Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: generals' abilities

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RE: generals' abilities Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: generals' abilities - 10/5/2006 4:40:03 AM   
RERomine

 

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline 		I'm going to toss this out there for consideration.  At what level is a general officer being considered?  The highest level the achieved or their best level?  Hood was a much better divisional commander than he was leading the army around Atlanta.  The same could be said for a lot of generals.  While I'm sure the reverse is also possible, it isn't as likely to occur because adequate brigade commanders don't usually get promoted.  Attrition helped in this case.  Lee is a prime example.  The Lee wasn't exactly stellar in western Virginia, but got another field command when Joseph Johnston got wounded.

I was intrigued by some of the generals listed as potential zeros.  Personally, I would reserve a '0' rating for generals who were never successful at any point.  Burnside and McClellan certainly had moments of success.  Ambrose Burnside was likely at his peak as a division commander.  Even then, I would rate him as middle of the road.  He progressively got worse as he climbed the ladder.  McClellan lacked something as the bullets started to fly, but he did a great job in the 'bullets and beans' business.  Ultimately, I would have to see the list of generals and then try to sort them with respect to their peers. 

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 61
RE: generals' abilities - 10/5/2006 5:53:24 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		You raise a good point. While I think it would be optimal to rate generals in terms of the rank at which they performed best, that's not necessarily mutually exclusive to a higher or lower rank. A general who did very well as a brigade commander but flopped when given a corps can have high leadership and tactics ratings and poor initiative, which will make players think twice about elevating the guy to the rank of corps or army commander. Or, if a guy was good at different ranks, he should get a high command rating, since that one applies to generals of all levels.

It is, of course, difficult to quantify generals in terms of these 4-5 categories, especially when sometimes we don't know how they would have performed at a different rank, but overall this system does a good enough job making players face difficult positions regarding which generals to promote and demote and where to assign them.

(in reply to RERomine)
Post #: 62
RE: generals' abilities - 10/5/2006 8:42:56 PM   
spruce

 

Posts: 404
Joined: 9/23/2006
Status: offline 		I think there are 2 worlds. One of the lower command, and one of the higher command. And they are not the same ... enough examples were given...

Imho - this question has only 2 possible solutions =

- either work with double tables (one is brigade and division - the other is corps and army). But this ain't an option cause few generals were tested at "higher command" (army or corps level),

- or work with promotions - for each promotion beyond division command - your general might get a trait called "unfit for higher command". If you demote the general back to brigade, division or corps command, he'll get his old stats back. The "unfit for higher command" trait is a severe penalty ... and demoting that general back down will cost the president or chief of command prestige points or cause a morale malus for some period of time in the army.

by the way, this occurence should be random ... otherwise you know that Hood is not a good army commander and Jakcson would be so. So it should be random ... perhaps the chance for occurence from corps to army command should be lower then happening from division to corps command.

F.e. Hood is divisional commander, he gets promoted to command a corps or even army - he might get the "unfit for command" trait - either you leave him there and impose no malus on your troops. Or you "demote" him back and basicly he'll be unhappy and temporary demotivated, but he'll still be a good divison commander.

< Message edited by spruce -- 10/5/2006 8:46:28 PM >

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 63
RE: generals' abilities - 10/5/2006 11:49:11 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		Spruce,
The "unfit for higher command" idea is an interesting one. Please suggest it again when the game is out, if you still think it would be worth adding.

(I'm not sure if this is worth stating, but I hope that when I tell people making suggestions to resubmit them once the game is out it doesn't seem to dismissive. My reason is that any changes we make through patches will be based on feedback from this forum, and it will be much more useful if we can see the reactions that other customers have to suggested changes -- not only will it become clear which ideas have the most support and should be prioritized, but also it's possible that someone else might have ways of improving on a suggestion. So, now that no more design changes can be made to the game before its release, it makes the most sense to base future changes on suggestions made as a response to the game itself.)

(in reply to spruce)
Post #: 64
RE: generals' abilities - 10/6/2006 1:38:52 AM   
RERomine

 

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Spruce,
The "unfit for higher command" idea is an interesting one. Please suggest it again when the game is out, if you still think it would be worth adding.

