RE: Generals Bios Project (yes, it's time) (finally) (Full Version)

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



Message

Gil R. -> RE: Generals Bios Project (yes, it's time) (finally) (11/6/2006 4:15:37 AM)

In addition to writing bios, it would be very helpful if you'd provide your opinion on what the ratings of the generals should be in the game. Since we have only 50 or so 25- and 100-percenters, this means that all the other generals, with few exceptions, have randomized ratings, and it would be great if these could be historically accurate as well. So as you research these guys, please see if you can come up with ratings, which I'll then enter into the appropriate file for a future patch.

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
NOTE: At the strategic level, initiative is almost entirely a matter of the commanding general of whatever military group is trying to move. During detailed battles, the bonus is from both the brigade's general (if there's one assigned) and the general commanding the military group to which the brigade is attached (usually a division.). (Before a battle the "Initiative Check" is heavily weighted toward using the score of the highest ranking officer on each side.)

Leadership: helps disorganized units regain order; gives morale boost for rallying; has chance of negating effects of fatigue from forced march
NOTE: Similarly, brigade commander has most of the effect, but generals can also periodically try to rally any unit under their command.

Tactics: Increases damage done by brigades in combat
NOTE: Just for brigade commanders

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)
NOTE: The restoring of out-of-command units function is more a function of generals commanding higher military groups (armies/corps), but the other functions of the Command rating are solely for brigadier generals. (Some of the other functions use average between bde. general's rating and the rating of the group's general (typically a division commander).)

Cavalry: Increases damage done by charging cavalry in combat
NOTE: Only generals who have cavalry experience will be given a Cavalry rating, so for most generals there will be only four poll-threads rather than five. If there is a general for whom there is no cavalry poll-thread even though there should be (perhaps because of cavalry experience in the war with Mexico), please let me know and I'll add the poll.



Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Generals Bios Project (yes, it's time) (finally) (11/6/2006 7:50:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
Leadership: helps disorganized units regain order; gives morale boost for rallying; has chance of negating effects of fatigue from forced march
NOTE: Similarly, brigade commander has most of the effect, but generals can also periodically try to rally any unit under their command.

Tactics: Increases damage done by brigades in combat
NOTE: Just for brigade commanders


1. Shouldn't Leadership have an effect on training? I.e. the rate at which troops improve in quality while resting. Generals at all levels should have some influence on this.

2. In detailed combat, it's the tactical skill of the player that's being tested, so I can understand that the tactical skill of the commanding general doesn't come into it. However, in quick combat the tactical skill of the commanding general should surely be important.



Gil R. -> RE: Generals Bios Project (yes, it's time) (finally) (11/6/2006 8:22:07 AM)

Leadership does also affect the disposition of troops under generals, and the chances of generals teaching them special abilities (e.g., Chargers, Diggers, etc.). I forgot to note that.

Yes, I believe that Tactics does influence the outcome of Quick Combat.



Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Generals Bios Project (yes, it's time) (finally) (11/6/2006 8:50:02 AM)

Thanks for the quick reply...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
Yes, I believe that Tactics does influence the outcome of Quick Combat.


This is quite an important point; I hope the game's manual will confirm it. I suppose most players are likely to use quick combat for at least some battles; some players will use it for all battles; and it's obligatory for all battles when playing by e-mail.

Incidentally, I point out that play balance is affected if the tactical skill of the top generals is taken into account in quick combat but not in detailed combat. It means that, with detailed combat, the USA will escape part of the penalty for its initially inferior lineup of top generals.



dh76513 -> RE: Generals Bios Project (yes, it's time) (finally) (11/6/2006 1:51:31 PM)

Concerning the biography on Lt. Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest above and the limits to the number of characters noted in these biographies, I suggest just entering the birth and death date in parenthesis as (1821–1877) instead of (b. 1821, d. 1877).  Even among genealogical biographies this is the accepted format.  If you are not counting spaces as characters, this alone would save us four characters.   



Gil R. -> RE: Generals Bios Project (yes, it's time) (finally) (11/6/2006 6:48:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dh76513

Concerning the biography on Lt. Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest above and the limits to the number of characters noted in these biographies, I suggest just entering the birth and death date in parenthesis as (1821–1877) instead of (b. 1821, d. 1877). Even among genealogical biographies this is the accepted format. If you are not counting spaces as characters, this alone would save us four characters.



Your point makes sense, but I already did all of the governors this way and want to be uniform, plus that 3000-char. limit isn't an absolute limit -- if a bio goes to 3010 characters it's not the end of the world. So we can afford the extra four characters.



Twotribes -> RE: Generals Bios Project (yes, it's time) (finally) (11/6/2006 7:01:36 PM)

Having trouble with the Andersons. Other than the "Civil War Generals" series I cant figure out a good search pattern to find these men with just the first intial of the name.

I of course have several Libraries near by, but I dont get out much and the best one is on the Marine Corps Base and my sticker is expired, I would have to renew it to go there.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.



