I got DC in very Few Turns

[Barker]

Well I did get DC in very few turns by doing a couple of things.

Early activation of RE Lee, Longstreet and Wheeler
Activated Baloons
formed a corps with Lee at the Helm, Johnston with the Army and wham there goes the Union

[Rafiki]

How did you get Lee unlocked?

[Barker]

In the CSA Events

SelectFaction = $CSA
SelectRegion = $Richmond, VA
CreateGroup
Posture = $Defensive
SetKind = $Land
Entranch = 0
InCS = 0
FixType = 0
SetName = CSA GHQ
Apply
CreateUnit
SetType = $uni_CSA_Cooper4
SetName = Samuel Cooper
Apply

SelectFaction = $CSA
SelectRegion = $Richmond, VA
CreateGroup
Posture = $Defensive
SetKind = $Land
Entranch = 0
InCS = 0
FixType = 0
SetName = Virginia District Command
Apply
CreateUnit
SetType = $uni_CSA_RELee3
SetName = Robert E. Lee
Apply

EndEvent

[Barker]

It is very col what you can do with these files...you can really mold a what if game...ie

I did one with forrest, Morgan, Wheeler , Quantrel, Vam Dorn came out early....boosted Forrest, Bushwackers, and Morgans Raiders to a high strength Cav ...

Gave a few cities more militia...Decreased in others and had a raider type scenarios going...

[Rafiki]

Well, even I can get Washington early if I start tweaking the gamefiles...

[Barker]

isn't a game about personal fun? I own tons of ACW games from board to PC...highly detailed and historically accurate to whimsical fun.....Robert E Lee generals is one...but anyhow sometimes it is just plain fun to see about what if's...doesn't hurt anyone and makes it more enjoyable for me anyways.

Historical context is one thing when studying history, impact of events etc. .....here is another one...what if Lincoln did not get re-elected? What if Jeff Davis did get captured early on....what if the French sided with the union after the first Bull Run...A deabte on issues such as this will go on from now until the the moon falls from the sky .....But it is just fun?

Have you ever tweaked a game?
Have you ever said Hmmm What if this or that was changed what would the impact be?

[Barker]

Besides did you look at the stats on the victory page...I had fewer troops, guns horses...I caused tremendous casualties while receiving light ones....By everything that is right I was out gunned, out supplied and had fewer officers....I should have lost...this tells me that something is quarky in denmark?

[AndrewKurtz]

Besides did you look at the stats on the victory page...I had fewer troops, guns horses...I caused tremendous casualties while receiving light ones....By everything that is right I was out gunned, out supplied and had fewer officers....I should have lost...this tells me that something is quarky in denmark?

You weren't out manned. 35kto 38k is about as even as you'll get.

And by your logic (out manned, gunned etc), in real life the CSA should have lost every battle they ever fought. For example, at Chancellorsville, the forces were approx 130k to 60k. And who won? I'm sure Lincoln thought there was something rotten in Denmark too

[AndrewKurtz]

Have you ever tweaked a game?
Have you ever said Hmmm What if this or that was changed what would the impact be?

Of course we've all tweaked games. Just haven't ever then posted as if something was wrong with the game or some odd event had occured

[Barker]

did not post as n odd event or anything...i looked at the numbers is all...

[soundoff]

You weren't out manned. 35kto 38k is about as even as you'll get.

And by your logic (out manned, gunned etc), in real life the CSA should have lost every battle they ever fought. For example, at Chancellorsville, the forces were approx 130k to 60k. And who won? I'm sure Lincoln thought there was something rotten in Denmark too

I agree with you almost....and I stress almost....entirely Andrew. It does highlight the one aspect of ACW that I've lived with because its a good game but have always been uneasy about.

If anything it demonstrates the mind blowing power of the generals stats. Now most on these boards would accept that unless you have around 2:1 odds in your favour (and thats a minimum) forget assaulting but those odds most certainly dont hold true once you factor in the bonuses that
commanders produce particularly when these are often accumulative.

[AndrewKurtz]

I agree with you almost....and I stress almost....entirely Andrew. It does highlight the one aspect of ACW that I've lived with because its a good game but have always been uneasy about.

