Different ratings at different ranks (Full Version)

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



Message

Artmiser -> Different ratings at different ranks (12/6/2006 6:08:36 AM)

This would be nice to see, some of the poor union generals at the start were decent division commanders. but couldn't command well at higher ranks.

Burnside good example, competent Division commander, not so good corp and poor army commander. And some of this we have to wonder was due to bad chains of command and even the crater incident was actually lincoln meddaling. The black troops that were trained for it were replaced at the last minute with white troops, who had not prepared for the assault and were under poor leadership.



Artmiser -> RE: Different ratings at different ranks (12/6/2006 10:09:51 PM)

I still think this is a great idea, when you promote a general his stats change. 



marecone -> RE: Different ratings at different ranks (12/8/2006 10:04:17 PM)

I agree with you



dude -> RE: Different ratings at different ranks (12/8/2006 10:48:31 PM)

My suggestion in the suggestion thread was to have a "hidden" trait that would specify up to what level a general was able to command at... above this level his traits would suffer.  Say you have a 1 star with great stats... fine promote him to 3 star and give him that corps... but his "hidden" trait says he's only good up to division level... so while he commands a corps his ratings would suffer... put him back in command of a division and he's fine again.  This wouldn't require and recalculating of stats at each promotion... just apply say a -2 to all his stats while his in over his head.






bountyhunter -> RE: Different ratings at different ranks (12/17/2006 5:05:30 AM)

Definetly a valid suggestion especially since we are "playing" as Lincoln or Davis and we all know how much trouble they both had finding the right general!



sadja -> RE: Different ratings at different ranks (1/15/2007 5:27:31 AM)

Sometimes things happen during the war and the stats may go down. Longstreet lost his whole family in 63 i think. And he really wasn't the same general. Pickett after gettysburg was a shell of his former self.

I'm sorry I don't have the game yet and some of these may already be incorperated. I'm looking seriously into purchasing as I love the civil war. My problem is WITP is a life all its own[:)][:)][:D] and sometimes occupies huge amounts of my time.[8D]

steve



jack616 -> RE: Different ratings at different ranks (1/16/2007 12:34:48 AM)

terrific idea....


agreed that it would certainly add to the flavor of the game.  a similiar suggestion was made in the legendary units thread as well....



Gil R. -> RE: Different ratings at different ranks (1/19/2007 1:54:06 AM)

Dude's idea is quite interesting, and we'll definitely consider it. I doubt this could be done for the next patch, but perhaps a future one



marecone -> RE: Different ratings at different ranks (1/19/2007 2:51:47 AM)

Good idea. When we get general biographies and when (if) this will be implemented, game will get another level. Good call. [:D]



christof139 -> RE: Different ratings at different ranks (2/15/2007 2:26:30 AM)

You all have put together some good bios. Chris



Jonah -> RE: Different ratings at different ranks (12/24/2007 8:05:50 AM)

Very True. J. Hood was A GREAT Division Commander, Brigade Commander and Corps commander. But When He took command of an army, he lost every time ang got massacered at Franklin and Nashville. Or J. Hooker, Who was one of the greatest Division and Corps commander, but was flanked and beat as an army commander, That would be a great  catagory to add for the  general's ratings:

(ie)Army Command 



jkBluesman -> RE: Different ratings at different ranks (12/24/2007 3:53:10 PM)

While I disagree about Hood as corps commander (he did not perform very well under Johnston in the Atlanta campaign), Dude's idea should definetly be considered for the expansion and it is good that you refreshed the thread.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.1875