Disagreement on General Ratings Poll

[Jagger]

It is too easy from a design perspective to make almost everybody an exceptional general.

I learned that lesson with BOA when I first started experimenting with modding. Leaders are very powerful and can unbalance scenarios if great care is not taken.

such as reducing HQ radius moderately.

I am glad to see some coming round on the HQ radius idea.

[runyan99]

I am glad to see some coming round on the HQ radius idea.

Yes, I think it makes sense, but I plan to find a middle ground between the base game and your mod, and use 2-3 regions as a radius in order to encourage the use of more *** leaders, such as in east and west Tennessee, where each side needed two armies to cover the ground (Buell/Grant and Johnston/Beauregard). I find as-is, I need only one army to cover the same territory in AACW.

[ltr213]

Okay.. so I'm hoping I can help a bit here in this discussion of Leaders...

Lets say an unmodded Army Cdr JJohnston (4-2-4) is in charge of Hardee's Corp (4-3-1) who has command of McLaws Division (3-1-3)

JJohnston's boys are set up to attack:

JJohnston has a 8% chance of passing an Offensive Rating Bonus of (+2)
JJohnston has a 58% chance of passing an Offensive Rating Bonus of (+1)
JJohnston has a 33% chance of not passing an Offensive Bonus (0)

Lets say he passes a bonus of +1 Offensive Rating to Hardee.
Hardee now becomes a (4-4-1).
This means that elements in Hardees Corps get a 4 x 5% = 20% increase in the Fire and Assault Values. Get that?... Hardees Corp is 20% more effective.

But wait... McLaws is a (3-1-3). This means his Division gets a 1 x 3% = 3% increase in effectiveness. Okay 3% isn't much... but... it equals a net total of 23% which is getting there.

Okay... Lets say JJohnston ddecides to stay on the defensive. In this instance, with a Defensive Rating of 4, he has a pretty good chance of passing a +2 Def Rating bonus (better than 25%).

But lets say he passes down a +1 Def Bonus to Gen P. Cleburne, another one of his Corp commanders (5-3-6) and then to Breckinridge (3-2-2) a decent Division commander.

In this instance, Cleburne's now has a Def Rating of 7 giving his Corps a 7 x 5% = 35% increase in Defensive Fire and Assault. A 35% increase to the whole Corps. Wow... not bad... Thanks Patrick.

But wait... Breckenridge's with his Def Rating of 2 gives his division a 2 x 3% = 6% bump. Not great.. but not bad when you consider that in total his division gets a 41% increase in effectiveness. (McLaws Division would get 3 x 3% = 9% for a total increase of 44%.)

Now these numbers just reflect the "Big Three" stats... I'm not taking into account Leader Abilities or experience which would only drive these numbers up further.

Food for thought.

[AndrewKurtz]

The strategic rating isn't an 'is this leader a swell guy rating' or a 'will this leader fight and retreat' rating, or even an 'is this leader a strategic genious' rating. It is a 'how often can I use this leader to attack rating', and 'how often will this army commander let his corps commanders attack' rating.

That was what I thought, but turns out it isn't just using him to attack or helping corps attack. It hurts them when on defense too.

Personally, I would prefer it if it WAS only used to impact his ability to attack (go into attack or assault mode) and didn't have a negative impact on ability to defend. That would make a lot more sense to me and make everything much cleaner.

But I'm not the game designer

It also makes me wonder how much other stuff I don't know in a game I thought I understood

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Rafiki]

That was what I thought, but turns out it isn't just using him to attack or helping corps attack. It hurts them when on defense too.

Not as much as one might first think, at least when they are in command of stacks above a certain size.

A stack that has positioned itself for defense will gain 100% military control of its region in short time (1 turn, perhaps 2). An enemy stack entering the region might gain some percent, but far from the 35% it needs to incur the max penalty on an inactive defending stack commander.

Note that I haven't tested this specifically, so I might be making the wrong assumptions here.

[ltr213]

Now.. what do these numbers mean?....

The increase is applied to each element's FIRE and ASSAULT values.

So an element in McLaws Division in the Defensive example I gave gets a 44% increase in his Defensive Fire value. For sake of argument, lets say his Defensive Fire value is ten (10). This gets modified to 14.4 or 15 (rounded up).

This number is a percentage chance to score a 'hit' on an enemy element. Thats all it is. This percentage is further modified by weather, terrain, etc, etc. It's applied EACH time the element fires (x Rate of Fire).

Now you might say... "So what? If each side is getting increased it should work out pretty much the same."

No. What these Leader modifications do.. in reality... is MAGNIFY the importance of FIRING FIRST. The side that fires first in a round gets to inflict casualties PRIOR to suffering any... so if Cleburne's Corps gets a 35% greater chance to inflict damage, it gets to exercise this advantage before the enemy gets a chance to shoot back.