If anything it demonstrates the mind blowing power of the generals stats. Now most on these boards would accept that unless you have around 2:1 odds in your favour (and thats a minimum) forget assaulting but those odds most certainly dont hold true once you factor in the bonuses that
commanders produce particularly when these are often accumulative.

Mind-blowing power of generals is how I rationalize/understand many of the real-life victories (or in the end, draws) of the CSA in the east over muh larger forces and generals like Forrest in almost every one of his victories.

But I also look at it like this. It isn't the quality of a sides generals that has the impact. It's the quality of a sides generals OVER the other sides generals. So, keeping in mind that this is an abstraction of real life, the impact of the difference between generals can also reflect poor decisions/negative impact by the lower side as well is a positive impact on the higher side. So that mind-blowing power might reflect the impact of Jackson at 2nd Manassas, but it might also reflect that rashness of Pope at the same.

[AndrewKurtz]

did not post as n odd event or anything...i looked at the numbers is all...

Ahh. I thought you where saying something wasn't working properly.

BTW, we're neighbors. I live in Greenville, SC and go through Waltersboro periodically when headed to Edisto or past it when headed to Hilton Head.

[Barker]

Hey there neihbor....there was no oddity of the game function...just amazing that I attacked with inferior manpower and beat an entrenched enemy....that is cool

[AndrewKurtz]

Hey there neihbor....there was no oddity of the game function...just amazing that I attacked with inferior manpower and beat an entrenched enemy....that is cool

Look at your avatar, you know why R.E. Lee!

[Barker]

well this is true..the CSA has won many a battle that would have been lost through normal attrition and rule variables....as in war the only variable that counts for anything is winning

[Rafiki]

isn't a game about personal fun? I own tons of ACW games from board to PC...highly detailed and historically accurate to whimsical fun.....Robert E Lee generals is one...but anyhow sometimes it is just plain fun to see about what if's...doesn't hurt anyone and makes it more enjoyable for me anyways.

Historical context is one thing when studying history, impact of events etc. .....here is another one...what if Lincoln did not get re-elected? What if Jeff Davis did get captured early on....what if the French sided with the union after the first Bull Run...A deabte on issues such as this will go on from now until the the moon falls from the sky .....But it is just fun?

Have you ever tweaked a game?
Have you ever said Hmmm What if this or that was changed what would the impact be?

No worries, Barker; I misinterpreted your post entirely and I apologize for it.

Of course I've tweaked games to see what might happen when changes were made to setups and suchlike

[Barker]

not a problem.....

[Nial]

Well, since I just recently stumbled upon where to change divisions allowed. *smirk* I bumped CSA up to 45. I hate running out of divisions. About Lee; I have him comming in at the regular time. Just have him unlocked when he comes in. That one was easy to find.

Nial

[soundoff]

Mind-blowing power of generals is how I rationalize/understand many of the real-life victories (or in the end, draws) of the CSA in the east over muh larger forces and generals like Forrest in almost every one of his victories.

But I also look at it like this. It isn't the quality of a sides generals that has the impact. It's the quality of a sides generals OVER the other sides generals. So, keeping in mind that this is an abstraction of real life, the impact of the difference between generals can also reflect poor decisions/negative impact by the lower side as well is a positive impact on the higher side. So that mind-blowing power might reflect the impact of Jackson at 2nd Manassas, but it might also reflect that rashness of Pope at the same.

I suspect this could be a whole new thread. I've mused a fair bit about this response and whilst I might be far wide of the mark reckon it might, just might have something to do with a difference in 'continental' as against 'american' outlook.

What I'm trying to say, and I'm sure I will say it badly, is that my gut reaction is that in Europe we place more value on the 'quality' 'training' 'equipment' and 'battle conditions' than on the perceived worth or otherwise of the 'generals'

To me with an obvious odd exception few continental military leaders are revered as much as leaders of the ACW. It might be a wrong observation but it sure seems that way.

