18-percenters

18-percenters (Full Version)

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

Message

Gil R. -> 18-percenters (3/30/2007 4:13:14 AM)
When "Forge of Freedom" was released we had three kinds of generals: those with a 100% chance to appear in any given game, those with a 25% chance, and those with just 9% odds. In this new patch I am elevating a small number of 9-percenters to 18-percenter status. I am doing this for generals who are well-known, even if they weren't good enough or important enough to earn 100-percenter or 25-percenter status. Carl Schurz is one such general, for example -- a very prominent figure, and yet not exactly a Chamberlain or Grant. Since I'm swamped with various other things, I thought I'd ask for your input. Here is a list of 9-percenters for whom we have had bios written. Please let me know which of these guys you'd like to see elevated. (For now, I'm limiting 18-percenter status to generals with bios, since, for one thing, this gets more generals with bios into the game. If there's someone not on this list who deserves that status let me know and I'll try to get his bio written, or will edit it more quickly if it already has been written.) The list: Baird,_A. Bee,_B.E. McCulloch,_B. Robertson,_B.H. Posey,_C. Shelley,_C.M. Winder,_C.S. Wilson,_C.C. Sears,_C.W. Battle,_C.A. Adams,_D.W. Bragg,_E.S. Robertson,_F.H. Shoup,_F.A. Armstrong,_F.C. Wharton,_G.C. Bayard,_G.D. Bee,_H.P. Wise,_H.A. Bohlen,_H. Briggs,_H.S. Sharp,_J.H. Chesnut,_J. Slaughter,_J.E. Simms,_J.P. Brisbin,_J.S. Boyle,_J.T. Robertson,_J.B. Adams,_J. Bratton,_J. Barnard,_J.G. Winder,_J.H. Brannan,_J.M. Willams,_J.S. Roane,_J.S. Preston,_J.S. Bailey,_J. Branch,_L.O. Arnold,_L.G. Polk,_L.E. Bradley,_L.P. Bonham,_M.l. Semmes,_P.J. Roddey,_P.D. Cocke,_P.S. Arnold,_R. Busteed,_R. Beale,_R.L. Ripley,_R.S. Barton,_S.M. Brevard,_T.W. Clingman,_T.L. Bell,_T.H. Barksdale,_W. Smith,_W.D. Brantley,_W.F. Cabell,_W.L. Brandon,_W.L. Beall,_W.N. Roberts,_W.P. Scurry,_W.R. Boggs,_W.R. Brooks,_W.T.H Adams,_W.W. Averell,_W.W. Slack,_W.Y. Alexander,_E.P. Asboth,_A.S. Humphreys,_A.A. Wilcox,_C.M. Augur,_C.C. Butterfield,_D.A. Couch,_D.N. Sumner,_E.V. Barlow,_F.C. Cadwalader,_G. Baxter,_H. Clayton,_H.D. Barnes,_J. Bowen,_J. Blunt,_J.G. Wharton,_J.A. Brooke,_J.R. Bowen,_J.S. Kershaw,_J.B. Barnes,_J.K. Brayman,_M. Butler,_M.C. Allen,_R. Ayres,_R.B. Churchill,_T.J. Bate,_W.B. Bartlett,_W.F.

Drex -> RE: 18-percenters (3/30/2007 6:03:16 PM)
Wasn't Averell an important union cavalry commander? the union doesn't have enough of those so I would vote for him on that basis. He was active from 1st Bull Run on.

Drex -> RE: 18-percenters (3/31/2007 1:19:22 AM)
How about Couch? he was a corp commander, Blunt was a western commander, Bayard died at Fredericksburg. It will take me time to sort through the others. for the south to start how about Wharton(he defeated Sigel a New Market),Churchill served out west, Kershaw was prominent at Gettysburg, Shoup was a chief of artillery under Johnston, Sears was very active in the war until he lost a leg in '64, and Robertson was at Brandy Station.

jchastain -> RE: 18-percenters (3/31/2007 1:52:18 AM)
Is there really enough space between 18% and 25% to justify both tiers? Should we instead be talking about whether any 9%ers deserve to be 25%ers? Otherwise the progression is... 9% - Base Chance 18% - Twice as likely as previous list 25% - 38% more likely than previous list 100% - 4 times as likely as previous list At a minimum, if there was a desire for 4 tiers, I'd look to change the 25%ers to 50% to at least provide some reasonable separation. But do we really need 4 tiers? Isn't the simplest answer to promote one, two, three, or whatever small number of deserving souls who get the nod from 9% to 25%?