Assuming that the 35% increase in the probability of scoring a hit results in an average increase in the number of hits... the enemy is going to be pretty well blasted by the time its their turn to shoot.

In Assault combat, the Assault Value is multiple 2.5 times THEN multipled by the TQ (Discipline). So an Assault value of ten (10) goes to twenty-five (25) and then is multiplied by the TQ.

The moral here is... choose these numbers wisely. Modest increases have significant effects.

Laurence

[AndrewKurtz]

As far as officialization and leader ratings go, I think it is pretty clear that the mod has been taken out of my hands. I need not be consulted as to what I think this or that leader should be rated in an official scenario. Use the ratings associated with this version of the mod if you like, or argue over them, or change them ad infinitum. I'll help Lensman convert this version as needed.

Runyan. I want to make sure you know that the fact that we want the MOD official is because it is such a huge benefit to the community. You cannot be thanked enough for the effort.

It would seem that, if any of the changes you have produced in the MOD are made official, there does need to be some concensus on it and it can't just be one person's decision. That is, unless AGEOD said "You are now the keeper of the ratings".

But the MOD will NEVER be out of your hands. Even if it becomes official in it's current or some other slightly modified state, your intepretation of the MOD will be always be yours.

Again, thank you, thank you thank you!
(see, can;t thank you enough!)

[AndrewKurtz]

Not as much as one might first think, at least when they are in command of stacks above a certain size.

A stack that has positioned itself for defense will gain 100% military control of its region in short time (1 turn, perhaps 2). An enemy stack entering the region might gain some percent, but far from the 35% it needs to incur the max penalty on an inactive defending stack commander.

Note that I haven't tested this specifically, so I might be making the wrong assumptions here.

But there will still be penalties on defense, which doesn't seem right. Perhaps there is an attribute that would make JJ more effective on defense, despite the lack of activation. But otherwise, it does seem odd to penalize him on defense.

Also, coming as a little bit of a surprise to me is the fact that inactive generals will also be penalized in the ability to move in friendly territory. For some reason, I had always ASSumed the penalities on movement and combat where when moving into enemy territory or attacking.

I've really learned some interesting stuff today.

[ltr213]

"Interesting, could you do this again, but use 2-2-4 Ratings for J Johnston just to see the addt'l negative penalties impact?"

Johnston only passes negative bonuses to his Corp Commander's STRATEGIC Ratings. Offensive and Defensive Ratings are never passed as NEGATIVE numbers. Corp commander's either get a positive bonus or no bonus.

With an Offensive Rating of 2, he can either pass a +1 or a Zero. With a Defensive Rating of 4, he could easily pass a Defensive bonus of +1, possibly +2

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[ltr213]

You're very welcome. I'm been working primarily on the NCP manuals but a lot of this applies to AACW as well.

I'm not a AACW expert by any means but if there are specific questions regarding the game system I'll try to answer them best I can.

Feel free to email me at laurence@laurencerussell.com

[runyan99]

Not as much as one might first think, at least when they are in command of stacks above a certain size.

A stack that has positioned itself for defense will gain 100% military control of its region in short time (1 turn, perhaps 2).

That's right. Big stacks are almost never defending in enemy territory, because big stacks convert regions to friendly control very quickly. Therefore, being inactive on defense is very rarely any problem at all.

When you play, pay attention to military control. I think you'll find you are almost never defending in enemy territory.

[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 the time the Corps Cdrs receive a (+2) SR bonus
58% of the time the Corps Cdrs receive a (+1) SR bonus
33% of the time the Corps Cdrs receive a (0) SR bonus

An Army Commander with a Strategic Rating of 3 will pass down SR bonuses as follows:

50% of the time the Corps Cdrs receive a (+1) SR bonus
50% of the time the Corps Cdrs receive a (0) SR bonus

An Army Commander with a Strategic Rating of 2 will pass down SR bonuses as follows:

66% of the time the Corps Cdrs receive a (-1) SR bonus
33% of the time the Corps Cdrs receive a (0) SR bonus

This does not include any bonuses to SR that the Army commander may have due to Experience.

So there's the difference between Joe as a "4" and Joe as a "2".

Hope this helps.

Laurence

And it's a staggering one. I hope that all the people who thought that Johnston being disrated from 4-2-4 to 2-2-4 was no big deal are looking at this and realizing what a huge negative effect such an act would have on USA-CSA game balance.

[runyan99]

And it's a staggering one. I hope that all the people who thought that Johnston being disrated from 4-2-4 to 2-2-4 was no big deal are looking at this and realizing what a huge negative effect such an act would have on USA-CSA game balance.

I could play with Johnston rated at 0-0-4 and replicate Johnston's Atlanta campaign exactly.

