Changes to Generals

[McNaughton]

In playing I have come to notice (as most players do) that many generals who had historic roles tend to be put on the back burner due to their stats in relation to others.

Take Brigadier General John B. Floyd, rated in game as 3-0-0. He held many large division commands early in the war. He commanded the Army of the Kanawha, plus took a role in the defence of Fort Donelson. However, players would never use Floyd in any role, since even a no-name general as James Major has greater stats (at 3-1-1).

Reading up in the Generals Discsussion on Butler, Pocus stated his belief that 3-0-0 is quite possibly a better representation of a 'generic' general than 3-1-1 (especially since many 'historically detailed' generals have stats and abilities that make them quantitatively poorer than a basic 3-1-1 general).

I am toying within my mod to reduce the 'basic' general to 3-0-0. They still have a good chance at being activated, and the reduced attack and defence stats to zero will not have any penalty on a unit (however, no bonus will be given either). These 'basic' generals are mainly placeholders, commanding divisions, and adding CP to stacks, they aren't meant to cause breakthroughs or be battlefield genious'.

In relation to this reduction, any general, even poor ones, will appear to be a more interesting choice (as Butler at 2-0-1 will be more attractive to put in command if most basic generals are 3-0-0 than 3-1-1). Also, since the Union has more 'generic' generals than the Confederacy, the difference between generalship quality (on average) will be that much more in favour of the CSA (given that the USA has substantially more formations, meaning more generals needed, meaning more generic generals are given command).

Any thoughts?

[McNaughton]

Also, when looking at what makes a 'good' 3 or 4 star general, the following comes to mind...

A) High Strategic Rating (at least 2 or above) - This means that all attached corps commanders will have a bonus to their activation (due to the command system). A rating of 1 or lower means that there is a penalty on corps commanders.

B) Specific abilities transfer down the line, to attached corps and not just units in the stack. Chances are, there will be few units in the Army stack, meaning that any abilities of a 3-star general that are stack specific will be somewhat wasted (why have a general who is charismatic, when there are few units in the stack to benefit by it?).

Here are some 'good' or 'bad' abilities that 3-star generals would benefit the most by having (to represent their qualtiy or lack of quality in command).

1. Quick Angered (+)
2. Slow Move (even though this affects the stack, it means your army command will move slowly around the map) (-)
3. Master Logistician (+)
4. Scorched Earth (+)
5. Supriser (+)
6. Reckless (While this may apply just to the stack, your HQ getting stuck while your corps retreats may be an issue) (-)
7. Hothead (While this may apply just to the stack, your HQ getting stuck while your corps retreats may be an issue) (-)
8. Patriot (+)
9. Master Spy (+)
10. Poor Spy Network (-)
11. Hated Occupant (-)
12. Occupier (+)
13. Good Admin Pop (+)
14. Pillager Pop (-)
15. Strategist (+)
16. Good Command (+)
17. Gifted Command (+)
18. Quick Angered (-)
19. Over Cautious (-)
20. Patroller (+)

These 20 abilities transfer down from army to corps, or apply to sighting, or apply to territory, and are very applicable for 3 and 4 star generals. In order to make a general attractive, or unattractive, they would benefit by having these stats.

Jackson, for example, has Quick Angered as his 3-star variation, representing how he constantly was arresting his divisional and brigade commanders for slight infractions, and as an army commander this would have a major effect (if he kept his same method of dealing with subordinates).

Take General Bragg. As a 2-star corps commander his abilities are negatively affecting his command. Yet, as a 3-star army commander his Dispirited Leader and Master Driller traits do not affect his ability to command, yet his 5 strategic rating does, making him an excellent army commander (better than Hood or Johnston who replaced him, in almost all aspects). Possibly adding 'Quick Angered' for his 3-star version will represent his tactic of 'punishing' his own commanders by forcing their commands to make frontal charges. The Quick Angered stat reduces CP of all subordinate corps by 4.

McClellan has very few positive traits in an army command role. His positive attributes Good Admin Army and Master Trainer, affect only units in his direct stack command (as far as I gather by the abilities file). However, his strategic and combat ratings are very low as well. There is nothing in play representing his great ability at organizing his army. Giving him Good Command and Master Logistician will represent major organizational benefits he will give his command while as the Army Commander, making him be an attractive choice, even though he will give his corps commanders a strategic penalty.

These are a few changes I am toying with for my mod, yet others who are modding leaders may want to look at abilities and stats that would improve the role of 3-star generals, given their nature of not directly affecting units in their stack, but indirectly affecting the corps under their command.

[Guru80]

I like your ideas a lot. I know, myself, end up using generic Generals just because they are better. The "basic", generic general should definitely be a 3-0-0 in my opinion.

