25-percenters (Full Version)

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



Message

Gil R. -> 25-percenters (10/13/2006 8:49:19 AM)

This is the list of 25-percenters I have so far, plus ratings that I came up with. (There isn't enough time to have voting on another large batch of generals.) I would appreciate feedback on any ratings that should be raised or lowered.

We're hoping to get 10 USA and 10 CSA, but somehow are a bit short on CSA 25-percenters. I'd welcome suggestions on whom to add.


USA:
Abner Doubleday: Leadership Great, Tactics Fair, Initiative Good, Command Great
William S. Rosecrans: Leadership Excellent, Tactics Good, Initiative Normal, Command Great
Joshua Chamberlain: Leadership Excellent, Tactics Good, Initiative Normal, Command Superb
Gouverneur K. Warren: Leadership Good, Tactics Normal, Initiative Poor, Command Good
James B. McPherson: Leadership Great, Tactics Good, Initiative Normal, Command Good
Don Carlos Buell: Leadership Good, Tactics Normal, Initiative Poor, Command Good
George A. Custer: Leadership Great, Tactics Normal, Initiative Great, Command Good, Cavalry Excellent
David McM. Gregg: Leadership Normal, Tactics Normal, Initiative Good, Command Great, Cavalry Excellent
Nathaniel Lyon: Leadership Good, Tactics Normal, Initiative Good, Command Great
John Sedgwick: Leadership Good, Tactics Normal, Initiative Poor, Command Good

CSA:
Leonidas Polk: Leadership Great, Tactics Poor, Initiative Fair, Command Normal
Felix K. Zollicoffer: Leadership Fair, Tactics Great, Initiative Good, Command Normal
J. Johnston Pettigrew: Leadership Good, Tactics Fair, Initiative Poor, Command Normal
John H. Morgan: Leadership Excellent, Tactics Normal, Initiative Good, Command Great, Cavalry Superb
Lafayette McLaws: Leadership Normal, Tactics Good, Initiative Poor, Command Great
Richard H. Anderson: Leadership Good, Tactics Good, Initiative Normal, Command Superb

EDIT: Additional CSA:
John B. Magruder: Leadership Good, Tactics Normal, Initiative Poor, Command Good
Lewis A. Armistead: Leadership Excellent, Tactics Good, Initiative Normal, Command Excellent
Fitzhugh Lee: Leadership Good, Tactics Normal, Initiative Great, Command Great, Cavalry Superb
Joseph O. Shelby: Leadership Good, Tactics Normal, Initiative Great, Command Normal, Cavalry Great
Henry Heth: Leadership Good, Tactics Good, Initiative Poor, Command Normal
William D. Pender: Leadership Good, Tactics Great, Initiative Good, Command Good
Robert E. Rodes: Leadership Great, Tactics Good, Initiative Normal, Command Excellent




ezzler -> RE: 25-percenters (10/13/2006 1:45:46 PM)

CSA
Lewis Armistead
Fitzhugh Lee
Sterling Price

USA
Samuel Heintzelman
Samuel Curtis



dh76513 -> RE: 25-percenters (10/13/2006 2:26:22 PM)

Gil,
Hear are a few CSA suggestions:

TYREE HARRIS BELL
GEORGE SMITH PATTON (The paternal grandfather of the infamous American World War II General, George S Patton, Jr.)
JOSEPH ORVILLE SHELBY
HENRY WILLIAM WALLACE
FRANCIS REDDING TILLOU NICHOLLS



dh76513 -> RE: 25-percenters (10/13/2006 2:38:02 PM)

Regarding George Smith Patton, the War Department felt certain that he deserved his commission as Brigadier General as they noted: “Patton had won his commission several times and he should have it, Mr. Seddon, then secretary, told me that the trouble was for Echols, who was himself a public man and the double brother in law to Senator Capeton.” For more on BG George Smith Patton please visit the interesting website below:


http://www.emmitsburg.net/john/contents/22ndvainfantry/descendants/patton.htm



marecone -> RE: 25-percenters (10/13/2006 3:34:53 PM)

I second ezz.
CSA
Armistead
F. Lee
Sterling Price

USA
Heintzelman
Curtis

Also as dh said, put in Shelby.



helop5 -> RE: 25-percenters (10/13/2006 6:21:18 PM)

I have been lurking for awhile and cannot wait for this game to be released. I would also agree with ezz's list of CSA officers. Armistead, F. Lee, and Sterling Price should be considered as 25%. I would also propose that a couple of Union Naval Admirals, Farragut and Porter, should be possible 25%.