I'd suffer no penalties on defense, as I would have 100% control in the regions I was defending. His subordinate corps would suffer -2 or so penalties to their strategic ratings of course, but it wouldn't matter, because I would't want them attack to anyway. When flanked, the seperate corps could move backwards just fine. In a couple months, I'd have my army in Atlanta.

Ta Da!

[Ian Coote]

Wolf besides Newtons book on Johnston could you give me the names and author's of some other books you have read on him.I seem to be missing something about the man and would like to check some of them out.Thanks

[McNaughton]

Then to represent Jackson's ability during the Peninsula give him a 1-1-0. Lee during the West Virginia campaign should be around a 1-0-0. And so on...

The fact is, there are a lot of interpretations of many generals based on certain events. To do such a drastic change to Johnston, in lieu of such evidence that he was just as probably not a poor general as he was is totally unfair. It would be like taking Longstreet, and listening to the "Lost Cause" historians and rate him as a very poor commander. The issue I have, is that an extreme interpretation of Johnston is being taken, based on a perception of history. A slight reduction of strategy is acceptable, given that there is possible credibility to be based upon his actions, however, there is enough evidence of aggression and competence in his aggression to keep his stats away from the poor end (2 or less).

The fact is, Johnston is now a poor general, and while that is the interpretation of some historians, some feel that Lee was a poor general, others feel that Grant was. However, in order to be fair to the game, you cannot do such drastic changes and say that they are historic, because they are not, they are interperative.

What is the reason for the reduction of Johnston may I ask? Left unmodded, once Lee is released just about every player will replace Johnston with Lee. With your changes, why would a player ever remove Beauregard and place Johnston in command? Previously, Beauregard and Johnston were pretty comparable generals. Both good, but not as good as Lee, meaning that the player had a choice as to who they wanted to command their army until the arrival of their Generalisimo.

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.

[McNaughton]

This is the original discussion on Johnston. Initially he was to be 3-1-2, and the reasons for the change to 4-2-4. In relation to other generals, 4-2-4 is good, but not great (when you do a stat comparison).

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=2264

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[runyan99]

The fact is, there are a lot of interpretations of many generals based on certain events.

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 I did so? Having done so, would the year 2012, or 2013, be too soon to release a very preliminary mod?

[berto]

... Why does my post consist only of questions? ...

[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 would have meant the game was up with no chance to recoup the situation.

I have Coote on ignore, so thanks for answering his question.

[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 been able to come up with is that it was an attempt to unbalance the game in the Union's favor, and Johnston was important enough to game balance and yet unpopular enough with the AGEOD community that he could be disrated and the CSA's chances of winning reduced without much chance of there being any serious public objection.

No other rational explanation presents itself.

[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 I did so? Having done so, would the year 2012, or 2013, be too soon to release a very preliminary mod?

I haven't seen any serious objection to anything you did in your mod except your unilateral disrating of Johnston. I see no problem with your mod being made official provided that, per AndrewKurtz's idea, Joe Johnston keeps his original 4-2-4 rating. I have seen no one else objecting to Andrew's idea, either.

[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 Rocky Face Ridge, Resaca, Adairsville, New Hope Church, Dallas, Pickett's Mill, Marietta, Kolb's Farm, and Kennesaw Mountain (just as, without Johnston being in command, the CSA forces would have been wiped out in real life). Like many people of the Jefferson Davis school of Civil War history, you ignore both the above, which is the inconvenient truth of what happened before Johnston was relieved and the the inconvenient truth of what happened the minute Davis screwed up and replaced Johnston: the South lost an army, Atlanta, and the war.

(Plus you would never be able to replicate Bentonville, but that's just another inconvenient truth.)

Why do you have such a prejudice against the man? Hating Beauregard I could maybe understand, but Johnston? Are you descended from Jeff Davis?

[Le Ricain]

So, after 140 posts, we still can not agree what to do with 'Retreating Joe'. All of which delays placing Runyan's excellent Mod into the official game. I suggest that we use Johnston's original AGEOD stats and get on with implementing Runyan's hard work and effort.

[runyan99]

Why do you have such a prejudice against the man?

Joe Johnston and I went to high school together, and he stole one of my girlfriends. I never forgave him for that.

[Jagger]

I haven't seen any serious objection to anything you did in your mod except your unilateral disrating of Johnston.

I disagree with Grant rated as a 6-6-4 while Lee is rated 6-5-5. If I felt it was worth the time, I would argue that Grant was no where near the tactical equal of Lee. Definitely not superior on offense.

But it is not worth the time to argue. I just use different ratings for Grant...and Sherman for that matter.

[runyan99]

I disagree with Grant rated as a 6-6-4 while Lee is rated 6-5-5. If I felt it was worth the time, I would argue that Grant was no where near the tactical equal of Lee. Definitely not superior on offense.

I'd agree with that. Maybe I'll drop Grant down to a 6-4-4.