As for the abilities that you mentioned above, I am very in favor of it and was looking at doing something similar but that will be later as I am hard at work on the scenarios. Finally figured out how to make them appear in the scenario list ;-)

Good ideas! Hopefully some others will give their opinion and I will comment more after the Michigan vs. Michigan State game is over !

[McNaughton]

Thanks!

One other thing I am doing is shuffling around Seniority. It seems like some generals were put down the ladder (D. Hunter was near the top of Brigadier Seniority, but is listed in the 60s in game, GW Smith was the most senior Major General out East in 1862, etc.).

Also, another thing I am doing is to create some unpredictability with some leaders, and their promotion. I am starting with the CSA.

Basically I have 2 versions of models. One version represents the histoirc path, the other represents a 'what if'? The only change between the two paths is the 'final' promotion.

Take Hood. Version 1 is just like he is in game.
Version 2 has exactly the same 1-star and 2-star in stats (just given a different model name), yet the 3-star is 'much improved' on his histoirc counterpart.

Path 1 for in-game promotion (Historic)
Hood1 -> Hood2 -> Hood3

Path 2 for in-game promotion (hypothetical)
Hood1alt -> Hood2alt -> Hood3alt

However, via events you can tell the game to switch a unit to any model you want. For example, I could create an event for Hood2 to switch to Hood2alt (which now has an upgrade to Hood3alt). Sometime in 1863 an event has a % chance of triggering to switch from Hood2 to Hood2alt (sending Hood on a different upgrade path).

Hood2 and Hood2alt are 'identical' models, with the only difference being which unit they upgrade if they can be promoted. So, the player really doesn't know which Hood they have, one may be a good quality 3-star general, the other may totally bite.

This way players won't just always leave Hood un promoted, as he may turn out to be the top of the line in 3-star generals (thereby wasted as a Corps commander), or he may totally bite.

So far I have alternate models for...

T.H. Holmes
J. Longstreet
J.B. Hood
G.W. Smith
J.B. Magruder
R.S. Ewell

I am thinking of adding alternate paths for Bragg, Jackson, EK Smith, Hooker, Burnside, Meade, Grant and Sherman (to list a few) just to make promotions somewhat unpredictable (Sherman may be his superb self, or maybe just average). Basically it is like stat randomization, but only for high-level promotions.

[Guru80]

I think that is a good idea as well, it will also make the game even more re-playable by assuring you won't always have the same result and outcome for generals upgrading on one set path each and every game.

I am of the opinion that every General in the game (well, except maybe generic generals but maybe even them) should have the ability to climb in rank. Say you put a General with decent ratings in command of a division but in real life he never went above where he is to start the war. If he ends up racking up the victories I see no reason why he should be awarded higher rank.

I do like the alternate routes though for generals that players might not take the time to improve and use like they would if they could "grow" into something great.

[McNaughton]

I think that is a good idea as well, it will also make the game even more re-playable by assuring you won't always have the same result and outcome for generals upgrading on one set path each and every game.

I am of the opinion that every General in the game (well, except maybe generic generals but maybe even them) should have the ability to climb in rank. Say you put a General with decent ratings in command of a division but in real life he never went above where he is to start the war. If he ends up racking up the victories I see no reason why he should be awarded higher rank.

I do like the alternate routes though for generals that players might not take the time to improve and use like they would if they could "grow" into something great.

Well, each general will recieve an independent % chance of an alternate model being triggered, but the chance for the alternate should be small, like 25%, and have only a 1 turn chance of happening (so far, the USA has 14 leaders with alternate versions, meaning that if 25% change per game expect about 3-4 generals either better or poorer than they historically were).

The differences between models will not be extreme (for example, I won't turn the 3-star alternate model of Grant into the equivalent of McClellan, maybe the equivalent of Hooker instead, or possibly having a negative ability attached on). Also, poor generals won't become genious', just better than they were (maybe T.H. Holmes will be a good administrator as a 3-star general, keeping his 3-1-1 stats, but gaining a good ability or two).

One thing that I did in my mod (as well as the Leader Mod) is to increase the number of commanders that can be promoted to 2-star, as well as gaining a few for 3-star (Price, McCown, Kearny for example, based on the fact that they were in command of field armies, or were next in line). I think that the levels of seniority are large enough to warrant only a few commanders having the ability to be promoted. Most generals will never get promoted if they start at 20 or more seniority (don't think they can win that many battles), so having too many models will just result in a lot of work that isn't to be used (plus, a load of research finding out how they would perform in a larger command is needed).

[Guru80]

That is true.....When I made the statement about thinking everyone should be promotable I wasn't taking into account the game mechanics.

