AndrewKurtz
Posts: 1165
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:49 am
Location: Greenville, SC

Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:05 pm

runyan99 wrote:Joe Johnston and I went to high school together, and he stole one of my girlfriends. I never forgave him for that.


:mdr:

Well that explains everything!!

User avatar
jeff b
Corporal
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:54 am
Location: Cherry Hill NJ
Contact: Yahoo Messenger

Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:13 pm

Jagger wrote: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.


You really have to look at which Grant to consider. The one that commanded the Army of the Tennessee in which Grant exhibited considerable tactical finesse, or the one of the 1864 Campaign?

In the West Grant comanded an Army of his own making. Their was an understanding between Grant and his generals that equaled that between Lee-Jackson-Longstreet. In 1864, Grant operated at a degree of disadvantage. At the Wilderness Grant gave the Grand Operational directive, but Meade basically fought the battle. To make matters worse, Burnside got his orders directly from Grant. At Spotsylvania Grant gave more direct commands but still tended to work through Meade. As the campaign progressed the army became more responsive to Grant's will, but it still was awkward marriage. It was only in 1865 when Grant had managed to rid himself of Generals that did not perform to his wishes. I would say that the Army of the Potomac outfought, out manuevered, out finessed the Army of Northern Virginia.

I would definitely argue that Grant was superior on the offense to Lee. Whatever offensive Grant undertook he prevailed. He had an unbroken string of victories. Lee can not say the same.

In summary I would be very reluctant to degrade Grant's ratings vis-a-vis R.E. Lee. Unlike virtually any other general in the war, Grant never lost sight of his place in the war, what he was trying to accomplish, and the relative strengths of the two sides. If at times his tactics appeared crude, his strategy was brutally effective.
Currently playing American Civil War.

AndrewKurtz
Posts: 1165
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:49 am
Location: Greenville, SC

Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:13 pm

McNaughton wrote: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


That was very interesting to read. If I had the time, I'd love the read the threads on every general.

User avatar
Rafiki
Posts: 5811
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Oslo, Norway

Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:18 pm

[color="Red"]This marks the end of discussing Johnston in this thread. AGEOD has more than ample feedback to any and all decisions they should deign to make about Johnston in the future, and the chances of anything more particularly constructive popping up in this thread are negligible.

I will delete on sight (or variations thereof) any post after this one mentioning Johnston.

The Wolf, since you haven't seemed to pay too much heed when I have made general recommendations, I'll make this one directly; disagreeing with other posters does not justify name-calling or disparaging personal characterizations. Your posting style is needlessly confrontational, downright insulting at times and lacking in its constructiveness, and you are the first poster I've seen on these forums with a negative user reputation, which means that this is an opinion shared by others.

If you have any questions regarding any of the above, you're more than welcome to PM me. I'll be more than happy to answer any questions who have.[/color]
[CENTER]Latest patches: AACW :: NCP :: WIA :: ROP :: RUS :: PON :: AJE
Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
[/CENTER]

User avatar
jeff b
Corporal
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:54 am
Location: Cherry Hill NJ
Contact: Yahoo Messenger

Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:18 pm

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


The inconvenient truth about Bentonville is that Mower's division of Blair's corp had flanked Johnston's position. Howard was preparing to destroy Johnston's army but Sherman gave orders to call off the attack. By this point in the War Sherman was considering the peace and did not want to annihilate Johnston. Johnston's victory at Bentonville was a gimme.
Currently playing American Civil War.

Jagger
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 949
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:31 pm

Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:31 pm

jeff b wrote:You really have to look at which Grant to consider. The one that commanded the Army of the Tennessee in which Grant exhibited considerable tactical finesse, or the one of the 1864 Campaign?

In the West Grant comanded an Army of his own making. Their was an understanding between Grant and his generals that equaled that between Lee-Jackson-Longstreet. In 1864, Grant operated at a degree of disadvantage. At the Wilderness Grant gave the Grand Operational directive, but Meade basically fought the battle. To make matters worse, Burnside got his orders directly from Grant. At Spotsylvania Grant gave more direct commands but still tended to work through Meade. As the campaign progressed the army became more responsive to Grant's will, but it still was awkward marriage. It was only in 1865 when Grant had managed to rid himself of Generals that did not perform to his wishes. I would say that the Army of the Potomac outfought, out manuevered, out finessed the Army of Northern Virginia.

