Improved randomized generals

[TheDoctorKing]

I would really like the option to randomize generals and then _not know_ what their abilities are. You would have to commit them to battle and then observe how they did.

Or maybe you could find out but only after you have had them in combat once or twice.

I'm thinking of the AH board game Civil War, where you draw generals who just have stars on their counters. Then, when you get them into battle you flip the counter and find out if you have put McDowell or Grant in command.

[Pocus]

Long time debate. Ok for me if I remove all abilities

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[soundoff]

My personal vote would be for something in between if there ever was/is to be an AACW2. One of the undoubted strengths of the game is the commander stats but its also a weakness.....too many known +5 percents per level +3 percents etc. Now I favour the same percentages but modified each battle by the dice roll...so maybe a 6 offensive army leader one time does not automatically produce a plus 30 percent bonus in attack but perhaps up to a 30% bonus....dependant upon the dice roll. That way it allows even the best of commanders to perform badly at times.......Just my tuppence worth.

[Colonel Dreux]

I'm not a fan of randomized generals. A donkey is a donkey is a donkey... like Banks, Fremont, and Pope. Would be odd to see them rated higher than R.E. Lee or Grant, etc...

Not a bad choice to have though if you want ahistorical change in your life.

[TheDoctorKing]

The AH Civil War game made you put an anonymous 3-star in command of an army. Then, when you got into battle you would flip him and discover if you had Lee or Van Dorn in command. Lee = good, Van Dorn = bad.

This might be an approach to take with AACW - the leaders retain their stats and special abilities, but you don't know which is which until you get them into a fight. Then, you have the difficulty of removing the crappy ones from the important commands and putting them off to defend Texas or Illinois. And the current system for punishing you for breaking seniority seems to work pretty well.

[Spharv2]

I've been on this since the initial randomization option was first brought up in beta. Perfect world, leaders ratings and traits are randomized to begin the game, and then ratings are randomized to a smaller degree each time they are promoted, along with a small chance for a trait to be added or removed.

In addition, ratings and traits are only revealed through battle...though some traits, such as slow-quick mover would be obvious as soon as you tried to move the units commanded. Now that we have the generic promotions, things are improved a good bit, though I'd prefer if it was extended to any general able to be promoted to any rank, not just an additional one above historical.

I appreciate the quest for historical accuracy in the game, but if you make the generals perfectly historical and have their ratings and traits be visible, then you've already lost half of the historical feel in the game right off the bat to me. Because the great issue in the Civil War, for both sides to some extent, was the quest to find the right generals and put them in the positions they needed to be in to win. As it is, you lose the, "Well, I've got this guy, we're not really sure how good he is, but he's next up, so stick him in charge and we'll see how he does", and it's replaced by, "Well, I know Grant and Sherman need to be promoted, so I'll have to arrange things to get them up as soon as possible and let them take command". Even with random generals, since the ratings are visible, you just substitute whichever highly rated generals roll out for you.

To get a real historical, "I am Lincoln" feeling, you should appoint a new general to command the army and have to wonder if you're going to be saying hi to Lee in your bedroom tomorrow, or seeing that corps commander that fought so well at the last battle get promoted to army command and then completely come apart at the seams. So long as ratings and traits are visible, and known, you won't get that.

Random ratings: Good here
Random traits: Would be an improvement
Hidden ratings: Needs to be added
Hidden traits: could see an argument for not adding this, but it would be a nice addition
Re-roll on promotion: Needed I think. Leaders, even randomized ones, should be able to improve or decline as they are advanced
Main problem is I don't think any of this can be added to the current engine without more work that it would be worth. at the moment.

As for Soundoff's suggestion on randomization per battle. I could see it, but wouldn't prefer it. There are already enough factors influencing battles to give you a bit of that without adding a whole new wildcard in there. I doubt I'd complain much if it was added, but it would probably drive some people nuts.

[Generalisimo]

I've been on this since the initial randomization option was first brought up in beta. Perfect world, leaders ratings and traits are randomized to begin the game, and then ratings are randomized to a smaller degree each time they are promoted, along with a small chance for a trait to be added or removed.

In addition, ratings and traits are only revealed through battle...though some traits, such as slow-quick mover would be obvious as soon as you tried to move the units commanded. Now that we have the generic promotions, things are improved a good bit, though I'd prefer if it was extended to any general able to be promoted to any rank, not just an additional one above historical.

I appreciate the quest for historical accuracy in the game, but if you make the generals perfectly historical and have their ratings and traits be visible, then you've already lost half of the historical feel in the game right off the bat to me. Because the great issue in the Civil War, for both sides to some extent, was the quest to find the right generals and put them in the positions they needed to be in to win. As it is, you lose the, "Well, I've got this guy, we're not really sure how good he is, but he's next up, so stick him in charge and we'll see how he does", and it's replaced by, "Well, I know Grant and Sherman need to be promoted, so I'll have to arrange things to get them up as soon as possible and let them take command". Even with random generals, since the ratings are visible, you just substitute whichever highly rated generals roll out for you.

To get a real historical, "I am Lincoln" feeling, you should appoint a new general to command the army and have to wonder if you're going to be saying hi to Lee in your bedroom tomorrow, or seeing that corps commander that fought so well at the last battle get promoted to army command and then completely come apart at the seams. So long as ratings and traits are visible, and known, you won't get that.

Random ratings: Good here
Random traits: Would be an improvement
Hidden ratings: Needs to be added
Hidden traits: could see an argument for not adding this, but it would be a nice addition
Re-roll on promotion: Needed I think. Leaders, even randomized ones, should be able to improve or decline as they are advanced
Main problem is I don't think any of this can be added to the current engine without more work that it would be worth. at the moment.

As for Soundoff's suggestion on randomization per battle. I could see it, but wouldn't prefer it. There are already enough factors influencing battles to give you a bit of that without adding a whole new wildcard in there. I doubt I'd complain much if it was added, but it would probably drive some people nuts.

As long as you have an option to switch between this suggestion and the current system... I completelly agree, this is needed. You will keep both type of players happy.

[Pocus]

The AH Civil War game made you put an anonymous 3-star in command of an army. Then, when you got into battle you would flip him and discover if you had Lee or Van Dorn in command. Lee = good, Van Dorn = bad.

This might be an approach to take with AACW - the leaders retain their stats and special abilities, but you don't know which is which until you get them into a fight. Then, you have the difficulty of removing the crappy ones from the important commands and putting them off to defend Texas or Illinois. And the current system for punishing you for breaking seniority seems to work pretty well.

Hey this is a really nice idea Stewart! I mean it would pose much less problems and ask for much less code and GUI rework. If a general is untested, the low level code provides to the interface a place holder general, and when revealed, the true value is used. Much better than redirecting a ton of display features and such...
(Now I'm not saying it can be done for AACW1) but you definitively gave me the way to go here!

[Generalisimo]

Hey this is a really nice idea Stewart! I mean it would pose much less problems and ask for much less code and GUI rework. If a general is untested, the low level code provides to the interface a place holder general, and when revealed, the true value is used. Much better than redirecting a ton of display features and such...
(Now I'm not saying it can be done for AACW1) but you definitively gave me the way to go here!

That's good to hear!
It is really a nice option to try!

[W.Barksdale]

(Now I'm not saying it can be done for AACW1)

Is this some kind of hint?

[Pocus]

Don't count on anything, so you won't be disapointed. The state of affairs for AACW is: nothing decided.

[TheDoctorKing]

Hey this is a really nice idea Stewart!

Any time, my friend!

Maybe you could try this out in some other upcoming game...maybe one where players wouldn't be so familiar with the historical values of the commanders...one about world history, maybe...

[phantomfeather]

I would really like the option to randomize generals and then _not know_ what their abilities are. You would have to commit them to battle and then observe how they did.

Or maybe you could find out but only after you have had them in combat once or twice.

I'm thinking of the AH board game Civil War, where you draw generals who just have stars on their counters. Then, when you get them into battle you flip the counter and find out if you have put McDowell or Grant in command.

I don't have a problem with randomized generals as an option. I've done it a few times & once even McClellan came up decent! Great surprise. Two things I've noticed though; the generals usually come in similar, sometimes with incredible ratings (good & bad). The one thing I don't agree with is when I get a "0" strategic rating. Does this mean he will NEVER be active? I mean the "2" can be critical & a "1" will almost cripple you, but a "0"

[Pocus]

Any time, my friend!

Maybe you could try this out in some other upcoming game...maybe one where players wouldn't be so familiar with the historical values of the commanders...one about world history, maybe...

That's in the bottom of my todo list for ... you know the game we are talking about. Don't know if it can make for v1.00 ...

[tagwyn]

What a "great" idea!! We'll put "old Coke" out to pasture and sell everyone on "new coke!" We'll make a new fortune!! Great idea, eh? lol "papy"