Brigade generals (Full Version)

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



Message

GrouchyXe -> Brigade generals (11/1/2009 9:18:19 PM)

Hi I am a newbie for that great game,

We have attached generals for CVoprs, Army and division. I still have plenty of generals yunactive, should I attach them in divisions in order to have 1/ bruigade ?

Does it makes sense ?



GShock -> RE: Brigade generals (11/1/2009 10:23:54 PM)

4* are suited to lead armies.
3* to lead corps.
2* to lead divisions.
1* to lead individual brigades.

Now you can put any general anywhere but thats where they are effective in the strategic phase with initiative, training and so on. In combat, any general will be attached to a bde and since each general in detailed combat on his skills and modifiers, it is advisable to have them actually lead bdes. Surely it's better than have them sit in Richmond or Washington doing nothing while the war rages.

You can even move a general from a bde to another but careful of sharpshooters. If you play with random stats and you lose an important general it's a real mess to find out a good replacement.



GrouchyXe -> RE: Brigade generals (11/1/2009 11:46:22 PM)

Ok so it makes sense, so far my generals were sitting.

How would you rank skills ?

Leadership is important to rally and avoid disorder
Command is important also

What about tactic ?



Randomizer -> RE: Brigade generals (11/1/2009 11:53:27 PM)

Your call...  From pg 178 of the manual:

Tactics: Each rank of Tactics is worth a 10% bonus to damage inflicted by units to which the general is directly attached in Detailed Combat, for both Charges (infantry only) and Fire-attacks. (See Detailed Combat below for more information.)
 
Command: The Command rating helps units change formation in detailed combat. Each level of Command is worth .5 Quality. Command also helps prevent units from becoming either Shaken or Disordered when being charged in detailed combat. (See Detailed Combat below for more information.)
 
Both are important but I would probably prioritize Command in most circumstances.  Am a big fan of firepower but Command improves staying power and unit durability.  In a tough fight that .5 quality boost could well be important.



GrouchyXe -> RE: Brigade generals (11/2/2009 1:18:54 AM)

Arg I have so much to learn

Thanks

My first game with Union was a nigthmare it has been totaly impossible to stop Jhonny Rebs there is no artillery at start. Perhaps it is easier to play CSA to start ? They have so much morale.



Larry Reese -> RE: Brigade generals (11/2/2009 11:23:43 PM)

Okay, let me ask this on a different level.

Lets say I have a division of 5 brigades. Is it useful (if you have them) to have one 2-star (div c.o.) and four 1-star for each brigade? A total of 5 generals in the division? I this useful in quick combat, or not?

Also, on quick combat: which attributes of generals are most important in quick combat? Do only the top three generals in rank count? Some insight to how the mechanics work would be nice.

Also, are unified armies getting rooked? Let's say I have 150,000 men in an army, and opponent has 75,000 each in two armies in adjacent provinces. If I attack one, in the quick combat box, I can only place 30 units. The opponent, places 30, plus others called as reinforcements from the other province. I read somewhere (I think) that my other 150 should cycle through, but they do not - that I can tell. So about half my force is of no use, while the enemy can make maximum use of forces separated by 10s or even 100s of miles. What's the deal? If the rest of my force is going to cycle through, shouldn't it appear in teh route and defense boxes after I've placed the initial group? Is this a purposeful design of FOF? Just doesn't seem to make sense to me.

Thanks for the information (and yes, I'm fully patched).

LR



GrouchyXe -> RE: Brigade generals (11/3/2009 11:11:49 PM)

Additional question after a better look at rules and general pool for north.

For a division commander we loook 1 to leadership, 2 to tactic, 3 to command
For a corps Idem but with more concern to initiative
For an army commander mainly initiative and command

Do you see it as wise ?

By the way Grant is less good than McClellan ... [&:]



Randomizer -> RE: Brigade generals (11/4/2009 7:46:14 AM)

Larry Reese wrote:
quote:

Lets say I have a division of 5 brigades. Is it useful (if you have them) to have one 2-star (div c.o.) and four 1-star for each brigade? A total of 5 generals in the division? I this useful in quick combat, or not?

This is the end state of command and control that I aim for but I cannot advise on the effects in QC since I never use it. However, the 1-Star's commanding the brigades can now rally them so one would think that your division would have better staying power and combat effectiveness.

Larry Reese wrote:
quote:

Also, are unified armies getting rooked? Let's say I have 150,000 men in an army, and opponent has 75,000 each in two armies in adjacent provinces...

Once again I cannot address quick combat but have had a great deal of success managing smaller armies operating in adjacent provinces for mutual support. Before declaring the system that appears to penalize huge armies as bogus, please consider a couple of small details. Once armies grew to over 100,000 men they tended to become cumbersome as they outstripped the ability to command them effectively using the means available. As late as 1914 the size of the army corps, about 45,000 men, was largely predicated on the maximum number that could deploy from line of march on one major route in one day and this was after wireless became available at the divisional level. The huge mass of the Army of the Potomac actually proved a disadvantage time and again compared to the leaner and easier to control ANV for example. The popular view is that Union incompetance kept them from bringing their overwhelming force to bear but what if it was not that simple and the armies had just grown too big to command with mounted orderlies and semiphore signals? The telegraph had little potential for tactical communications and there were no other options available. My take is that this effect is modelled reasonably well in FoF.

GrouchyXe wrote:
quote:

For a division commander we loook 1 to leadership, 2 to tactic, 3 to command
For a corps Idem but with more concern to initiative
For an army commander mainly initiative and command

This would work in my opinion and in most cases a poor general is better than no general at all.

GrouchyXe wrote:
quote:

By the way Grant is less good than McClellan ...

