bit to roleplay.



Oldguard -> RE: Generals' Ratings (10/1/2006 7:35:10 PM)

More directly addressing gameplay issues, I'm wondering how the AI will handle a commander's personality? There should be generals who are either slow to react or reluctant to press an attack, and knowing the personalities of opponents can be a major advantage for the player. Many are the occasions in the ACW when a battle has been lost due to a corps or division commander not pressing his advantage at the key moment.

The answer to this question will bear directly on our freedom to utilize creative strategies in dealing with multiple prongs of an advance. If I know, for example, that the AI's Gen. Fremont will not push hard, I should be free to turn and deal with Gen. Shields first, leaving a few brigades to demonstrate in front of the former.



spruce -> RE: Generals' Ratings (10/1/2006 8:55:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oldguard

More directly addressing gameplay issues, I'm wondering how the AI will handle a commander's personality? There should be generals who are either slow to react or reluctant to press an attack, and knowing the personalities of opponents can be a major advantage for the player. Many are the occasions in the ACW when a battle has been lost due to a corps or division commander not pressing his advantage at the key moment.

The answer to this question will bear directly on our freedom to utilize creative strategies in dealing with multiple prongs of an advance. If I know, for example, that the AI's Gen. Fremont will not push hard, I should be free to turn and deal with Gen. Shields first, leaving a few brigades to demonstrate in front of the former.



that would be a very cool feature



Hairog -> RE: Generals' Ratings (10/2/2006 5:33:14 AM)

Frank Hunter's promotional ideas in ACW worked well.  Certain commanders were only available as the game went on.  As they were promoted or not it had political consequeces.  If he lost or won battles it became easier to promote or demote him.  Certain generals gained in competence as they were promoted and certain others lost.  Then he put in a little randomizer action in so that you couldn't always count on Grant or Lee being the best everytime.  The odds are that most times they are but not always.  This adds the uncertainty that Abraham and Jefferson had to live with.



dh76513 -> RE: Generals' Ratings (10/2/2006 2:07:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
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.



Gil, I tried to start a "poll thread" and the system will not allow me to implement such a request. All I can apparently do is make a "new" thread.



dh76513 -> RE: Generals' Ratings (10/2/2006 4:19:55 PM)

quote:

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


Spruce, I have heard this argument before, but I think the validity of such an approach is difficult at best because of the numerous factors that must be invested in proving this hypothesis. However, many military leaders (Generals Clark, Rommel, and Patton to name three) and historians (Paul Calore and John Cannan to name a couple) have all made these claims.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oldguard
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.


Excluding the political climate, Oldguard, and as many veterans already know, the military has only four management systems. From company grade officers to general officers, the management of personnel, maintenance, equipment, and supply are the four primary areas of responsibility for every officer. Therefore, the success or failure of most officers is evaluated across these four management systems.

I do think most will agree that all generals who served on either side during the Civil War were expected to win. With this being said, I think it is also reasonable to assume that the Confederate generals were expected to do much more with much less. Most will also agree that those numbers across all four areas of management – personnel, maintenance, equipment, and supply – were consistently much more inferior for the South. As such, most of the battlefield engagements found the Confederate generals with inferior equipment, fewer men, less supply, and shoddier maintenance.

Under these conditions, I think the Confederate leadership, as compared to the Union, was forced to improvise and develop more innovative methods on the battlefield – and these were tactics generally outside of the usual Napoleon strategies they were taught. In comparison, I would argue that leading a unit into battle that is well supplied with excellent maintenance, quality equipment, and functioning at full strength would be much easier than leading a similar unit functioning with substandard equipment, 75% strength, poor maintenance, and a 40% supply rate (to include equipment parts replacement). The strategy of Forrest at Brice’s Crossroads during the Civil War is just one excellent example of this hypothesis and the tactics of Miltiades at Battle of Marathon (non-civil war) is another.

