W on Patch II or the Great General debate

W on Patch II or the Great General debate (Full Version)

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

Message

Hard Sarge -> W on Patch II or the Great General debate (2/6/2007 3:03:30 PM)
well, the work and tests go on here is a shot of my Union Command [image]local://upfiles/1438/AE6D7DD50FDA4E44BE9528F1CFAC169F.jpg[/image]

Drex -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/6/2007 6:10:15 PM)
Must be in the beggining as the quality looks mostly cowardly. I never get Sherman early in the game.

Hard Sarge -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/6/2007 7:01:49 PM)
that is why it is testing start dates have been changed (but I still think we should have Sherman wait until he gets out of the Hosp to take command again) yes, that is the first turn

Gil R. -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/6/2007 7:06:40 PM)
You can now have historical start dates for generals, or slightly randomized start dates (within X turns of their historical date). Personally, I think that randomized will be better, but it's just plain wrong for the Union to start the game with Grant and be able to promote him to four stars. I don't have my data with me right now, but Sherman's historical start date was also probably in 1861.

chris0827 -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/6/2007 7:58:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gil R. You can now have historical start dates for generals, or slightly randomized start dates (within X turns of their historical date). Personally, I think that randomized will be better, but it's just plain wrong for the Union to start the game with Grant and be able to promote him to four stars. I don't have my data with me right now, but Sherman's historical start date was also probably in 1861. Sherman was promoted to brigadier general just after Bull Run. You could always limit promotions to 1 rank per turn to slow down Grant or make generals need battlefield experience to be promoted. If you think it's wrong for Grant how about Lee? He didn't command an army until june of 1862 but he can be promoted on turn 1 just like Grant. Grant was an army commander months before Lee.

General Quarters -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/6/2007 9:35:45 PM)
I don't think there is any one right way to handle when generals appear. When I have created alternative rules for CW boardgames in the past, I usually went with when they were promoted to MG. But generals enter this game as BGs. An alternative would be when they reached a certain level of command, e.g., army or corps or ... department? There are also special cases such as generals who were high ranking early in the war such as Samuel Cooper and Edwin D. Morgan who never led troops. Finally, there are the very special cases of guys like Lee and Grant. My own view is that Lee was universally recognized as a top flight general at the outset of the war, regardless of the fact that he did not command an army until well into 62, but others have equally good reasons, more or less, for starting him as BG. Grant is probably the most special case, because of his huge impact on the war. If he can be made a 4 star right away, and perhaps put in charge of the AoP, then the Union gets a jump start it did not have historically. On the other hand, theoretically, Lincoln could have picked him instead of McClellan at the beginning. Some players might like to be able to do that. So I don't see this question so much as a matter of "getting it right" (except for obvious corrections which, I gather, have already been made in the new upcoming patch) as finding out what players want, or perhaps what options they want. For myself, I always enjoy some random element, so that you don't really know when Grant or whomever is going to show up and each game is a bit different, but that is just a personal preference.

freeboy -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/6/2007 9:42:02 PM)
u could alway house rule that a General starts out at one star, and must remain so for at least x months, this in response to the Grant at begining comment above..

Drex -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/6/2007 10:10:55 PM)
I like the idea of battle experience determing promotion, especially right after a victory.

chris0827 -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/6/2007 10:44:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freeboy u could alway house rule that a General starts out at one star, and must remain so for at least x months, this in response to the Grant at begining comment above.. Grant went from a colonel in charge of a regiment to a major general commanding an army in slightly over 6 months. Lee's commands in that time period were the failed West Virginia campaign and commanding coastal defenses in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. If anyone needs to be restricted it's Lee.

captskillet -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/6/2007 11:51:40 PM)
quote: Grant went from a colonel in charge of a regiment to a major general commanding an army in slightly over 6 months. Lee's commands in that time period were the failed West Virginia campaign and commanding coastal defenses in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. If anyone needs to be restricted it's Lee. well it aint like Lee just fell off the back of a turnip truck into command with no experience...........he was wounded and received 2 promotions, the 2nd to Lt.Col as a member of Winfield Scotts staff in the Mexican War and then was Super at West Point.............what did Grant do before the War besides get drunk and fail in the business world????