[Jabberwock]

This work on *** abilities is right on the mark. A great idea. The implementation of randomized promotions looks good, too.

[McNaughton]

Based on some discussion and testing I have found the 'minimums' for an 'effective' (as in does not necessarily add anything, but definitely does not take away) general.

3-star General = 2-2-2
2-star General = 4-1-1
1-star General = 3-0-0

A 1-star general can be effective at 3-0-0, they improve their division (i.e., if a unit of 300 has a 3-0-0 attached the unit strength turns into 320).

A 2-star general can be effective at 4-1-1, they don't affect the combat strength of the stack positively or negatively ad at 4 strategic they will be active more than not.

A 3-star general can be effective at 2-2-2, they don't pass down negative stats to their subordinate corps.

Now these are minimums, stating a general who isn't horrible, but also isn't great. Anything less in stats represents generals who lack ability.

A Corps commander with less than 4 strategic, or 1 attack/defense will give their corps penalties of activation or actual strength reductions of the corps.

A Division commander with less than 3 strategic will not be 'active' enough to actually be given a divisional command.

An Army commander with less than 2 strategic/attack/defense will send negative values to their subordinate corps commanders.

The problem, that I see, is that too many leaders are over-rated in their specific roles. In order to be 'effective', as in do more benefit than harm, a commander has to be at or above the listed abilities (see above). However, many average generals are at above these levels already (a 3-1-1 is above average for a division commander, virtually all 'basic' generals are 3-1-1, meaning that they are all above average).

In regards to Corps commanders, it seems like the base-line is kept at 3-1-1 (where it is more applicable, since a 3-1-1 gives no bonus, and only a slight strategic penalty, yet army commanders easily boost this, unless you have McClellan). However, what do you do when you have someone like Hancock, who was a 5-4-5 is rated substantially higher than the required 'average' of 4-1-1 (the 4 strategic rating means the stack is 'almost always' active). However, Hancock who was a more than competent general should not have 'substantially' grandious statistics (remember, Jackson's stats are 5-4-4, and he fought substantially greater victories at significantly lower odds than Hancock ever did, sure abilities come into play, but Hancock's abilities are still good as well). If the 'average' is 4-1-1, we have to really question anyone who has substantially greater statistics as if 'do they deserve it?'

Here are some generals, and their statistics, that I question.

Union Corps Commanders - Average = 4(or 3)-1-1 (first is the initial rating, in brackets [] are proposed changes, keep in mind this is only for their 2-star version)

McClellan - 1-1-2
Grant - 5-6-4
Lyon - 5-2-2
Curtis - 3-3-3
McClernand - 3-1-1
Pope - 3-2-2
Burnside - 2-2-3
Sigel - 3-1-1
Heintzelman - 3-1-1
Hooker - 4-4-2
Sherman - 6-5-4
Porter - 2-1-3
Franklin - 3-1-1
Mansfield - 3-1-1
Thomas - 3-3-6
Sedgewick - 3-2-2
Slocum - 3-3-3
Stoneman - 3-2-1
Reynolds - 5-4-4
Meade - 5-4-4
Ord - 4-3-2
McCook - 3-1-1
Howard - 4-3-1
Hancock - 5-4-5
Sickles - 3-2-1
Reno - 3-2-2
Schofield - 3-2-3
Davis - 3-2-2
Steele - 3-2-3
Doubleday - 3-2-2
Granger - 4-2-3
Logan - 4-3-3
Canby - 3-1-3
Gillmore - 3-2-3
McPherson - 4-3-3
Gibbon - 4-4-4
Sheridan - 5-4-2
Pleasanton - 3-2-1
Buford - 4-3-3
Warren - 2-2-4
Couch - 3-2-2
Sykes - 3-1-1

Here, you can see that for the most part, the Union 2-star generals are at or above average. Only a few dip below the 3/4-1-1 rating (Porter, McClellan, Warren, Burnside) but even there they have improved combat ratings to compensate (technically McClellan is the only 'bad' general). So, in reality the US has choices between Average and Very Good generals to choose from (with a few in-between). A corps commander should RARELY exceed 4 on a combat stat, and only if they showed supreme genious in their ability (given that a 1 is 'average'). However, not only are most generals at or above average, some are substantially above average (at genious levels, Grant, Sherman, Hancock, Reynolds, Meade, Thomas, Gibbon) who have one ore all stats that are significantly above average. To me, a stat of 4 represents someone with excellent skill, anything higher gets into genious levels. Having multiple ratings of 4 also represent genious (as few generals can 'excell' at stragetic operation, defensive and offensive actions). IMO, a 4-4-4 is much better than a 6-4-1, as they have almost no weak aspect.