I would definitely argue that Grant was superior on the offense to Lee. Whatever offensive Grant undertook he prevailed. He had an unbroken string of victories. Lee can not say the same.

In summary I would be very reluctant to degrade Grant's ratings vis-a-vis R.E. Lee. Unlike virtually any other general in the war, Grant never lost sight of his place in the war, what he was trying to accomplish, and the relative strengths of the two sides. If at times his tactics appeared crude, his strategy was brutally effective.


What do you feel are Grant's best tactical victories-both offensively and defensively?

Personally, I think Grant's greatest strength's were persistence and focus on a stategic goal. He didn't quit unlike many other Union commanders. He continued to offensively manuever whenever checked-which was often.

Fortunately, he had the political backing, numerical advantages and replacements to allow him to eventually overcome all obstacles and defeats. But I just don't see tactical brillance in Grant's battles unlike Lee's battles.

User avatar
runyan99
Posts: 1420
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:34 am

Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:35 pm

Both Grant and Lee have examples of good tactical attacks and bad. Maybe they were equal.

User avatar
jeff b
Corporal
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:54 am
Location: Cherry Hill NJ
Contact: Yahoo Messenger

Sun Jan 13, 2008 8:29 pm

Jagger wrote:What do you feel are Grant's best tactical victories-both offensively and defensively?

Personally, I think Grant's greatest strength's were persistence and focus on a stategic goal. He didn't quit unlike many other Union commanders. He continued to offensively manuever whenever checked-which was often.

Fortunately, he had the political backing, numerical advantages and replacements to allow him to eventually overcome all obstacles and defeats. But I just don't see tactical brillance in Grant's battles unlike Lee's battles.


I absolutely agree with your assessment of Grant's greatest strength. Examples of Grant's best tactical victories. All of the battles (excepting the attempt to assault vicksburgs entrenchments) of the Vicksburg campaign once Grant crossed the Mississippi below V'burg. Other examples, Grant's attack at the Mule Shoe. Came very close to defeating Lee right there at Spotsylvania. The Final attack at Petersburg which cut the last rail link into Richmond.

Examples of bad attacks - Speaking of Spotsylvania - his attacks on Laurel Hill. That position just could not be carried, and it ruined Warren with Grant.
Cold Harbor has to be Grant's worst moment. The crater at Petersburg was another dismal moment. Meddling with Burnside's plan at the last possible moment guaranteed that attack's failure and lengthed the war by many months.

Grant did not have much political backing early in the war. Remember Halleck did his best to sideline Grant. Too many in the old army thought of Grant as a drunk. Luckily than man's opinion counted said of Grant - "I can't spare this man, he fights."

But for comparison purposes. What were Lee's best attacks, and his worst. I would think I would get no argument to say that Chancellorsville and 2nd Manassas are Lee's 2 shining moments. As for bad attacks - all of the 7 days battles were pretty much mismanaged affairs, culminating in Malvern Hill which could have had dire consequences against anyone but McClellan. The third day at Gettysburg was a disaster. The attacks at the Wilderness were a mixed bag, and the attack at Ft. Stedman was also a disaster. (although you might argue that this was more an indicator at how used up the ANV was than Lee's fault)

The seven days campaign showed where tactical deficiencies took second place to operational ones. Lee managed to push the AoP back from Richmond without winning any clear cut battlefield victories. This would be very analogous to Grant's 1864 campaign.

In game terms I would give Grant a very slight advantage over Lee based on the differing results of their campaigns. Grant undefeated. Lee beaten in Md, Pa, W.Va, and ultimately in VA. It was the very strengths that Jagger alluded to that made Grant the best Army commander of the war. Grant did not have a greater numerical advantage over Lee that Burnside and Hooker had, yet he prevailed and they did not.
Currently playing American Civil War.

User avatar
runyan99
Posts: 1420
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:34 am

Sun Jan 13, 2008 8:41 pm

jeff b wrote:In game terms I would give Grant a very slight advantage over Lee based on the differing results of their campaigns.


I would suggest that is improper. Since the attack rating gives a very specific tactical bonus in the game, I feel when considering what score to use, you shouldn't consider big picture questions like the outcome of campaigns, but only specific tactical examples like Pickett's Charge for Lee or the Mule Shoe for Grant. Specifically, was the general good at giving his troops a tactical advantage in the attack or not, regardless of the outcome of the campaign?

