RE: Generals' Teachable Special Abilities (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' Teachable Special Abilities (2/26/2007 2:39:05 AM)

That's not a bad idea. As for his deception, we don't have any way of reflecting that in the game currently.



GenGrunt -> RE: Generals' Teachable Special Abilities (2/26/2007 2:41:51 AM)

Ewell "old baldy" did his best service for the CSA while as a division commander under Jackson...so maybe some of the same traits of Jackson



Gil R. -> RE: Generals' Teachable Special Abilities (2/26/2007 2:52:18 AM)

Jackson has Disciplined, Fast, Resilient, Hardy, Shooters. Do you think any of those should apply to Ewell?



Gil R. -> RE: Generals' Teachable Special Abilities (2/26/2007 3:15:53 AM)

On a related note, another change we're making for the patch is to have the abilities Dreaded (erodes enemy morale by .25) and Heroes (raises friendly units' morale .25) more rare, since they are so powerful. We've done this by making it so that these are no longer available as random abilities for generals (when playing with historical generals; they're still available for randomized generals), and can only be taught by generals to whom they have been assigned in the commanders.txt file. (Heroes and Dreaded are still available to certain Legendary Units. This change is partly intended to make LU's more valuable.) So, the question is, which generals should be able to teach these two abilities? I am deliberately not assigning them to Grant or Lee, since we don't want an entire army in which 20% or more of the brigades have Heroes or Dreaded (since that would create quite an imbalance), so I'm trying to choose generals who are less likely to lead armies rather than corps or divisions.

Right now, the only Dreaded general I have is Forrest (CSA) and H.J. Hunt (USA), while Heroes goes to A.P. Hill and Armistead for the CSA and Hancock, Chamberlain and Thomas for the USA. Ideally, we'd have one more CSA general with Heroes and a total of 4-6 generals with Dreaded. Any suggestions? Should Stuart get Dreaded, too?




General Quarters -> RE: Generals' Teachable Special Abilities (2/26/2007 4:07:24 AM)

Pope was a very aggressive general. Halleck kept having to make it stop as they inched toward Corinth and then put him in charge of pursuit afterwards. His overaggressiveness got him in trouble at 2nd Man. With faulty intell, he kept sending the whole army first in one direction and then in another. Maybe "Fast" is the right skill.

Is there some skill for stealth or deception or anything else sly. Magruder did it more than one on the Penin, and Beauregard did it masterfully at Corinth. (I guess there isn't a trait for gradiose strategic ideas!) EDIT: Oops, I see Gil says there is no skill of this description. Well, maybe whatever is closest to it. It is a kind of tactical ability. Maybe just something like maneuverability.



General Quarters -> RE: Generals' Teachable Special Abilities (2/26/2007 4:09:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.


Right now, the only Dreaded general I have is Forrest (CSA) and H.J. Hunt (USA), while Heroes goes to A.P. Hill and Armistead for the CSA and Hancock, Chamberlain and Thomas for the USA. Ideally, we'd have one more CSA general with Heroes and a total of 4-6 generals with Dreaded. Any suggestions? Should Stuart get Dreaded, too?




I don't know much about Cleburne, but I have seen him described as the best division commander in either army.



jkBluesman -> RE: Generals' Teachable Special Abilities (2/26/2007 2:51:10 PM)

What about Longstreet as one for Heroes? I do not know which abilities he has but his confidence, calm and care for his men affected his men. Before Pickett's Charge during the artillery duell, he rode along the line of his men and helped them to calm down just like Hancock did with his men.

I would not credit Chamberlain too much. He was a well educated soldier, a great example for an inspiring leader, but he played only a minor role in the war. Without the movie "Gettysburg" he and his soldiers from Maine would not be as popular as they are now.



christof139 -> RE: Generals' Teachable Special Abilities (2/26/2007 3:49:28 PM)

quote:

What about Longstreet as one for Heroes? I do not know which abilities he has but his confidence, calm and care for his men affected his men. Before Pickett's Charge during the artillery duell, he rode along the line of his men and helped them to calm down just like Hancock did with his men.

I would not credit Chamberlain too much. He was a well educated soldier, a great example for an inspiring leader, but he played only a minor role in the war. Without the movie "Gettysburg" he and his soldiers from Maine would not be as popular as they are now.