Gil R. -> RE: 25-percenters (10/14/2006 12:33:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: helop5

I have been lurking for awhile and cannot wait for this game to be released. I would also agree with ezz's list of CSA officers. Armistead, F. Lee, and Sterling Price should be considered as 25%. I would also propose that a couple of Union Naval Admirals, Farragut and Porter, should be possible 25%.



I'd like to have admirals, but the naval aspect of our game takes a backseat to the land warfare. At this point, it is too late to make any changes before release, but it is possible that we might be able to add a few admirals in a patch and make their function be to give a fleet some bonuses in combat. This might be worth suggesting.



raven1 -> RE: 25-percenters (10/14/2006 2:21:11 AM)

C.S.A.-

Dorsey Pender

Evander Law

Robert Rodes

Henry Heth



Gil R. -> RE: 25-percenters (10/14/2006 8:46:34 PM)

Thanks for all the suggestions. I'll figure out the finalists later today. I did remember Magruder, whom no one has mentioned. Just that stunt of marching his soldiers around in circles is enough to earn him serious consideration, in my book.



Gil R. -> RE: 25-percenters (10/15/2006 1:50:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dh76513

Regarding George Smith Patton, the War Department felt certain that he deserved his commission as Brigadier General as they noted: “Patton had won his commission several times and he should have it, Mr. Seddon, then secretary, told me that the trouble was for Echols, who was himself a public man and the double brother in law to Senator Capeton.” For more on BG George Smith Patton please visit the interesting website below:


http://www.emmitsburg.net/john/contents/22ndvainfantry/descendants/patton.htm


That's a fascinating page -- thanks. Unfortunately, he died a colonel, so he can't be considered. (On the plus side, I might add his Kenawha Riflemen as a "legendary unit" in a future patch.



Gil R. -> RE: 25-percenters (10/15/2006 2:12:05 AM)

Thanks for all your suggestions. I added a bunch more CSA 25-percenters, which I put at the top of this thread using an edit. Please let me know if you think any of the ratings I assigned are too high/low. (I was in a hurry, so for several of those guys I had to depend on Wikipedia and Google searches.)



dh76513 -> RE: 25-percenters (10/16/2006 3:34:44 PM)

Gil,
Yes, he was a colonel who was made the rank of general after the war, but I did not know how you were entering such soldiers. For example, Nathan Bedford Forrest was a private when the Civil War began. Nonetheless, the Kanawha Rifles would be a nice addition.



Gil R. -> RE: 25-percenters (10/16/2006 6:31:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dh76513

Gil,
Yes, he was a colonel who was made the rank of general after the war, but I did not know how you were entering such soldiers. For example, Nathan Bedford Forrest was a private when the Civil War began. Nonetheless, the Kanawha Rifles would be a nice addition.


We don't include those made general after the war (we had to stop somewhere). As for generals who reached that rank later in the war, as I recall the generals database assigns values for the year they became general, and they are not available until that year. I'll doublecheck this.



Runsilentrundeep -> RE: 25-percenters (12/2/2006 9:34:03 PM)

I know I am late coming into this, why no Grierson for the Union?



chris0827 -> RE: 25-percenters (12/3/2006 12:41:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Runsilentrundeep

I know I am late coming into this, why no Grierson for the Union?


It seems the person who researched the Union generals didn't understand how rank worked. Union generals could have three different ranks at the same time. Regular army rank, volunteer army rank and brevet rank. It seems he used regular army rank when assigning arrival times to Union generals. Grierson was a major general of volunteers who commanded a division late in the war but he didn't become a general in the regular army until 1867. The Union generals need to be entirely redone. Their rank in game needs to reflect the size of the units they commanded instead of strict military rank. It's not much of a problem for the south. They had one way of assigning rank and rank usually matched the size of the unit commanded.