User avatar
McNaughton
Posts: 2766
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Sun Jan 13, 2008 9:53 pm

The role of an army commander is that of one who 'influences' those who area actually directing the fight. An army commander, at their best, would issue an order for their corps commander, but in the end it was the corps commander's ability to direct their divisions which is what these attack and defence ratings are.

In my opinion, an army commander's influence on their subordinates in their ability to fight effectively should be very limited. How much did Lee influence Jackson or Longstreet at Second Bull Run? Lee had a plan, shifted around troops, and gave orders to his corps commanders (all which basically fit the role of the player), yet, when the battle came to blows, did Lee really improve the tactical ability of the troops on the battlefield? Even at Gettysburg, where Lee proved to be more of a micromanager, each one of the assaults was tactically commanded and designed primarily by the commanders on the field (indeed, when Lee did intervene directly, he impeded the attack, rather than improve it). Meade, at Gettysburg, also seemed to be somewhat limited in his influence. He wasn't even on the field on the first day, and the other two days he primarily was responsible for troop redeployment and general positioning of troops. In the end, it was the Corps and Division commanders who decided the actual ground, and it was their own personal skill on the battlefield.

Is it really Lee and Grant who won the battles, or their corps commanders? Was it the level of support of the Army commander to their Corps commanders in the form of resupply and reinforcement that was the main role of these Generals, rather than improving their ability to use tactics?

Whenever I have read up on a battle, the use of the name of the Army commander tends to fade very quickly, only when the battle is ebbing for the day, or another more administrative role is to be taken. The names of those used in most historic texts dealing with the local strategic, and tactical combat is primarily the Corps commander. Their name comes up the most often, as they are the ones directing reinforcements into gaps, deciding when to advance, when no more advance can be taken, and pleading with the Army commander for more supplies and fresh replacements.

In a big way, I kind of wonder if most 3-star generals are highly over-rated in their influence upon their 2-star generals in regards to tactical, battlefield combat (attack and defence). The main impact of a 3-star general should be in regards to CP and Strategic ratings (good administration, and ability to kick their subordinates into action), yet, I think that the statement Lee or Grant won this battle is a general comment, when in reality it was the Corps commanders who directed the tactical and local strategic engagement.

While it can be said, that the choice of positioning the army by the Army Commander can influence the attack and defence values of their subordinate corps commanders (setting your army up on the best ridges in the area, or concentrating for the attack in areas with good roads, able to direct replacements, etc.) these influences are only relatively minor, and truly once the battle has begun, it was out of control of the Army Commander and in the hands of the Corps and Divisional Commanders.

One thing I am thinking is that the relationship between the Army and Corps commanders was not really taken into account when the initial stats for commanders were developed. Take Lee and Jackson.

The thread about Lee was basically discussing his battlefield successes and defeats. They gave him such a high rating because he was so successful in command of his army (general) and abilities to reflect this (and his failures).

In a totally different thread, there was discussion of Jackson. They rated him on his successes and defeats, and rated him extremely high as a result.

However, in game, should you combine Jackson and Lee into the command system, Jackson gains benefits of Lee's strategic and attack/defence values. He is already rated at a high level, based upon his success in battle, yet, these previous discussions looked at him in a total vacuum, and did not involve any talk of wether Lee influences him positively or negatively in his ability. In reality, is Lee's value in game so high because of his personal battlefield ability, or, is it high because battles he waged with Jackson in command of his corps were generally victories? Did Lee prop up Jackson, Jackson prop up Lee, or both mutually support each other? If Lee did not have Jackson, would he have been able to win his earlier battles? If Jackson didn't have Lee, would he have the strategic freedom to fully implement his imaginative battlefield plans?

Lee is rated...
6-5-5

Jackson is rated...
5-4-4

Each were rated as such primarily in a vacuum, Jackson's acomplishments were looked at, and he was given a 5-4-4 rating, same with Lee for his 6-5-5. However, would Lee be as successful without Jackson? Were Jackson's 5-4-4 ratings determined to be 'his own', or 'his ratings after being influenced by Lee'? To me, a lot of the 'good' commanders are over-rated, as their sucess was actually not just they themselves, but the combination of them and their army commander/subordinate corps commanders. Grant, with horrible divisional commanders, couldn't do much at Shiloh. However, given quality commanders (at Chatenooga for example) he was able to fight a very capable battle.

User avatar
McNaughton
Posts: 2766
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:35 pm

The key, I see, is the Army Commander's Strategic rating. For the most part, an army commander was irratic in their aggression. At times they are aggressive, at others they are passive. This, to me, is their key contribution.