(I'm not sure if this is worth stating, but I hope that when I tell people making suggestions to resubmit them once the game is out it doesn't seem to dismissive. My reason is that any changes we make through patches will be based on feedback from this forum, and it will be much more useful if we can see the reactions that other customers have to suggested changes -- not only will it become clear which ideas have the most support and should be prioritized, but also it's possible that someone else might have ways of improving on a suggestion. So, now that no more design changes can be made to the game before its release, it makes the most sense to base future changes on suggestions made as a response to the game itself.)


I love it!! A place that understands that at some point during a project the requirements have to STOP. I'm working on a project now that is in the quality assurance phase and we are still getting requirements!

How would you apply the concept of fitness to generals who didn't get the chance? Nathaniel Lyon comes to mind. He might have made a great commander of a major army, but we will never know.

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 65
RE: generals' abilities - 10/6/2006 1:39:21 AM   
spruce

 

Posts: 404
Joined: 9/23/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Spruce,
The "unfit for higher command" idea is an interesting one. Please suggest it again when the game is out, if you still think it would be worth adding.

(I'm not sure if this is worth stating, but I hope that when I tell people making suggestions to resubmit them once the game is out it doesn't seem to dismissive. My reason is that any changes we make through patches will be based on feedback from this forum, and it will be much more useful if we can see the reactions that other customers have to suggested changes -- not only will it become clear which ideas have the most support and should be prioritized, but also it's possible that someone else might have ways of improving on a suggestion. So, now that no more design changes can be made to the game before its release, it makes the most sense to base future changes on suggestions made as a response to the game itself.)


problem is that this will be forgotten when the game comes out - some things I say are like brainstorming - it just comes in the head ... shouldn't any of you guys log these kind of ideas anyhow ...

off course I agree with you about us taking those ideas one step further when the game is coming along ... I'll do my best to remember ...

by the way, something that's always a fun factor in computer games is the "fun factor", the small choices you make as player that can have a devastating effect.

just like the Heintzelman scenario I just played in MMG TC2M's. I rout one of Jackson brigades at Bull run creek. Instead of defending my VP locations I go for Jacksons entire corps ... oh boy that was a stupid decision there ! Jackson sends in 6 brigades and breaks my attack and virtually amputates Heintzelmans corps ...

< Message edited by spruce -- 10/6/2006 1:45:05 AM >

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 66
RE: generals' abilities - 10/6/2006 1:44:53 AM   
RERomine

 

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce

problem is that this will be forgotten when the game comes out - some things I say are like brainstorming - it just comes in the head ... shouldn't any of you guys log these kind of ideas anyhow ...

off course I agree with you about us taking those ideas one step further when the game is coming along ... I'll do my best to remember ...


Start a separate thread to archive the suggestions

(in reply to spruce)
Post #: 67
RE: generals' abilities - 10/6/2006 1:47:39 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine

How would you apply the concept of fitness to generals who didn't get the chance? Nathaniel Lyon comes to mind. He might have made a great commander of a major army, but we will never know.


Well, if you're asking about how to vote for the ratings of such guys, that's where everyone's collective wisdom comes into play. Based on what people know of Lyon, would he have been a competent (or even outstanding) army commander, or would he have been overwhelmed? There's no correct answer, so I'm willing to go with the consensus when it comes to rating categories for areas in which one of our generals was somewhat or completely unproven.

(in reply to RERomine)
Post #: 68
RE: generals' abilities - 10/6/2006 1:54:36 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine


Start a separate thread to archive the suggestions


That's a dangerous suggestion. As Eric noted in one of these threads, a reviewer got much of the content for his review of "Crown of Glory" (our first game) by going through the forum and reading complaints about the game's design before it was even released. So in case a reviewer with a similar modus operandi is assigned to review FOF, I don't think I should be creating a thread that essentially says "Here are all of the ideas for things we left out of the game, even though it would be really nice to have them." If that hypothetical reviewer wants to find features we overlooked without getting to know the game, the bastard should at least have to work a little, instead of honing in on one thread!