Drex -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/7/2007 12:21:18 AM)
Both men distinguished themselves in the MAW. Lee was asked by Scott to run the army in the begiining wasn't he? Lee's rep was already in place but Grant had to establish his.

chris0827 -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/7/2007 12:32:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: captskillet quote: Grant went from a colonel in charge of a regiment to a major general commanding an army in slightly over 6 months. Lee's commands in that time period were the failed West Virginia campaign and commanding coastal defenses in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. If anyone needs to be restricted it's Lee. well it aint like Lee just fell off the back of a turnip truck into command with no experience...........he was wounded and received 2 promotions, the 2nd to Lt.Col as a member of Winfield Scotts staff in the Mexican War and then was Super at West Point.............what did Grant do before the War besides get drunk and fail in the business world???? Grant graduated from West Point, fought in the Mexican War and was brevetted twice for bravery. His business failures and drinking problem between the wars had nothing to do with his performance in the Civil War. My post was not a critisism of Lee, it was in reply to someone who suggested restricting Grant's ability to be promoted. Grant's quick rise to army command is a fact. He was an army commander months before Lee was. Allowing Lee to be promoted to army command on the 1st turn of the game while restricting Grant makes no sense.

rook749 -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/7/2007 1:06:15 AM)
There are really four issues with generals at start in any civil war game. Lee, Stonewall, Grant and Sherman. Let me try and breakdown the issues with each one: Lee declines the command off all union armies and joins the CSA. Lee started off the war in command of the forces in Virginia and the takes command of the forces in West Virginia and does poorly more to due to his brigade commander�s failures than anything he does but he does do poorly. From then until Joe Johnson becomes ill is a direct advisor to Jeff Davis and then in summer spring of 1862 get command of the ANV. Anyone who play a civil war game puts Lee in charge from turn 1 giving the ANV a huge edge early on. Stonewall start the war off as a birgade commander. Again anyone who plays a civil war game promotes Stonewall to division/corps/army command from turn one. Something he did not get until the end of October 1861, and this was only more of division/corps. Stonewall never really had command of an army � I�ve played several PBEM games where one turn one Stonewall is promoted to 4 starts and railed out west. Those are two big advantages to the CSA. To me, Stonewall causes more issues than Lee � though fighting Lee from turn 1 is a real pain for the Union. Grant receives his promotion to brigadier general in Augusts (granted it was back dated to May) of 1861 and major general in February of 1862. He started leading forces into actual battles staring in November 17, 1861 at The Battle of Belmont. So he needs to show up at the end of August of 1861. Sherman is appointed Brig. Gen. of Volunteers in may of 1861. He commands a brigade at Bull Run. Served in Kentucky but was relieved because of instability (he had not recovered from the battle of Bull Run). Then takes command of the 5th Division and fights with the Army as a division or corps commander until Grant is transferred to the east in Augusts of 1863. Grant getting command of an army in 1861 is fine (to be historical it should be in the west but that is more up to the player I feel). I think that Sherman is more of an issue as most people promote him to command of an army right off the bat. There first thing that needs to be done (Gil has stated this has been correct for the next release) is correct the entry dates. The second thing is to limit a general from being promoted more than one star at a time. Possibly only getting one promotion for each general every three or six months? What does everyone else think? Rook

Drex -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/7/2007 1:23:12 AM)
But generals were promoted ahead of seniors. this should be possible, but perhaps some kind of political penalty attached? I believe that has been mentioned by Gil before.

chris0827 -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/7/2007 1:46:13 AM)
quote: Sherman is appointed Brig. Gen. of Volunteers in may of 1861 His date of rank was backdated to may. He was promoted to brigadier general on august 7th. Until Grant's promotion to major general Sherman outranked him but agree to serve under him. If you limit promotion to every three or six months then Grant can't command an army until at least may of 1862. A promotion every two months would work but I'd rather see promotions tied to combat experience. In 1861 you had to have someone leading the troops so inexperienced men ended up commanding armies. No one had experience leading that many troops at the time but the later army commanders had to move up the chain of command after showing at least some skill at lower levels.

chris0827 -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/7/2007 1:57:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Drex But generals were promoted ahead of seniors. this should be possible, but perhaps some kind of political penalty attached? I believe that has been mentioned by Gil before. That's true but you never saw a brigade commander promoted over division and corps commanders to lead an army. You did see lower ranked corps commanders promoted to army command. When Pope was given command of the army of Virginia Fremont outranked him and refused to serve under him. In 1864 Burnside was a corps commander and reported directly to Grant instead of Meade because Burnside outranked Meade. You can't really simulate that without adding senority to the game.