Looking at the following...

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


To me 3 seems to be the Magic Number when you take into account the strategic rating. For a stack commander, it is about a 50-50 chance to be active, and an army commander a 50-50 chance to pass on a +1. To me, this is 'average', anything less is poor, anything more is good.

Since the combination of two average generals (an average Army Commander, and an average Corps Commander) results in an improved chance of activation (ranging from 50-100% activation), the combination of two average results in an above average corps commander (one who is pretty much activated unless the worst possible case scenario happens, where they don't get a +1 strategic and they fail their 50% activization at 3 strategic).

There is basically a 'barrier' between a good and poor commander. That barrier is a 3 strategic rating. Anything more, and you have almost guaranteed corps activation (almost pointless to have a 6 strategic rating for a corps commander). Anything less and your commander is rarely activated.

When skimming through the stats, the vast majority are 3s, which, on the surface are average. Yet, when we do note that most of the 3-stars are at 3+ strategic ratings, we see that in reality, if in a chain of command, very few stacks will be inactive. (only Cooper has a strategic rating of 2 for the CSA 3-stars, and only around 4 for the USA).

The main reason I was against Johnston having reduced stats, was that even though it may accurately represent him, it only does it individually. In order to historically represent generals being 'average' in regards to aggression, we have to reduce the rates to a greater extent. Very few generals should be active 'all the time', and even in a chain of command. This is one of the reasons why a strong core of Southern Generals is important.

Only a few generals are rated below 3 strategic, meaning that bonus' will be given at a % chance, rather than penalties given at a % chance, on average.

Looking at stats as a chain of command (i.e., understanding that a 2-star general will be under the command of a 3-star general, gaining benefits) a reduction of either 3-star, or 2-star average stats is probably required (in order to represent forces that had a shaky chain of command).

User avatar
runyan99
Posts: 1420
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:34 am

Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:59 pm

McNaughton is making a case for deflating the stats, particularly the strategic ratings of the army commanders. I agree completely. Note that deflated army commander strategic ratings have been part of the leader mod ever since Hancock started it, and I have continued the decision.

Taking a look at the Union army commanders in the mod. McClellan is a 1. Halleck is a 1. McDowell, if promoted, is a 1. Buell is a 2. Rosecrans is a 2. Pope, if promoted, is a 2. For the early war generals, the only exception is Grant, at 6, and the player needs to earn a promotion for him before he can take an army.

Ian Coote
Major
Posts: 212
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 12:08 pm

Sun Jan 13, 2008 11:29 pm

I say its Runyan99's mod, he's done all the work,let him make the last call.There's never going to be 100% agreement on generals stats,everyone has their favourites,and if you don't like a particular choice I'm sure someone on the forums will tell you how to change it to your liking.We owe a great deal of thanks to runyan99 and Graylensman for the many hours that they have put into these two great mods that have only gone to make a great game on The American Civil War even better.Thankyou

User avatar
McNaughton
Posts: 2766
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Sun Jan 13, 2008 11:42 pm

Ian Coote wrote:I say its Runyan99's mod, he's done all the work,let him make the last call.There's never going to be 100% agreement on generals stats,everyone has their favourites,and if you don't like a particular choice I'm sure someone on the forums will tell you how to change it to your liking.We owe a great deal of thanks to runyan99 and Graylensman for the many hours that they have put into these two great mods that have only gone to make a great game on The American Civil War even better.Thankyou


Just to remind everyone, even though Runyan has done a lot of great work, the Leader Mod was always a 'community project', back to the day of the merger between Stonewall and Hancock, as well as PBBoeye's tenure as managing the mod. Discussion was what made the mod great. The mod is more than just one person, or one person's work. Again, thanks to Runyan for all of your effort and listening to the discussion.

User avatar
McNaughton
Posts: 2766
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Sun Jan 13, 2008 11:52 pm

runyan99 wrote:McNaughton is making a case for deflating the stats, particularly the strategic ratings of the army commanders. I agree completely. Note that deflated army commander strategic ratings have been part of the leader mod ever since Hancock started it, and I have continued the decision.

Taking a look at the Union army commanders in the mod. McClellan is a 1. Halleck is a 1. McDowell, if promoted, is a 1. Buell is a 2. Rosecrans is a 2. Pope, if promoted, is a 2. For the early war generals, the only exception is Grant, at 6, and the player needs to earn a promotion for him before he can take an army.