(in reply to RERomine)
Post #: 69
RE: generals' abilities - 10/6/2006 2:54:23 AM   
RERomine

 

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine


Start a separate thread to archive the suggestions


That's a dangerous suggestion. As Eric noted in one of these threads, a reviewer got much of the content for his review of "Crown of Glory" (our first game) by going through the forum and reading complaints about the game's design before it was even released. So in case a reviewer with a similar modus operandi is assigned to review FOF, I don't think I should be creating a thread that essentially says "Here are all of the ideas for things we left out of the game, even though it would be really nice to have them." If that hypothetical reviewer wants to find features we overlooked without getting to know the game, the bastard should at least have to work a little, instead of honing in on one thread!



You are correct. A thread would be cumbersome at best. And there are some people who will want it all, down to the general's gene sequences. I guess the best idea is to wait to see if suggestions come out after the release.

Are the attributes of the general officers going to be subject to fluctuations? Everyone has good and bad days or minutes for that matter.

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 70
RE: generals' abilities - 10/6/2006 3:01:40 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine

Are the attributes of the general officers going to be subject to fluctuations? Everyone has good and bad days or minutes for that matter.



The ratings are fixed, but the ratings themselves are used in randomized calculations. So even McClellan with the "Terrible" initiative rating he seems destined to have can beat Lee in an initiative check. Just not too often, I hope...

(in reply to RERomine)
Post #: 71
RE: generals' abilities - 10/6/2006 4:28:30 AM   
Joram

 

Posts: 3198
Joined: 7/15/2005
Status: offline 		This whole thing scares me. I've been looking at the results and some reflect that people have no sense whatsoever. I do hope you perform some due diligence when assigning rankings and not just leave it to a popular vote. I'm also surprised that this is being determined so late in the game.

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 72
RE: generals' abilities - 10/6/2006 4:51:52 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joram

This whole thing scares me. I've been looking at the results and some reflect that people have no sense whatsoever. I do hope you perform some due diligence when assigning rankings and not just leave it to a popular vote. I'm also surprised that this is being determined so late in the game.



There will be quality control.

We already have ratings for all of these generals, and have had those ratings in place for months. But it makes sense to let everyone have input now, instead of when the game comes out.

(in reply to Joram)
Post #: 73
RE: generals' abilities - 10/6/2006 5:06:02 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		And I should add that any screwy results so far can be attributed to the fact that, to my surprise, no one is creating discussion threads to argue for the merits of one rating or another for the different generals.

Nowhere is it written that only I can create threads in that subforum. (Unless, of course, it turns out that I'm the only one who can create threads in that subforum.)

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 74
RE: generals' abilities - 10/6/2006 3:17:11 PM   
ezzler

 

Posts: 863
Joined: 7/4/2004
Status: offline 		That and you have some diehard copperheads in the forum . Grant and Sherman zero for all their ratings ? Someone's from Atlanta and may be a tad blinkered ?

Are the ratings for the main politicians being examined also?

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 75
RE: generals' abilities - 10/6/2006 4:45:27 PM   
dh76513


Posts: 131
Joined: 9/19/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tevans6220
I do think one thing you guys are forgetting is that some leaders were not very good at handling armies but may have been excellent corps or division commanders. Hood is a very good example. At brigade or division command he was a very good leader but as commander of the Army of Tennessee he left a lot to be desired.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oldguard
…..I'd add Jubal Early to that list. A good brigade and division commander, but less effective at Corps level.


quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine
Hood was a much better divisional commander than he was leading the army around Atlanta. The same could be said for a lot of generals.


Gentlemen,
Level of command (e.g., brigade, division, corps, army) is not necessarily representative of a general officer’s tactics or strategic genius success as much as it is their political ties. As such and in all fairness, I do not think one can rightfully judge the tactical skills and battlefield abilities of a commander because of his functioning at different levels or after they are promoted.

Remember the higher the rank, the more political involvement in the position. For the most part, if commanders are “great” at the brigade and division level they are “great” at the corps and army levels. A general officer does not lose his tactical skills or forget his battlefield capabilities or knowledge following a promotion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine
I was intrigued by some of the generals listed as potential zeros. Personally, I would reserve a '0' rating for generals who were never successful at any point. Burnside and McClellan certainly had moments of success.