Not at all. Straight from the Commanders.txt file:

___________L T I C Cav
Grant______8 7 8 8 0
McClellan___7 3 1 4 0

These number seem reasonable to me, McClellan's leadership was legendary after all as were his lack of tactical initiative and command issues relating to things like use of intelligence and dealing with subordinates.

Good luck, Gentlemen



SlickWilhelm -> RE: Brigade generals (11/4/2009 8:09:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Larry Reese



Lets say I have a division of 5 brigades. Is it useful (if you have them) to have one 2-star (div c.o.) and four 1-star for each brigade? A total of 5 generals in the division? I this useful in quick combat, or not?

LR


I'm playing with instant combat, which is even more of a mystery than quick combat as far as finding details on what is useful and what is not. But just to be safe, I try to load up a 5 brigade division with one 2-star general(the division commander) and five 1-star generals. I haven't gotten an answer as to whether or not those one-star generals are helping in instant combat, but I'm doing it anyways in the hope that they are.



Ironclad -> RE: Brigade generals (11/4/2009 9:01:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Slick Wilhel

I'm playing with instant combat, which is even more of a mystery than quick combat as far as finding details on what is useful and what is not. But just to be safe, I try to load up a 5 brigade division with one 2-star general(the division commander) and five 1-star generals. I haven't gotten an answer as to whether or not those one-star generals are helping in instant combat, but I'm doing it anyways in the hope that they are.



Quick and Instant are the same combat system, only in Quick you see the battle play out and in non-pbem games you have the option of placing your units and calling in reinforcements instead of it happening automatically.

Unlike Detailed Battles, generals are not attached to brigades. Instead the three top ranking Generals on each side (the ones who appear at the bottom of the QC battle screen) have their tactics ratings taken into account, along with random number selection, to determine who gains a bonus on counter salvo fire on each exchange. Other generals present are counted on the basis of 1/10th their tactics rating.



Ironclad -> RE: Brigade generals (11/4/2009 9:39:30 PM)

The other important effect for generals in Quick/Instant battles is contributing to the possibility of brigades rallying through the leadership rating of group commanders.



SlickWilhelm -> RE: Brigade generals (11/4/2009 10:04:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ironclad
Other generals present are counted on the basis of 1/10th their tactics rating.



Does that mean we should be cramming as many one-star generals into divisions as possible because the more generals in a division, the higher the number that will be counted and thus help out the three-highest ranked generals with their bonuses?

My brain is starting to hurt! [sm=00000007.gif]



Ironclad -> RE: Brigade generals (11/5/2009 12:09:49 AM)

They don't all have to be crammed into in a division, those directly attached to a corps or an army that are present count as well. I find it easier to follow the same approach as for games with detailed battles - ensure each group has a suitably ranked commander and spread the one stars around. That will usually ensure that your major formations will have a higher number anyway because of the number of attached containers but if necessary you can choose to send more one stars to a major formation to give it an edge or to match an equally well officered enemy concentration.

However its quality of the generals ratings (tactics and leadership) that really make the difference and will outweigh the effect of a greater number of lowly rated generals.



SlickWilhelm -> RE: Brigade generals (11/5/2009 3:23:42 PM)

Thanks for the clarification, Ironclad. :)





GrouchyXe -> RE: Brigade generals (11/5/2009 6:58:01 PM)

Thanks a lot Randomizer

quote:


___________L T I C Cav
Grant______8 7 8 8 0
McClellan___7 3 1 4 0


Well i am confused I dont have those skills and I did not used random skills...

In my game Grant is 3 5 2 3

I will dobble check I probably did something wrong.



SlickWilhelm -> RE: Brigade generals (11/6/2009 7:34:06 PM)

Grouchy, it Grant has those as skill levels, you DO have random skills enabled. In my game, with random skills disabled, Grant has the highest skills in the Union Army. 



GrouchyXe -> RE: Brigade generals (11/7/2009 10:10:09 AM)

Yes I saw it yesterday and restarted the game.
Thanks

PS: hard to be newbie [:'(]



GShock -> RE: Brigade generals (11/8/2009 6:54:06 PM)

I love it when the newbees think about the generals' statistics... I wonder how long before they switch to Random + Hidden that REALLY makes the game much more challenging. [8D]



Randomizer -> RE: Brigade generals (11/8/2009 7:38:00 PM)

The random statistics does add much to the game and I use it exclusively now BUT seeing Bobby Lee or Sam Grant as hopeless incompetants is hard to watch at times.  Particularly when your powerhouse commander ends up as Dan Sickles[:(]



GrouchyXe -> RE: Brigade generals (11/8/2009 11:19:53 PM)

quote:

how long before they switch to Random + Hidden that REALLY makes the game much more challenging


So far challenge for me is to not be destroyed at first battle...

Hidden for me would be impossible to evaluate gens so hard. How do you rate generals with hidden ?



SlickWilhelm -> RE: Brigade generals (11/9/2009 8:05:29 PM)

Well, the hidden stats are only hidden for a certain time. When your generals participate in battles, then one or more of their attributes become unhidden. So, the more you use them, the faster you'll be able to figure out who is good and who is not.

For now I'm leaving attributes visible and historical. I'm playing in conjunction with reading about the American Civil War, so I like to be able to link history with historical accuracy in FoF. Once I have a game or two under my belt, then I may experiment with hidden and randon skills.



terje439 -> RE: Brigade generals (11/9/2009 9:19:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

The random statistics does add much to the game and I use it exclusively now BUT seeing Bobby Lee or Sam Grant as hopeless incompetants is hard to watch at times.  Particularly when your powerhouse commander ends up as Dan Sickles[:(]


Fun thing ofc is when you start a pbem game and AFTER promoting all the generals you normally promote you realise that you are playing with Hidden and Randomised stats...Have cost me two pbem games [:D]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.826172