RE: Generals

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

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

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Generals - 12/19/2006 2:54:23 AM

chris0827

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

There is a terrific (though expensive) book, Civil War High Commands, published by Stanford Univ Press, that has chapters called "Grades and Ranks" for both of the armies. The generals are listed alphabetically and also in order of seniority in rank.

I would suggest using the first date at which someone is commissioned brig gen or higher (some went straight to Maj Gen or higher). If you want to scatter them over the years more, you could pick the first date at which each is commission maj gen or higher.

Except for Grant there is nothing higher than major general in the union army.

(in reply to General Quarters)

Post #: 31

RE: Generals - 12/19/2006 3:47:14 PM

dude

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline

The bigger issue in most cases on the Union side was not what rank you were in regards to the size unit you commanded... but whether you out ranked someone else. It was a major issue for some officers and the War Department to look at date of ranks and who out ranked who because of it when assigning officers to command. The last few years this became less of an issue but was still there. Officers of equal ranks (in the volunteers) then had to be compared based on their permanant ranks in the regular army (since very few were actually generals in the regular army until late war.)

Grant points out quite a few of these instances in him memoirs... There was a good passage from him about one of his early attacks and that Sherman was nearby with troops but since Sherman outranked him he couldn't be put under Grant. To his credit Sherman didn't care and offered his support if Grant needed it (which it turns out he didn't... but without my books handy I can't recall for sure which attack but it was fairly early.)

It would be very difficult to model the actual workings of the ranks in the Union army in regards to things like size of unit to command. It would be more interesting (IMO) to allow the officers to command any size unit but have a hidden trait that determine how compentent they are with larger units. (ie... what's the largest sized unit they could command without a problem to their ratings.) But also put an exception that you can't have higher ranked officers under this commander (so sure put that one star in charge of an army... but don't expect a 2 star to serve under him).

Use the academies to determine the maximun number of officers that can appear and allow multiple promotions per turn (I'm finding it annoying that I can't promote a guy to two star because the game is telling me I need to promote someone to three star first.) You could aslo put limits on the number of 3 or 4 stars based on the number or Armies (perhaps corps??) one has and a side should never have more than one 5 star.

_____________________________

�Ifs defeated the Confederates�� U.S.Grant

(in reply to chris0827)

Post #: 32

RE: Generals - 12/19/2006 4:05:51 PM

bountyhunter

Posts: 53
Joined: 11/25/2006
From: Wherever Uncle Sam sends me
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

Except for Grant there is nothing higher than major general in the union army.

Ok, but who are you "playing as?" The commander in chief - so if you feel like promoting someone above MG then I think you can.

But as dude points out the solution to alll this is remove the restrictions on the commands and we have ourselves no issue. Maybe if pips had been used initially we would not be having this discussion...

< Message edited by bountyhunter -- 12/19/2006 4:15:29 PM >

(in reply to chris0827)

Post #: 33

RE: Generals - 12/19/2006 5:19:38 PM

General Quarters

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline

Correct about northern ranks. I added "MG or higher" so my comments would be relevant to southern generals as well.

Another way to formulate my suggestion is that they be dated from their first appointment as a general of any rank. Or, if you want to draw it out over time more, from their first appointment as a general of any rank higher than BG.

(in reply to chris0827)

Post #: 34

RE: Generals - 12/19/2006 5:28:39 PM

General Quarters

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dude

The bigger issue in most cases on the Union side was not what rank you were in regards to the size unit you commanded... but whether you out ranked someone else.� It was a major issue for some officers and the War Department to look at date of ranks and who out ranked who because of it when assigning officers to command.�

This is exactly right. This was an ever-present issue and, to get around it, often forced decisions -- manipulations really -- that would not otherwise have been made. This game would gain a lot of realism on the command side if generals were listed by seniority in service and there were a possibility of resignation or inactive status and lowering of governor's support whenever a less senior general was put in command over one of them.