Didn't Chamberlin go on to command a Brigade, a Division, and then possibly a Corps?? He was wounded about 5-times also, and was very well known and repsected during the ACW, and the 20th Maine did save the Union left flank at Gettysburg, and in the process effectively put ot of action one Alabama Regiment for a short time.

Perhaps Chamberlin is a good candidate for the Heroes and Staeadfast (I think that is the name??) attributes.

Personally, I think Cleburne is too, along with Lee, Jackson, maybe Longstreet as someone else mentioned, and for the Union perhaps Thomas, Chamberlin, maybe Grant, Custer and Stuart for Heroes and Wild but not Steadfast, and NB Forrest probably for Heroes and Steadfast and Dreaded. Dreaded is a hard one to determine who gets it. Maybe Custer should also have Dreaded, because he was dreaded, and a big fellow to boot. Forrest was also a large man, and personally killed about 20 or so Yanks.

'That devil Forrest!!' as Sherman stated. 'Forrest and the whole pack of devils turned loose!', something like that.

I guess we can mod these to our own interpretation anyway.

Chris





Walloc -> RE: Generals' Teachable Special Abilities (2/26/2007 4:14:59 PM)

Hi Gil,


I would purely gaming wise take an interest in how high the leadership rating of the generals which you give heroes/dreaded.
It determains how "easy" it is to teach the abilty(less other wise changed in patch) for whom ever has it. So IMO that is as an importand factor as how high they will go command wise. Balance wise too.
I applude the removal from the obvious leaders like Jackson and Lee. Just saying give notice to the leadership rating too, when you hand it out to the few generals who gets it, its an just an importand factor.
I'd say no for giving Heroes too Forrest for those reasons tho he comes atleased pre patch late into the game. Longstreet i'd be doubtfull about for same reason's. Heroes wise.

When u say u thinking about giving Thomas from US side Heroes do u mean G.H. Thomas or? again if so he about the 3rd best US commander and comes early. I'd personaly make him army commander the instand he comes along since you'd from mid 62 have at leased 2 if not 3 armies. I'd take that over atleased Sherman if i get an army commander that can teach heroes and a fairly high Leadership rating. Just my opinion.


Kind Regards,

Rasmus



Gil R. -> RE: Generals' Teachable Special Abilities (2/26/2007 7:10:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jkBluesman

What about Longstreet as one for Heroes? I do not know which abilities he has but his confidence, calm and care for his men affected his men. Before Pickett's Charge during the artillery duell, he rode along the line of his men and helped them to calm down just like Hancock did with his men.

I would not credit Chamberlain too much. He was a well educated soldier, a great example for an inspiring leader, but he played only a minor role in the war. Without the movie "Gettysburg" he and his soldiers from Maine would not be as popular as they are now.


Chamberlain's a 25-percenter (as is Hunt), so it's okay. Plus, in his own day he was one of the most celebrated Civil War officers until the day he died. Also, he arrives very late in the game (Turn 82), so giving him Heroes can't have the same impact as giving it to someone who's there at the start. So, I think it's okay to keep that ability for him.



Gil R. -> RE: Generals' Teachable Special Abilities (2/26/2007 7:13:24 PM)

quote:

Perhaps Chamberlin is a good candidate for the Heroes and Staeadfast (I think that is the name??) attributes.


I gave him Heroes, Sustained Volley (25% fewer casualties when firing on enemy) and Brave (can charge without change of fire-fight). I guess I could give him Steady, too.



Gil R. -> RE: Generals' Teachable Special Abilities (2/26/2007 7:15:44 PM)

quote:


I guess we can mod these to our own interpretation anyway.


Yes, modding is encouraged. (Far better than having people play with ratings and abilities they don't like.) And modding this particular file is incredibly easy.



Gil R. -> RE: Generals' Teachable Special Abilities (2/26/2007 7:21:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc

Hi Gil,


I would purely gaming wise take an interest in how high the leadership rating of the generals which you give heroes/dreaded.
It determains how "easy" it is to teach the abilty(less other wise changed in patch) for whom ever has it. So IMO that is as an importand factor as how high they will go command wise. Balance wise too.

I agree that it's important, but I'm not sure if you're encouraging that I give the abilities to guys with higher or lower Leadership ratings.

