British Generals overrated?

[runyan99]

Are the Strategic ratings for the British generals too high?

We gave McClellan a strategic rating of 1 as I recall for ACW, and yet the British generals like Gage and Howe were easily just as slow, inactive, and passive at times as McClellan was. The British spent all of 1775 in Boston, and got the 1776 campaign off to a very late start indeed. Once started, Howe's conciliatory attitude towards the Americans allowed the Colonial Army to escape destruction a number of times. Yet, Gage is rated a 2 for doing absolutely nothing historically, and Howe gets a 3, which would be 'average' in the ACW, though he did little for months and months.

I'm beginning to think that the British generals are rated too high, and are activating far too often in BoA. This makes the game harder than it was historically for the American player, and gives the British player much much more freedom of movement than the Brits displayed historically. Generally speaking, the Brits seem far too active in the game. 1775 for example, ALWAYS plays out far differently in the game than it did historically, with the Brits roaming all about New England. There must be a happy medium somewhere, but currently things seem heavily tilted towards the British.

I'm suggesting Gage goes to zero or 1, or is simply fixed, while Howe and Clinton drop to 2. Burgoyne is probably okay at 2. Other subordinates like Grant or Pigott who currently have high strategic ratings should probably be lowered to no better than 3s.

[Wilhammer]

There was a period when they weren't in New England at all; when they left Boston for Halifax.

I see no reason at all for them to do this in the 1775 Campaign.

It might be more 'realistic' for competitive play to pass up playing 1775 at all, and going for the 1776 Campaign.

The Americans were very active at this time, and the Brits were very inactive in 1775 - perhaps an event for 1775 that lowers their strategic ratings or cuts their movement rate by 25-50% for 1775 might help?

Howe and Gage should also perhaps be classified as Slow Movers.

We might need another classification called Very Slow Movers, doubling the effect of crawling for some really tedious operators, like Howe and Little Mac in A-ACW.

----------

For those reading this thread, I am the British player in the Runyan vs Wilhammer match...so we share some notes and some trying experiences.

He has worked miracles with Morgan in the Southern Campaign.

Its now March 1777, and New England is a wreck for the Americans, but you find it very hard to keep the Americans down - they are like cock roaches.

Its a fantastic game; and we are thoroughly enjoying it, though we have both had some frustrating moments...like the near wiping out of the Brits in the South with Morgans army, or the near entrapment, twice, of Geo. Washington being pinned against the Atlantic with Brits nearly encircling him...thrilling stuff.

Runyan; your one of the most able opponents I have ever faced in a PBEM of anything. I am having a lot of fun.

Can't wait to whip your Rebel Hind End in A-ACW....

[orca]

A simpler (and I think more realistic) tweak might be to reduce what generals can do when they are not activated. In particular their movement could be reduced to 33% rather than 50%, and they could be prevented from detaching any troops. One of the things that help a human British player immensely is the ability to detach forces under generals who are active from generals who are not. This isn't very realistic - I'd prefer not being able to know whether a general will be active this turn. This would, inevitably favour the rebels over the current sitation.

[runyan99]

And of course even generals who are not activated, although their movement is slower, can still be ordered forward towards the enemy, even taking uncontested territory. So, often being 'inactive' is no penalty at all!

As an illustration, I quickly loaded up the 1777 scenario that starts in May. I found Howe's army in New York. As it happened Howe was 'inactive' at the start of the game. But I had no problem giving him orders to move into enemy held Newark, and on into Princeton, taking that town on the first turn.

Since he moved into 100% enemy territory, Howe actually ended May in Aggressive Stance in this example, though he was supposed to be non-activated!

So this rule really doesn't work.

Here is how to fix the rule. What needs to happen is that non-activated leaders who are given orders to move into 95%+ enemy controlled territory (or hell maybe even 50%+) simply ignore the order and stop moving.

This would keep non-activated leaders from moving freely about the map, and going into aggressive posture by default.

This would go a long way towards hampering the British player in particular, in a more historical manner.

[runyan99]

A simpler (and I think more realistic) tweak might be to reduce what generals can do when they are not activated. In particular ... they could be prevented from detaching any troops.

That's a good suggestion also in addition to preventing movement into enemy areas.

Would it be possible to "lock" army stacks with an inactive leader, so that the player cannot add or remove forces from underneath the inactive leader, or change leaders to get around the rule?

[PhilThib]

All these suggestions are nice and quite interesting. I guess most could be implemented. Please note however that we are bound to hear screams of frustration (and hundreds of questions) from other players if we do so...well, seems it's impossible to please everybody.