I think that another step could be to reduce some of the strategic 4 generals (2-star) to be strategic 3, and some of the strategic 3 to strategic 2. Since eventually you will have a good general in command (Meade, Grant, Sherman, etc.) even an average or sub-par general will be activated all of the time. In a way, Jackson is somewhat wasted under Lee's command, since he has such high stats anyway, he doesn't need Lee's bonus (while a general like Magruder would benefit by being under Lee).

User avatar
runyan99
Posts: 1420
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:34 am

Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:03 am

McNaughton wrote:I think that another step could be to reduce some of the strategic 4 generals (2-star) to be strategic 3, and some of the strategic 3 to strategic 2.


Rest assured, the trend is in that direction, although I tend to make these changes bit by bit, rather than systematically all at once. Meade, for example I am leaning towards a 3. We was dependable, and he'll be a step up from Pope or McClellan, but he was no fireball either. I think his base rating is a 5 right now. Too high.

veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1269
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:45 pm

Indeed, I would argue that a 6 strategic rating should be only possible for 1* or 2* generals that are often used in independant commands, to represent that general's ability to act.

I Could very well see Lee and Grant being the best 3* with 5 strat rating, the competent ones (not brilliant, not bad, competent ones) with 3 and the good ones or at least active ones with 4...

for corps commanders, basically a 5 should be at the very top as well...

Concerning 3* offensive and defensive ratings, the problem is that they represent 2 things :
- the ability of that general to command the corps his is in charge of (the army counter itself is a corps, with troops..) and use it in battle, as a reserve, etc....
- the ability to influence his subordinates offensive and defensive performance.. I find here that the dynamics of passing down performance are too efficient, I guess it is hardcoded, but a 3* general should be able to pass down a 0 or +1 most of the time and very very very rarely a +2...

I think the key in 3* in an army command position should be : the strat rating, traits that can impact the subordinates (maybe we should invent more of them) and logistics (traits that for exemple help the subordinates to be more supplied, or in better cohesion, etc...).

It is the 2* generals that should be able to pass down a more considerable part of their offensive and def rating to their subordinates..

for example a Lee with a 5-5-5 rating, which means it is still possible for an activation roll to fail, and in which the off and def rating are more likely to pass down a +1, than a 0 and unlikelily (nice word there) a +2. What would matter is the trait he has : higher morale (cohesion) for the whole army under his command, higher aggression for the whole army, and others to be created appropriately.. The benefit of this traits for the subordinates should be dependant on whether he is activated or not, which would make all the difference, making a 3* general really a strat/trait creature

Than you have say Jackson with a 5-5-3, fast mover, screener, cohesion maintainer (his troops maintain higher cohesion in ennemy territory or on the move), high CP (allowing him to command many division)... He could stil fail his activation roll, although very unlikely, and would pass down mainly his Off and Def rating, likely having a 6-4 thanks to Lee.

with Longstreet being a 3-2-5 with nice traits, etcc...

User avatar
jeff b
Corporal
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:54 am
Location: Cherry Hill NJ
Contact: Yahoo Messenger

Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:33 am

veji1 wrote:Concerning 3* offensive and defensive ratings, the problem is that they represent 2 things :
- the ability of that general to command the corps his is in charge of (the army counter itself is a corps, with troops..) and use it in battle, as a reserve, etc....
- the ability to influence his subordinates offensive and defensive performance.. ..


Bragg and Hooker are prime examples of this facet. As corp commanders they were very good. Hooker especially so, serving well both before and after his Army command.

McNaughton alluded to the partnership between Army and Corp commanders in the outcomes of battles. We could use some mechanism to model how well a particular corp commander worked with a Army commander. Hardee was a competent commander on his own, when working with Johnston but he became down right ornery with Bragg.

I had tended to favor army ratings based on how the campaigns the particular Army was involved with turned out. Thus reflecting those items an army commander had real impact on - getting his corps moving in the right directions, having the right amount of logistics in place (Van Dorn's troops literally ran out of ammo at Pea Ridge), and the ability to give clear plans.

Grant was famous for clear concise orders. Beauregard gave rather muddled orders. Lee gave just the right amount of information when it was Jackson and Longstreet in charge of his corps, but insufficient amount for their replacements. (well at least at Gettysburg and the Wilderness). Burnside continued attacking at Marye's Hts because he thought Franklin was attacking according to plan. Franklin never really understood what Burnside wanted.

