AGEOD Forums

The Wolf

I could play with Johnston rated at 0-0-4 and replicate Johnston's Atlanta campaign exactly. How can you write things like this? Suffering severe combat penalties from your reduction of their commander's ability, the CSA forces would have been wiped out in the game equivalents of the Battles of Roc...

The Wolf

Well then, how are we to rate any of these generals? Who am I to presume to do so? What do I really know? How can I be sure the ratings I assign are best? Why does my post consist only of questions? Would not the wisest course be to ponder these questions indefinately, perhaps stroking my beard as ...

The Wolf

In the end, there is little gained out of reducing Johnston's strategy other than to meet an extreme interpretation. Why Johnston? Why not Lee, or Jackson, or Bragg, or Beauregard? That is my question. The only rational explanation for someone singling out Johnston alone to be disrated that I have ...

The Wolf

Actually, the 3rd volume of the Shelby Foote Narrative, treats him quite fairly, and points out his defensive capabilities rather well. Considering he knew he was outnumbered, I actually respect the fact that he was not rash enough to provoke a fight without having a serious local advantage. A loss...

The Wolf

A Leader that is NOT Activated receives a 35% speed penalty to all movement but a combat penalty equal to enemy military control of region, to a maximum of 35%. (Not applicable to Forces in Passive Posture) An Army Commander with a Strategic Rating of 4 will pass down SR bonuses as follows: 8% of t...

The Wolf

The easiest thing, if people think the leader MOD should be official and JJ is the only issue, would be to keep JJ as originally rated (4-2-4 I believe). McNaughton has made some very strong arguments that make this a very reasonable thing to do I believe. This is the obvious solution. Who else is ...

The Wolf

Not only did it rub me the wrong way, it actually made me do something that I rarely do, I placed him on an "ignore list". Its amazing how much more intelligent this particular thread reads with his childish comments filtered out. :niark: Personal insults, eh? Looks like he just realized that he ha...

The Wolf

McNaughton wrote:You cannot replicate the individual PERSONALITIES of these generals

No, but you can model their CAPABILITIES.

The Wolf

I'm going to repeat this, because it's very important to this discussion, and some of you seem to be reading right over it: Remember that Johnston's army commander status in the CSA means that reducing Johnston in ability directly reduces the South's ability to defend itself, which in turn directly ...

The Wolf

...and Lee was a far better Engineer (defensive) when he needed to be, and Longstreet was the CSA's best Defensive General by a long shot.... No. Neither Lee nor Longstreet could have faced Sherman and preserved their forces the way Johnston did. Forrest, maybe, but Lee didn't have the patience and...

The Wolf

We will always disagree on this because you are wanting to rate him on "what could have been" and I am looking at the historical results regardless of the reasons. Nonsense. I am without doubt more familiar with his record than you are, unless you have read a number of books solely devoted to him a...

The Wolf

I would favor 3-2-4, as a 2 in strat rating always give a further 1 malus passed down to corps commanders, so it seems extreme. A 2 is indeed extreme, which is why I was objecting so loudly. But a 3 still does a great deal of damage to his abilities. If you're going to make him a 3-2-X, then make h...

The Wolf

Pocus wrote:What are the values of JJ Johnston in the leader mod?

2-2-4. He should be a 4-2-4, as AGEOD originally rated him, or better. I would support a 4-2-6, as he was peerless on defense. Dropping an important CSA army commander to a 2-2-4 is unbalancing, not to mention ahistorical.

The Wolf

I may have missed an important aspect of AACW. If a leader fails his test for activation, does he experience these penalities when in friendly territory and defending? Or only when moving into enemy territory (which I what I thought)? If the former, then I have to agree that JJ should not suffer th...

The Wolf

Rafiki wrote:Wolf, Andrew has some good points. E.g. which ratings and abilities do you think Johnston should have?

I am in total agreement with Andrew: "the best thing to do is officially adopt the leader mod with the only change to it being to adjust JJ to his original AGEOD ratings."

The Wolf

Well stated, and I might add these statements are "borderline rude" and could be construed as harrasment when repeated often enough in regard to runyun99's work effort. He has spent a great many hours of his time working on an area of the game that he perceived needed improvement and as other membe...

The Wolf

Whereas McNaughton makes non-emotional, logical statements discussing the same point, and is, frankly, rather persuasive. His comments have me coming around to a change in his strategic rating back to a 4. As I have said elsewhere, the unaddressed problem with Johnston being disrated in the leader ...

The Wolf

I realize that I will never be able to return my copy of this game, but if the flawed leader mod is ever made official I would certainly like to.

Personal bias should never be allowed to play a role in a historical wargame. Especially one like AACW, which gets so very many things right.

The Wolf

I think we know all the geography we need to by now.

The Wolf

Thanks, Primaspirit! There's going to be a very broke CSA this weekend!

The Wolf

Personally, I believe that everything is relative... If, as AGEOD has stated, that 3-1-1 is the 'average', nothing great, nothing poor, then a strategy rating of 2 or less is 'bad'. Personally, I believe that most generals in AACW are over-rated in their statistics, which makes the reduction of Joh...

The Wolf

The unaddressed problem with Johnston being disrated in this mod is that he winds up spending most of the game being statistically penalized. As he was historically one of the South's best generals and was usually in command of a major Southern force, the disrating is going to be a severely unbalanc...

The Wolf

McNaughton wrote: Under good conditions, with a viable chance of success, Johnston would attack. To me, that is more competence than cowardice.

Finally somebody gets it!

And not only would he attack, he would attack and win.

The Wolf

Hmm, no one knows, eh? Thanks.

The Wolf

Let's put this in perspective. Obviously, you only disagree with the ratings given to Joe Johnston. Now using your reasoning, if only one person disagreed with a particular RR change in just one location of the map, you would say "no way"? What an amazingly flawed analogy! Let's visit reality inste...

The Wolf

AndrewKurtz wrote:That is actually very cool.

Trust me, it's not.

The Wolf

I'm curious. It was stated (very unofficially) that the thing holding back incorporating the leader MOD into the game is disgreement on some of the ratings. But from what I read, the only disagreement is on Joe Johnston and the disagreement is from a lone wolf :niark: (pun intended). You need to go...

The Wolf

Reality was, just as with Johnston, he was a great general but he was not aggressive. He was not one to move forward. That's a commonly held mistake. Johnston simply didn't believe in attacking with too few troops because when you do so the results are always in doubt. Lee did believe in doing that...

The Wolf

Of course I can. Well, you tried, but you failed. It's clear I won't be able to convice you of Johnston's limitations Let's see, should I believe a man with an obviously blatant bias against Joe Johnston or history professors who write scholarly analytical works on the subject? Hmm, easy call. that...

The Wolf

AndrewKurtz wrote:Curious. Any chance Johnston is a distant relative (just kidding...meant to be funny)

Johnston didn't have any children.

I am related to George Pickett. I have no quarrel with his rating.

Search found 41 matches