Randomized generals' ratings

Randomized generals' ratings (Full Version)

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

Message

olperfessor -> Randomized generals' ratings (9/6/2007 2:48:14 AM)
I assume that using the historical ratings for generals favors the Confederates, and if this is true, I wonder if this advantage is lost if the player chooses to randomize ratings? That is, are the historical Confederate ratings randomly reassigned, or do both sides simply use the same random number system?

Erik Rutins -> RE: Randomized generals' ratings (9/6/2007 2:51:16 AM)
As far as I know, even in the randomized ratings the CSA gets a slight edge.

cesteman -> RE: Randomized generals' ratings (9/6/2007 7:09:52 AM)
The CSA gets the upper hand with randomized setting? I didn't know that.

Yogi the Great -> RE: Randomized generals' ratings (9/6/2007 4:25:10 PM)
I don't know this, but I kind of assumed that they took the same historical ratings in the game for both sides, and just randomized which general has them. So CSA still has the big edge, you just aren't sure which general has what on either side until tested.

Gil R. -> RE: Randomized generals' ratings (9/6/2007 4:54:35 PM)
To be more specific, the CSA's historical ratings are better at the outset, but over time the USA's generals get better, with some really good ones (Custer comes to mind) not appearing until 1863 or later. Therefore, it's very much in the CSA player's interest not to have his good generals killed off, because he gets relatively few later in the war. (Remember Lee at Gettysburg telling Longstreet that he couldn't lead the charge because the South had lost too many good generals already. That could become a problem for the CSA player, too.)

Bombsight -> RE: Randomized generals' ratings (9/8/2007 10:22:10 PM)
Read Douglas S. Freeman's trilogy on "Lee's Lieutenants" for that thought.

DrewGator -> RE: Randomized generals' ratings (9/10/2007 7:19:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gil R. (Remember Lee at Gettysburg telling Longstreet that he couldn't lead the charge because the South had lost too many good generals already. That could become a problem for the CSA player, too.) Conversly, killing off Union generals could work to a USA player's advantage!

Bombsight -> RE: Randomized generals' ratings (9/13/2007 8:50:34 PM)
At face value the killing off of Union Generals would be in the interest of the North. Unfortunately in the early years, the best union generals were forced to expose themselves and as a consequence, got themselves shot in the process. Examples are Nathaniel Lyons at Wilsons Creek, Israel Richardson at South Mountain, Phil Kearney at Fairfax following the 2nd Manasas, John Reynolds at Gettysburg and on and on.

Gil R. -> RE: Randomized generals' ratings (9/15/2007 4:15:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DrewGator quote: ORIGINAL: Gil R. (Remember Lee at Gettysburg telling Longstreet that he couldn't lead the charge because the South had lost too many good generals already. That could become a problem for the CSA player, too.) Conversly, killing off Union generals could work to a USA player's advantage! Don't forget that even the worst generals can give a boost, so you don't want to get them needlessly killed off. At the same time, if Fort Monroe gets destroyed in the July scenario then Butler's captured, which makes it that much easier to be able to promote a new 4-star later in the game.

decaturkev -> RE: Randomized generals' ratings (9/29/2007 4:42:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Whit Read Douglas S. Freeman's trilogy on "Lee's Lieutenants" for that thought. A primer for anyone who wants to play as CSA in this game.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.8359375