Let's say I'll do my best so that the feature will make it to BOA 2.0 version, on which we shall start production very soon (more on this at end of the month)...stay tuned..

[runyan99]

Let's say I'll do my best so that the feature will make it to BOA 2.0 version, on which we shall start production very soon (more on this at end of the month)...stay tuned..

Great. I know 2.0 is on the drawing board.

Preventing non-activated leaders from acting aggressively seems to be what the spirit of Strategic Rating rule is all about. The concept is yours, and it is a good one. These changes would simply apply the rule better.

[pasternakski]

I favor the idea of further limiting what inactive leaders can do, but I would not want to see this taken too far.

Please don't make the difference between "active" and "inactive" leader capabilities so great that it becomes a "make or break" proposition on which the entire game could depend. "Active" leaders were not absolute gods, and "inactive" leaders were not complete slugs.

The idea of restricting detachment of active subordinates from inactive superiors has a great deal of merit, too. A hesitant leader might be persuaded to allow one subordinate to take a force to accomplish some limited objective (reconnaissance-in-force or raid, for example), but I think also that it should not be possible for every active commander subordinate to an inactive one to split off and either run all over the map in a dozen directions or move a substantial part of the main force to accomplish what the force's overall commander was not willing to do (out of fear, hesitancy, gout, the pleas of the wench at the local tavern, or whatever).

So, how about allowing only one active subordinate to leave the area where an inactive leader is in command?

[runyan99]

"Active" leaders were not absolute gods, and "inactive" leaders were not complete slugs.

It isn't so drastic as that. We're simply saying that "Active" leaders are ready and willing to engage the enemy. "Inactive" leaders cannot or will not seek to engage the enemy or invade enemy regions, though they can defend and they can maneuver in friendly/contested areas.

The game currently doesn't make such a distinction. Every leader can go pretty much wherever he wants at all times. There really isn't any McClellan/Gage restriction on the player. That's why 1775 in BoA is so much different from 1775 in the history book.

So, how about allowing only one active subordinate to leave the area where an inactive leader is in command?

Well, in terms of the programming, I suppose the stack gets locked or it does not. Letting one guy out is a lot harder to conceive from a game mechanic standpoint.

Besides, if General Gage isn't ready to engage the rebels around Boston, what makes you think he is going to let General Tryon to take 2 regiments and go fight the Americans somewhere?

Unless of course he had previously given General Tryon an INDEPENDENT command of his own....

[Pocus]

And of course even generals who are not activated, although their movement is slower, can still be ordered forward towards the enemy, even taking uncontested territory. So, often being 'inactive' is no penalty at all!

As an illustration, I quickly loaded up the 1777 scenario that starts in May. I found Howe's army in New York. As it happened Howe was 'inactive' at the start of the game. But I had no problem giving him orders to move into enemy held Newark, and on into Princeton, taking that town on the first turn.

Since he moved into 100% enemy territory, Howe actually ended May in Aggressive Stance in this example, though he was supposed to be non-activated!

So this rule really doesn't work.

Here is how to fix the rule. What needs to happen is that non-activated leaders who are given orders to move into 95%+ enemy controlled territory (or hell maybe even 50%+) simply ignore the order and stop moving.

This would keep non-activated leaders from moving freely about the map, and going into aggressive posture by default.

This would go a long way towards hampering the British player in particular, in a more historical manner.

if you enter a region in offensive mode (because of the rule you speak about) while inactive, you can suffer up to a 50% combat penalty during battle. Against a weak garrison, you won't have problem, but do that against an army, and you are dead...

[Pocus]

I favor the idea of further limiting what inactive leaders can do, but I would not want to see this taken too far.

Please don't make the difference between "active" and "inactive" leader capabilities so great that it becomes a "make or break" proposition on which the entire game could depend. "Active" leaders were not absolute gods, and "inactive" leaders were not complete slugs.

The idea of restricting detachment of active subordinates from inactive superiors has a great deal of merit, too. A hesitant leader might be persuaded to allow one subordinate to take a force to accomplish some limited objective (reconnaissance-in-force or raid, for example), but I think also that it should not be possible for every active commander subordinate to an inactive one to split off and either run all over the map in a dozen directions or move a substantial part of the main force to accomplish what the force's overall commander was not willing to do (out of fear, hesitancy, gout, the pleas of the wench at the local tavern, or whatever).

So, how about allowing only one active subordinate to leave the area where an inactive leader is in command?

theorically it makes sense. But it involves some fancy user interface limitation, and mostly it asks some parts of the AI to be revised toroughly.

[pasternakski]

theorically it makes sense. But it involves some fancy user interface limitation, and mostly it asks some parts of the AI to be revised toroughly.