Gil R. -> RE: Generals Bios Project (yes, it's time) (finally) (11/7/2006 1:16:06 AM)

Are you saying that you can't figure out their names from the Web, and therefore can go no further? I can check on that, if you can't.



Gil R. -> RE: Generals Bios Project (yes, it's time) (finally) (11/7/2006 1:20:04 AM)

In case people haven't found it, this is a very useful site, with links to some others:

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/generals.html



AU Tiger_MatrixForum -> RE: Generals Bios Project (yes, it's time) (finally) (11/7/2006 1:36:40 AM)

Do you have a time limit on getting these done? I am in the middle of a testing cycle that wraps up wednesday afternoon....



Gil R. -> RE: Generals Bios Project (yes, it's time) (finally) (11/7/2006 1:45:48 AM)

Good question -- I meant to say.

This isn't school, so I'm not giving hard deadlines. As the completion dates of patches approach, I'll always let all of you know, in the hope that you can make a push to get stuff ready in time.

There is, of course, no release date for our first patch (since there's no release date set for the game itself), but it probably will be out by sometime in mid-January, I should think. That said, since right now everyone has just five, it would be good to get those done well before -- perhaps after Thanksgiving? As I get the first five from each of you, I'll assign a larger batch, so everyone will have a different timeframe. But it would be good to get those samples sooner. So, I guess I'm saying that people should take at most 2-3 weeks for the first five, but then would have 4-6 weeks on their next assignments. (Of course, if I assign you 25 or 50 there's no reason to deliver them all at the same time: instead, turn them in as you finish them, so that the rest of us can give feedback.)

Also, I should point out that if people wait too long to turn in their initial five they risk missing out on getting to write up the big-name generals. So that's incentive.

Overall, then, there is no fixed deadline, but it would be good to show regular progress by turning in bios as you finish them. (Disclaimer: If I assign someone a batch of generals and then he seems to disappear, I'll make an effort to reach him, but reserve the right to reassign generals if I see the need to do so.)



Gil R. -> RE: Generals Bios Project (yes, it's time) (finally) (11/7/2006 1:51:46 AM)

Another thing -- I've asked for a new sub-forum to be created so that we can work on this project. Instead of the wiki system we were considering, I think it should work well enough if every time someone has new bios done he creates a new thread in the subforum so that we can all see them, give suggestions, etc.

If you finish before the sub-forum is created, you can always create a new thread here, and I'll have it moved to the sub-forum when the time comes.

Always name your threads by providing the names of all of the generals whose bios are in them, and try not to have more than five per thread, since it will become unwieldy to discuss dozens in the same thread.



AU Tiger_MatrixForum -> RE: Generals Bios Project (yes, it's time) (finally) (11/7/2006 2:19:54 AM)

Could I add a general to my list? I am doing B's as it is, and I would LOVE to do Nathaniel Banks!



Gil R. -> RE: Generals Bios Project (yes, it's time) (finally) (11/7/2006 2:23:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AU Tiger

Could I add a general to my list? I am doing B's as it is, and I would LOVE to do Nathaniel Banks!




Banks is assigned to ross_ntu. Perhaps you two can trade, or I can bribe ross_ntu with the offer of someone who's of interest to him (other than the biggest names, whom I'm not yet ready to reassign or assign).



scout1 -> RE: Generals Bios Project (yes, it's time) (finally) (11/7/2006 2:28:02 AM)

Gil,

Need to say thanks. The research done has been quite interesting in of itself. Looking forward to other "non demi-god" generals. I have lots to learn.

Now relative to the "upcoming" sub forum. Are you wanting the bio's deposited within this with a thread per bio ?



Gil R. -> RE: Generals Bios Project (yes, it's time) (finally) (11/7/2006 2:31:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: scout1

Gil,

Need to say thanks. The research done has been quite interesting in of itself. Looking forward to other "non demi-god" generals. I have lots to learn.

Now relative to the "upcoming" sub forum. Are you wanting the bio's deposited within this with a thread per bio ?


A thread per bio would be too cumbersome. I think that the minor guys can be grouped together, perhaps five per thread, while the major guys probably each deserve their own thread.



scout1 -> RE: Generals Bios Project (yes, it's time) (finally) (11/7/2006 2:36:04 AM)

So you want us to go ahead and post when ready ?



Gil R. -> RE: Generals Bios Project (yes, it's time) (finally) (11/7/2006 2:40:14 AM)

Sure. It's probably best to create a new thread, which can then be moved when the sub-forum appears.



AU Tiger_MatrixForum -> RE: Generals Bios Project (yes, it's time) (finally) (11/7/2006 2:40:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AU Tiger

Could I add a general to my list? I am doing B's as it is, and I would LOVE to do Nathaniel Banks!




Banks is assigned to ross_ntu. Perhaps you two can trade, or I can bribe ross_ntu with the offer of someone who's of interest to him (other than the biggest names, whom I'm not yet ready to reassign or assign).