(in reply to dude)

Post #: 35

RE: Generals - 12/19/2006 5:39:26 PM

dude

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

quote:

ORIGINAL: dude

The bigger issue in most cases on the Union side was not what rank you were in regards to the size unit you commanded... but whether you out ranked someone else.� It was a major issue for some officers and the War Department to look at date of ranks and who out ranked who because of it when assigning officers to command.�

This is exactly right. This was an ever-present issue and, to get around it, often forced decisions -- manipulations really -- that would not otherwise have been made. This game would gain a lot of realism on the command side if generals were listed by seniority in service and there were a possibility of resignation or inactive status and lowering of governor's support whenever a less senior general was put in command over one of them.

I like the idea of a possible resignation by a general if forced to serve under someone of a lesser rank (it did happen.) The only tricky part is... is this a fixed number for all gererals or would it vary? Sherman for example had no problem serving under a lesser ranked general. Others would have no part of it. It would sure add some extra uncertanty to the game while still being fairly historically accurate.

_____________________________

�Ifs defeated the Confederates�� U.S.Grant

(in reply to General Quarters)

Post #: 36

RE: Generals - 12/19/2006 6:17:44 PM

Sonny

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dude

................................

(I'm finding it annoying that I can't promote a guy to two star because the game is telling me I need to promote someone to three star first.) You could aslo put limits on the number of 3 or 4 stars based on the number or Armies (perhaps corps??) one has and a side should never have more than one 5 star.

Agree. There are a lot of times I want a two star general but can't have one because I have not promoted someone to three or four stars yet.

Other than that I like the way the system is set up - the more stars the more Xs you can command.

_____________________________

Quote from Snigbert -

"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."

"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "

(in reply to dude)

Post #: 37

RE: Generals - 12/20/2006 9:59:57 PM

jsaurman

Posts: 129
Joined: 6/28/2000
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline

Does anyone have a list of what ranks and positions the generals in this game held in 1860? It would be interesting to see who was in the army, and just a major, or captain, and who was a civilian.

JIM

(in reply to Sonny)

Post #: 38

RE: Generals - 12/20/2006 10:30:58 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
Winfield Scott, according to Wikipedia, resigned on Nov. 1, 1861, so we left him out of the game. But then, we added the July scenario at a later point in development, and did not stick him back in. He's always been in the game, though, since I put him in the database of potential USA military governors -- so if you happen to capture, say, Tennessee or Mississippi he might end up in charge.

Do people think he should be added back in to the July scenario? Or since he wasn't a field commander at that point is it okay to keep him out?

Scott wasn't capable of "taking the field", so leaving him out makes sense. But Grant, Sherman, Sheridan and such were all "1-stars" in 1861. (Sherman commanded a Brigade at Bull Run). The South has acres of good "1-stars" available for promotion in the 1861 scenarios (they have folks who probably never get promoted with ratings that would make them "4-stars" for the North). Where are the decent Union Leaders?

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 39

RE: Generals - 12/20/2006 11:29:19 PM

dude

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
Winfield Scott, according to Wikipedia, resigned on Nov. 1, 1861, so we left him out of the game. But then, we added the July scenario at a later point in development, and did not stick him back in. He's always been in the game, though, since I put him in the database of potential USA military governors -- so if you happen to capture, say, Tennessee or Mississippi he might end up in charge.

Do people think he should be added back in to the July scenario? Or since he wasn't a field commander at that point is it okay to keep him out?

Scott wasn't capable of "taking the field", so leaving him out makes sense. But Grant, Sherman, Sheridan and such were all "1-stars" in 1861. (Sherman commanded a Brigade at Bull Run). The South has acres of good "1-stars" available for promotion in the 1861 scenarios (they have folks who probably never get promoted with ratings that would make them "4-stars" for the North). Where are the decent Union Leaders?

Actually I'm not so sure about Sheridan... I just happened to read part of Sherman's memoir last night and recall something about him trying to get Capt. Sheridan promoted to brig. general and it was turned down. I don't think he actually became a general until the next year (I'll have to check my books tonight.)

(...just checked wikipedia and it puts a date of July 1st 1862 for Brig. Gen.)