Doing more with less is perhaps some of the very reason, that many of the tactics and strategies of Confederate generals are studied much more than those of Union generals by military generals (Patton, Franks, Montgomery, Rommel, Guiterman, and Swartzkopf to name a few) and taught more in world Military schools.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oldguard
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.


Your list above echoes solid leadership on the battlefield.



Oldguard -> RE: Generals' Ratings (10/2/2006 5:51:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dh76513
Doing more with less is perhaps some of the very reason, that many of the tactics and strategies of Confederate generals are studied much more than those of Union generals by military generals (Patton, Franks, Montgomery, Rommel, Guiterman, and Swartzkopf to name a few) and taught more in world Military schools.

You'll get little argument from me on that point, which is well taken. However it's also important to consider that the Confederates were defending their homes. Most of the Civil War was fought in either "neutral" states or in the South. Soldiers will always fight harder and die more willingly if it is in the defense of their own homes.

We must also understand that there was probably a higher percentage of Union officers who were political appointees than there were Confederate - at least at high rank. Those political appointees who did not prove themselves were gradually eased aside (or died) over the course of the war. The Confederacy got to pick from men who chose to stand with their states out of loyalty more so than political consideration.

To get an accurate idea of the relative qualities of generalship, you have to be able to remove such abstract influences before you evaluate.

Let me extrapolate on that: McClellan was not necessarily a bad general - he was no more ego-driven than most - but he was handed a ragtag horde of untrained volunteers and was rightfully reluctant to risk his military career before his army was ready. Time was on his side, up until the point where Lincoln would remove him for not fighting, while it was not on the side of Johnston (and then Lee). It's why he planned to besiege Richmond at the end of the Peninsula Campaign rather than to storm it. (Ironically, at the end of the war, Grant laid siege at Petersburg, not far away.)

Why did he have time on his side? Precisely because there was no real threat to Washington beyond Jackson's 17,000 in the Valley. And I would suggest that his career was much more at risk than Lee's ever was - Lee had the confidence and support of Davis even before he won his first battle. We can agree that the sum of McClellan's overall performance was sub-par, but it would also be inaccurate to claim that he was a bad general. He was probably the perfect commander to organize and train the AoP, but not so much the right general to put a bell around Lee's neck.



andysomers -> RE: Generals' Ratings (10/2/2006 6:14:34 PM)

Excellent posts!!!

Old guard - I'd agree with you to a point on Little Mac.  I would say that no matter who commanded it (Burnside, Hooker, et al), McClellan without question built and trained the Army of the Potomac. 

I would not give McClellan as much credit on the Peninsula.  Lee duped McClellan at Richmond something fierce.  McClellan always thought that he was outnumbered and was constantly sending those urgent dispatches to DC calling for an inordinate amount of reinforcements.  So that said - I 100% agree with this part of your post:

quote:

He was probably the perfect commander to organize and train the AoP, but not so much the right general to put a bell around Lee's neck. 


McClellan, when modeled, I think therefore gets very high marks for command, organization, and I think morale - he was quite highly thought of by his men.  His initiative obviously, is among the lowest.  Even when he outnumbered Lee 2:1 in the Maryland campaign and had the CS battle plan in his hand, he could not capitalize. 

One of the funnest parts of organizing these types of games I think is the opinions of all the different generals, and trying to mold their traits into a numeric code of some sort.

AS



dh76513 -> RE: Generals' Ratings (10/2/2006 7:21:33 PM)

Andysomers and Oldguard,
Great posts gentlemen! Perhaps these posts are comical or entertaining, but I do find these debates most interesting. Perhaps the more interesting question is which side had the worst? Well, I am working on the “0” ratings now and below are a few. After reading your above post, I am certain my list may extend the controversy in general over one person in particular. Nonetheless, my efforts are not aimed at fueling any fires…just my opinion.

