New Leader Mod for 1.07

[AndrewKurtz]

Minor item I noticed. Following was in the event list:

evt_nam_USA_1861EstGenerals

[runyan99]

There are not scripts for the events, so they display like that, but they work fine.

[AndrewKurtz]

There are not scripts for the events, so they display like that, but they work fine.

I told you it was minor

[runyan99]

I think 1.08 has a bug with some of the events, where Patterson is not getting removed, and McClellan is not getting promoted. At the moment I am having a tough time being sure which are patch issues, and which are mod issues.

For now, if you want to play with the mod, I recommed you use 1.07h which I know works fine, or 1.07i which I have not tested.

[runyan99]

Okay with 1.08a, everything seems to be working properly. Leader events and promotions all seem to be working fine.

Please redownload the mod however, to make sure you have the latest files.

[Dooley]

Hi Runyann,

If I install the patch 1.08a then the mod I get an error message something to do with the models folder. I was going to post it but as I have reinstalled the patch over it it works.

That is the correct order isn't , patch then mod? Correct?

If it is then i shall reccreate the error message i get and post.

thanks,

Mark

[runyan99]

I suspect you did not delete the old models folder as instructed. I have edited the instructions to make them slightly clearer.

[Dooley]

Hi Runyann,

Sorry,

I did not see the instructions to apply the mod ( I do now), my bad.

regards,

Mark

[gbs]

Your reduction of Joes strategic ratings really works. I am having a hell of a time getting him activated to attack. He defends well though and has turned back quite a few assaults. Good job and I hope you keep tweeking.

[The Wolf]

Is there a way to mod this mod? I like everything about it except the ridiculously low rating assigned to Joe Johnston, who was one of the better CSA generals of the war. If I can mod it, I'll use it, otherwise no.

When it comes to Johnston, don't believe the crap Davis wrote, because Davis hated him. Look at what he actually did and read what Grant and Sherman, who fought against him, thought about his skills as a general.

[runyan99]

I did look at what Johnston actually did. I think his Atlanta campaign was miserable. He retreated from Manassas. He retreated down the Peninsula. He traded territory for lives, because he loved his army too much to sacrifice it. The man simply would not make an attack to hold ground, as Lee would. In fact, if Johnston had remained in command of the army in Virginia, Richmond would have been lost before the end of 1862.

You can count all the attacks Joe made in the entire war on about three fingers. As a result, the Confederacy got cut in two. Johnston was clear sighted, outnumbered, and flawed.

Why do you think he was one of the better generals? Just because everybody said so, even though he lost a lot of ground and never won a single really significant battle?

You can easily mod the mod if you so desire. Just edit the model file for Old Joe.

You won't get me to agree with you though.

I do like your quote of Cump in your sig. Uncle Billy was a real general.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[The Wolf]

I do like your quote of Cump in your sig. Uncle Billy was a real general.

Then you ought to respect his opinions of his opponents; Cump wrote that Joe Johnston was "the most enterprising of all the Southern generals."

And U.S. Grant wrote that "Joe Johnston gave me more anxiety than any of the others."

I will edit the model file. Thank you for the answer.

[runyan99]

Then you ought to respect his opinions of his opponents; Cump wrote that Joe Johnston was "the most enterprising of all the Southern generals."

Well, it wouldn't benefit Sherman to say that he whipped a bad general, would it? It makes sense for Sherman to build up the man he beat during the war, because in defeating him it only adds to Sherman's honor in posterity.

In all cases, I choose to take what contemporaries said about these generals with a grain of salt, and to rate them based on their actual record during the war. Reputations didn't win battles.

I believe at one point someone called Charles P. Stone "the finest soldier of his age", but I don't think it makes sense to take that statement at face value and rate him as a 6-6-6, since Stone fought one poorly chosen engagement at Ball's Bluff, was sacked, and then served as a staff officer for the remainder of the war.

[Ian Coote]

Have to agree with Runyan99 about Joe Johnston.He seems to be a likeable kinda guy ,but as an offensive general forget it.The only two battles that come to mind that he directed on the offence were seven pines{a complete mess}and betonville,a much better performance but so late in the war that it didn't mean a thing.Love your mod by the way,adds much to this great game.