< Message edited by dude -- 12/20/2006 11:42:38 PM >

_____________________________

�Ifs defeated the Confederates�� U.S.Grant

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 40

RE: Generals - 12/20/2006 11:52:33 PM

jimwinsor

Posts: 1076
Joined: 11/21/2005
Status: offline

Sherman commanded his brigade at 1st Manassas as a colonel: http://www.civilwarhome.com/bullrunbattleorderunion.htm

_____________________________

Streaming as "Grognerd" at https://www.twitch.tv/grognerd

(in reply to dude)

Post #: 41

RE: Generals - 12/20/2006 11:56:33 PM

jimwinsor

Posts: 1076
Joined: 11/21/2005
Status: offline

Sheridan was made BG of volunteers on July 1 1862.

_____________________________

Streaming as "Grognerd" at https://www.twitch.tv/grognerd

(in reply to jimwinsor)

Post #: 42

RE: Generals - 12/20/2006 11:59:15 PM

chris0827

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

Sheridan was a captain in the regular army and a colonel of volunteers in 1861. He was promoted to brigadier general of volunteers in july 1862, and brigadier general in the regular army in sept. 1864.

(in reply to jimwinsor)

Post #: 43

RE: Generals - 12/21/2006 3:17:20 AM

tevans6220

Posts: 223
Joined: 9/3/2005
Status: offline

Historical ranks are nice to have but in game terms they mean nothing. You have to look at the number of troops actually commanded. McDowell was a BG at Bull Run but commanded the whole Union Army. Since the Army of the Potomac was basically a corps sized unit at the battle, I would give McDowell a game rank of 3 stars. The whole database needs to be reworked into game ranks. R.E. Lee comes into the July game as a 1 star but historically commanded what amount to a division sized unit in western Virginia early in the war. I would probably make him 2 star rank. The database really needs reworked.

One other thing. Sherman actually was a BG of volunteers at Bull Run--promoted May 1861. He achieved BG regular army rank in July 1863. Either way you look at it, as a colonel or brigadier, he commanded a brigade at Bull Run and has to get�1 star�game rank�in the July scenario.�

< Message edited by tevans6220 -- 12/21/2006 3:26:46 AM >

(in reply to chris0827)

Post #: 44

RE: Generals - 12/21/2006 8:40:12 AM

jimwinsor

Posts: 1076
Joined: 11/21/2005
Status: offline

Well, actually Sherman got physically made BG of Volunteers on Aug 7 1861, but was allowed to back date the rank to May 17. They did this sort of backdating alot back then, usually for political purposes to boost seniority. That's why Sherman is listed on the official OOB of 1st Manassas as a colonel...'cause thats what he really was then, w/o the temporal sheninagans of backdating.

Sherman is kinda a special case in any event, because of his leave of absense in late '61 for mental stress. For simplicity's sake, it's probably fair to have him enter the game a bit later as a one star, on or about the time he was recovered his sanity and was reinstated by Halleck (mid-Feb 1862, IIRC).

_____________________________

Streaming as "Grognerd" at https://www.twitch.tv/grognerd

(in reply to tevans6220)

Post #: 45

RE: Generals - 12/21/2006 11:43:19 AM

chris0827

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

Well, actually Sherman got physically made BG of Volunteers on Aug 7 1861, but was allowed to back date the rank to May 17.� They did this sort of backdating alot back then, usually for political purposes to boost seniority.� That's why Sherman is listed on the official OOB of 1st Manassas as a colonel...'cause thats what he really was then, w/o the temporal sheninagans of backdating.

Sherman is kinda a special case in any event, because of his leave of absense in late '61 for mental stress.� For simplicity's sake, it's probably fair to have him enter the game a bit later as a one star, on or about the time he was recovered his sanity and was reinstated by Halleck (mid-Feb 1862, IIRC).

If you make his arrival date feb 1862 he won't show up for some time after that because of the randomization. He commanded a division starting march 1st. He wouldn't show up by then. A bigadier at start would be most accurate. Also generals should be able to show up earlier than the arrival date as well as later.