I figured as much. I trust that you guys will consider the matter carefully and do what you think is best.

I am happy now and will be happy then. No change at all would really be okay with me. If some small modifications can be made that restrict inactive leaders and curtail some of the abuse of being able to detach active subordinates, that will be fine, too.

Wow. I am amazingly agreeable (for me). Why, I haven't been this easy to get along with since my first wife's father pointed his shotgun at me and said, "Step up to the altar, son."

[orca]

Here is how to fix the rule. What needs to happen is that non-activated leaders who are given orders to move into 95%+ enemy controlled territory (or hell maybe even 50%+) simply ignore the order and stop moving.

This would keep non-activated leaders from moving freely about the map, and going into aggressive posture by default.

This would go a long way towards hampering the British player in particular, in a more historical manner.

I like this a great deal. If it's too onerous for the AI (simply because it might get stuck and inable to move) perhaps a less restrictive rule might be that an inactive general pays double movement costs in friendly controlled territory and quadruple in enemy controlled territory. Would basically allow these leaders to advance about one area which would prevent the AI from totally messing itself up but still restrict advances by inactive armies.

[Pocus]

mmmh, on the same trend...

inactive = slow already. So as Orca suggest, inactive in hostile territory = super slow, this would be rather doable, and rapidly what's more.

[orca]

if you enter a region in offensive mode (because of the rule you speak about) while inactive, you can suffer up to a 50% combat penalty during battle. Against a weak garrison, you won't have problem, but do that against an army, and you are dead...

That's nice. I had no idea that this was the case - although it makes sense.

I would also suggest that the AI be exempted from whatever 'inactive leaders can't detach' rule gets implemented. The AI won't take advantage of this so it isn't a big problem.

[runyan99]

Inactive = superslow in enemy territory would be better than what we have now. However, it would still allow inactive generals to start fights by moving into enemy regions and going aggressive by default, even if they can advance only one region at a time.

Inactive = no advance into enemy territory would not allow this, and is a better representation of the historical situation in my opinion. It's the only way to simulate the British sitting in Boston during the siege and conducting plays for the amusement of the officers, or Howe sitting in Halifax or Long Island for months on end in 1776.

[PhilThib]

The second option, when initially implemented, was massively rejected by beta testers. We should see if we can re-implement it, may be as a gameplay option...

[orca]

I can see that situations can arise where making it impossible for an inactive general to enter enemy territory all sorts of bizarre results could arise. By and large the American Revolution wasn't a war of fronts and rear areas, but rather a bit of a free for all. Especially with regards to the battles between the opposing militias.

Anothe penalty that might be appropriate is the following:

If an inactive general enters enemy territory, goes onto offensive posture and gets into a battle with defending forces all withdrawal attempts by the defenders are automatically sucessful and the defenders take no hits upon retreat.

The inactive general can be prevailed upon to advance, but he has no intention of forcing the issue if the enemy tries to get away, and will not pursue.

Just a thought.

[runyan99]

The second option, when initially implemented, was massively rejected by beta testers. We should see if we can re-implement it, may be as a gameplay option...

So it was in fact the original design?

I assume it was rejected in beta simply because the players wanted more control over their units?

If you could re-implement it as an option, I don't see how anyone would complain. People could play either way.

[Pocus]

this will be difficult, I mean the strat ratings are in the database, not in a particular scenario. A possible solution would be to have an overall penalty scripted to trigger for some scenario, like -1 for all British leaders, and people would use this scenario and not the other if they feel the British are too advantaged.

About this penalty to apply on inactive leaders, I do think there is not much to do, with the rule about combat penalty when in hostile land (added I don't even know when!). Perhaps we can harden it, but see how it works:

An inactive leader caught into battle (whatever his posture) receive a combat penalty (in addition to any under-command penalty) equals to the lack of military control in the region he is in (max equals 50%). It means that you are better NOT using inactive leaders in anything but in defense of friendly land, and this is what we want: that inactive leaders stay quiet and don't take the offensive.

[Wilhammer]

The combat penalty is severe, and I don't think we realized just how severe - I know that *I* did not.

So, if Gage bolts out of Boston on his own into hostile land, Geo. W should be able to hand him a severe drubbing.

Same goes for Howe leaving New York later on in our game.

However, my approach was rather not dependent on a large force in handling 1775 and 1776 as the Brits.

I kept a large force, at first, in Boston. The smaller leaders then went on a 'scatter' run all over New England and New York.

The Americans focused on keeping New York, watching the Boston Red Coats, and dealing with a strong thrust I made into Ticonderoga.

