demoting generals (Full Version)

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



Message

spruce -> demoting generals (4/9/2007 3:39:31 AM)

there something that could be improved about demoting generals.

I'm playing a game where (CSA) Gen. Early is a 4 star general - commanding an army container.

General Early loses some battle and I want to have Gen. Forrest take over command of the army.

The problem is I first have to demote general Early - so I do this - but my only option is to demote him to 1-star general.

This is a little harsh - Early is not a bad general - but Forrest would be better at the job. Due to - known reasons - Early can not be demoted to 3 nor 2 star - but to 1 star.

I propose that demotions don't take into account the rules about limitations on rank levels. During the course of the game - you'll be getten lots of 2 and 3 star generals - and due to the "generals won't die during instant or quick battle" - I can't even demote my 4 stars to 3 star or 2 star generals.



Gil R. -> RE: demoting generals (4/9/2007 3:49:14 AM)

Well, generals are dying a lot more in our still unreleased, improved version of the patch. But I think you're absolutely right that the limits that prevent one from promoting to certain ranks more generals than there are appropriate containers shouldn't prevent generals from being demoted to those ranks even if there aren't enough containers. I don't know whether such a change can be done in time for this patch, but your suggestion does make sense.



Drex -> RE: demoting generals (4/9/2007 3:54:06 AM)

Instead of demotong Early, why not move him to another army or Corp?



f15eagle -> RE: demoting generals (4/9/2007 4:05:27 AM)

I think the point here, or at least how I interpret it based on my own experience, is that it would be nice to have more flexibility in assigning ranks to generals, especially as new ones become available.  For example, Joe Johnston is still valuable after Forrest, Cleburne, et al enter the game, but it's rarley possible to demote him to anything but a 1-star to free up his slot since you're continually filling up available slots with whoever happens to be available.  As better generals arrive, it would be nice to promote them to the rank at which they can do the most good, or just whatever rank you want, without completely sacrificing the generals they're replacing.  I suppose you can "game the game" by building new containers just to make slots available, but that's a waste or resources.  



Drex -> RE: demoting generals (4/9/2007 5:19:25 AM)

In reality demotions were made for very bad performance. Usually the soldier kept his rank and was moved to another theater. I don't think demotions should be made without dire political consequences.



dude -> RE: demoting generals (4/9/2007 6:02:54 AM)

Hmm... I see both points... Drex's and the point by Spruce... you should still be allowed to demote someone because you feel he's a bad performer to any rank you see fit.  I'm not sure though how you'd ever program it for people to not abuse it the way Drex points out.  You shouldn't be demoting just to make room for someone else.  I always demote McClellan to two stars (if he'll stay) not because I'm want to make room for someone but because I think he makes a better division commander than army commander.  I always hope he'll stick around and that I have room at the two star level. 

There are other commanders who I've promoted to three or four stars and then needed their slot for a much better commander.  I don't want to demote this guy because I might want to use him in the future so I build an extra container for him.  f15eagle sees it as a waste to build a container for said general just to get him out of the way... but really.. that's pretty close to what happens in real life... let's shuffle this guy off somewhere out of the way to make room for new commander... even if we have to give him a semi ficticious command.   [:)]

Dude



f15eagle -> RE: demoting generals (4/9/2007 6:26:45 AM)

This is just one of those difficulties you face when modeling an historical war, I suppose.  The ratings that the generals have in the game are based on historical performance rather than what they accomplish in the game.  In reality, how else could you evaluate a general's performance other than what he accomplished on the battlefield?  Even generals who turned out to be quite effective suffered setbacks early on.  There wouldn't be a fixed, clear rating system to help you decide who should be promoted and who shouldn't.  However, since the game does use that type of system, players should be able to make decisions based on it so they can influence the outcome of the game.  Random generals helps somewhat, but even then, you want to replace inferior generals with better ones as they become available regardless of if they're named Grant or McClellan.

To make the game historically accurate, you would have to hide the underlying game factors assigned to generals and simply force players to take their best shot based on the general's success in battle.  In reality, even a poor general could succeed with the right troops and circumstances.  I'm not saying that simply making decisions based on outcomes would be a bad thing for the game, and it might even be fun, but it's not the system the designers developed. 

