Disagreement on General Ratings Poll

[Jagger]

All generals had variable performances. Of course, some generals were more consistently good or bad than others.

I would like to see a base performance att/def rating with a variable applied to their base ratings prior to battle. The size of the variable would be dependent on a general's record of consistency. So a very consistent general would perform very close to their base Att/Def ratings. While other less consistent generals might have substantially better or worse ratings than their base ratings in battle.

Then we could see the actual battlefield att/def ratings revealed in the battle report.

With this sort of variable, we could never predict their actual battlefield ratings.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Ian Coote]

For a critical view of Joe Johnston during the Vicksburg Campaign,may I recommend "CHAMPION HILL"Decisive Battle For Vicksburg byTimothy B. Smith.An excellent well researched study with numerous photos and maps throughout.Would definitely support runyan99's present rating for Johnston.

[AndrewKurtz]

Nonsense. I am without doubt more familiar with his record than you are, unless you have read a number of books solely devoted to him as I have.

leure:

I agree. Man that rubs me the wrong way and, again, makes me just tune out.

[AndrewKurtz]

The problem about lowering Johnston's attack value is that it states he was a bad attacker. This isn't true, he was effective, competent, even brilliant when attacking. The issue is, he didn't attack when he felt the odds were not right. Is this unaggressive? To some, I guess it is. To others, it shows that he was more average.

Sounds like we need an attribute that impacts the strategic rating if outnumbered in the command area.

[AndrewKurtz]

For a critical view of Joe Johnston during the Vicksburg Campaign,may I recommend "CHAMPION HILL"Decisive Battle For Vicksburg byTimothy B. Smith.An excellent well researched study with numerous photos and maps throughout.Would definitely support runyan99's present rating for Johnston.

Well, then there is no way Mr. Smith is a true historian (BTW, meant to be funny...just to make sure it is taken properly)

[McNaughton]

The problem is, players will not copy the strategic choices of their generals if they don't have to. In 1862 the player has the distinct advantage to have McClellan in command of their army, yet have him lead a major aggressive campaign against Lee. One cannot force a player to retreat after a victory. The facts are, once you load up a game, you basically have broken with history. McClellan will be as aggressive as you choose him to be, strategic rating is irrelevant. You cannot force a player to use Johnston, or to have him timid against large forces. You cannot replicate the individual PERSONALITIES of these generals, no matter what stats you add, as you cannot model irrational choices, since a player has no fear of actual consequences.

There is enough evidence out there to state that Johnston was NOT a passive or timid commander, and that he is only so through comparison of very aggressive leaders.

[lodilefty]

I agree. Man that rubs me the wrong way and, again, makes me just tune out.

Ditto. I'm ignoring this thread from here on. If anyone wishes to discuss how the generals play out in the game, send me a PM so I can tune back in.

If you're going to quibble about theory of ratings, ave at it.....

SUMO

[Gray_Lensman]

<deleted>

[lodilefty]

Not only did it rub me the wrong way, it actually made me do something that I rarely do, I placed him on an "ignore list". Its amazing how much more intelligent this particular thread reads with his childish comments filtered out.

Similar minds, same thought. Just did same.
Have a nice day.

[The Wolf]

You cannot replicate the individual PERSONALITIES of these generals

No, but you can model their CAPABILITIES.

[The Wolf]

Not only did it rub me the wrong way, it actually made me do something that I rarely do, I placed him on an "ignore list". Its amazing how much more intelligent this particular thread reads with his childish comments filtered out.

Personal insults, eh? Looks like he just realized that he had lost the argument.

[Ian Coote]

Another book very critical of Johnston as a field commander,this time in the Atlanta Campaign.War so Terrible:Sherman and Atlanta by James Lee McDonough, professor of history at Pepperdine University and James Pickett Jones professor of history at Florida State University.

[Clovis]

Sounds like we need an attribute that impacts the strategic rating if outnumbered in the command area.

I don't think so.

Taking offensive with a general with low initiative level is possible, but risky with the penalties tied to inactive mode. Player isn't omnipotent; being Lincoln or Davis he can give orders but with the wrong man in th eplace he has to get very favourable circumstance to expect victory.

The same with a low attack rating. A leader with 1 or 2 against another with at least 4 in defense will have to get a real superiority to get some real chance to win. In such a way, ratings canforce players to use leaders historically...and Johnston will attack when the odd will be strongly in his favour...

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Clovis]

All generals had variable performances. Of course, some generals were more consistently good or bad than others.

I would like to see a base performance att/def rating with a variable applied to their base ratings prior to battle. The size of the variable would be dependent on a general's record of consistency. So a very consistent general would perform very close to their base Att/Def ratings. While other less consistent generals might have substantially better or worse ratings than their base ratings in battle.

Then we could see the actual battlefield att/def ratings revealed in the battle report.

With this sort of variable, we could never predict their actual battlefield ratings.

interesting idea. Now of course, il would give birth to endless discussions about consistency of each general

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Rafiki]

[color="Red"]Guys, make sure to keep this about the subject at hand, and not let it get personal.[/color]

[color="Red"]I'm sad to see that people are tending towards personal comments and loosing track of the subject. I won't point fingers at anyone in particular, since this goes for several here, in varying degrees.

If you can't add to the discussion, just don't post. Disparaging remarks just reflect more on yourself than upon your intended "target" anyway.