[The Wolf]

Joe Johnston was a good and successful general, and this is not my opinion, nor that of a novelist like Shelby Foote, but that of the scholars who have reviewed his career. The public criticism of Jefferson Davis, who hated him, has unfairly tarnished his reputation. Reality was rather different.

Winning the South's real first battle at Manassas, successfully defending Richmond in the Seven Days until WIA, doing the best he could at Vicksburg (with Pemberton stupidly refusing to leave Vicksburg to join him there really wasn't much that could be done), masterfully delaying Sherman before Atlanta, and winning the South's last battle with a scratch force at Bentonville, Johnston was a consistent CSA success.

Johnston was preparing a clever attack on Sherman before Atlanta. Given what he accomplished later at Bentonville with next to nothing, it is logical to assume that it would have been a successful one. Instead, Davis slandered him and replaced him with John Bell Hood, whose idiotic aggression promptly lost the South both the army Johnston had been carefully preserving, the city of Atlanta, and the war.

Let me refer you to Professor Steven Newton's "Joseph Johnston and the Defense of Richmond." Read it and you will come away with a much different view of him than the one you have.

Rating Johnston a lowly 2-2-4 is a travesty. Fortunately I can edit it to something approximating reality.

[runyan99]

I could very easily make a similar argument that McClellan was a good and successful general, who was well thought of, and accomplished many things, and that his 1-1-2 rating is a similar travesty.

[epaminondas]

Fortunately I can edit it to something approximating reality.

I don't think we should lose sight of this. I happen to agree with your estimation of Johnston, Wolf, but through his hard work Runyan has given us a greatly enhanced leader list that we can readily modify to our tastes. I reckon that merits appreciation rather than aggravation.

[runyan99]

Part of the problem is that the Strategic rating is poorly named. It should be called the Aggression rating, because all it does it regulate how often a leader is eligible to attack. Aside from army HQ range, there is no other benefit in the game to having a high Strategic rating.

Thus, there is some confusion in Johnston's case. Giving him a rating of 2 doesn't mean he is 'bad'. It means he is not aggressive, which the historical record clearly shows he was not.

[PhilThib]

In all effects, it should be called "Activation Rating" may be

[AndrewKurtz]

Rating Johnston a lowly 2-2-4 is a travesty. Fortunately I can edit it to something approximating reality.

2-2-4 means you have a general who is very strong on defense but not agressive or strong on the attack, right? This sure seems accurate based on all my reading.

[The Wolf]

I reckon that merits appreciation rather than aggravation.

I appreciate everything except the great injustice shown to one of the South's best generals.

[The Wolf]

2-2-4 means you have a general who is very strong on defense but not agressive or strong on the attack, right? This sure seems accurate based on all my reading.

It means you have one who doesn't activate and ends up commanding in Texas or Arkansas because he's now so useless. It's bull.

[The Wolf]

I could very easily make a similar argument that McClellan was a good and successful general, who was well thought of, and accomplished many things, and that his 1-1-2 rating is a similar travesty.

No, you couldn't. But that's not the point. The point is that HISTORIANS make that argument about Johnston. Not to mention his opponents.

[runyan99]

No, you couldn't.

Of course I can.

It's clear I won't be able to convice you of Johnston's limitations, that you have a special place in your heart for the man, and I really should just not reply and move on, but I have nothing better to do except drink Budweiser and watch shows about bigfoot, so here goes.

As you made a case for Johnston, I will make a case for McClellan very similar to yours, by highlighting all of the best attributes of the man, and ignoring his weak points. I can do this despite the fact he is widely regarded as one of the most flawed generals of the entire war by many people.

McClellan commanded the Department of the Ohio and secured West Virigina for the Union in a campaign against R.E. Lee. He then took command of the shattered army that retreated from Manassas and reformed it into a well organized fighting force and restored its morale. He then led this army to the very gates of Richmond during the Penisular campaign, where he advanced almost bloodlessly and then fought some skillful defensive battles, including Malvern Hill where he stopped Lee cold. Hated by Lincoln depite his obvious military ability, his army was given to Pope, then returned to him after Second Manassas. McClellan then led the army during the Maryland campaign of 1862, where he won an offensive battle at Antietam that drove Lee out of Maryland. McClellan was a consistent success, and was no doubt planning a clever campaign for the year 1863. However, Lincoln then gave the army to the idiotic Burnside, and the war dragged on for another two years. McClellan was universally loved by his men, and Lee himself called him the most capable Union commander he faced during the war.

In fact now that I think of it, McClellan accomplished far more during the war than Johnston did, and he was probably the better of the two generals, although they were very similar in style.

[Franciscus]

Of course I can.

It's clear I won't be able to convice you of Johnston's limitations, that you have a special place in your heart for the man, and I really should just not reply and move on, but I have nothing better to do except drink Budweiser and watch shows about bigfoot, so here goes.

As you made a case for Johnston, I will make a case for McClellan very similar to yours, by highlighting all of the best attributes of the man, and ignoring his weak points. I can do this despite the fact he is widely regarded as one of the most flawed generals of the entire war by many people.

McClellan commanded the Department of the Ohio and secured West Virigina for the Union in a campaign against R.E. Lee. He then took command of the shattered army that retreated from Manassas and reformed it into a well organized fighting force and restored its morale. He then led this army to the very gates of Richmond during the Penisular campaign, where he advanced almost bloodlessly and then fought some skillful defensive battles, including Malvern Hill where he stopped Lee cold. Hated by Lincoln depite his obvious military ability, his army was given to Pope, then returned to him after Second Manassas. McClellan then led the army during the Maryland campaign of 1862, where he won an offensive battle at Antietam that drove Lee out of Maryland. McClellan was a consistent success, and was no doubt planning a clever campaign for the year 1863. However, Lincoln then gave the army to the idiotic Burnside, and the war dragged on for another two years. McClellan was universally loved by his men, and Lee himself called him the most capable Union commander he faced during the war.

In fact now that I think of it, McClellan accomplished far more during the war than Johnston did, and he was probably the better of the two generals, although they were very similar in style.

But as Lincoln said, McClellan "had the slows"... .

Now, just to try to find a peaceful solution to your argument, I would suggest that The Wolf could just pick runyan's mod, change Johnston's stats (it is a rather simple thing to do), play like that and even, post it as a separate mod. Why not ??

[lodilefty]

In fact now that I think of it, McClellan accomplished far more during the war than Johnston did, and he was probably the better of the two generals, although they were very similar in style.

..and neither of them ever understood the political ramifications put upon a top commander. This is not modeled per se in the game, but is properly reflected in a low 'Strategic' rating....

[AndrewKurtz]

It means you have one who doesn't activate and ends up commanding in Texas or Arkansas because he's now so useless. It's bull.

You can, seemingly historically, set him on Defend with an ROE to Defend and Retreat though And he will do it very well.

Lee said McMlellan was the bet Union general (Lees daughter said Mac was the only general Lee ever feared). Does that mean he should have a high strategic rating? I personally don't think it does. Reality was, just as with Johnston, he was a great general but he was not aggressive. He was not one to move forward.

But this is all opinion. The officla rating is irrelevant for AI games. He can be changed to whatever he needs to be. What matters is the rating for PBEM games as it needs to be consistent.

Curious. Any chance Johnston is a distant relative
(just kidding...meant to be funny)

[The Wolf]

Curious. Any chance Johnston is a distant relative (just kidding...meant to be funny)

Johnston didn't have any children.

I am related to George Pickett. I have no quarrel with his rating.

[The Wolf]

Of course I can.

Well, you tried, but you failed.

It's clear I won't be able to convice you of Johnston's limitations

Let's see, should I believe a man with an obviously blatant bias against Joe Johnston or history professors who write scholarly analytical works on the subject? Hmm, easy call.

that you have a special place in your heart for the man

Not at all. If I had a special place in my heart for any CW generals, they would be Grant, Sherman, Hancock, Thomas, Lee, Jackson, Mahone and Forrest. What happened here is that you misrated Johnston, one of the South's historically best generals, because of blatant personal prejudice, and I find that appalling.