One of my favorite things about this game is how you're in charge of the entire war effort, including how your general staff is organized.  I really like the possibility that a general will resign in protest, but I do wish I could do something less draconian than simply demoting a 3-star to a 1-star, especially if I could really use him as a 2-star and nobody better is available.



christof139 -> RE: demoting generals (4/9/2007 1:00:49 PM)

Yeah, demotions should be just one rank down.

If we start the Generals with historic stats, then how about allowing those stats to get better if a Gen. wins and even if he doesn't engage in battle they would increase at a lesser rate over time.

If a Gen. loses in a battle then his stats would be reduced in the same but reverse manner as if he had won.

For instance, if a small battle is won, then 1 stat is raised by 1 level, and if a large battle is won then 2 stats are raised by 1 level, and the exact opposite if these batles were lost.

For every 6 months a Gen. neither wins or loses a battle then 1 stat would be raised by 1 level.

Just my thoughts, Chris



spruce -> RE: demoting generals (4/9/2007 1:04:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Drex

Instead of demotong Early, why not move him to another army or Corp?


cause he's a 4-star and Forrest is a 3-star.

do I have to build an extra army container (like others suggest) to have Forrest be promoted to 4-star ? And let Early play with a paper army ? Guess not - this is ridiculous.

I really like the demoting thingy - this is a harsh decision and the general in question might get very upset due to this.

If we build a "paper army" to avoid this rule, we are fooling ourselves cause in reality the general would still be upset and it justs makes the game more complex were it shouldn't be...



spruce -> RE: demoting generals (4/9/2007 1:19:42 PM)

Chris, I think you have a valid point there - altough I don't support it fully. I think by doing this (I'm nog engaged with Lee's ANV against a round of Union Army's entering Virginia. And if this rule would have applied I would either have had Lee being max at everything or another guy being max. I have won 3 decisive battles in Virginia and about 6 normal battles.

I would like to take another stance here. My vision is that promotion should be based on objective things like stat's (wich can be set to the player to random, hidden or historical). Another needed requisite for promotion is off course - is there support to promote this general ?

At a certain moment during the ACW - Lee was seen as an old man which wouldn't command the largest confederate army ... Granny Lee.

I think a general has to gain the trait (or cal it an ability) "eligable for promotion". This trait can be gained during normal battle victories or decisive battle victories. Or can be gained by the governor of that state "pushing" his candidate to be "eligable for promotion". And I would propose to have them only to be promoted one rank. Off course during the start up of the game - a few generals might already have this trait or ability.

Losing battles might remove that trait or ability.



tevans6220 -> RE: demoting generals (4/9/2007 3:05:08 PM)

Chris I like your idea but would like to expand on it. Instead of winning or losing a few battles to get an increase or decrease in ratings, why not a running point total? The points could be hidden or unhidden and you wouldn't be able to promote generals until within that point range.

For instance let's say Hood is a brigade commander in the ANV. For every battle he participates in that the ANV wins he gets .5 points and it takes 2.5 points to be promoted to divisional command. Once Hood achieves 2.5 points he can be promoted to 2 stars but not before. The point total could be cumulative so once at division command you would need maybe another 2.5 points to get that 3rd star. You can demote at any time but points are subtracted from the total number of accumulated promotion points. Demote Hood from 3 stars to 2 stars and he loses 2.5 promotion points and must earn them again. I think a system like this would help prevent gamey play such as demoting generals to make room for a general like Grant. Promotions would have to be earned on the battlefield. This system also forces you to protect your higher ranking officers while in combat and it makes sure that all general officers must get combat experience before being promoted. The only exception would be at the start of a scenario when you get your initial set of generals.



Drex -> RE: demoting generals (4/9/2007 4:43:17 PM)

But Spruce, you can put a 4 star in command of a division or a corp and have the general of your choice if his name is alphabetically first. Otherwise put him in a fort or city. You don't have to build another container.



christof139 -> RE: demoting generals (4/9/2007 5:24:08 PM)

quote:

Chris I like your idea but would like to expand on it. Instead of winning or losing a few battles to get an increase or decrease in ratings, why not a running point total? The points could be hidden or unhidden and you wouldn't be able to promote generals until within that point range.