Gil R. -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/7/2007 2:28:02 AM)
It would require a bit of programming to put in some sort of limitation on how often particular generals can be promoted. Limiting promotions to no more than one rank should be simpler to implement, and is under consideration.

rook749 -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/7/2007 2:36:48 AM)
What you really need is some method of seniority that allows generals to be ranked by date they are promoted � this would recreate some of the problems in game where you need to sit a three or four general in the rear if you wanted a newer three or four star to command the corps or army. Also, need either a time delay between generals being promoted (say two/three months) or the game needs to keep track of battles the general is. Make it so the general must be a minor battle (more then 10,000 men total) at his current rank before the general can be promoted. Rook

General Quarters -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/7/2007 4:43:13 AM)
I agree that it is odd to be able to promote generals at will, which means really on the basis of historical hindsight. But it is hard to provide a historical justification for rules requiring battles or even time in rank. Early on, guys became generals on the basis of some combination of actual military record, reputation, personal presence, ambition, political standing, previous connections, and being in the right place at the right time. Grant was lucky to have a congressman who could get him appointed general and he ended up in charge of the troops in Cairo which were not yet an army but became one. Halleck was given a major department without having seen a shot fired in the CW. Look at Polk, G.W.Smith, Lovell, Pemberton, Toombs, Fremont, Pope (whose father was a judge before whom Lincoln had practiced), McClellan (both a military record and a lot of connections as RR pres, including Lincoln as one of his attorneys), and so on. One of main problems of command was that many of these guys had to be dumped or shuffled off into side commands. After a time, battle records played a larger role but not in those early months.

rook749 -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/7/2007 4:54:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: General Quarters I agree that it is odd to be able to promote generals at will, which means really on the basis of historical hindsight. But it is hard to provide a historical justification for rules requiring battles or even time in rank. Early on, guys became generals on the basis of some combination of actual military record, reputation, personal presence, ambition, political standing, previous connections, and being in the right place at the right time. Grant was lucky to have a congressman who could get him appointed general and he ended up in charge of the troops in Cairo which were not yet an army but became one. Halleck was given a major department without having seen a shot fired in the CW. Look at Polk, G.W.Smith, Lovell, Pemberton, Toombs, Fremont, Pope (whose father was a judge before whom Lincoln had practiced), McClellan (both a military record and a lot of connections as RR pres, including Lincoln as one of his attorneys), and so on. One of main problems of command was that many of these guys had to be dumped or shuffled off into side commands. After a time, battle records played a larger role but not in those early months. I agree, I don't really love my idea I�m hoping if I throw out my best ideas that someone smatter then me comes up with a good plan [:D] How bout this as an idea: 1) You can promote any number of generals up one rank a turn (assuming you have space). 2) You may only demote one per turn. This will mean either the union can not fills its leaders ranks or as new leaders appear it will take time to get rid of the dead weight.... Rook

Hard Sarge -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/7/2007 6:16:56 AM)
Well, back to the idea :) here something you have not seen [image]local://upfiles/1438/29D7D0BBA86B48F6BFF378498C90AE4F.jpg[/image]

chris0827 -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/7/2007 6:54:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: General Quarters I agree that it is odd to be able to promote generals at will, which means really on the basis of historical hindsight. But it is hard to provide a historical justification for rules requiring battles or even time in rank. Early on, guys became generals on the basis of some combination of actual military record, reputation, personal presence, ambition, political standing, previous connections, and being in the right place at the right time. Grant was lucky to have a congressman who could get him appointed general and he ended up in charge of the troops in Cairo which were not yet an army but became one. Halleck was given a major department without having seen a shot fired in the CW. Look at Polk, G.W.Smith, Lovell, Pemberton, Toombs, Fremont, Pope (whose father was a judge before whom Lincoln had practiced), McClellan (both a military record and a lot of connections as RR pres, including Lincoln as one of his attorneys), and so on. One of main problems of command was that many of these guys had to be dumped or shuffled off into side commands. After a time, battle records played a larger role but not in those early months. McClellan did have political conections but not with Lincoln and Lincoln was never his lawyer. They never met before the war. Lincoln defended the Illinois Central Railroad in a lawsuit while McClellan was still in the army. Grant had help from a congressman but his later promotions were due to his war record. All but one of the other generals you mentioned had military experience and only two did not graduate from West Point. They were also either already generals when the major fighting began or became a general shortly afterwards. At the time you had to look at the person's record and hope for the best. No american had ever commanded forces of that size before. The relatively small armies at Bull Run were more than twice the size of any force ever commanded by an american. By the end of 1861 and afterwards almost all generals gaining command of a division or higher had seen combat earlier in the war.