Regards,
Your still-friendly neighborhood admin[/color]

[AndrewKurtz]

What's with the signature Clovis? Are you serious, or just joking?

edit> I can definitely understand if you are serious however, due to the controversy about the "Leader MOD". I just wish there was an easier way to get MODs installed for those unfamiliar with file manipulation procedures. Even JSGME won't help some of them.

Funny thing is I still think there is only disagreement about Joe Johnston. So while the disagreement exists, it really isn't that big a disagreement if put into perspective.

My current thinking:

1. I'd still like to hear from Pocus on whether failed activation impacts defending.

2. Minimally, it would seem that JJ should be a 3 Strategic based on Pocus's previous comments.

3. The easiest thing, if people think the leader MOD should be official and JJ is the only issue, would be to keep JJ as originally rated (4-2-4 I believe). McNaughton has made some very strong arguments that make this a very reasonable thing to do I believe.

[The Wolf]

The easiest thing, if people think the leader MOD should be official and JJ is the only issue, would be to keep JJ as originally rated (4-2-4 I believe). McNaughton has made some very strong arguments that make this a very reasonable thing to do I believe.

This is the obvious solution. Who else is in favor of it?

[Clovis]

What's with the signature Clovis? Are you serious, or just joking?

edit> I can definitely understand if you are serious however, due to the controversy about the "Leader MOD". I just wish there was an easier way to get MODs installed for those unfamiliar with file manipulation procedures. Even JSGME won't help some of them.

Serious ... with some irony .

AS I've stated before, my mod is for free and even I would be alone to play it, I would do the same. So I haven't to care about player's desires. On the contrary, AGEOD has to sell games and unfortunatly, even in niche market, buyers haven't the same criterias.

hence the trend about moddable games in the industry. But at first vanilla version must be sold to the larger public possible.

So a mod as mine as good it is ( and IT IS :coeurs can't be integrated. How much players will like to get so few War Supply at start or to wait some months before creating divisions?

Your excellent work is different as it's a masterful enhancement to the game without any change to the rules. THis work can be integrated without any problem arouse.

Leader unfortunatly will remain a high controversial field of fire even between perfectly "civilized " guys as it were until some days...

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[ltr213]

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

[Pocus]

Funny thing is I still think there is only disagreement about Joe Johnston. So while the disagreement exists, it really isn't that big a disagreement if put into perspective.

My current thinking:

1. I'd still like to hear from Pocus on whether failed activation impacts defending.

2. Minimally, it would seem that JJ should be a 3 Strategic based on Pocus's previous comments.

3. The easiest thing, if people think the leader MOD should be official and JJ is the only issue, would be to keep JJ as originally rated (4-2-4 I believe). McNaughton has made some very strong arguments that make this a very reasonable thing to do I believe.

1. If you are not activated, you get an additional penalty in combat equals to the missing military control of the region you are in, even in defensive posture (but not in passive).
So unactivated = penalty in non friendly territory.
a penalty can't go above 35%.

2/3. In case of disagreement, and if both party presented arguments, then we will fall back to the unmodded stats, which are 4-2-4 for Johnston.

[lodilefty]

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

I've taken the liberty of putting this in the WIKI. Hope that's OK....

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Rafiki]

I've taken the liberty of putting this in the WIKI. Hope that's OK....

Of course it is!

[Rafiki]

Seeing as there are those who'd like to see JJ with SR 2, and some who want to see him as 4, why not make him a 3 and make everybody a bit miserable about it? After all, that's what compromise is about; making sure everybody is equally unhappy?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[runyan99]

In light of these new revelations, we should give runyan time to access this information himself in regard to all his generals ratings' before proceeding with just Joe Johnston's ratings.

There is little new information here for me, except that I wasn't exactly aware of the variable percentages involved when passing bonuses/penalties down to corps commanders. My opinions on rating Johnston haven't changed, as I think being disinclined to offensive action, he should be passing on a -1 penalty 66% of the time.

With Johnston at 2-2-4, I also want to change Sidney Johnston to 3-2-1 and Beauregard to 3-2-3 to slide them closer to 'average' territory. They weren't so aggressive that they should necessasarily be passing down bonuses to their corps. Shiloh was a singular example.

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. It is the only tool available in the game to differentiate aggressive leaders from cautious leaders. It is a game mechanic to prevent the player from using all leaders in exactly the same way. If all leaders are rated as 3+, then the player can pretty much attack with everybody all the time. I learned this back when playing BoA, where 3 rated Howe, Clinton and Burgoyne could be used by players to chase Washington's army to Detroit by 1777.

In my version of the mod, the trend will continue to be to deflate, not inflate ratings. Word on the street is that the leader rating are so out of control inflated in Napoleon's campaigns that a 6-6-6 Napoleon is passing along bonuses to a 6-5-5 corps commander who adds his bonuses to a 4-6-6 division commander, and the coalition can never win a battle. That kind of leader rating love fest is to be avoided, in my opinion. It is too easy from a design perspective to make almost everybody an exceptional general.

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.

If the version posted here is to become the basis for a new official scenario, I will leave it posted here, but I am also planning on continuing to update the mod and add new features on my own soon, such as reducing HQ radius moderately. I don't expect the 'official' version to keep up with me. Next time I update the mod, I'll start a new thread so as not to jumble with this one.