For example, as a Brit, I could point out that during the Napoleonic wars of all the generals only one was ever undefeated.....Wellington. And he fought every decent French general that ever took the field including Napoleon. I think though that most Europeans including Brits would contend that whilst his ability was a factor much more was due to the ability of the rifle battalions (hard lessons learnt against the americans) the ability of the Brits to use two rank rather than the usual three rank lines to devastating effect etc that really gave him an edge. I could go on but you get the gist I hope .....that Wellington relied on his troops to achieve victory rather than the other way around. Seems that often in the ACW its portrayed as victory going to the best generals. Little credit if any being given to the quality of the troops or the lack or abundance of equipment etc.

Just my observations, if somewhat wide of the mark. Interesting though

Wanted to add as well that somehow I never reckon that the best were as good as they have been made out to be nor the worst as poor as they are depicted. I rather agree with Napoleons maxim....'give me a lucky general' and lucks more random than history usually allows.

[Maqver]

How well did Wellington's peninsular veterans perform against Andrew Jackson's pirates, rogues and militia?

I imagine hundreds of examples could be found of good troops being wasted by bad generals and good generals losing to inexorable force and materials. It is not a continental vs. american thing at all - the generals make the decisions and apply their knowledge and skill or lack of it (fob of all their troops), those decisions are naturally amplified by the material they are using. American football, where coaching decisions are a major part of the game - training, play calling, strategic decisions and innumerable others - has provided great examples of all the possiblities.

In the game though, I do tend to think that a good general well entrenched is very tough to beat. But the map scale makes it necessary I think.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[soundoff]

How well did Wellington's peninsular veterans perform against Andrew Jackson's pirates, rogues and militia?


In the game though, I do tend to think that a good general well entrenched is very tough to beat. But the map scale makes it necessary I think.

Now I know I've been selective with your post Maqver but as to the first bit....thats my point....even Wellington would I fear not have performed any better. Its because the Brits learnt some very valuable lessons in the war against America.....that we also I might add put to good use in the 1812 conflict..that enabled us to perform so well in Europe a few years later and were not a mere function of the respective quality of the leaders.

As to your last point I suspect you are right. I enjoy the game enough not to let it seriously interfer with my gaming but I cannot ever help but feel that leaders such as Grant and Jackson are accorded a 'godlike' status in the game that I'm uneasy in conceding.....particularly when its plus 5 percent per ability level then a further plus 3 percent per commander....thats an awful lot of bonuses......and thats totally discounting the active v unactive.

To reiterate my unease is tempered by my love of the game. I suppose though I would like to see 'veteran' status better recognised. Many a poor general was saved by his troops as many as were good troops sacrificed by a poor general.

[soundoff]

Since this thread is a discussion of results obtained by making changes in the files, it more appropriately belongs in the AACW Mods sub-forum to avoid confusing other gamers with the discussion of the effects.

Yes, I'm somewhat of a nit-picker here, but over a year ago, there were a lot of complaints about MOD discussions being intermingled with the main forum page and it makes good sense to keep the discussions separate.

+1 you are absolutely right.

[Rafiki]

[color="Blue"]A case can be made for sticking it in the history forum too, though [/color]

[Maqver]

Now I know I've been selective with your post Maqver but as to the first bit....thats my point....even Wellington would I fear not have performed any better. Its because the Brits learnt some very valuable lessons in the war against America.....that we also I might add put to good use in the 1812 conflict..that enabled us to perform so well in Europe a few years later and were not a mere function of the respective quality of the leaders.

Yeah, actually I am with you about half way on your point and it deserves to be made, given that "generalship" usually gets the headlines and especially the bonuses you cite in your post. Personally, I think it is all the combinations of material and generalship. Both can make the difference.

particularly when its plus 5 percent per ability level then a further plus 3 percent per commander....thats an awful lot of bonuses......

I think this is worth exploring. Probably though it would require someone to do some mod testing to see how lowering these values would affect the game.

PS. Wellington may have decided not to fight there at all. . And the other half of the argument, the one you are making, is shown in your post about the riflemen. The generals, except for Moore, were against it.

[Barker]

You could say the same about Streights raid through Alabama with Forrest on his heels. Streight had more men better equipment but Forrest won tactically but Streight won by getting to Rome the surrendering....so who is the better General...or was it better troops?

Some of the advantages of good generals is by having less then adequate troops , supplies and firepower to win...