• Don Carlos Buell (USA) – Lost his field command for failing to follow up the retreating Confederates after the battle of Perryville.
• Ambrose Burnside (USA) – Named for the "Burnside's Bridge" fiasco at Antietam; chief architect of the futile, murderous assaults at Fredericksburg; leader of Mud March; arrested for "seditious sentiments" and let’s not forget about his obvious failure at Petersburg.
• George Brinton McClellan (USA) – The master of over-estimation and slow movement, he constantly proclaimed himself the Savior of the Union, yet seemed unwilling to fight. At Antietam, he had the opponent's game plan and still could not win. Tommy Franks [speaking to U.S. soldiers], “I will avoid the McClellan strategy of sit and wait here and will employ those tactics of Cleburne repulsing the enemy from the heart of Iraq [Baghdad].
• Hugh Judson Kilpatrick (USA) – Known for his reckless disregard for lives of soldiers under his command and his performance at Gettysburg borders on criminal with Elon Farnsworth paying the price. His "raid" on Richmond under the pretext of freeing Union prisoners was a joke that cost the life of COL Ulric Dahlgren.
• Nathaniel Banks (USA) – Lost 30% of his men during Valley Campaign to Jackson and defeated by Jackson again at Cedar Mt. Commander of disastrous Red River Campaign.
• Gideon Pillow (CSA) – Suspended from command by order of Jefferson Davis for "grave errors in judgment in the military operations which resulted in the surrender of the army" at Donelson.
• Benjamin Franklin Butler (USA) – The name placed at the bottom of urinals in New Orleans; failure at Big Bethel; and a fascist, militaristic governor in New Orleans who made the Nazi Gestapo look like a Catholic school girl’s choir. Laughable at Bermuda Hundred; a failure as both a politician and general officer; and considered by many as the ugliest general officer on both sides.



andysomers -> RE: Generals' Ratings (10/2/2006 9:34:37 PM)

I am going to attempt to inventory the ratings of every general in these three games, in my collection.
Sumter to Appomattox:
Inspiration: Low, Average, High, Unknown
Aggression: Low, Average, High, Unknown
Initiative: Disorganized, Below average, Average, Good, Excellent, Unknown
Combat: Poor, Average, Good, Excellent, Unknown
The Civil War:
Initiative: 2-4 (2 is better than 4)  - This indicates the number of command points required to activate a general
Army commander: -3 to 3 (-3 is worst, 3 is best) - This indicates the number of "re-rolls" that a commander has in army combat
Tactical command: -3 to 2 (-3 is worst, 2 is best) - This is a modifier to a dice roll, -3 is plus 3 on your opponents dice roll, 2 is plus to on your roll.
War Between the States:
Initiative: 0-4 (0 is worst, 4 best) - This is the dice roll required to move on this commanders initiative, e.g. a "3" requires a 1,2, or 3 to be rolled, "4" requires anything but a 5 or 6.
Command span: 0-5 - The number of independent field units that a commander can lead with his own competnence.
Combat modifier: 0-2 - Add this number to your die roll to resolve combat.



spruce -> RE: Generals' Ratings (10/2/2006 11:28:01 PM)

sorry to say guys, but you are missing the big picture here. [:'(]

The South had many disadvantages compared to the North, the only thing they did have were some inspired leaders who really made a difference on the battlefied. I think history has proven that Lee and Jackson were quite able at avoiding Southern defeat early war.

If the South would not have better leaders in this game - early war - how on earth can you ever design such a game and play it ? The South is destined to fail ... in the long run. If they lack inspired leaders, the North should just do a walkover. OK, you can model artificial penalties for the North - but again having inferior generals is just one of the examples of penalties.

The South could fight defensive, and that inspired many of their leader - but bottomline is that generals like Jackson and Lee made the difference on the battlefield. They were there in 1861, if you like it or not.



Oldguard -> RE: Generals' Ratings (10/2/2006 11:40:23 PM)

Excellent post, sir - and I'm all for passionate discussion. My comments should never be taken personally.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dh76513
• George Brinton McClellan (USA) – The master of over-estimation and slow movement, he constantly proclaimed himself the Savior of the Union, yet seemed unwilling to fight.

I don't think history has been fair to McClellan. Yes, he was a cautious general but I could name other great generals in history who were also cautious (Montgomery?). McClellan fell into disfavor with Lincoln because he refused to rush forward without adequate preparation and preferred to look after his men's welfare rather than expose them to wanton slaughter... up until the point where he was pushed into it, politically, or lose his command.

quote:

• Nathaniel Banks (USA) – Lost 30% of his men during Valley Campaign to Jackson and defeated by Jackson again at Cedar Mt. Commander of disastrous Red River Campaign.

Thus his nickname, "Commissary".

You overlooked Custer, whose reckless thirst for glory may have earned him headlines but also cost him more men than any other cavalry commander.




Oldguard -> RE: Generals' Ratings (10/2/2006 11:46:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce

If the South would not have better leaders in this game - early war - how on earth can you ever design such a game and play it ? The South is destined to fail ... in the long run. If they lack inspired leaders, the North should just do a walkover. OK, you can model artificial penalties for the North - but again having inferior generals is just one of the examples of penalties.

The South could fight defensive, and that inspired many of their leader - but bottomline is that generals like Jackson and Lee made the difference on the battlefield. They were there in 1861, if you like it or not.

Indeed, they were. One of the questions we're sparring around here is whether a computer simulation should automatically assume that Lee and Jackson are given commands in every game without exception, or whether there might not be other permutations of history that the game could allow for.

That said, what would we be saying today if Longstreet had taken the Nine Mile Road at Seven Pines, as he was ordered, instead of the Williamsburg Pike? Or if an errant shot had not felled Jackson at Chancellorsville? I wonder what the outcome of Gettysburg - and the war - would have been had Lee had Stonewall at hand?

I like following history in my simulations, but I really enjoy exploring the permutations. I refuse to believe that events were ever set in concrete or that some quirk of nature could not have altered things irrevocably whether it was Jackson's fatal bullet in 1863 or the failure of the cruiser Tone's scout plane at Midway in 1942. We are where we are today because of a long train of probabilities and, sometimes, unlikely convergences.



spruce -> RE: Generals' Ratings (10/3/2006 12:07:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oldguard

quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce


I like following history in my simulations, but I really enjoy exploring the permutations. I refuse to believe that events were ever set in concrete or that some quirk of nature could not have altered things irrevocably whether it was Jackson's fatal bullet in 1863 or the failure of the cruiser Tone's scout plane at Midway in 1942. We are where we are today because of a long train of probabilities and, sometimes, unlikely convergences.



if the South lacks Jackson or Lee - the game is over within a few months - perhaps a year tops. The North was a giant compared to the South - if the North has as good or better leaders - the game will be over very quickly. And then it's not a game anymore, cause no fun ... that's my point. Even Union generals had much respect for General Lee - suppose some nitwit was commanding the Confederate army in Virginia, Lincoln would have pushed the throttle and "game over" within a few months.

Even more, the first believe the Union planmakers had, was that the CSA would be blown away very easely.

It's the same like making a WWII game and Germany lacking Blitzkrieg tactics ... that's not a WWII game anymore.



tevans6220 -> RE: Generals' Ratings (10/3/2006 12:17:55 AM)

I think it's important to take into account those leaders who showed much promise but were killed very early in the war. Nathaniel Lyon and A.S. Johnston come to mind. Had they lived the course of the war and the leadership structure for both sides may have been very different. Would we have ever heard of Grant or Sherman if Lyon had lived? Would Lee have actually taken command when Joe Johnston was wounded at Seven Pines or would Sidney Johnston have come east? A.S. Johnston was regarded as one of the south's best leaders and Lyon was regarded as an up and comer for the north. Unless the game takes the historical deaths of leaders in account, we're going to have some very ahistorical civil wars. Here's another question worth pondering. Should it automatically be assumed that Lee chose to go with his home state of Virginia instead of staying in the army and taking the top command offered to him by Lincoln? It might make for an interesting game but would be ahistorical. I think at some point you have to ask if the game is supposed to historical or just a game of the civil war era where anything can happen. If it's the former then the Lee and Jackson dilemma is pretty much solved. They have to be in command. If it's the latter then the game leads itself to all sorts of ahistorical outcomes but tons of replayability. Personally I'd like to see it both ways. A historical version where most of the decisions are made for you and you just fight the war. Also a sandbox version where all kinds of permutations are possible depending on the decisions that you make.