For instance let's say Hood is a brigade commander in the ANV. For every battle he participates in that the ANV wins he gets .5 points and it takes 2.5 points to be promoted to divisional command. Once Hood achieves 2.5 points he can be promoted to 2 stars but not before. The point total could be cumulative so once at division command you would need maybe another 2.5 points to get that 3rd star. You can demote at any time but points are subtracted from the total number of accumulated promotion points. Demote Hood from 3 stars to 2 stars and he loses 2.5 promotion points and must earn them again. I think a system like this would help prevent gamey play such as demoting generals to make room for a general like Grant. Promotions would have to be earned on the battlefield. This system also forces you to protect your higher ranking officers while in combat and it makes sure that all general officers must get combat experience before being promoted. The only exception would be at the start of a scenario when you get your initial set of generals.


That's not a bad idea you have. Mine is simpler and the Gens. would not max-out quickly since there are 4 or 5 Command Attributes and each attribute has what is it, a rating of from 0 to 6?? So, it would take a lot of battles an time for a Gen. to max-out his attributes using my idea. The small skirmishes would not count as battles.

Chris



f15eagle -> RE: demoting generals (4/9/2007 8:16:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drex

But Spruce, you can put a 4 star in command of a division or a corp and have the general of your choice if his name is alphabetically first. Otherwise put him in a fort or city. You don't have to build another container.


Then who replaces him in the Army container he's just been detached from? A 3-star won't be effective there, so you need a 4-star, but if you don't have a free 4-star slot, you have to demote someone to make one.



Drex -> RE: demoting generals (4/9/2007 8:49:07 PM)

then the reality is you may have to stay with him until you get a free slot. It wouldn't be the first time a general was kept in place because of political reasons or no one else was available. but I've said all I can on this subject and its not a game breaker for me anyway.



dude -> RE: demoting generals (4/9/2007 9:05:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: f15eagle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drex

But Spruce, you can put a 4 star in command of a division or a corp and have the general of your choice if his name is alphabetically first. Otherwise put him in a fort or city. You don't have to build another container.


Then who replaces him in the Army container he's just been detached from? A 3-star won't be effective there, so you need a 4-star, but if you don't have a free 4-star slot, you have to demote someone to make one.


You have to build a new Army container to get the extra slot. You don't actually have to put him in that container... but you do need the slot. You also may need a new corps if you want to demote him to three star and you have no 3 star slots available.

I always justify it by saying he's been moved to command in a "rear area." This happens in real life all the time... if you don't want to demote someone... just transfer them out of the way. In this game it just requires building an extra unit to transfer him too. On paper there alway are more units with generals than in the field... [:)] Plenty of generals command paper armies...

Dude



Drex -> RE: demoting generals (4/9/2007 9:14:50 PM)

We should be able to promote all we want. Its the demote that was the problem. Maybe in the future we could award "brevet" ranks that can be removed without penalty. They were temporary appointments anyway.



spruce -> RE: demoting generals (4/9/2007 9:29:56 PM)

First of all - let's take a look at the bigger picture. First of all, demotion and promotion is a game element we should embrace - not work around it. Second - let's try to avoid uneeded micromanagement.

I don't want to build new army containers just because some guy has to be replaced at 4-star command. This is total absurdity - a general that gets demoted is unhappy with this - he'll be also unhappy if he needs to command a paper army. Demotion is in the game for one reason - don't throw it away. But the way it works right now is not logical.

Even more, many "fresh" generals jump in the game at level 3 or 2 - and they are blocking the degradation to 3-star command. So Early can't command a corps - because J.B. Hood has been spawned ?

Especially when playing the Confederacy, the amount of containers you can get is pretty much critical. I'm not intending to use them to bypass the demotion element of the game.

