AGEOD Forums

wsatterwhite

The two Warner books are excellent but if you can afford it, the much more recent Civil War High Commands- http://www.amazon.com/Civil-High-Commands-John-Eicher/dp/0804736413/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1426362000&sr=1-1&keywords=civil+war+high+commands is a great single volume resource that buil...

wsatterwhite

The 1862 start in Bloody Road South is the most historical game scenario of CW2. If you wish to play history and not a mere game, use the 1862 start. This start incidentally gets around some of the historical imbalance issues mentioned in other threads. As someone looking for a more historical feel...

wsatterwhite

It's important to remember that leaders in the game theoretically are only supposed to represent divisional level commanders and up, most of the general casualties in the war were brigade commanders. By my count, the Union lost 1 army commander (serving under a higher level commander), 3 corps comma...

wsatterwhite

If it hasn't changed in the new game, the naming conventions for divisions can be controlled in the Factions file, in the original game I believe it was via the line LdrNameInHQ = 1 where 1 set divisions to be named for the commander

wsatterwhite

"No battle plan he ever developed succeeded in victory" How was Chickamauga not Bragg's battle plan? Even if you choose to give Longstreet as much of the credit as possible, he was still following Bragg's orders. If anything, Chickamauga showed what could have and likely should have happened at Ston...

wsatterwhite

Bragg had an excellent and devoted staff of his own. They got his troops up there in a short amount of time from the Gulf Coast, but had little to do with getting everyone else there. Bragg was good at self promotion and a master of the backstab. None the less, he did seem to be a good staff office...

wsatterwhite

The amount of time he actually lead, it is hard to say largely mediocre. Remember that Lee didn’t show much in Western Virginia either, and was recalled to Richmond and Jackson didn’t fair well there either. However Johnston’s raiding tactics took a toll on Union forces and convin...

wsatterwhite

I like the idea of something like an "Assault Leader" trait that models how certain officers were masters of getting the most out of their troops but at the same time not giving those officers numerical ratings that are out of line (for example, Johnston here was largely mediocre at best outside of ...

wsatterwhite

One thing Stauffenberg forgot to mention about the Stalingrad like struggle going on around Richmond are the huge clashes of ironclads (10+ for both sides) that have been raging back and forth on the James River for much of the last year in-game. It is quite a war brewing

wsatterwhite

Provided that it is now 2013, perhaps in an update Johnston can recieve higher ratings. Not on his Offensive ratings very much, but other ratings. I suggest ratings of 5-3-6 Johnston was regarded in the era of Reconstruction by fellow officers, particularly Lee, whose genius and skills were poorly ...

wsatterwhite

Regarding Union garrisons, having played mostly as the Union against a Confederate player who makes excellent use of raiders and partisans, it strikes me that the manpower/draft levels really need to be tweaked in order to allow the Union to maintain anything resembling historical field armies and r...

wsatterwhite

Sumner was the senior US Army field officer who took the field against the Confederacy and received command of the Union 2nd Corps for no reason other than his seniority, he's supposed to be "in the way" so to speak. This is supposed to be a problem for the Union cause- you can't just shelve the wor...

wsatterwhite

The Union also had Rufus King the Training Master starting around the end of '62. I just don't get it though. I take a conscript regiment to one of the Training Officers and two week later it is first line. But I take any unit to King the Training Master and two weeks later they have 1 XP; and it t...

wsatterwhite

I think that makes sense except that players are going to know better than to leave these units who start off more well-drilled and well-trained behind in rear area garrisons, players are going to know to push these units up as much as possible. Perhaps these units should simply start off "normal" b...

wsatterwhite

Is it too late to make suggestions for the new game? Something that has irked me for a while is that "elite" units as they exist in the game are somewhat flawed. While there is no doubt that units like the Irish Bde, Iron Bd or Stonewall Bde deserve that status, it seems that too many units have "el...