I applude the removal from the obvious leaders like Jackson and Lee. Just saying give notice to the leadership rating too, when you hand it out to the few generals who gets it, its an just an importand factor.
I'd say no for giving Heroes too Forrest for those reasons tho he comes atleased pre patch late into the game. Longstreet i'd be doubtfull about for same reason's. Heroes wise.

Forrest now appears in Turn 36 (July 1862). I'm not sure what that number is in the initial release.

When u say u thinking about giving Thomas from US side Heroes do u mean G.H. Thomas or? again if so he about the 3rd best US commander and comes early. I'd personaly make him army commander the instand he comes along since you'd from mid 62 have at leased 2 if not 3 armies. I'd take that over atleased Sherman if i get an army commander that can teach heroes and a fairly high Leadership rating. Just my opinion.

Yes, George Thomas. Thomas does have four other ratings, so if he's going to teach a rating there's just a 20% chance that it's Heroes. I think it's okay for one general who'd be a candidate for army command to have this ability or Dreaded, but if Thomas, Sherman, Sheridan and Grant ALL had it that would be bad.





christof139 -> RE: Generals' Teachable Special Abilities (2/26/2007 7:43:11 PM)

quote:

I gave him Heroes, Sustained Volley (25% fewer casualties when firing on enemy) and Brave (can charge without change of fire-fight). I guess I could give him Steady, too.


Those are good ones you gave him. I can't remember all of them, and in fact don't knwo all of the attributes!! Those add-up to Steady I would think.

Just got my new BTX fan in the mail, along wih 2GB DDR2 PC5300 667MHz RAM, so now I can finish assembling my new comptooter. [:)] I still need to get 2GB more of RAM. My old one works fine now with 3GB DDR 266MHz RAM and a 400FSB 478 Pin 512Kb L2 cache 2.5GHz Northwood Core P4, so my new compooter with a 3.8GHz Prescott core 775 pin 800FSB 1MB L2 cache with Hyperthreading should smoke, and I won't have to turn off the smoke in the game, but even on my old compooter with the 2.5GHz CPU overclocked to 2.8GHz along with the RAM being overclocked a bit all running at 112MHz instaead of 100MHz the battlefield smoke doesn't usually affect the speed too much. I have to shut off the smoke mainly because I can't see too good with my 4-5 or 6-year old prescription bifocals. Next week I think I will have to get new eyeglasses. My poor eyeballs actually do ache a bit now. Should have done this awhile back methinks.

That old Northwood core P4 is very good and fast, even at 400 to 448FSB speed. Sometimes some testing programs that come with games or free downloads identify it as having Hyperthreading which it doesn't!! It does have the Intel Netburst architecture though, so that must be close to Hyperthreading.

Have a good day, I also got a $70 rebate for WinXP that I bought last September, meaning I paid only about $36 bucks for it, and add that to the whole $2 I got back from my Dentist for some reason (but I didn't any of my teeth or parts there of back [8|]) equals a decent day for me. Plus all the ice and snow is melting. [:)] Not bad.

Chris





Gil R. -> RE: Generals' Teachable Special Abilities (2/27/2007 7:08:20 AM)

Oops. I was going from memory in stating what "Dreaded" does, and as one of you pointed out, it actually doubles morale damage, instead of causing a fixed amount of damage.



chris0827 -> RE: Generals' Teachable Special Abilities (2/27/2007 8:19:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: christof139

quote:

What about Longstreet as one for Heroes? I do not know which abilities he has but his confidence, calm and care for his men affected his men. Before Pickett's Charge during the artillery duell, he rode along the line of his men and helped them to calm down just like Hancock did with his men.

I would not credit Chamberlain too much. He was a well educated soldier, a great example for an inspiring leader, but he played only a minor role in the war. Without the movie "Gettysburg" he and his soldiers from Maine would not be as popular as they are now.


Didn't Chamberlin go on to command a Brigade, a Division, and then possibly a Corps?? He was wounded about 5-times also, and was very well known and repsected during the ACW, and the 20th Maine did save the Union left flank at Gettysburg, and in the process effectively put ot of action one Alabama Regiment for a short time.

Perhaps Chamberlin is a good candidate for the Heroes and Staeadfast (I think that is the name??) attributes.