Suppose you have a "valid" side army there (f.e. the army of Texas) - ok I send Early to this side army. Still Forrest is not a 4-star ... do I have to demote the guy in charge of the Texan army  ? This is getting ridiculous.

Just reconsider these generals like Hood - jumping in at 3-stars ... and for demotion don't need to take into account the restrictions on container limits. So you can still demote him to level 2 or 1 - but demoting a good army general to command a brigade is a little bit "over the top".



Drex -> RE: demoting generals (4/9/2007 11:12:27 PM)

I agree with you that it is a problem with promotion being linked to containers. If you could promote based on need or extraordinary combat action then you could leave Early as he is and promote the general you want. After all, armies were top heavy during war time anyway. You could send Early to New Orleans to run the garrison there or anywhere. Why create another army? If and when you needed another army then bring Early back from New Orleans to his new command. No political backlash there.



Erik Rutins -> RE: demoting generals (4/9/2007 11:13:51 PM)

FYI, in the next update the issue of generals arriving higher than 1 Star rank has been resolved, so you won't have 3 Stars showing up after the start of the scenario.



Drex -> RE: demoting generals (4/9/2007 11:14:14 PM)

Wait, didn't I say I would shut up about this? Can't keep my big mouth shut.



dude -> RE: demoting generals (4/9/2007 11:57:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Drex

I agree with you that it is a problem with promotion being linked to containers. If you could promote based on need or extraordinary combat action then you could leave Early as he is and promote the general you want. After all, armies were top heavy during war time anyway. You could send Early to New Orleans to run the garrison there or anywhere. Why create another army? If and when you needed another army then bring Early back from New Orleans to his new command. No political backlash there.



I think if you were to send Early to a back water without an army to command... then he'd probably quit. This is esentially what happend to a number of Union commanders. There has to be some penalty for removing a guy from his command in essence... in this game it is abstractly done by demoting them.

The problem is we want our cake and eat it too... We would love to promote who ever we wanted to command each container. Screw who's ever in command currently... so what if we have a dozen four stars stitting in Washington or Richmond without assignment at least I got Grant (or Lee) finally... [;)]

In the war (to the best of recolection... don't shoot me here)... it was a very touchy issue to put a guy in command that didn't have greater time in service AND grade than the guy who was already there. This type of system is not really being modeled here. I still recall Sherman's offer to support and serve under Grant at one point out west "even though he outranked Grant" and this was a very big deal. When Grant later came east I believe more than one general resigned because they felt slighted because they "outranked" Grant in time in grade and service.

I'm not advicating this kind of system. I'm liking the new system more and more (though adding in unlimited demotions to any grade would be a nice improvement.) I think the cost you have to spend on an extra container goes to and can be counted as trying to appease the guy you are replacing. Heck maybe all we need is a way to "buy" more general slots instead of actual containers? just a thought. The Academies can provide the basic number of slots or reduce the cost per slot or something like that perhaps.

Dude



CSL -> RE: demoting generals (4/10/2007 12:22:14 AM)

Is there any possibility we can get brevet ranks or something along those lines so that one can make promotions as only a temporary stopgap for when you know better generals are coming along later.

Or, make demotion more acceptable after a commanding general has lost a decisive battle? If so, perhaps also erase the loss of governor support you lose in such a move.



Gil R. -> RE: demoting generals (4/10/2007 12:47:12 AM)

I like the idea of adding brevets because it gives greater accuracy and historical flavor to the game, but it does seem that this would get around the rules regarding promotion and demotion. How could brevetting be introduced without doing this? Ideally, there would be some sort of penalty (e.g., brevet generals can't teach special abilities, or have a rating drop), but that would be ahistorical. Maybe promoting a brevet general would not raise a governor's attitude (just as demoting one wouldn't lower it)? We'd have to think of this more.

No matter what, brevet ranks can't be added for this patch, but maybe in the future, if we can think of a good enough way to make them work in the game rather than working around it.



Drex -> RE: demoting generals (4/10/2007 1:12:03 AM)

I think you're on the right track CSL and Gil.