wsatterwhite

Hope the list is of some interest and use. Very much so, I hope it plays a role in fine tuning the leader pool in game but if not I greatly appreciate having it for my own use, I'm a huge geek when it comes to stuff like this. If you ever manage to finish the Confederate list I hope you share that ...

wsatterwhite

I've always understood 1-star generals within the game to not actually represent brigadier rank but simply the lowest command level (divisional and independent brigade) represented with 2-star simply representing the second command level (corps) and 3-star representing the third level (army). To tha...

wsatterwhite

Patrick Cleburne needs revised. His proposal to free slaves and arm them did not result in major changes in his command. At most it should drop his Seniority rating but not make him a dispirited leader. Others had proposed the same thing earlier in the war, to include Lee. It just didn’t make...

wsatterwhite

Maybe, compromise can be achieved, so all the recruitment happens in state biggest city, with the most VP. I think this is the best way, perhaps extending it to the two largest cities with something like a 75%-25% split for infantry and/or cavalry (artillery and ships would be restricted to just th...

wsatterwhite

Looking at the Maryland Campaign, I think he did an okay job. At South Mountain, he lost less men than the screening force, and although they bought some time for Lee to consolidate his forces a bit, Lee was still in a spectacularly vulnerable position when McClellan got to Sharpsburg two days late...

wsatterwhite

That's kind of my point. They were horrible, worse than McClellan even. And yet, they are active twice as often. Why? Personally I'm not sure Fremont should even be represented within the game but in all fairness to Banks, being active with the troops under his command was never really an issue- fo...

wsatterwhite

I must say as someone who is generally a McClellan sympathizer, I appreciate your steadfast defense of him, as much as I disagree regarding his offensive/defensive ratings. While it can be argued that Burnside was probably better off taking a McClellan-esque stance at Fredericksburg rather than maki...

wsatterwhite

McDowell, Burnside, Buell, Pope, and Hooker all have Offensive ratings of 2, and all of them were fired after their first battle in overall command. I think McClellan did better attacking than any of these commanders Outside of maybe Buell, all those officers shared the same common trait as McClell...

wsatterwhite

I think an argument could be made that McClellan's attacks at South Mountain and Antietam could be considered examples of why his offensive rating should be kept as low as possible- while McClellan's initial plans for those battles were certainly sound (and technically, McClellan's successes here co...

wsatterwhite

I really like the idea of Halleck being forced into being the Union army commander out west initially, it perfectly captures the command situation. I think Halleck would need his seniority boosted to pull this off though, he would have to be right behind McClellan at the top. I agree that McClellan ...

wsatterwhite

A few suggestions regarding existing generals- William Hardee and Braxton Bragg need to arrive at 2-star rank instead of as 1-stars. Along with Bishop Polk these were the major leaders in the west for most of the war on the Confederate side and it is too easy for them to be cast to the side as 1-sta...

wsatterwhite

Hi Wsatterwhite :wavey: I understand what you mean, but.... http://i658.photobucket.com/albums/uu305/Der_Ami_At_Bucket/Smileys/awshucks.gif let me put it this way, were it to be about any other general, I would probably agree with you whole-heartedly; didn't happen, fate, karma, bad-luck, What-Ever...

wsatterwhite

While the likes of Jackson, Kearny, Reynolds and Buford are not automatically removed from the game on their death dates, the possibility that they can meet their historical fates exists so there is nothing unhistorical about their cases. The game also allows for a Grant, Sherman, Meade or Sheridan ...

wsatterwhite

I agree with my friend Captain_Orso and I think Chamberlain should appear in late 63 or early 64 with the rank of brigadier general. He had a decisive role in the Battle of Gettysburg, as well as a very important role in Fredericksburg and the siege of Petersburg. It is fair that he appears in the ...

wsatterwhite

I think it would be a mistake to add Chamberlain unless he only appears in 1865 (assuming the war drags on past April 65 it is at that point reasonable that Chamberlain could have risen to divisional command), while he certainly was brave and is a notable figure, I would ask if he were any more brav...

Search found 100 matches