GenGrunt -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/7/2007 8:24:14 AM)
Grant was one of the few aggressive commanders in the union army, during his temopary relief of command after Pittsburg Landing Lincoln said "I can't spare this man HE FIGHTS" another time when someone told Lincoln about Grant's drinking Lincoln said to find out what he drinks and send a barrel to all his generals [:)]

Twotribes -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/7/2007 8:54:41 AM)
It is simply amazing, we have gone from argueing that the player should be free to experiment ( usually the southern side is argued to be allowed this, while the North is argued to be restricted) to now argueing that somehow the President of the Country cant promote whom ever he wants because "historically" these particular guys werent promoted until x date. Another interesting arguement is this " they need battlefield experience" Umm the Union Army had HOW many Divisions and adhoc Armies by November 1861? And had fought how many battles again? I guess there were no Generals to lead these Divisions and Armies and eventually Corps if the arguement is we cant promote till they do something in battle. You dont want to promote them? DONT. I prefer to have generals running my containers, makes little "historical" sense that the Union ( or CSA) would have 20 plus Divisions and several armies ( or adhoc Armies) yet all their Generals are one stars. I suggest the system be left JUST as it is. I or you are the Commander in Chief. If you dont like the historical hindsight, make your generals have hidden, random stats. I find it amazing we are having this discussion after the heated arguements about how the "balanced" scenario was ok because "historically" the south had no chance. Furthermore if any change IS made it seems it should apply to BOTH sides. Be careful what you wish for. Currently Generals arrive ( as far as I can tell) with the Highest rank they ever had after turn one, depending on what is programmed in the data base. It is a game , unless you plan to insist only the generals that actually served in x position be promoted to x rank, I suggest it be left to the player to run his war how HE wants to run it. Using the above arguements, can I now insist that a rule be made that prevents the CSA from transferring units out of Virginia to fight in the West? Can I insist that a rule be made that Generals only be allowed to fight in the theaters they fought in? Provide us with Historical tools, the right population, the right economic base, the right starting armies, ect ect. What we do from there would be how the game plays out. I would suggest that if the random generals function provides better generals overall to the North that THAT be changed in some reasonable manner. My suggestion would be that the random abilities be tied to the historical, in other words the range of better or worse STARTS at the historical and then a set max change is possible. This would allow for the potential for the Southern Generals to be "better" as they were or appeared to be. The really bad generals may get better but only marginally so and the real good generals would be potentially worse than some other general. Example.... lets say for arguement purposes that a general can have a range of 3 up or down from his historical rateing on random. The randomizer rolls and assigns the new rate ( if the negative or positive goes to high it simply assigns the lowest or highest allowed) Every General has ratings already so even though I am no programmer it seems this system would be feasible? As to generals and promotions, as I understand it when you demote one he may just resign and be gone from the available pool? And you take a pretty big political hit with the Governor of his home state even if the resigning isnt a planned feature.