To sum up, Tactical advantages conferred by the army commander to his corps should be subtly positive to downright negative. However when in command of his own corp, he should act according to his abilities. Good in Hooker's case; less good in Burnsides.
Currently playing American Civil War.

Coregonas
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Barcelona-Catalunya

Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:52 pm

Not tried Leader Mod.... but seems to me most "inconvenients" I ve found in the vanilla are solved or at least improved with this MOD

So My vote :

Get this Leader Mod to Vanilla!

I agree with Wolf ... perhaps some statistics will be "un-historical".. But now they are ALSO in several aspects.. its a model of the reality

But the game will be improved

Lets go for it and we will try to improve it some time ago!

tagwyn
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 4:09 pm

General's Ratings

Sat Feb 16, 2008 3:11 pm

Alas! Only Alexander cut the Gordian Knot. Lee and Grant are rated the same as Napoleon!! You are never going to agree on these stats. They are never going toi be "correct." :niark: :p apy:

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Sat Feb 16, 2008 6:41 pm

deleted

User avatar
Rafiki
Posts: 5811
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Oslo, Norway

Sat Feb 16, 2008 6:49 pm

Gray_Lensman wrote:This has been a hot-button issue in several threads and for the time being AGEod is not going to modify the vanilla Leader stats. If you want modified Leader stats, either download the Leader MOD or modify them yourself.

Listen to this man. He speaks the Truth Image
[CENTER]Latest patches: AACW :: NCP :: WIA :: ROP :: RUS :: PON :: AJE

Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

[/CENTER]

Coregonas
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Barcelona-Catalunya

Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:03 pm

Rafiki wrote:Listen to this man. He speaks the Truth Image



:p leure:

Coregonas
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Barcelona-Catalunya

Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:33 pm

McNaughton wrote:
...

Lee is rated...
6-5-5

Jackson is rated...
5-4-4

Each were rated as such primarily in a vacuum, Jackson's acomplishments were looked at, and he was given a 5-4-4 rating, same with Lee for his 6-5-5. However, would Lee be as successful without Jackson? Were Jackson's 5-4-4 ratings determined to be 'his own', or 'his ratings after being influenced by Lee'? To me, a lot of the 'good' commanders are over-rated, as their sucess was actually not just they themselves, but the combination of them and their army commander/subordinate corps commanders. Grant, with horrible divisional commanders, couldn't do much at Shiloh. However, given quality commanders (at Chatenooga for example) he was able to fight a very capable battle.


Excellent comments

Following this, I ve always seen in every Wargame that Leader Skills are always RATED according to REAL performance... But here with the Ageod engine (Athena?) have the chance to improve this a lot

Well

What if in the current game Stonewall does not fire a single bullet in 2 years?

Should he be rated in his first battle as a 5-4-4 ? I believe of course NOT.

My opinion is --- Most of the "in this thread - commented as Over-rated" leaders trained themselves in early fights with the enemies, learned thanks to this (some of them FAST, and some of them very SLOW) and finally get the skills than AACW designers have reported.

I wish to introduce here an idea that can be easily simulated (i believe so) with the engine.

The learning curve of a person is different for every one. Some persons need 100 hours to understand how to divide, and others 200... 400 or 25 if a genius! Was GURPS modeling this somewhat I believe?

I believe Most good military generals in history have had the

a) good starting skills
b) good learning curve
c) some luck to find "easy" enemy generals in the first fights, so to get better once a "hard" enemy arises.

So...

It should be posible to add these ideas into the engine by:

1.- Reducing somewhat initial Skills, especially for the overpowered ones.
2.- Changing (A LOT) the Learning Curve for the "succesful" generals in REAL ACW.
3.- Allowing a faster "Experience" bonus upgrade

For instance. I say this an an example, not trying to say how good should be the following generals...
Stonewall: he could be rated as a 4-3-3 (instead of 5-4-4), but the "experience required for him to upgrade should be 5, instead of 20/30?

Bragg: (4-3-1 could be a 4-3-1) but his ratio of earning experience should be 30. i.e he learned nothing at all in the war.

:niark:

User avatar
Jabberwock
Posts: 2204
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 12:12 am
Location: Weymouth, MA
Contact: ICQ

Sat Feb 16, 2008 10:37 pm

Interesting concept. As another example, you could start Richard Taylor as a * under Jackson in the Shenandoah, and learn his way up to the stats he has when he appears in Louisiana as a **.