andysomers -> RE: Generals' Ratings (10/3/2006 1:53:59 AM)

I think the difference here is that the US should have much worse leaders in high command at the start of the game.  Halleck, McClellan, McDowell, Banks, Heintzelman, Tyler, Fremont, Butler, and Buell.  These were the boneheads they started the war with in high up command.  The South had JJohnston, Beauregard, ASJohnston, Polk, Breckinridge, Hardee, and Bragg early on, with Jackson, Lee, and Longstreet quickly entering the high command positions.

All of this said, I'm not big on AS Johnston and Beauregard.  I think the two are fairly mediocre.  Everyone talks of the promise of AS Johnston - he was quite experienced (but so were McClellan and Buell) but I am unimpressed with both at Shiloh, particularly Johnston.  He was slow to act at times, and I would argue did a poor job of organizing his command.  He was very hands-off, and basically put the whole idea of the Confederate surprise attack at Shiloh in Beauregards hands (which I would argue was a MISERABLY designed plan).  The fact the the Rebs had total surprise on the US st Shiloh (which speaks very poorly for both Grant and Sherman) is the only reason they did what they could on the first day.  Any other battle plan would have pinned Grant most likely against the river and been a decisive Reb victory.  Johnston was poor at coordinating the movements of his Corps and too hands off for my preference.  It's hard to say how good he would have become, but i am unimpressed with him during the Shiloh campaign.

All of this said - 1861, the CS and US both had few experienced commanders in high places, edge to the CS, but not a decisive edge.  Late 1861, Jackson emerges, and with the wounding of JJohnston at Fair Oaks, Lee gets his shot.  Who's to say if Johnston is not wounded that Lee gets the AoNV?  Out West, I would argue that the likes of Buell, Grant, and Halleck were as good or better early on as Bragg, Polk, and AS Johnston.  In my mind the real CS advantage that is perceived in leadership occurred only in the East, and not until Lee took command at Seven Pines, with Jackson and Longstreet firmly in place as his lieutenants.  Let us not forget the AoNV never won another battle after the death of Jackson.  The CS must still in my mind carefully manage their leadership, but they should have an edge.

A political/prestige/seniority type system is usually good to limit the US leadership and the premature promotion of the good leaders (Thomas, Grant, Sheridan, Sherman, McPherson, etc.) that any sane US player would employ with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

Rambling on big time here - I'll leave this unedited and see who picks it up (and possibly apart!!!).

Fun stuff!!!

AS

AS



Gil R. -> RE: Generals' Ratings (10/3/2006 6:52:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce

sorry to say guys, but you are missing the big picture here. [:'(]

The South had many disadvantages compared to the North, the only thing they did have were some inspired leaders who really made a difference on the battlefied. I think history has proven that Lee and Jackson were quite able at avoiding Southern defeat early war.

If the South would not have better leaders in this game - early war - how on earth can you ever design such a game and play it ? The South is destined to fail ... in the long run. If they lack inspired leaders, the North should just do a walkover. OK, you can model artificial penalties for the North - but again having inferior generals is just one of the examples of penalties.

The South could fight defensive, and that inspired many of their leader - but bottomline is that generals like Jackson and Lee made the difference on the battlefield. They were there in 1861, if you like it or not.


As I've mentioned elsewhere, the most famous generals have a 100% chance of getting into the game at some point. We've given the CSA more 100-percenters than the USA, which gives a definite advantage to the South in this area, and helps prevent the North from running roughshod over them.



Gil R. -> RE: Generals' Ratings (10/3/2006 6:55:54 AM)

Okay, the moment we (or I, at least) have been waiting for is here: there is now a "Generals" sub-forum here, and I've started with the poll threads. I've put up only one general (Lee) for now, but once I'm sure this is working and isn't an insane way of doing things I'll put up more.



Budgie -> RE: Generals' Ratings (10/3/2006 7:36:53 AM)

Deleted


[:'(]










spruce -> RE: Generals' Ratings (10/3/2006 10:06:45 PM)

ok, thank Gil for your time for giving us feedback - much appreciated [:)]



Hard Sarge -> RE: Generals' Ratings (10/3/2006 11:21:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oldguard

More directly addressing gameplay issues, I'm wondering how the AI will handle a commander's personality? There should be generals who are either slow to react or reluctant to press an attack, and knowing the personalities of opponents can be a major advantage for the player. Many are the occasions in the ACW when a battle has been lost due to a corps or division commander not pressing his advantage at the key moment.

The answer to this question will bear directly on our freedom to utilize creative strategies in dealing with multiple prongs of an advance. If I know, for example, that the AI's Gen. Fremont will not push hard, I should be free to turn and deal with Gen. Shields first, leaving a few brigades to demonstrate in front of the former.



the testers are still under gag orders, so we can only talk in General terms, ovreall, I think we can say, that Personality is there, but once in the battle field, it is your personality that takes over, using there stats

McClellan can be as poor as he was in real life, but when it is you, you can do as you wish, his stats will still effect the battle, but not the way it is fought, if you are command, instead of him

of course, it his Personality that lets you join a battle or not, so he is still there and effecting how the battles will happen

LoL, hope that explains some with out giving anything away




ericbabe -> generals' abilities (10/4/2006 12:11:15 AM)

The generals' stats do indeed have a gaussian distribution, though it's slightly bimodal since the Confederate generals do get a bonus to their stats.





dh76513 -> RE: generals' abilities (10/4/2006 4:31:26 PM)

As I closely follow the polls it becomes evident that the cavalry rating may be skewing the results. I am impressed with the historical knowledge of those who have voted illustrating some familiarity with the cavalry backgrounds of those general officers polled. However, this rating seems to be unfair in that it increases or decreases the officers according to their cavalry command and experience.

While I can understand any general officer having a bonus for the presence of cavalry units on the battlefield as this would afford any command greater speed, more flexible flanking movements, and increased tactical diversity, I cannot understand rating a general officer on any branch specialty. Furthermore, why is this specific branch [cavalry] elevated above the others [i.e., infantry, artillery, engineering] or for that matter even included in the overall rating system for general officers?



Connecticut14th -> RE: generals' abilities (10/4/2006 5:50:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dh76513

As I closely follow the polls it becomes evident that the cavalry rating may be skewing the results. I am impressed with the historical knowledge of those who have voted illustrating some familiarity with the cavalry backgrounds of those general officers polled. However, this rating seems to be unfair in that it increases or decreases the officers according to their cavalry command and experience.

While I can understand any general officer having a bonus for the presence of cavalry units on the battlefield as this would afford any command greater speed, more flexible flanking movements, and increased tactical diversity, I cannot understand rating a general officer on any branch specialty. Furthermore, why is this specific branch [cavalry] elevated above the others [i.e., infantry, artillery, engineering] or for that matter even included in the overall rating system for general officers?

this is a good point, Cavalry is a bonus for the speed and battlefield/enemy intel that is provided by the increased movement capability..But in all fairness, the combat role of cavalry was greatly diminished by the time of the ACW, and mounted charges against infantry were very few and far between, and with the exception of a few cases, were generally poor decisions with equally poor and often horrifying results



Gil R. -> RE: generals' abilities (10/4/2006 7:32:23 PM)

Eric and I have responded to these cavalry-related points/questions in the generals sub-forum, in the "Overview" thread.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.9208984