Runsilentrundeep -> RE: 25-percenters (12/3/2006 12:59:22 AM)

I kind of noticed that, all that talk about Chamberlain and no notice of Curtis or Girerson or Schofield. There are some serious gaps here. Chamberlain never really had an independant command and yet Schofield commanded an entire department (or in that case EK Smith for the South) looks like he is not represented.

And as always in any Civil war game way too many ANV guys. I have a sneaking suspicion on why this is but I will stir up a hornets nest by bringing my two bit opinion in this.

Also no Banks or McClernand for the North and no Huger for the South, horrible yes but needed to be in there.



chris0827 -> RE: 25-percenters (12/3/2006 1:20:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Runsilentrundeep

I kind of noticed that, all that talk about Chamberlain and no notice of Curtis or Girerson or Schofield. There are some serious gaps here. Chamberlain never really had an independant command and yet Schofield commanded an entire department (or in that case EK Smith for the South) looks like he is not represented.

And as always in any Civil war game way too many ANV guys. I have a sneaking suspicion on why this is but I will stir up a hornets nest by bringing my two bit opinion in this.

Also no Banks or McClernand for the North and no Huger for the South, horrible yes but needed to be in there.


Banks,Schofield, Curtis,Huger and McClernand are in. Their arrival dates may be wrong but they can show up.



ColinWright -> RE: 25-percenters (12/3/2006 7:43:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827


quote:

ORIGINAL: Runsilentrundeep

I kind of noticed that, all that talk about Chamberlain and no notice of Curtis or Girerson or Schofield. There are some serious gaps here. Chamberlain never really had an independant command and yet Schofield commanded an entire department (or in that case EK Smith for the South) looks like he is not represented.

And as always in any Civil war game way too many ANV guys. I have a sneaking suspicion on why this is but I will stir up a hornets nest by bringing my two bit opinion in this.

Also no Banks or McClernand for the North and no Huger for the South, horrible yes but needed to be in there.


Banks,Schofield, Curtis,Huger and McClernand are in. Their arrival dates may be wrong but they can show up.



Thank God. As a devoted CSA man (I can never understand why anyone would be pro-Union) I was really dreading not having a Nathaniel Banks to kick around.



Gil R. -> RE: 25-percenters (12/5/2006 6:01:35 AM)

As noted elsewhere in this sub-forum, decisions regarding which generals to make 25-percenters or 100-percenters were only partly based on the importance of a general's command: overall fame was a much more important criterion, since we figured that people will have more fun with someone they've heard of than someone they haven't. The case of Chambers is a perfect example: as a general, he was not all that important in the grand scheme of things, but few Union officers are more famous. So, he deserves to appear in the game more often than someone who commanded a corps but is only known to civil war buffs. (Same is true of Abner Doubleday, whom I insist remains a 25-percenter simply because of his link to baseball...)

We're certainly open to adding a few more guys to the 25-percenter and 100-percenter groups, and perhaps someone should start a thread on this here. We won't make any final decisions just yet, since there will be plenty of new players in the coming weeks (especially with Christmas a few weeks away), but we can start such a discussion.

Also, remember that the generals file is very easily modified, so if you want to make guys have a better or worse chance of appearing you can make those changes yourself.



Gil R. -> RE: 25-percenters (12/5/2006 6:03:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827


quote:

ORIGINAL: Runsilentrundeep

I know I am late coming into this, why no Grierson for the Union?


It seems the person who researched the Union generals didn't understand how rank worked. Union generals could have three different ranks at the same time. Regular army rank, volunteer army rank and brevet rank. It seems he used regular army rank when assigning arrival times to Union generals. Grierson was a major general of volunteers who commanded a division late in the war but he didn't become a general in the regular army until 1867. The Union generals need to be entirely redone. Their rank in game needs to reflect the size of the units they commanded instead of strict military rank. It's not much of a problem for the south. They had one way of assigning rank and rank usually matched the size of the unit commanded.


It's quite possible that that happened. Over time this will get corrected, as people discover errors and as the biography project churns up accurate info about them. We of course welcome any errors you guys find. (Unfortunately, we don't have the manpower to check through 500 or so generals ourselves right now.)




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6884766