So, I drew GW off of Boston with the Ticonderoga thrust, and was was able to use more of the Boston Red Coats to secure much more of New England.

Whenever I saw GW force or another large Continental Army move around, I just took my small forces and ran away from them.

The thing that worked best was the thrust towards Ticonderoga. GW laid siege too it but lacked the force to assault it, and had to leave because of Winter. That strategy neutralized George, and rendered the strength advantage advantage the Rebel Scum has too relative insignificance.

I think the mistake Runyan has made is his attempt to conduct war toe to toe with Great Britain - this cannot work. In a siege situation, the Brits hold the advantage.

Its now May 1777, and I have just about scared the Yankees out of New England and New York - I had a shockingly successful assault on New York that crushed a large Yankee Army, another one a few turns before in Portsmouth, crushing a medium sized army in the forts there. Geo. W came to the rescue, but nearly got trapped by Leslie and the Hessians coming from Providence and Connecticutt.

GW tried to assault New York in the Winter time against a weakened Howe, with disastrous results. They actually retreated to Long Island!

I did not pursue them, though I should have. The Brits did take a severe drubbing with the one-two punch action at New York. They have recovered.

The score is almost even - I am about 60 points away from a draw. Before the Great British Actions of the Fall/Winter of 1776, the Yanks had me by nearly 200 pts, and massive control of areas.

Controlling the Strategic Cities is a pain in the butt - I leave, they become contested.

With three strongish armies in New England (prior to the disasters of the Winter of 1776 for the Yanks), I could not keep my scattered small groups too close to him without him crushing them. The Yanks don't get near the combat penalties the Brits do.

Meanwhile, Morgan is the master of the South - he almost completely eradicated the British presence there. Only Cornwallis (who found himself in a close call with Morgan only lucky maneuvering avoided) and the timely arrival of His Majesty's forces to Savannah (forces that in an AI game I played showed up in Halifax, but this time in Savannah) have kept Rebel hope alive.

Also, the drubbing GW got in New England has allowed Clinton to take Philadelphia and he just got reinforced, as now Geo has showed up in York PA (he sure can fly across the map) and another large Yankee force is somewhere in Western North Carolina about to link up, and Mighty Morgan is in Charlotte, about to run into Cornwallis with reinforcements.

Right now the game is at about the razor's edge of Victory Balance, and when the French show up, it should tilt decisively towards the Yanks.

I have a lot to do in 1777 to be in as good a situation I can to switch to the defensive against France.

--------------

Did not think I was going to do an AAR of sorts when I started this reply, but there you have it. Feel free to follow up Runyan.

[Shawkhan]

...In extreme cases like Gage, why not simply make particular British leaders inactive for a certain number of turns until/unless attacked?
...The case with many of the British generals was that they either had American wives(Gage) or American lovers(Howe). There was no way they could proceed aggressively w/o estranging their 'significant other'.
...Once attacked, however, all bets would be off.
...Howe in particular was permanently scarred by his experience at the Battle of Bunker's Hill and was incurably cautious thereafter. Once burned and all that.

[orca]

Not sure I buy that. Sure Howe took his time, but he was able to act agggresively. The New York campaign shows this I think. He fought in stages with long delays to plan and prepare before embarking on the next stage, but he was certainly comfortable of closing with the rebels and did try to bring about a decisive victory. His problem was that he didn't follow up when he had the advantage.

IMHO the reason Howe was a failure was due to his dual role as CinC and peace commisioner. His desire to achieve the reconciliation impaired his ability to defeat the enemt army.

[Wilhammer]

...which introduces the idea of 'Planning Points'.

Planning Points are strategic planning allocation abstractions that can be assigned to and accumulated by commanders.

Commanders could be rated by an ability to;

Store PPs
PP Storage Rate
Use PPs.
PP efficiency.

For example, perhaps Howe could store up to Y PPs and each action type costs X PPs, and his PP Efficiency factor is a function of Activation Level and abstracted innate ability, combined with a National Policy Modifier.

Other commanders would have other rates.

The Random Number generation for Activation does this kind of thing at an greater level of abstraction. However, its randomness is a weakness - it is unpredictable.

You could even, with the PP model, introduce the 'Councils of War' concept - some guys would not do much without a council of war, and it was that Council of Advisors that either would hamstring action or inspire it.

A cautious commander would take time to store PPs and would then react consistently for a set of time based on efficiency of use. Inefficient commanders would bleed off PPs at a higher rate than others.

Additional staffing could affect the PP efficiency and increase rate of PP absorption and storage.

Size of force, weather, supply status, level if intelligence, could also affect PP usage.

------------

That's about as far as I got with that idea; I am sure I dug it up from deep storage in my brain from some game I played years ago...

[pasternakski]

I dunno, Wilhammer ... much as I appreciate the reasoning, I would not like to see this additional layer added to leadership.

For one thing, the whole business of "saving up points" to enable future aggressive action would delete the flavor of individual leadership that is, for me, one of the game's best features. How many times I have cursed that near-worthless Artemis Ward or, indeed, Gage. What makes truly good leaders stand out is how they are able, through their very personalities, to improve the performance - and results - of the side that they serve.

Besides, wouldn't PP considerations siphon off a lot of your attention and effort that, as the game stands now, is devoted to playing the game? I think it would have the unfortunate effect of "distancing" the player.

Well, you know. Maybe it's just that I spent a whole lifetime not playing with PPs, and I'm just not willing to start now...

[Pocus]

I tend to agree. Conceptually your system can be logical Wilhammer ... but it is a complex one (very 'grognard' if you allow me the word), for most players at least, adding something like bean-counting to the game. That is the 'problem' of many games: the fun vs realism factor is a difficult balance to achieve. I'm not saying we succeeded in BOA/AACW, but we always try to consider both aspects.

[Wilhammer]

"I'm not saying we succeeded in BOA/AACW, but we always try to consider both aspects."

You are too modest - you succeeded brilliantly. The choice you made strikes an excellent balance between 'grognardly bean counting' and 'gaming goodness'.

The use of a randomizer is not necessarily invalid, for real life is full of randomness, and so is war. In the long run, it works very well.

The method I suggest sounds good, but I agree it could be too deterministic and 'cold'.

\\\\\\\\

peternasti - very funny

[runyan99]

Did not think I was going to do an AAR of sorts when I started this reply, but there you have it. Feel free to follow up Runyan.

Early in the game I think you mentioned that the wealth of supply and the ability to move made the campaign seem like the North African campaign.

I'd tend to agree. With no restriction on movement, both players tend to move every stack almost every turn, or split forces into multiple mobile task forces, which turns the 1775-1776 campaign into something resembling Operation Crusader, when of course the historical reality was dramatically slower and more deliberate on both sides.

I also think supply does not work correctly in friendly territory. This allows the player to maintain even large armies in unsupplied wilderness or mountain territories (if still friendly), not using any food supply, and this further opens up the possibilites for unlimited movement around the map.

[runyan99]

if you enter a region in offensive mode (because of the rule you speak about) while inactive, you can suffer up to a 50% combat penalty during battle. Against a weak garrison, you won't have problem, but do that against an army, and you are dead...

Not really. It doesn't matter much. Perhaps because the force quality of the British in the Revolution is so much stronger than that of the American army, the Brits will win a stand up fight whether the leader is active or not.

To illustrate I take the starting situation in the 1778 Northern Campaign. The British army under Clinton is at Philadelpia. The American army is in the field, intrenched in an adjacent region at Reading. Clinton always starts the scenario deactivated. Reading is 100% American controlled at scenario start.

What will happen if I order the inactive Clinton into Reading? Surely the activation penalties will be so severe that the Brits will regret their hasty decision to attack? Could the Americans repel the Brits?

No. It takes 15 days for the British army to reach Reading. Interestingly, there seems to be slightly longer delays between arrival and combat than when I tried the same test using the active leader Cornwallis with no artllery. Anyway, the battles started on:

Day 17 Hour 1
Day 18 Washington retreats, no battle
Day 15 Hour 1

So a 2 day delay, a three day delay and a retreat, and no delay at all.

As for the combat, the Brits took pretty light casualties in each battle. Much lighter than when I used Cornwallis, who was activated, but who had no artillery.

In any case, the inactive Clinton moved into Reading and took that province each time, and Washington's army was forced to retreat each time. Being inactive hardly seems to matter.

--Okay, I ran a few times with Clinton and no artillery. The results didn't seem materially different from when I used Cornwallis. Washington seems to have an easier time retreating from an inactive British leader, but he still cannot win a fight. Inactive leaders just don't matter.

[runyan99]

By the way, the armies are close to parity at the start of this scenario. Washington's army is power 901, and the British army is just over 1000 with the artillery, and about 960 without.

Even standing on the defensive here, this isn't a fight the Americans can win. These battles in my test generally play out as a sort of near run contest from which both sides take casualties, but the Americans have to withdraw. That makes good sense. Given the quality advantage of the British, that's about what you would expect.

However getting the force balance right is only half of simulating the war. If the British are able to run amok around the map in an ahistorical manner, then the balance is really out of the game.

The only thing to hold back the British is a proper activation rule.