Patterson and Banks

[McNaughton]

I was thinking about the even that removes Patterson in 1861, and was thinking of a way to add some variation to it. Historically, since Patterson failed at his two objectives, keeping Johnston from merging with Beauregard, and capturing Harper's Ferry, how about having his removal reflecting this?

If the USA do not hold Harper's Ferry on, or by, a given turn, then Patterson is 'fired' and replaced with Banks. If the US holds Harper's Ferry, then Patterson's mission was accomplished, thereby will not be fired.

A 3-star general in 1861 will be highly prized, regardless of his ability, given a reduction of 2-star generals (for corps command).

[runyan99]

Sounds tricky.

I'd be more in favor of just leaving him in the game. He's such a terrible leader, I don't see what harm it could do. I'd be more interested to see how players find a use for him if he stuck around in the game.

[McNaughton]

Sounds tricky.

I'd be more in favor of just leaving him in the game. He's such a terrible leader, I don't see what harm it could do. I'd be more interested to see how players find a use for him if he stuck around in the game.

I figure it could work using the same criteria as the pressure to march on Richmond. The game can tell if X many regiments are in a specific province at a specific time, or if a certain territory is under the control of a specific faction. The event triggers on one turn, if it is CS controlled, Patterson goes, if it is US controlled, Patterson stays.

To me, this would encourage players to take more 'risks' in their attacks, instead of just sitting (as the Union) throughout 1861 and building up for a major 1862 invasion.