Drex -> RE: demoting generals (4/10/2007 1:21:27 AM)

I do think promoting only from an elgibles list would be more historical as well as only one grade at a time. As for sending generals to a backwater command as a reward for poor performance, one only has to look at Pope who was sent out to Minnesota to fight the Indians( and he did not quit), as well as afew others. Chris would probably know who these were. Warren was removed from Corps command by Sheridan but I don't think he quit either. In fact removal had to be justified by a military review.That's why I was pushing to make demotions more difficult.



spruce -> RE: demoting generals (4/10/2007 1:55:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drex

I agree with you that it is a problem with promotion being linked to containers. If you could promote based on need or extraordinary combat action then you could leave Early as he is and promote the general you want. After all, armies were top heavy during war time anyway. You could send Early to New Orleans to run the garrison there or anywhere. Why create another army? If and when you needed another army then bring Early back from New Orleans to his new command. No political backlash there.


now that's the whole point of the discussion. If you want Forrest to become a 4-star - you either demote Early to 1-star (due to the situation) which is ridiculous or you build an extra army container so you'll get another army general.

both options are screwed.

But like Erik told us - the problem will be less aggravated due to new generals not jumping in at 3-star rank.



f15eagle -> RE: demoting generals (4/10/2007 2:15:31 AM)

Perhaps there could be additional restrictions placed on promotions and demotions as well.  Maybe once a general is promoted, they can't be demoted for a period of time or until they suffer a decisive defeat.  You could also limit them to a maximum of one promotion in a given time period unless they are involved in a decisive victory.  Lots of options, but it would be interesting to be able to connect promotions to performance and tenure.

On a related note, it would be nice to have some performance and battle history on generals similar to what we now have for units.  Just a report that shows what unit a general was commanding during what time, the battle results, and the casualties, perhaps.  I know we get information about generals on battle reports, but there's not an historical record.



MadMike -> RE: demoting generals (4/10/2007 6:19:06 AM)

Along f15eagles line of thought, during the war the demotion of an army commander was not a decision that was made simply because some flashy new guy showed up, the general in charge had to have suffered a defeat or setback to justify the removal from command, and even then McCellan had partisans at work to keep him in charge or bring him back.

In the current incarnation of promotion/demotion it's almost too much freedom. The officer corps of an army is not a President's personal plaything to be jiggered with whenever he wants, it has a system of seniority and an culture of it's own, with rules governing promotion/demotion that keep this professional soldier class motivated to continue to perform to the best of their abilities with the promise of an orderly and logical increase in rank, pay, prestige, and command authority as their career progresses.

Another point would be that in this game, a player really has to plan ahead because FoF makes you live with the decisions you've made over the course of the game, and deciding that you have to have a 4-star general right now even though he's not a superstar should have consequences and not be an easy thing to change in the short term when a shiny new model of Brigadier General arrives.

In fact, being a division/corps commander in a succesful campaign or victorious battle was a very positive resume builder for the officer corps. So you could make every officer in a decisive victory eligible for promotion, while commanders in a defeat are eligible for demotion or retirement. (but demotion should never exceed one rank)

Another thought: why is there a limit on the number of any particular rank of general to begin with? If a player wants to promote everyone to 4 stars, what positive benefit would be accrued in game terms? I can't think of a positive, but a negative would be that noone would serve under anyone else in the divisions or the corps containers and thus couldn't cooperate in training the brigades in the unit. (did I just make a point for more freedom after arguing for less this whole time?)



Gil R. -> RE: demoting generals (4/10/2007 6:33:24 AM)

quote:


Another thought: why is there a limit on the number of any particular rank of general to begin with? If a player wants to promote everyone to 4 stars, what positive benefit would be accrued in game terms? I can't think of a positive, but a negative would be that noone would serve under anyone else in the divisions or the corps containers and thus couldn't cooperate in training the brigades in the unit. (did I just make a point for more freedom after arguing for less this whole time?)



The higher a general's rank, the better his chance to teach a special ability or raise a unit's quality in a given turn. I think that rank also affects chances of rallying in detailed combat, though I might not remember that correctly. There are probably other things like this as well. So, making everyone a four-star general would warp the game.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.454102