My question is, would the promotion system be able to remember how much a general had learned at a lower rank, or is that getting too complex?
[color="DimGray"] You deserve to be spanked[/color]

Image

Coregonas
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Barcelona-Catalunya

Sat Feb 16, 2008 10:47 pm

The engine could simply record how many EXP points has the leader...

So it will add the +1 ATT/DEF acording to its earned EXP

Also..

If a leader performed BAD as a higher Ranked General, instead of lowering his "basic" stats it could be also simulated by changing his "EXPERIENCE EARNING RATIO" to x2 / x3

This way... it should lose some * (with the same EXP points) so could get a -1 to the real stat.

I believe is the same it happens now with the Infantry upgrades ??? Perhaps some of you could confirm:

i.e. A Conscript earns his first * with 5 EXP, his second with 15 EXP.. If it turns into a late infantry with 8 EXP, it loses the *

tagwyn
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 4:09 pm

Bragg!!

Sun Feb 17, 2008 6:19 am

Hey you guys!! Get off of old Braxton!! He won at Perryville, again at Stone's River and again in Chickamauga. He just couldn't follow up on his wins. Talk about that bubblehead Burnside. If he had advanced his corp at Antietam . . well arguably the ANV would have been destroyed. :p apy: :niark:

Coregonas
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Barcelona-Catalunya

Sun Feb 17, 2008 8:59 am

again...

Another lost idea is to run some kind of "Tried / Untried" skill

Linking it with the "experience learning ratio" told before, you could add some bonuses ( even maluses) once first battle arises.

This is.

In your first battle (of every unit & leader) you should do a Rookie roll, who would add for instance +1 attack / `20 Exp points or somewhat similar bonuses.

So an extra random affair, forcing us to test all troops (mostly important leaders) to earn maximum knowledge and power from them.

The "Rookie Roll" could be based on the "earning exp ratio" so a unit with a ratio 5 will get more bonuses than the ones with ratio 20.

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Sun Feb 17, 2008 10:43 am

deleted

Coregonas
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Barcelona-Catalunya

Sun Feb 17, 2008 2:08 pm

Oh... Perhaps you can use the idea for the next years GAMES

But I believe part of this (not the Rookie Tried affair) can be used in the game without serious changes. At least in Offensive & Defensive Values (Strategic does not works)

But you Lords of the Athena could confirm.

I ve Changed as an example in the Excel data I ve discharged:

UID Name ProgRate Promotable Strategic Offensive Defensive
194 James Longstreet 1 Yes 5 2 4
157 James Longstreet 2 Yes 5 2 4
158 Thomas J. Jackson 1 Yes 5 3 2
151 Thomas J. Jackson 2 No 5 3 2

Changed Off -1; Deff -2; Prograte totally reduced to 1 (1* & 2*) / 2 is for 3*

As the EXP needed grows "near-exponentially" this works ...

I believe EXP points needed are
Level Exp needed With Prograte Skill 1 with Prograte Skill 2
1st Level Prograte 1 2
2nd level 3x Prograte 3 6
3rd Level 6x Prograte 6 12
4th level 10xPrograte 10 20

I ve played with the PROGRATE ... give 1 to the VERY best commanders means... This could result as an example:

Longstreet starts as a 5-2-4 (instead of 5-3-6)
Once the very first battle as a 1* results -> Probably At least 1 / 2 EXP earned -> SO + 1 EXP LEVEL
Changes into a 5-2-5

Just his 2nd / 3rd battle ... Hi will earn his 3rd EXP poitn -> so will turn into
5-3-5

He will need a few battles more (well around 3-6 battles) and would be a
5-3-6 after 6 EXP earned

I believe this MUST work... Just changing all the Leader database, to help Very good generals to upgrade Experience very fast, downgrading somewhat the starting points!

And--- If PROMOTED! AS prograte turns to 2 (in this examples)->
He will shrink a little his stats to
5-3-5
(without changing the basic value at 3*, it could be somewhat reduced also to better model the performance at a higher command)

I ve been writing the exact exp points of 8 divisions during 1 campaign year to test the way this worked. But only after 1.09 I ve understood it somewhat. I believe the key is the way upgrading "tech" works, and how the conscripts (Prograte 5) turn to (Line infantry (Prograte 10) losing the 1st-STAR but not all the EXPERIENCE. Please some could confirm?

Return to “AACW Mods”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests