Possible Leader cheat

[Frank]

Hi

after playing the game this weekend i noticed that i can easily make for example Grant as the Commander of the Potomac Army in ´61 or ´62. How does it work?

Well take the ´62 campaign as example. Disband the Corps of the Potomac Army
and the Tennessee Army. Then move McClellan via rail to lets say Chicaco and Grant to Washington. When Grant arrives disband the Army of the Potomac and Tennessee and immediately create a new army with Grant and McClellan. Grants Army is now named Army of the Potomac. Now you can create new Corps and they will be placed under Grants commando. The way to Richmond is now open

Frank

[veji1]

But in the process haven't you lost tons of national moral ? If this is the case your ennemy's moral has been pumped up (or at least should have) which in turn should mean higher cohesion, more replacements, etc... for him, while your forces should have lost tons of cohesion, have less replacements, etc...

At least that's how the sequence should work if I am not mistaken... Have you try to play it out to see if you have shattered your force, as should be ?

[mike1962]

I don't think that is a cheat. You can do it if you want to, it's your game. I bet Grant has a lot of work cut out for him now though. Mike

[Pocus]

There is a possible breach that we are aware of, we are thinking of a fix, but we have to do it rightly. You can indeed have McClellan relegated somewhere, provided he is in command of a ghost army (without troops) and nothing will happen in this case.
The fix would be to check if the army commanders have real troops, in sufficient number under their command and give penalties if a less senior leader have more troops than them. Perhaps as an optionnal rule, as it starts to be really stringent on the player. The old historicity vs fun debate, to be ended by having this rule optionnal...

[Pocus]

a note though, there is already a safe guard, but I'm sure it won't last long: Grant starts 2*, not 3*, so you can't promote it as soon as you want.

[Frank]

There is a possible breach that we are aware of, we are thinking of a fix, but we have to do it rightly. You can indeed have McClellan relegated somewhere, provided he is in command of a ghost army (without troops) and nothing will happen in this case.
The fix would be to check if the army commanders have real troops, in sufficient number under their command and give penalties if a less senior leader have more troops than them. Perhaps as an optionnal rule, as it starts to be really stringent on the player. The old historicity vs fun debate, to be ended by having this rule optionnal...

Very good fix and when it is optional nobody can complain.

[tc237]

I had a question similar to this.
In an early 1861 game, Little Mac appeared in Ohio and was sent to Cairo. He remained there, although I got scripts saying he was AoP commander and then US Army commander. I left him in the west as I didn't want him anywhere near the AoP. Eventually he was to take command of a newly formed western army, but I restarted the game before it got that far.

My question was, what happens if Mac doesn't move east?
Should I just ignore the scripted message?
Are the messages there just for historical flavor?
If I'm Lincoln, it's as if the game is working against me. Do I just think of it as Little Mac's friends in congress demanding he be made AoP commander? Should there be a penalty for not doing it (appointing him commander AoP/Union Army)?

[Chris0827]

Grant did command an army in early 1862. I don't see a problem with him commanding the AoP but the North does need to take a morale hit for dismissing McClellan

Grant has shown up in every game that I've played as a 3 star with an army HQ. I've never seen Grant as a 2 star.

[veji1]

Hmmm.. that would be a good idea actually, when Mc Clellan appears, make an event that actually forces the player to put him in charge, or pay the actual cost in national moral of removing him (to represent constant bickering in Washington, press reports of it etc affecting national moral)... At this moment in the game you should be busy organazing your forces and should be able to afford the losses in cohesion and all implied by a massive loss of morale...

[Spharv2]

Quite a few commanders were promoted (Or kept in places they obviously weren't fit for) in the war due nearly entirely to political influence. Mac had a big supporter in Chase, Burnside was promoted over generals with more seniority, Hooker had quite a few supporters, Sickles had a very powerful political faction. Bragg had his relationship with Davis to thank for his longetivity. On the other hand, some generals were held out by the same forces. Grant had Halleck working against him (Though in the early war, he certainly didn't play the part of a good general and made a ton of mistakes), Thomas turned down an order to replace Buell just before a battle, and was therefore passed over later for command in favor of Rosecrans. Johnston was put aside regularly due to his poor relationship with Davis. The South was in a much better spot in this regard because the decisions were pretty much made by one man, Davis.

This is what the Political attribute is supposed to simulate, but I think in some cases it's not stringent enough. Lincoln especially often had his hands tied as to who to put in command due to political prssure. You have to remember that his presidency was not terribly secure, and without the support of many democrats who were backing this general or that for leadership positions, the war effort would have been seriously harmed. I'd personally like to see penalties for some decisions made stiffer, but as Pocus explained to me, that not only hampers the human player, but the AI too, which is where balancing can get tricky.

[veji1]

Well can't you make options for some rules to apply only to the human player ?

[Wilhammer]

I wonder if, in addition to increasing the expense, you could introduce a delay in his getting fired. Little Mac expected big things from himself, and so did others. Lincoln did not let him loose because Lincoln was convinced that he would eventually shine.

