New Leader Mod for 1.07

[runyan99]

BTW, Hamilton served in the west commanding 3 divisions under Grant until 1863 after McClellan relieved him of command in the east. So in my XLS, Hamilton has a one star early war model with potential upgrade to two star for his service with Grant.

My handy website seems to indicate he only commanded one division.

Name HAMILTON, Charles Smith
Born November 16 1822, Westernville NY
Died April 17 1891, Milwaukee WI
Pre-War Profession Graduated West Point 1843, garrison duty, Mexican war, resigned 1853, ran a flour mill.
War Service May 1861 Col. of 3rd Wisconsin, May 1861 appointed Brig. Gen. of Volunteers, Shenandoah Valley campaign, commanded 3rd Divn/III Corps in Peninsula campaign, Yorktown, relieved by McClellan, commanded a 3rd Divn/Army of the Mississippi at Iuka, Corinth, September 1862 promoted Maj. Gen. of Volunteers, April 1863 resigned.
Post War Career Manufacturer, US marshal.
Notes Was critical of Grant and other superiors.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[jeff b]

I beleive in general I understand what you are attempting to do with the leader mods i.e. reduce the large leader modifications in battle, and to prevent the bulk of the officers being active on any given turn.

A question I have is how to model Generals like Hood, Van Dorn and Pope who had little problem getting the army moving but were less than stellar in their ability to use the army properly? From all I have read is that strategic rating has an impact both on activation and combat abilities. Perhaps these generals should have good strategic ratings but very poor offensive/defensive ones. To give Pope some credit, he did pretty well in the west, and in the east he manuevered his army well up until the point he convinced himself that he could destroy Jackson before Lee could come up with the rest of the Army. At that point, Pope would beleive nothing about the rest of he ANV. Van Dorn was a good cavalry general, but as an army commander he pretty much managed to destroy his army.

While I like the idea of limiting the number of Generals who can command armies at the start. As a point of order I would recommend it be McClellan and Fremont. After all Fremont was the original Union commander in the West. Changing Fremont's ratings to be inferior to Halleck would be in order, and based on their historical record fitting.

[runyan99]

Perhaps these generals should have good strategic ratings but very poor offensive/defensive ones.

That's my method, and it is the only solution I see. They can also be given negative traits.

As far as Fremont, I take your point, but Fremont never really headed a campaign out west before he was removed, while Halleck did. The bulk of Fremont's combat action was as a corps commander in the east.

[Jagger]

As far as Fremont, I take your point, but Fremont never really headed a campaign out west before he was removed, while Halleck did.

Interestingly troops that experienced Halleck's campaign to capture Corith, stated that they were digging their way to Corinth. Halleck made short marches and always entrenched when marches were complete. Which is the reason I gave Halleck the entrencher ability.

[jeff b]

That's my method, and it is the only solution I see. They can also be given negative traits.

As far as Fremont, I take your point, but Fremont never really headed a campaign out west before he was removed, while Halleck did. The bulk of Fremont's combat action was as a corps commander in the east.

Both Halleck and Fremont acted more in the capacity of theater commander. A role that is not well modeled in this game. Fremont was in the process of moving on New Madrid when releaved. Halleck had only the Corinth campaign to judge by. However he was more important in his role as Theater Commander and later as Chief of Staff. If you read Stephen Ambrose's book on Halleck, that was a role that was crucial in the war however underrated at the time.

Fremont as Army commander did a few interesting things. He was the one who basically ordered the concentration at Cairo that Grant would later take advantage of, and he also issued the contracts to build the first riverine Ironclads. 2 decisions of far reaching impact in an otherwise uninspiring career.

[McNaughton]

An interesting idea is to look at early war 'Armies' and see them pretty much as corps. Early war theatres are pretty much 'Armies'. Until combined into the Army of Mississippi, there were a series of smaller armies throughout the Tennessee and Kentucy area (Army of Liberation, Army of Central Kentucky, Army of Mobile, Army of Pensacola, Army of East Tennessee, etc. were all armies in name, but in reality corps or even division sized forces). The Union as well had 'armies' which were at the time really large corps (Army of the Ohio, Army of the Tennessee, Army of the Mississippi) of a half dozen divisions.

In the 1862 scenario, there should probably only be three armies per side, one per theatre (for balance, representing the actual command situation of the time, armies = corps, theatre = army). This way, the Union have Halleck or Fremont as their army commander, and Grant, Buell and Pope as corps commanders.

In a way, one might replicate the 1862 setup as Halleck in command of the army of the theatre, and Grant, Pope and Buell in command of Corps of this army. This way Halleck/Fremont is represented as the 3-star commander, while the others are affected by his ability (may better represent the situation in 1862 than 3 separate armies). In this way, Grant, Pope and Buell may be rated as 2-star generals, needing to be promoted to 3-star (so in the 1862 scenario you won't have Grant set up right away to be deployed wherever you want as the main army commander, say, your Army of the Potomac commander).

In this manner you also limit some of the flexibility of the Union Army (since you can no longer send off the three army HQs in three different directoins, and concentrate them, and actually use them as corps). I had always found that the ability to use three armies (Ohio, Mississippi, Tennessee) in Central Kentucky to be very valuable for the USA forces, since they are up against only one CSA army (Mississippi). They have more flexibility to attack in three different directions, even though the commanders are poor in stats (except for Grant that is).

[runyan99]

An interesting idea is to look at early war 'Armies' and see them pretty much as corps.

I have been doing this for some time now, particularly with McDowell's force and everything in the Transmississippi.

[runyan99]

I decided to update the mod today, based on some changes made based on the discussions of the past week, and to correct a few errors that Jagger found. Included are the smaller HQ radii. I think they work properly.

I do not recommend updating a game in progress. See the top of the thread for more details.

[jeff b]

An interesting idea is to look at early war 'Armies' and see them pretty much as corps. Early war theatres are pretty much 'Armies'. Until combined into the Army of Mississippi, there were a series of smaller armies throughout the Tennessee and Kentucy area (Army of Liberation, Army of Central Kentucky, Army of Mobile, Army of Pensacola, Army of East Tennessee, etc. were all armies in name, but in reality corps or even division sized forces). The Union as well had 'armies' which were at the time really large corps (Army of the Ohio, Army of the Tennessee, Army of the Mississippi) of a half dozen divisions.

.

Basically that is correct. At Murpheesboro the Army of the Cumberland was technically the 14th Army Corp. Sherman's Army consisted of 3 Armies - The Tennessee, Cumberland and Ohio. The Army of the Ohio wasn't even a particularly large corp. Butler's Army of the James wasn't much more than a big corp.

There are 2 aspects at work here. In the war, any independent field command was an army. In game terms an Army implies a multicorp, many division force.

Although just reviewing the OOB forGrant's Army of the Tennessee at Shiloh, Grant commanded 6 divisions for roughly 48,000 men. That would be pretty much 2 corps of 3 divisions each. So in game terms Grant might have been an Army commander at Shiloh. You could say that at Ft Donnelson Grant's Army was 25,000 strong - so there he was a Corp commander, and based on that Victory he was promoted to Army commander and given an additional corp to command. The Army of the Ohio - Buell's command should just be a corp.

[Coffee Sergeant]

I have installed this mod with a copy of 1.08d and I can't form any divisions (it says I have zero maximum divisions available)

[runyan99]

I have installed this mod with a copy of 1.08d and I can't form any divisions (it says I have zero maximum divisions available)

Are you playing the CSA? Did you read the first post in this thread?

[Coffee Sergeant]

Are you playing the CSA? Did you read the first post in this thread?

I must have skimmed it too fast