Personally, I think Cleburne is too, along with Lee, Jackson, maybe Longstreet as someone else mentioned, and for the Union perhaps Thomas, Chamberlin, maybe Grant, Custer and Stuart for Heroes and Wild but not Steadfast, and NB Forrest probably for Heroes and Steadfast and Dreaded. Dreaded is a hard one to determine who gets it. Maybe Custer should also have Dreaded, because he was dreaded, and a big fellow to boot. Forrest was also a large man, and personally killed about 20 or so Yanks.

'That devil Forrest!!' as Sherman stated. 'Forrest and the whole pack of devils turned loose!', something like that.

I guess we can mod these to our own interpretation anyway.

Chris






Chamberlain commanded a brigade at he end of the war.



christof139 -> RE: Generals' Teachable Special Abilities (2/27/2007 12:40:10 PM)

quote:

Chamberlain commanded a brigade at he end of the war.


Yes, thanx. I actually used Wiki to check this out. Chamberlin was only brevetted to Major General by Lincoln, and commanded only a Brigade at the end of the war. I must have been thinking of G. Warren in the mix.

Thanx again for the quick info., Chris



Drex -> RE: Generals' Teachable Special Abilities (2/27/2007 10:51:24 PM)

In the battle of Five Forks, he commanded two brigades but his rank was the same. After the surrender, he commanded a division and then attained the rank of MG with the recommendations of Meade and Grant.(per the memorial tribute of 1914).



Mike13z50 -> RE: Generals' Teachable Special Abilities (2/27/2007 11:28:39 PM)

quote:

Right now, the only Dreaded general I have is Forrest (CSA) and H.J. Hunt (USA),


I agree with Hunt, how about Longstreet for the CSA and Sherman for US. Sherman commanded an army, but Longstreet never really exercised independent command. When I think of people you didn't want attacking you, those two come to mind.

Maybe Upton for the Union?



chris0827 -> RE: Generals' Teachable Special Abilities (2/28/2007 1:25:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Drex

In the battle of Five Forks, he commanded two brigades but his rank was the same. After the surrender, he commanded a division and then attained the rank of MG with the recommendations of Meade and Grant.(per the memorial tribute of 1914).



He had the Brevet Rank of Major General. That's an honorary rank which entitled him to be addressed as Major General but nothing else. He had the pay and responsibilities of a Brigadier General. Brevet ranks were the Civil War equivalent of the medals soldiers receive today.



christof139 -> RE: Generals' Teachable Special Abilities (2/28/2007 7:51:55 AM)

quote:

He had the Brevet Rank of Major General. That's an honorary rank which entitled him to be addressed as Major General but nothing else. He had the pay and responsibilities of a Brigadier General. Brevet ranks were the Civil War equivalent of the medals soldiers receive today.


I know. I knew a long time ago. Thanx anyway. What's a medal, I thought they were decorations, I have to look at the measley few I have, they do look decorative. Chris



chris0827 -> RE: Generals' Teachable Special Abilities (2/28/2007 9:38:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: christof139

quote:

He had the Brevet Rank of Major General. That's an honorary rank which entitled him to be addressed as Major General but nothing else. He had the pay and responsibilities of a Brigadier General. Brevet ranks were the Civil War equivalent of the medals soldiers receive today.


I know. I knew a long time ago. Thanx anyway. What's a medal, I thought they were decorations, I have to look at the measley few I have, they do look decorative. Chris


My post was not a reply to you

And how am I supposed to know what you or anyone else already knows?



Mike13z50 -> RE: Generals' Teachable Special Abilities (2/28/2007 1:18:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

units now can earn special abilities through combat.


YES, YES, YES!

IMHO, a truly great strategy game requires four things, resource management, R&D, tactical combat, and character development. (Think X-COM) FOF has the first three in spades, but only marginally executes character development through experience gain, the ability to learn traits and upgrade weapons. I can't think of a single unit or leader or army that I have become "attached" to.

Adding special traits that only are learned in combat will help..you might also consider allowing leaders to get better through experience for a future patch (not this one!)



christof139 -> RE: Generals' Teachable Special Abilities (3/1/2007 4:29:55 AM)

quote:

My post was not a reply to you

And how am I supposed to know what you or anyone else already knows?