So;

Make it expensive - and perhaps cheaper over time.

Give it a time delay and perhaps for 18 Months he CANNOT be given anything less than the biggest army in the East. The game locks down Lee in Richmond; locking down Little Mac in the AotP is entirely reasonable - he has to accumulate a lot of failures, and when he actually got a 'victory' (he did stop Lee at Antietam) he was fired.

One of the more important political effects of the war happened because of that battle; the Emancipation Proclamation, that had dire effects for the Southern Economy

Little Mac was an important component of that War's history; he is not just some non-delivering General - the man had his own agenda - he wanted to keep his men trained and alive. He preferred to not be pushed around by the government.

His vilification might be a bit lopsided as well - when he left, he provided the Union a well trained and motivated Army, something the 'generals of congress' would of prevented from happening by squandering.

He was not aggressive - but on the defense, on sieges, and in training, he was brilliant. He got loyalty out of his men, and he delivered a well oiled machine to those who followed him.


Here is another thought .... maybe after he fails like 2 dozen or so Activation Checks, you can can him...

[Pocus]

little nap already comes in 4 flavors: 2 stars, 3 stars, 3 stars (max seniority and political), 3 stars (lower POL), 3 stars (even lower POL). Mmmh, make 5 it seems

[tc237]

After playing a little more...

It's Early Dec 1861.
I have the AoP under McDowell. McClellan has been sitting in Ohio.
Really haven't been moving anything in the west, this campaign was to test a few different eastern strategies.
Finally get around to the western theater and tried to form a new army under Halleck in St Loius.

I get this little tooltip "Henry W. Halleck has less seniority than other unassigned generals. George B. McClellan in Ohio expects to receive command of the next army. Naming Halleck to command instead will cost you 20 National Morale and 414 Victory points"!!!
As much of a Little Mac hater as I am, even I can't afford that.
Guess he'll get an army somewhere, hmm... maybe I'll make an Army in California?

[Hohenlohe]

Having "Little Mac" being in command in the East hampered me steadily.In my April1861Campaign I give him Command in the East after having McDowell sitting around for nothing good in Mannassas.First "Little Mac" dealt some damage to Beauregard later in the year he sits in Mannassas not activated.So I decided in Late April 1862turn to move Grant from West to East and "Little Mac" viceversa.Doing so hurts me with a loss of 280 VPs and nearly 10 NMs.But in my situation:a VERY BIG CSA Tennessee Army under Polk with amazing 81 units -mostly militia- sitting in Cincinnati I have no choice getting better results anywhere.Now in late December 1862 I have Buell with Tennessee Army in Dayton refitting and a non active McClellan with Western Command in Columbus.Fremont´s Army of the West sits in Paducah in Winter quartiers.Lyons was twice promoted this year from 1-star to 3-star because of his battles against VanDorn near Jefferson.Now he takes a winter rest in Rolla.Another force from Missouri besieges Jefferson City.But soon I will lost Ft.Laramie to the Sioux due to lack of supply as I lost Dallas too.I lost Tucson the CSA too.BUT in the East Grant and his five corps were a full success.Keyes Command conquered Winchester as Jacksons Corps has moved out there.With Grant and his improved Army Command-with McDowells Corps- and the other four Corps and Renos Artillery Command I battled myself from Mannassas through Culpeper,Albemarle to Spotssylvania aka Fredericksburg every time defeating an eager attacking Beauregard who had even a superb rated R.E.Lee(7-6-7) under his command.The enemy was in the later battles mostly routed and besieged in Fredericksburg where he could flee from as I got the City with low-level casualties(4800 against 14000).In late December Butler was sent to Annapolis with his Corps.Some Generals which have appeared in Grants Army were sent to Washington under Howards Command building four Divisions there.I have planned to send Butler to New Orleans in February.Later after building Howards Corps I´ll sent him to Norfolk diverting the enemy.I´ll build now troops in NY,NJ,PA and MA/CT sending them to Howards Command the next turns till MArch.In March I´ll move a refreshed Grant with his troops to Richmond laying waste to the enemy.During late December Lees Command is placed west of Richmond and Beauregards Army Command with 2 depleted Corps sits in Tappahannock.
Therefore I have the CSA heavily defeated in the East.I will build now 2 new Army HQs,one for Butler and one for Lyons.Additionnally I will build two DivisionHQs and 2 signals and 2 medics as soon I got more money.Now I have around 200 conscripts and nearly 600 war supplies.But I must often renew my
railways in winter so will take an increase in inflation which is now at 30%.
So thats my actual situation and planning for the next turns.Primary goals are Richmond and Norfolk and Petersburg in the EAST;Cincinnati in the Northwest and Ft.Donelson and IslandNo.10 in Near West.Jefferson City and Springfield in the Far West.New Orleans and Baton Rouge in the Deep South.Thats all for now.
P.S.:I think its the wrong thread now,sorry...

greetings Hohenlohe