Sonny II -> RE: 18-percenters (3/31/2007 3:25:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jchastain Is there really enough space between 18% and 25% to justify both tiers? Should we instead be talking about whether any 9%ers deserve to be 25%ers? Otherwise the progression is... 9% - Base Chance 18% - Twice as likely as previous list 25% - 38% more likely than previous list 100% - 4 times as likely as previous list At a minimum, if there was a desire for 4 tiers, I'd look to change the 25%ers to 50% to at least provide some reasonable separation. But do we really need 4 tiers? Isn't the simplest answer to promote one, two, three, or whatever small number of deserving souls who get the nod from 9% to 25%? Now, now! Don't go making sense.[:D]

Gil R. -> RE: 18-percenters (3/31/2007 3:27:01 AM)
The issue really is one of game-play: do we want so many more generals? People who don't like micromanaging which generals go where might not be pleased if suddenly there's a sharp jump in the number available (especially in the first turn), while even those who like having lots of generals won't want that many. Perhaps making 25-percenters become 30-percenters so that there's a wider gap with 18-percenters would be the solution, since that won't create a plague of generals. A related issue: that first turn, especially if playing with "More Generals," the player gets an awful lot of generals, so we're thinking of having all 9-percenter generals who became generals before Nov. 1861 become 5- or 6-percenters. My impression, based on reading all those bios, is that more men were made generals in 1861 than any other year during the war, which is why so many show up at the beginning of both the July and November scenarios. By reducing just that one group to 5- or 6-percenters it would thin out the generals one gets at the beginning of each game. Any thoughts on whether this is worth doing?

Drex -> RE: 18-percenters (3/31/2007 3:31:47 AM)
I like more generals: I put brigadiers with every brigade, brigadiers at forts and at cities- everywhere there are troops. I would prefer to keep them at historical levels so if most of them came in 1861 so be it.

Gil R. -> RE: 18-percenters (3/31/2007 3:40:14 AM)
Interesting point about this actually mirroring reality. (I was thinking more as a designer, not wanting people to feel they're being forced to do too much micromanaging.) I'll wait for more feedback before making a decision, but it does occur to me that people can always mod this.

Drex -> RE: 18-percenters (3/31/2007 7:45:50 PM)
If people don't like more generals, they can leave them in the Potomac or leave them in forts or cities.. Its not like they have to use them. Pretend they are all "desk generals".

Sonny II -> RE: 18-percenters (3/31/2007 8:00:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Drex If people don't like more generals, they can leave them in the Potomac or leave them in forts or cities.. Its not like they have to use them. Pretend they are all "desk generals". I agree. Though when you look at the screen showing all of the military units it does get a little messy with all those generals.

Drex -> RE: 18-percenters (4/1/2007 12:34:29 AM)
I assume you are talking about the startegic map. If the generals could be made to arrive "in" the cities or forts then you wouldn't see them but you might overlook them. In any event it is a simple matter to make them disappear into garrisons

jchastain -> RE: 18-percenters (4/1/2007 5:42:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sonny II quote: ORIGINAL: Drex If people don't like more generals, they can leave them in the Potomac or leave them in forts or cities.. Its not like they have to use them. Pretend they are all "desk generals". I agree. Though when you look at the screen showing all of the military units it does get a little messy with all those generals. I know you can disband units. Can you disband generals as well? That way people who do not wish to assign all those generals can remove the ones with the worst stats and reduce the messiness. Then again, if the armies are being reduced in size to better match historical norms, maybe the better answer is just to reduce the 8%ers to 6% instead and make this new tier 12%. That way you maintain good spacing between the tiers and keep things balanced in terms of how many show up. Those who wish to have more generals can always use the "more generals" option. After all, that's why it is there.

Blackhorse -> RE: 18-percenters (4/1/2007 7:19:16 AM)
However you decide to increase the odds, the two Confederate commanders on the list who, IMHO, should appear more frequently are Ben McCulloch and Leonidas Polk. Bishop Polk "was more theoretical than practical" as a General, but was one of the senior Lieutenant Generals in the CSA when he was killed, and held important independent and Corps combat commands. Without orders from his superiors he invaded Kentucky in 1861, probably pushing that state into the ranks of the union months earlier than would have happened otherwise. Not a good General, but certainly an important one. Before McCulloch, the lengendary former Captain of the Texas Rangers was killed early in the war, he was destined for higher command in the Trans-Mississippi.

Gil R. -> RE: 18-percenters (4/1/2007 8:10:10 AM)
Those suggestions for new 18-percenters (or whatever) make sense. Still pondering the different tiers issue.

CSL -> RE: 18-percenters (4/1/2007 8:39:08 AM)
Can you include a mini-patch that would make every general available regardless at his historical start date?

Sonny II -> RE: 18-percenters (4/1/2007 10:47:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Drex I assume you are talking about the startegic map. If the generals could be made to arrive "in" the cities or forts then you wouldn't see them but you might overlook them. In any event it is a simple matter to make them disappear into garrisons No, not the strategic map - the report which shows all of the military units.

Gil R. -> RE: 18-percenters (4/1/2007 7:21:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CSL Can you include a mini-patch that would make every general available regardless at his historical start date? If I understand you correctly, you want a 100% chance for each of the 1000+ generals in the database to appear in the game? That's doable, but seems nightmarish.

jkBluesman -> RE: 18-percenters (4/2/2007 2:13:09 PM)
It is interesting that you mention Schurz as he is as far as I can see not in your list. That there were so many new generals in 1861 was due to reorganization of the forces. To mirror that in tha game is good I think as you have to organize and train your troops more in that year.