I was one of those who brought intrigue in your life as I gave Burnside and McClellan both zeros. However, I would like to point out that of 1008 general officers of the Civil War, I only rated seven at the zero level. As for my reasoning to include these two on my list, look at their record of “blunders” and these certainly outweigh their greatest successes. For McClellan, I will quote historian Brian C. Pohanka:

With Sherman’s overestimations of the South’s abilities and McClellan’s reluctance to confront the enemy, the Civil War would continue with a far greater cost of men, economic devastation, and social havoc.

Sherman’s successes greatly outweighed his mistakes. And as for McClellan, I stated in another post:

quote:

ORIGINAL: dh76513
George Brinton McClellan (USA) – The master of over-estimation and slow movement, he constantly proclaimed himself the Savior of the Union, yet seemed unwilling to fight. At Antietam, he had the opponent's game plan and still could not win. Tommy Franks [speaking to U.S. soldiers], “I will avoid the McClellan strategy of sit and wait here and will employ those tactics of Cleburne repulsing the enemy from the heart of Iraq [Baghdad].


And for Burnside the blunders were far more serious costing sending many of his soldiers to a foolish death:

quote:

ORIGINAL: dh76513
Ambrose Burnside (USA) – Named for the "Burnside's Bridge" fiasco at Antietam; chief architect of the futile, murderous assaults at Fredericksburg; leader of Mud March; arrested for "seditious sentiments" and let’s not forget about his obvious failure at Petersburg.


Nonetheless, returning to my argument, I think most historians would agree that Germany boasted the better lot of generals at the start of World War II. For example, one would not judge the brilliant tactical skills or question the battlefield capabilities of Heinz Guderian, who is considered to be the father of Blitzkrieg. However, with rank came more political pressure and despite his proven battlefield genius, Guderian followed the orders of Hitler? The same happened to Patton. One cannot fairly say that Patten was less effective as an army commander. Both these commanders had greater limitations placed on them with higher commander responsibilities due directly to their promotions.

The same is true for Hood. Let’s not forget that Johnston failed to attack Sherman as ordered by Davis which eventually led to his replacement by Hood. As such, let’s not forget that Hood was following “Presidential” orders to attack. Also, I think it is important to note that Sherman’s force was very overwhelming against a much smaller, tired, hungry, sick, and already beaten army that was under siege during most of the Atlanta campaign.

Generally at the brigade and division levels, commanders are encouraged to bring their honest thoughts and strategies to the command table while at the Corps, Army, and Theater levels such actions are discouraged and highly politically influenced. And this case is well illustrated with Patton, Guderian, Rommel, and many, many more generals throughout history. So as I am certain that few if any with any knowledge of history would say that Patton’s battlefield effectiveness or “rating” (for this game’s sake) as a general officer declined when he was placed in command of a fictitious army for the Normandy invasion. However, his abilities were limited politically.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine
I'm going to toss this out there for consideration. At what level is a general officer being considered? The highest level the achieved or their best level?


With the forgoing being said, I think this is a mute point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R
The ratings are fixed, but the ratings themselves are used in randomized calculations. So even McClellan with the "Terrible" initiative rating he seems destined to have can beat Lee in an initiative check.


Furthermore, I think the foregoing argument validates Gill’s rating system for general officers to remain being fixed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ezz
Grant and Sherman zero for all their ratings?


Ezz, I think this individual must have failed history as reflected their ridiculous ratings given. Absolutely unbelievable, but I guess everyone does not have enough knowledge to be objective.

_____________________________


(in reply to ezzler)
Post #: 76
RE: generals' abilities - 10/6/2006 5:56:15 PM   
Joram

 

Posts: 3198
Joined: 7/15/2005
Status: offline 		Makes sense. Good to know!

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 77
RE: generals' abilities - 10/6/2006 9:54:53 PM   
RERomine

 

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dh76513

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine
Hood was a much better divisional commander than he was leading the army around Atlanta. The same could be said for a lot of generals.


Gentlemen,
Level of command (e.g., brigade, division, corps, army) is not necessarily representative of a general officer’s tactics or strategic genius success as much as it is their political ties. As such and in all fairness, I do not think one can rightfully judge the tactical skills and battlefield abilities of a commander because of his functioning at different levels or after they are promoted.

Remember the higher the rank, the more political involvement in the position. For the most part, if commanders are “great” at the brigade and division level they are “great” at the corps and army levels. A general officer does not lose his tactical skills or forget his battlefield capabilities or knowledge following a promotion.


I agree with what you are saying in real terms but in the game itself the ratings are for initiative, leadership, tactics, command and cavalry. I don't see anything there that indicates politics are considered. The player will determine which commander will be used where and how. If my game generals start politicking, I'm going to think the realism in the game went a touch too far.

As far as tactical skill, a great brigade commander doesn't automatically make a great division, corps or army commander. Tactics at each level are different. I do agree that promotion does not cause a memory purge, but getting promoted also doesn't mean they come with instant knowledge of the new responsibilities. If it did, Lee would probably have won at Gettysburg before the third day because A. P. Hill and Richard Ewell wouldn't have missed a step going from division to corps commanders. Where people are concerned, nothing is automatic. The added responsibility just overwhelmed some.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dh76513

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine
I was intrigued by some of the generals listed as potential zeros. Personally, I would reserve a '0' rating for generals who were never successful at any point. Burnside and McClellan certainly had moments of success.


I was one of those who brought intrigue in your life as I gave Burnside and McClellan both zeros. However, I would like to point out that of 1008 general officers of the Civil War, I only rated seven at the zero level. As for my reasoning to include these two on my list, look at their record of “blunders” and these certainly outweigh their greatest successes. For McClellan, I will quote historian Brian C. Pohanka:

With Sherman’s overestimations of the South’s abilities and McClellan’s reluctance to confront the enemy, the Civil War would continue with a far greater cost of men, economic devastation, and social havoc.

Sherman’s successes greatly outweighed his mistakes. And as for McClellan, I stated in another post:

quote:

ORIGINAL: dh76513
George Brinton McClellan (USA) – The master of over-estimation and slow movement, he constantly proclaimed himself the Savior of the Union, yet seemed unwilling to fight. At Antietam, he had the opponent's game plan and still could not win. Tommy Franks [speaking to U.S. soldiers], “I will avoid the McClellan strategy of sit and wait here and will employ those tactics of Cleburne repulsing the enemy from the heart of Iraq [Baghdad].


And for Burnside the blunders were far more serious costing sending many of his soldiers to a foolish death:

quote:

ORIGINAL: dh76513
Ambrose Burnside (USA) – Named for the "Burnside's Bridge" fiasco at Antietam; chief architect of the futile, murderous assaults at Fredericksburg; leader of Mud March; arrested for "seditious sentiments" and let’s not forget about his obvious failure at Petersburg.




Given a scale of 0-8, 4 is right in the middle. Four ratings are higher and four ratings are lower. Given that, I would establish a 4 as a point where the failures equal the successes or maybe for the run of the mill general. Burnside's failures were at the corps and army level, making them bigger than mistakes made at the brigade and division level. Burnside led a successful campaign against Roanoke Island and New Bern in North Carolina and also successfully defended Knoxville against Longstreet until a relief force arrived. I know Burnside's higher commands were unmitigated disasters and big ones. Because of that, it's easy to forget he did have some success during the war. My point is a 1 or 2 rating might be in order.

McClellan falls in the same category. Forget the fact should have destroyed Lee's army in Maryland with the information he had. He fought to a tactical draw and a strategic victory. During Seven Days, he also had some successes, although he did lose the Peninsula campaign. McClellan was also successful in the early campaign in western Virginia. Finally, to top it off, the men loved him. Somewhere, somehow, he did something right by them. If I were to rate McClellan, I would be thinking a 2 or 3 average with most of that coming from a leadership rating.

Now if you want someone who I feel deserve a rating of 0, US Brig. Gen. Charles Stone, commander of the union forces during the battle of Ball's Bluff. Another qualification he has was serving as Banks chief of staff during the Red River campaign. While these don't have the magnitude of Burnside's fiascos, that's only because he didn't get the chance. Keep in mind, I only questioned a couple generals that were listed and am not lobbying that McClellan and Burnside deserve ratings that I classified as run of the mill (4). I just believe they are good enough to not be listed with the worst of the worst.

Gil - you mentioned rating values were fixed, but used in random calculations. Can a general with a rating of 0 possibly beat one with a rating of 8? Basically, I don't believe Burnside on his best day could defeat Lee on his worst, but is it statistically possible with the calculations performed in the code?

(in reply to dh76513)
Post #: 78
RE: generals' abilities - 10/6/2006 11:02:21 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
quote:

Gil - you mentioned rating values were fixed, but used in random calculations. Can a general with a rating of 0 possibly beat one with a rating of 8? Basically, I don't believe Burnside on his best day could defeat Lee on his worst, but is it statistically possible with the calculations performed in the code?



I still say it is the men that count, wars and battles are won or lost, based on the men, not the leaders

now plans and details are good and importent, but it still comes down to how the men fight and react

if my troops are good enough and I had good weapons, and placement, I will beat Lee with any Union General, but that is the Trick

(besides, Robert E is normally on my side)



_____________________________


(in reply to RERomine)
Post #: 79
RE: generals' abilities - 10/7/2006 12:05:58 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ezz

That and you have some diehard copperheads in the forum . Grant and Sherman zero for all their ratings ? Someone's from Atlanta and may be a tad blinkered ?

Are the ratings for the main politicians being examined also?



I've personally done the ratings for politicians -- these guys aren't well known enough to be put up for a vote, though when the game comes out I'll certainly listen to any thoughts about whether individual governors' numbers should be changed.

(in reply to ezzler)
Post #: 80
RE: generals' abilities - 10/7/2006 12:09:53 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		RERomine,

No, generals don’t do politics. But they are tied into politics in a way, in that when a general is promoted or demoted his home state’s governor will become more or less favorable to the central government (= you).

Also, you ask whether a general with an initiative of 0 can beat one with an 8. In truth, I have no idea, since I don’t do the programming. We’ll have to wait for Eric to wander by this thread and respond. (Eric, that’s a hint.)

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 81
RE: generals' abilities - 10/7/2006 2:09:09 AM   
Hairog


Posts: 1645
Joined: 7/11/2000
From: Cornucopia, WI
Status: offline 		Burnside should not be a zero. He beat Lee to the punch at Fredericksburg strategically. If the pontoon bridges had been in the proper place in the march order and it had not rained so much, he would have been over the Rappahannock river and on top of the heights waiting for Lee.
His plan was to put himself between Lee and Richmond and this strategic plan would have worked except for the fiasco with the "mud march" and the pontoon bridges. He was across the river from Fredricksburg a full 5 days before Lee even reacted. It was obvious that he should have called the attack off when he did not get up the heights before Lee but strategically he had Lee beat.
I don't know if there is a tactical. operational and a seperate strategic rating or not. If that is the case Burnside should get a very low tactical rating as he was abysmal in this area but he should get fairly high marks in the strategic rating.
The same goes for Hooker who, until he was knocked unconscious, had stolen the march on Lee at Chancellorsville and could easily have been in position between Lee and Richmond forcing Lee to attack at a great disadvantage.
Conversely Lee was the absolute best tactically and operationally but rather mediocre strategically. When told that Vicksburg had fallen he never did grasp the significance of what that meant to the confederate cause.

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 82
RE: generals' abilities - 10/7/2006 3:46:22 AM   
RERomine

 

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline 		I agree. Tactically, Lee had no peer. Well, maybe Jackson. Considering the maneuvering taking place during a campaign to achieve positional advantage prior to combat, Lee was very good also. I agree Hooker did out maneuver Lee, Lee was able to compensate once he figured out what was going on. And Lee had that nagging skill of cutting Grant off whenever Grant broke contact and moved south again. If you consider the next step up from strategic as operational, Lee was more limited, through no fault of his own. Lee didn't have operational responsibility. His war was where the Army of Northern Virginia operated. Grant was eventually responsible for the Union war, where ever it was fought. This made Grant more operationally skilled. My understand of the game is strategic and operational will be in the realm of the player, rendering such ratings useless.

(in reply to Hairog)
Post #: 83
RE: generals' abilities - 10/7/2006 6:08:33 AM   
Hairog


Posts: 1645
Joined: 7/11/2000
From: Cornucopia, WI
Status: offline 		I hope your right about the stategic rating being usless but that would mean that if the player ordered army A to go to positon A that army would move immediatly without regaurd to the "initiative rating" of the general in command. If you are bound by "the initiative rating" to move an army or even corps then you will have to have different ratings for tactical and strategic levels for each general. I don't believe it would provide the feeling of being commander and chief if all generals had the same rating for initiative on all levels of play. Give Lee the advantage he deserves on the battle field but also give him the handicap he deserves on the Eastern Theatre.

Part of the fun of Frank Hunters ACW was seeing if your generals would do what they were told. Then if you replaced them could you suffer the political consequences of that choice. This gave a very realistic feeling to the game. I could see just how handicapped Lincoln and Davis were in their choices for generals.

Two old board games I used to play (one by Victory Games and I can't remember the other one) only had stategic level play and got away with only having one rating for each general. I haven't played Crown of Glory enough to get the feel of how different generals effected the tactical sub game. I guess I should set up some battles and try em out. As I recall they have no effect what so ever.

Speaking of the old board games I'll have to get them out and see how they each rated the various generals. I'll try and get it done this weekend. Someone else should fire up Frank's game and see if they can get the ratings from that one. That would be interesting. We would have data sets from the opinions of three different game designers who each did exhaustive research. Isn't Frank Hunter a Matrix designer? Did the current game use his ratings?

(in reply to RERomine)
Post #: 84
RE: generals' abilities - 10/7/2006 6:24:51 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hairog
Isn't Frank Hunter a Matrix designer? Did the current game use his ratings?



By "current game" you mean FOF? If so, no, we haven't directly copied anything for other games.

(in reply to Hairog)
Post #: 85
RE: generals' abilities - 10/7/2006 12:12:24 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		In the "Generals" subforum we'll be having voting on which generals to add to the list of 100-percenters and 25-percenters. Please feel free to visit the thread and give your input. The voting begins Sunday, the discussion immediately.

Here's the list of candidates, from which we'll choose four more CSA and two more USA 100-percenters, as well as about ten 25-percenters for each side.

Union Candidates: William S. Rosencrans, Joshua L. Chamberlain, John Buford (has cavalry rating), Gouverneur K. Warren, Winfield S. Hancock, John Gibbon, John F. Reynolds, Oliver O. Howard, Nathaniel Lyon, John C. Fremont, Franz Sigel, Hugh Judson Kilpatrick (has cavalry rating), Wesley Merritt (has cavalry rating), Daniel Sickles, Benjamin F. Butler, Nathaniel Banks, Henry Halleck, Don Carlos Buell, James B. McPherson, John Sedgwick (perhaps should have cavalry rating), Edward Ord, David Hunter (perhaps should have cavalry rating), David M. Gregg (has cavalry rating), George A. Custer (has cavalry rating)

Confederate Candidates: Richard S. Ewell (has cavalry rating), John B. Hood, Louis T. Wigfall, Felix Zollicoffer, J. Johnston Pettigrew, Patrick R. Cleburne, John H. Morgan (has cavalry rating), A.P. Hill, D.H. Hill, Lafayette McLaws, Wade Hampton (has cavalry rating), Joseph Wheeler (has cavalry rating), Richard H. Anderson


< Message edited by Gil R. -- 10/7/2006 8:51:41 PM >

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 86
RE: generals' abilities - 10/7/2006 1:55:10 PM   
ezzler

 

Posts: 863
Joined: 7/4/2004
Status: offline 		Hard Sarge are you saying leaders don't really matter?

Is it not that you beat Lee when you attack with , say Burnside, because you are in effect CONTROLLING Burnside and using your own better skills and knowledge to win the battle and old Sideburns is just your ADC with some weak ratings that you can tactically compensate for.

If Leaders don't really have much influence then theoretically you could swap them around and have the same results if all else remains constant.

So Lee at Antietam with the 87,000 Army of the Potomac, the order of battle of Mclellan's dispersed Army of Virginia of 45,000, and three cigars to savour throughout the day would only achieve, at best, an inconclusive draw ? Or would this be the end of the war ?

Or Ceaser commands Pompeys More numerical but less able troops at pharsalus and is unable to triumph.

If Lord Gort and Gamlein had commanded the Panzer armies against Manstein and Guderian and Von Bock would France still collapse ?

IMO it's unlikely....





(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 87
RE: generals' abilities - 10/10/2006 4:11:37 PM   
dh76513


Posts: 131
Joined: 9/19/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hairog
Burnside should not be a zero. He beat Lee to the punch at Fredericksburg strategically.


Burnside beat Lee “strategically” at Fredericksburg? This battle is clearly considered a CSA victory. While Burnside waited for the pontoons to arrive, Lee exploited the delay to position his 75,000-man Army of Northern Virginia on high ground around Fredericksburg. Burnside should have known that he could not succeed in dislodging Lee’s troops, but he did not alter his battle plan. According to my history books, the five-day battle of Fredericksburg resulted in terrible Union losses and Burnside withdrew, defeated and losing more than 12,000 men with the Confederates losses over 5,000 despite the fact that his forces outnumbered the CSA Army by about 40,000. In fact, Burnside’s “Mud March” had to be abandoned and he was relieved of his command of the Army of the Potomac and placed by Lincoln in command of the Department of the Ohio.

_____________________________


(in reply to ezzler)
Post #: 88
RE: generals' abilities - 10/10/2006 5:29:06 PM   
andysomers

 

Posts: 157
Joined: 9/11/2006
Status: offline 		Yep - I'm with you David.  Burnside was precisely a miserable failure as commander of the AoP.  He did beat Lee to the punch strategically, but that is a big footnote to history with the late pontoons.  That he was too stubborn to not adapt his plan of battle speak to his poor tactical rating that I have given him.  He took the AoP in realtively decent shape after relieveing McClellan following the Antietam campaign, and left it in shambles, the lowest morale the Army possibly had for the entire war in winter camp at Falmouth.  He redeems himself to a degree as a decent Corps commander, and with somewhat independent command in the Knoxville campaign where he worked with Rosecrans and later Grant to secure eastern Tennessee.

AS

(in reply to dh76513)
Post #: 89
RE: generals' abilities - 10/10/2006 5:44:11 PM   
dh76513


Posts: 131
Joined: 9/19/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: andysomers
Burnside was precisely a miserable failure as commander of the AoP. He did beat Lee to the punch strategically, but that is a big footnote to history with the late pontoons. That he was too stubborn to not adapt his plan of battle speak to his poor tactical rating that I have given him. He took the AoP in realtively decent shape after relieveing McClellan following the Antietam campaign, and left it in shambles, the lowest morale the Army possibly had for the entire war in winter camp at Falmouth. He redeems himself to a degree as a decent Corps commander, and with somewhat independent command in the Knoxville campaign…

AS

Andysomers,
I totally agree with you – in fact I am one of those who gave Burnside a zero. Although he might have found some deserved redemptions, these were far and few in between, and in my opinion, certainly not enough merits to bring him above of the “rating” of being a terrible general.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
I still say it is the men that count, wars and battles are won or lost, based on the men, not the leaders now plans and details are good and importent, but it still comes down to how the men fight and react if my troops are good enough and I had good weapons, and placement, I will beat…

I say both men and leadership on the battlefield are key to success. And the positive “interaction” of warriors to their commanders is usually a reflection of those “skills” that make great commanders. The disastrous defeat of II Corps at Kasserine Pass confirms my point. A decisive new commander for II Corps: MG George S. Patton, Jr., did make a difference and the same II Corps that tasted defeat at Kasserine Pass would now become victorious under their new commander.

_____________________________


(in reply to andysomers)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RE: generals' abilities Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.141