Don't worry about it then. I just hope he includes Banks' nickname given to him by Jackson's troops - "Commissary Banks" due to the large quantities of supplies captured from him on multiple occasions. <g>



Gil R. -> RE: Generals Bios Project (yes, it's time) (finally) (11/7/2006 2:44:33 AM)

Funny. I've never read that.

This is a perfect example of why it's good for everyone to post their bios for communal feedback -- if ross_ntu were to leave out that detail, you could then suggest adding it, and the final bio would be that much better.



AU Tiger_MatrixForum -> RE: Generals Bios Project (yes, it's time) (finally) (11/7/2006 3:34:07 AM)

I think I read that in Foote's trilogy, but it may have been in one of the other zillion and a half books I've read on the war.

I am so chock full of trivia on the war that my girlfriend brings earplugs on roadtrips now. I will see a sign for some obscure little Southern town, and WHAMMO! I remember some equally obscure event that occured there, but have no idea where it came from, and of course I can't refrain from telling her ALL about it.

I almost feel sorry for her sometimes....





scout1 -> RE: Generals Bios Project (yes, it's time) (finally) (11/7/2006 3:40:06 AM)

Gil,

Regarding the highest rank achieved. Are you wanted the brevetted rank for their regular rank. It appears alot of them got brevetted ranks right at the end of the war, at least for the Yankees ....



Gil R. -> RE: Generals Bios Project (yes, it's time) (finally) (11/7/2006 3:51:28 AM)

I'd say use your judgment. If a guy was promoted a day after Lee surrendered, we might want to give his rank from the day before. The main thing to avoid is calling someone a major general because they retired as one in 1887, whereas in 1865 they were still just a brigadier general.



RERomine -> RE: Generals Bios Project (yes, it's time) (finally) (11/7/2006 5:41:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Having trouble with the Andersons. Other than the "Civil War Generals" series I cant figure out a good search pattern to find these men with just the first intial of the name.

I of course have several Libraries near by, but I dont get out much and the best one is on the Marine Corps Base and my sticker is expired, I would have to renew it to go there.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.


Hopefully this helps.

Anderson, George Burgwyn
Anderson, George Thomas
Anderson, James Patton
Anderson, Joseph Reid



migoodman -> RE: Generals Bios Project (yes, it's time) (finally) (11/10/2006 1:12:38 AM)

Hi Gil,
I was away and didn't see your "call to arms" before today. Please sign me up for about 5 bios, and as I mentioned some time ago, the more obscure the better (I like challenges!) I'll do my best...

Michael
michael@wakerobin.net



Gil R. -> RE: Generals Bios Project (yes, it's time) (finally) (11/10/2006 1:26:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: migoodman

Hi Gil,
I was away and didn't see your "call to arms" before today. Please sign me up for about 5 bios, and as I mentioned some time ago, the more obscure the better (I like challenges!) I'll do my best...

Michael
michael@wakerobin.net


Excellent, thanks. For now, I'm still assigning generals alphabetically, but I don't recognize these names, so they probably fit your criteria:

Bartlett,_W.F.
Barton,_S.M.
Bate,_W.B.
Baxter,_H.
Bayard,_G.D.



migoodman -> RE: Generals Bios Project (yes, it's time) (finally) (11/10/2006 4:43:12 AM)


[/quote]

Excellent, thanks. For now, I'm still assigning generals alphabetically, but I don't recognize these names, so they probably fit your criteria:

Bartlett,_W.F.
Barton,_S.M.
Bate,_W.B.
Baxter,_H.
Bayard,_G.D.

[/quote]


Thanks, Gil. I'll get to work this weekend.

Michael



migoodman -> RE: Generals Bios Project (yes, it's time) (finally) (11/16/2006 1:52:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

quote:

ORIGINAL: migoodman

Hi Gil,
I was away and didn't see your "call to arms" before today. Please sign me up for about 5 bios, and as I mentioned some time ago, the more obscure the better (I like challenges!) I'll do my best...

Michael
michael@wakerobin.net


Excellent, thanks. For now, I'm still assigning generals alphabetically, but I don't recognize these names, so they probably fit your criteria:

Bartlett,_W.F.
Barton,_S.M.
Bate,_W.B.
Baxter,_H.
Bayard,_G.D.



Hi Gil,
I should be able to "deliver" these bios later today or tomorrow. Where and how should I do this?
Thanks
Michael
michael@wakerobin.net



Gil R. -> RE: Generals Bios Project (yes, it's time) (finally) (11/16/2006 6:31:08 PM)

Since Matrix hasn't created a subforum for generals' bios yet, you can post a thread here, and that thread can later be moved.

We should probably standardize the way of naming these threads, perhaps using first initial and last name: "U.S. Grant - R.E. Lee - B. Bragg".



Gil R. -> RE: Generals Bios Project (yes, it's time) (finally) (11/19/2006 3:25:43 AM)

As one of you pointed out to me, many Union generals received promotions at the very end of the war, even in the immediate aftermath of surrender. I think that we should be providing the high rank the general achieved as a result of the war, even if that promotion came just after the surrender. Does anyone strongly believe we should instead stick with the highest rank generals had while campaigning?



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.390625