General Quarters -> RE: 18-percenters (4/2/2007 2:38:21 PM)
Of the generals on your list, I would regard Polk as a for-sure, McCullough next, and then Sumner and Couch. One oddity in the game as Union is that the original senior AoP commanders such as Sumner, Heintzelman, Franklin, and Couch rarely appear. On the tier issue, I like the idea of moving some generals who did have a significant role up to 18 percent, and would not mind seeing the nonentities have a lower chance than they now have. There are a lot of generals in the game who never even commanded a division.

ericbabe -> RE: 18-percenters (4/2/2007 4:56:14 PM)
We should probably talk about some of this in the beta patch area since the number of generals and their ranks was significantly changed in the patch that's in public beta. My own tastes, I'd like to lower some of the 9%ers down to maybe 6 or 7% and have two dozen or so more 18 or 25%ers, but I'd love to get more feedback on this before we start changing things.

Miserere -> RE: 18-percenters (4/2/2007 11:43:20 PM)
I like having a fair number of generals. The only thing I don't like is the fact that you can't specify which generals are in charge of individual brigades, or even a Division. I understand that throwing all the generals in a Division together makes it easier to manage things, but this leads to a couple problems. First, if I have multiple 2-star generals in a single Division (as is very often the case with the Confederacy at the beginning of the game - there are way more 2-star generals than there are divisions) then it's unclear who will actually lead the division. Second, I would like to make sure that certain brigadiers end up in charge of certain brigades, so it's not totally left to chance - I want my better generals leading my better brigades to get the most out of them. Not a game-breaker by any means, but sure would be nice to be able to assign generals to individual brigades (you can't unless I missed something), just as you can to Corps and Armies. That would incidentally mean you would also be specifically assigning a Division commander as well.

Gil R. -> RE: 18-percenters (4/2/2007 11:47:53 PM)
Miserere, When two generals of the same rank are in a container the one whose last name comes first alphabetically is in charge. As for assigning generals to brigades, you can do this in detailed combat. (I think it's the 'g' key.)

spruce -> RE: 18-percenters (4/3/2007 12:51:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gil R. Miserere, When two generals of the same rank are in a container the one whose last name comes first alphabetically is in charge. As for assigning generals to brigades, you can do this in detailed combat. (I think it's the 'g' key.) IIRC you put Holmes as division commander under Johnston commanding a corps - Holmes will take command of the corps - given the fact they both are 3-stars. So this is not exactly the same as you stated Gil ... [:'(]

General Quarters -> RE: 18-percenters (4/3/2007 12:57:13 AM)
To avoid M's problem, I do not promote weak generals to two stars.

Drex -> RE: 18-percenters (4/3/2007 1:10:55 AM)
Sometimes I have to promote a poor general simply because he has a needed attribute while the other well-known general's attributes are still hidden. This gives me a jump on training.

General Quarters -> RE: 18-percenters (4/4/2007 12:21:45 AM)
Do I understand correctly that there is zero benefit from having a general who is not going to command a division wear two stars instead of one?

Drex -> RE: 18-percenters (4/4/2007 1:01:00 AM)
If you had two major generals, the the first one alphabetically would command the division and the other would command a brigade if I understnad correctly. So you do get some benefit.

Gil R. -> RE: 18-percenters (4/4/2007 1:59:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: spruce quote: ORIGINAL: Gil R. Miserere, When two generals of the same rank are in a container the one whose last name comes first alphabetically is in charge. As for assigning generals to brigades, you can do this in detailed combat. (I think it's the 'g' key.) IIRC you put Holmes as division commander under Johnston commanding a corps - Holmes will take command of the corps - given the fact they both are 3-stars. So this is not exactly the same as you stated Gil ... [:'(] If Holmes is in a division container and Johnston is in the corps container then Johnston should command the corps -- are you seeing otherwise? Did I make an unclear statement to that effect? Or a clear one that was erroneous?

Gil R. -> RE: 18-percenters (4/4/2007 2:00:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: General Quarters Do I understand correctly that there is zero benefit from having a general who is not going to command a division wear two stars instead of one? I can't think of one, though Eric is the only one who knows for certain.

Gil R. -> RE: 18-percenters (4/4/2007 2:06:54 AM)
The more I think about it, the more I think that the solution is to keep 9-percenters at that level, and just have more 25-percenters instead of having both 18- and 25-percenters. My original thinking was that 25-percenters should be the most important generals (who don't qualify for 100-percenter status), but when you think of it, there's no harm in having big names who might not have had important commands (or who might have really sucked at them) appearing as often as guys like Custer, Chamberlain, Buell, etc. As of now, I've added eight new 18-percenters, not including the ones suggested above. Seems like making these guys 25-percenters, plus a handful of other guys down the road, won't create a horrible glut of generals. Unless there are objections, then, this will be my policy.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.625