chris0827 -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/7/2007 10:39:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Twotribes It is simply amazing, we have gone from argueing that the player should be free to experiment ( usually the southern side is argued to be allowed this, while the North is argued to be restricted) to now argueing that somehow the President of the Country cant promote whom ever he wants because "historically" these particular guys werent promoted until x date. Another interesting arguement is this " they need battlefield experience" Umm the Union Army had HOW many Divisions and adhoc Armies by November 1861? And had fought how many battles again? I guess there were no Generals to lead these Divisions and Armies and eventually Corps if the arguement is we cant promote till they do something in battle. You dont want to promote them? DONT. I prefer to have generals running my containers, makes little "historical" sense that the Union ( or CSA) would have 20 plus Divisions and several armies ( or adhoc Armies) yet all their Generals are one stars. I suggest the system be left JUST as it is. I or you are the Commander in Chief. If you dont like the historical hindsight, make your generals have hidden, random stats. I find it amazing we are having this discussion after the heated arguements about how the "balanced" scenario was ok because "historically" the south had no chance. Furthermore if any change IS made it seems it should apply to BOTH sides. Be careful what you wish for. Currently Generals arrive ( as far as I can tell) with the Highest rank they ever had after turn one, depending on what is programmed in the data base. It is a game , unless you plan to insist only the generals that actually served in x position be promoted to x rank, I suggest it be left to the player to run his war how HE wants to run it. Using the above arguements, can I now insist that a rule be made that prevents the CSA from transferring units out of Virginia to fight in the West? Can I insist that a rule be made that Generals only be allowed to fight in the theaters they fought in? Provide us with Historical tools, the right population, the right economic base, the right starting armies, ect ect. What we do from there would be how the game plays out. I would suggest that if the random generals function provides better generals overall to the North that THAT be changed in some reasonable manner. My suggestion would be that the random abilities be tied to the historical, in other words the range of better or worse STARTS at the historical and then a set max change is possible. This would allow for the potential for the Southern Generals to be "better" as they were or appeared to be. The really bad generals may get better but only marginally so and the real good generals would be potentially worse than some other general. Example.... lets say for arguement purposes that a general can have a range of 3 up or down from his historical rateing on random. The randomizer rolls and assigns the new rate ( if the negative or positive goes to high it simply assigns the lowest or highest allowed) Every General has ratings already so even though I am no programmer it seems this system would be feasible? As to generals and promotions, as I understand it when you demote one he may just resign and be gone from the available pool? And you take a pretty big political hit with the Governor of his home state even if the resigning isnt a planned feature. There would be many generals at a rank rank than 1 star at the start of the game. My suggestion about promotions would obviously not include them as they do not need to be promoted. Name some generals who received a division command or higher after 1861 who didn't see combat earlier in the war. You may be able to find a few but it won't be many. You ask for the historic tools but Grant facing off against Lee in 1861 doesn't seem very historic to me. The generals promoted in 1861 got their position from their reputations and politic pull. In later years they got promoted based on their record in the war. Generals worked their way up. Colonel didn't jump from regimental command to Army command.

Hard Sarge -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/7/2007 2:20:33 PM)
Hey Guys, you know you can start a post about Generals and dates and who or who shouldn't be allowed to be promoted in another post the ideas was to try and show some of the new things or how old things are working with the patch (points of view are interesting, and some good info being presented, but it is not about what is going on with the new patches we are working on) [sm=Cool-049.gif]

Andy Mac -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/7/2007 2:59:46 PM)
Will the patch tweak the number of 2 star Generals allowed per academy ? I always have enough 4 stars for my Armys and 3 Stars for my Corps but I am ALWAYS short of 2 stars I never seem to get enough for my Divisons (I tend to try and play with each Division having 3 regular Bdes of Inf or Cav so I tend to have more Divs than normal which might be my issue) p.s. any chance of getting Div flags set so that if I change the flag of the container all units in the container have that flag on the battlefield its a real pain selecting 5 or 6 units a time and finding the right flag. Thanks Andy

Hard Sarge -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/7/2007 3:20:06 PM)
Hi Andy let me go check on the numbers, there were changes made for the flags you know you can Crl click on a number of units and then pick a flag you want, then click on F to give all those highlighted units a flag ? also, once a flag is picked, you can then pick each unit in turn and click F to give that unit a flag ???

Hard Sarge -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/7/2007 3:26:07 PM)
from the at start, I have 2 Adc, and I am allowed 3 4 stars, 6 3 stars and 9 2 stars (but I think the numbers are still being worked on, so may not be the final set)

Hard Sarge -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/7/2007 3:27:43 PM)
some shots of how to change flags, easy (?) okay, cntl click on the units you want (make sure to pick a Inf type unit last) [image]local://upfiles/1438/1BF45C7EE3D647EFA4D551431A3C062B.jpg[/image]

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.625