Ha ha ha!!! I don't know!!! I don't either!!! Beats me!!![&:]

Sorry.

I liked your info. you presented on the Union replacemnts. Some people seem to forget that the Union had more units to send replacements to, and many new units were formed by returning Vets, thus depleting the Replacement Pool somewhat, not to mention all the 6 and 9 month and 12 month units that were formed and saw combat.

At the Siege of Port Hudson many of the Union forces were I believe 9-month troops, and these short term troops were also used in large numbers during the 1862 maryland Campaign etc.

Sometimes it's not even worth it to supply any info., and you just end-up wasting time digging it up. A real pain and waste of time for etheral results, if any.

Chris



Gil R. -> RE: Generals' Teachable Special Abilities (3/4/2007 8:48:37 AM)

Okay, I've just given "Dreaded" to Custer. He's a 25-percenter who doesn't come in until Turn 59, so he can't throw the game out of whack. I'm still hesitating over giving "Heroes" or "Dreaded" to guys like Stuart, Cleburne, Grant, etc., since their ratings are so high that they're usually going to by promoted to four stars and given entire armies to command, which will make for far too many brigades with those abilities.

I did hit on a potential solution, though, and am curious what you think about it. What about inserting a bit of code that prevents a 4-star general from teaching those abilities? I view Heroes/Dreaded as abilities for division commanders and corps commanders. If we artificially limit those abilities to 2-stars and 3-stars, it would solve the imbalance problem, while letting generals like Stuart and Cleburne have it. Players would then have to decide whether they promote guys like that to army command because of their outstanding ratings, or keep them at a lower level in order to take advantage of those abilities. Is this a good idea or a bad one?



Gil R. -> RE: Generals' Teachable Special Abilities (3/4/2007 9:46:39 AM)

Speaking of teachable abilities, I just got this Event Report while playtesting. It's pretty nice to see two brigades gain "Heroes" as a result of combat. Also, note that garrisons that survive a siege now can gain in quality AND get some new special abilities. No longer will garrisons be stuck at 2.0 quality for the entire game, if they've seen combat.




[image]local://upfiles/16018/38801A7EE71343FDA8D7F3345B65EAE4.jpg[/image]



Walloc -> RE: Generals' Teachable Special Abilities (3/4/2007 9:58:46 AM)

did hit on a potential solution, though, and am curious what you think about it. What about inserting a bit of code that prevents a 4-star general from teaching those abilities? I view Heroes/Dreaded as abilities for division commanders and corps commanders. If we artificially limit those abilities to 2-stars and 3-stars, it would solve the imbalance problem, while letting generals like Stuart and Cleburne have it. Players would then have to decide whether they promote guys like that to army command because of their outstanding ratings, or keep them at a lower level in order to take advantage of those abilities. Is this a good idea or a bad one?


Sounds good to me.


Kind regards,

Rasmus



Walloc -> RE: Generals' Teachable Special Abilities (3/4/2007 10:09:34 AM)

Hi Gil,

I assume u mean excluding 5 star too, right?. Just stating the obvius, i guess. Then again that has to be programmed too [:)]


Kind regards,

Rasmus



General Quarters -> RE: Generals' Teachable Special Abilities (3/4/2007 7:07:20 PM)

I like Gil's suggestion. The current system gives high ratings to hard-fighting division, corps, and cavalry commanders. It thereby encourages their promotion to command armies. This assumes in effect that they also have the strategic, administrative, personnel, and logistical skills to direct and manage a large force. Guys like Lee, Grant, and Sherman had these skills. We do not really know whether guys like Cleburne, Stuart, and Custer had them. Hood is the textbook case on the difference between the two levels of command.

I would prefer that some of these guys' overall ratings be a bit lower, but it would be a very suitable compensation if they had great abilities to train their troops into real fighters -- but only so long as they stayed at division or corps level of command.



General Quarters -> RE: Generals' Teachable Special Abilities (3/6/2007 5:55:51 AM)

The following comments on Ben McCullough appear in Horn's Army of Tennessee: He "insisted that all his men be crack shots" and he was an "excellent horseman and an experienced and able leader of rangers or irregular cavalry." These should indicate what some of his traits might be.



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.84375