(in reply to jimwinsor)

Post #: 46

RE: Generals - 12/21/2006 3:16:01 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

One other thing. Sherman actually was a BG of volunteers at Bull Run--promoted May 1861. He achieved BG regular army rank in July 1863. Either way you look at it, as a colonel or brigadier, he commanded a brigade at Bull Run and has to get 1 star game rank in the July scenario.

And what about Grant? He was commanding an Army in the Spring of 1862 (Donaldson, Shiloh, sound familiar?) In the game he's not even on the map. Point is that the game gives the South a LOT of good leaders right from the start..., shouldn't the North get at least a few of the historic ones?

(in reply to tevans6220)

Post #: 47

RE: Generals - 12/21/2006 3:38:17 PM

elmo3

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

And what about Grant? He was commanding an Army in the Spring of 1862 (Donaldson, Shiloh, sound familiar?) In the game he's not even on the map. ...

Pretty sure that was already noted as a date mistake in the Generals file.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 48

RE: Generals - 12/21/2006 6:45:47 PM

chris0827

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

And what about Grant? He was commanding an Army in the Spring of 1862 (Donaldson, Shiloh, sound familiar?) In the game he's not even on the map. ...

Pretty sure that was already noted as a date mistake in the Generals file.

I'm not sure you can call it a mistake when 95% of the arrival dates are wrong.

(in reply to elmo3)

Post #: 49

RE: Generals - 12/21/2006 8:11:32 PM

tevans6220

Posts: 223
Joined: 9/3/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

One other thing. Sherman actually was a BG of volunteers at Bull Run--promoted May 1861. He achieved BG regular army rank in July 1863. Either way you look at it, as a colonel or brigadier, he commanded a brigade at Bull Run and has to get 1 star game rank in the July scenario.

And what about Grant? He was commanding an Army in the Spring of 1862 (Donaldson, Shiloh, sound familiar?) In the game he's not even on the map. Point is that the game gives the South a LOT of good leaders right from the start..., shouldn't the North get at least a few of the historic ones?

Sherman was just one example. Grant is another. The whole database needs to be reworked and it's not going to be as easy as just giving historical start dates and ranks. We're going to have to look at the size of their commands in order to get a good idea what game rank to give them. Once the whole database is reworked there will be just as many good leaders for the North at the start as there are from the South. The problem then becomes a reworking of scenario data to allow those ranks to enter the game. Both the general database and scenario data have to be redone or the ranks won't work right due to the academy system and it's limits.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 50

RE: Generals - 12/21/2006 10:59:53 PM

chris0827

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

I'm not sure if it's possible with this game engine but I'd like to see generals restricted to moving up one rank per turn with battlefield exp being a prerequisite for promotion of one and two star leaders. Leaders who are already three star or higher having already shown some ability at least in the minds of their superiors. This would force players to use leaders like Grant, Sherman, Longstreet, and Jackson in combat before promoting them and take the risk of losing them. As the game is now you can promote 1 star to 5 stars in one turn. Nobody moved that fast and the generals that did move up quickly like Grant did so through fighting battles. Of cours some generals started the war commanding large units without combat experience but they had a prewar reputation as leaders.

(in reply to tevans6220)

Post #: 51

RE: Generals - 12/22/2006 7:21:35 AM

Queeg

Posts: 495
Joined: 6/23/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

And what about Grant? He was commanding an Army in the Spring of 1862 (Donaldson, Shiloh, sound familiar?) In the game he's not even on the map. Point is that the game gives the South a LOT of good leaders right from the start..., shouldn't the North get at least a few of the historic ones?

Good point. But when Grant does finally show up, he has the same ratings as Lee, which itself is a bit of a stretch. But I guess that's another discussion altogether....

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 52

RE: Generals - 12/22/2006 5:18:18 PM

bountyhunter

Posts: 53
Joined: 11/25/2006
From: Wherever Uncle Sam sends me
Status: offline

Looking up all the sizes of the commands is a waste. If the restrictions on stars and corresponding units are lifted then anyone can command anything - which is historical. If the restrictions are removed the stars can equal real ranks and you can keep the North on historical terms by not allowing promotions to LTG until 64 if that is desired.

(in reply to Queeg)

Post #: 53

RE: Generals - 12/22/2006 8:35:27 PM

Williamb

Posts: 594
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Dayton Ohio
Status: offline

I did a mod of many of the generals

Some of the changes are

Both sides have correct cavalry commanders

Union at start

I McDowell and H Halleck start as 3 stars.
B Butler, N Banks, A Burnside, G McClellan and DC Buell start as two stars.

Most other starting commanders are historical

Confederates

No Navy other than Blockade runners at start

J Johnson and AS Johnson are 3 stars
RE Lee, PT Beauregard, L Polk and B Bragg start as 2 stars.

Most other starting commanders are historical

here

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1334111

_____________________________

(in reply to bountyhunter)

Post #: 54

RE: Generals - 12/22/2006 9:04:37 PM

chris0827

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: William Amos

I did a mod of many of the generals

Some of the changes are

Both sides have correct cavalry commanders

Union at start

I McDowell and H Halleck start as 3 stars.
B Butler, N Banks, A Burnside, G McClellan and DC Buell start as two stars.

Most other starting commanders are historical

Confederates

No Navy other than Blockade runners at start

J Johnson and AS Johnson are 3 stars
RE Lee, PT Beauregard, L Polk and B Bragg start as 2 stars.

Most other starting commanders are historical

here

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1334111

I'm not understanding some of these changes. Is this for the July or November scenario?

(in reply to Williamb)

Post #: 55

RE: Generals - 12/22/2006 10:15:41 PM

jsaurman

Posts: 129
Joined: 6/28/2000
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Quarters
There is a terrific (though expensive) book, Civil War High Commands, published by Stanford Univ Press, that has chapters called "Grades and Ranks" for both of the armies. The generals are listed alphabetically and also in order of seniority in rank.

If you own a copy of this book, would you mind scanning and posting this list?

Thanks,

JIM

(in reply to General Quarters)

Post #: 56

RE: Generals - 12/22/2006 10:55:22 PM

Williamb

Posts: 594
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Dayton Ohio
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

quote:

ORIGINAL: William Amos

I did a mod of many of the generals

Some of the changes are

Both sides have correct cavalry commanders

Union at start

I McDowell and H Halleck start as 3 stars.
B Butler, N Banks, A Burnside, G McClellan and DC Buell start as two stars.

Most other starting commanders are historical

Confederates

No Navy other than Blockade runners at start

J Johnson and AS Johnson are 3 stars
RE Lee, PT Beauregard, L Polk and B Bragg start as 2 stars.

Most other starting commanders are historical

here

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1334111

I'm not understanding some of these changes. Is this for the July or November scenario?

July Scenario

_____________________________

(in reply to chris0827)

Post #: 57

RE: Generals - 12/22/2006 11:02:24 PM

General Quarters

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jsaurman

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Quarters
There is a terrific (though expensive) book, Civil War High Commands, published by Stanford Univ Press, that has chapters called "Grades and Ranks" for both of the armies. The generals are listed alphabetically and also in order of seniority in rank.

If you own a copy of this book, would you mind scanning and posting this list?

Thanks,

JIM

Sorry, I don't know how to do all that. I could ask my computer consultant to do it (at 65 an hour) but the oversized pages might make it difficult. I would suggest you see if you can get it at your local library through interlibrary loan. Or ask someone to give it to you for Christmas. It is terrific and a goldmine of certifiably accurate info. But it costs over $100, IRIC.

(in reply to jsaurman)

Post #: 58

RE: Generals - 12/22/2006 11:20:29 PM

chris0827

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

For July I would sugggest a few changes. Halleck and AS Johnston should not show up until august since they had not yet returned from California. McClellan should be three stars his command was over 20k men. You could go three or four stars for McDowell. Personally I would go four stars but his army was the size of a large corps. Beauregard should be three stars. His command was larger than any division on either side in the entire war. Joe Johnston should be 4 stars. His command was smaller than Beauregard's but when they linked up he was the army commander and Beauregard became a corps commander. Burnside should be one star. He comanded a brigade at Bull Run. Buell should be one star. He didn't command a division until october.

(in reply to General Quarters)

Post #: 59