I am going to go through the stats, look at short histories, and tone down some of the generals, as well as to put some 0 factors as this, in a 2-star general role of corps commander, is actually a penalty.

[runyan99]

The stats probably are inflated for many generals.

A quick comment about 3-1-1 being average. It was decided to make 3-1-1 the average, because then you can make someone below average by giving them a 3-0-0.

If you make 3-0-0 the average, then you cannot make commanders who are below average in attack or defense. You have no where to go.

[McNaughton]

The stats probably are inflated for many generals.

A quick comment about 3-1-1 being average. It was decided to make 3-1-1 the average, because then you can make someone below average by giving them a 3-0-0.

If you make 3-0-0 the average, then you cannot make commanders who are below average in attack or defense. You have no where to go.

The problem here, is that 3-0-0 is actually giving a unit bonus' when as a division commander.

Abilities can be used to make a commander poorer than a 3-0-0. You can create combat penalties for commanders, just like combat bonus' (re: cavalryman trait). This can be used to get below 3-0-0 (created a poor infantryman trait, which gives a -10% bonus, or has the unit fight at 90%).

The problem that I see is that some of the poor rated generals are so poor that they are so below average that nobody will put them in command. Truley this is an after-thought realization (after creating and releasing the game).

An 'Average' general, in my opinion, is a 'placeholder'. They are in-name only for historic reasons, but, are given stats that do not positively or negatively affect their command unit. 3-0-0 better represents this than 3-1-1.

3-0-0 is only a 'relative' poor trait to 3-1-1 (for divisional commander), as both actually increase the stats of a unit. In order to make a 'poor' general a 'poor' general, that's where I believe abilities come into play (dispirited, over-cautious, slow mover, etc.).

Most in-game bad generals should be attractive to some point, but also negative in others. Take General Pillow from the Leader Mod. Currently rated at 2-0-0 he will sit in a stack just providing CP bonus'. However, historically he could be rated as somewhat above average, but, with severe faults. For his actions at Donelson (his planned and executed counter-attack) he is probably better rated at 3-1-0 and surpriser (along with Dispirited leader). He gives an attack bonus to his division, plus as a stack leader he can increase the surprise, but, he negatively affects a unit's cohesion.

I think that if we take the poor leaders, and give them some good qualities, as well as take the superb leaders, and give them some negative qualities, that can reflect the true human beings slightly more accurately (Grant was not equivalent to Lee in all aspects, he was just as aggressive, but that's pretty much it).

[Jabberwock]

Most in-game bad generals should be attractive to some point, but also negative in others. Take General Pillow from the Leader Mod. Currently rated at 2-0-0 he will sit in a stack just providing CP bonus'. However, historically he could be rated as somewhat above average, but, with severe faults. For his actions at Donelson (his planned and executed counter-attack) he is probably better rated at 3-1-0 and surpriser (along with Dispirited leader). He gives an attack bonus to his division, plus as a stack leader he can increase the surprise, but, he negatively affects a unit's cohesion.

Grant was openly contemptuous of Pillow - said something after the war about him being the worst general he was ever opposed to, but he was probably including the strategic level in that assessment, not just operational.

[runyan99]

Scarcity is what will force players to use the worst rated leaders. If Pillow is one of a handful of brigadiers available to the Confederacy in 1861, the player may need him regardless of his stats.

[McNaughton]

Scarcity is what will force players to use the worst rated leaders. If Pillow is one of a handful of brigadiers available to the Confederacy in 1861, the player may need him regardless of his stats.

Scarcity is not there, especially by early 1862, Pillow served in top divisional commands until just under mid 1862, players will always have someone better to give the 'choice' Divisional commands to (plus, you could never give him a division, with a strategy rating of 2!). There were enough historic 'good' brigadiers out there in game, and in history. The problem was, seniority had a greater play in things than even AGEOD represents in AACW. You are free to put the general with seniority of 133 leading your 1st and best division, without any penalty, leaving the absolute worst of the worst in a back-water region. It is too easy to get a leader who is 3-1-1, to the point where they are 'seen' to be bad, but in gameplay terms, are not giving you penalties. Many Brigadiers had such low seniority that they were relegated to brigade command, while others had much higher seniority to gain divisional, or even department/army command. Seniority really only affects Army commanders, plus the ranking in the stack (i.e., who comes first), but, you can always just tuck away the poor generals, and by late 1861 (not even by 1862) all of your critical forces are commanded by the 'top' generals.

[runyan99]

The designer/modder has total freedom to decide how many generals are available and when.

As for 'tucking away' bad generals, there was clearly a lot of this in the real war.

[Guru80]

I agree with McNaughton when talking about Vanilla AACW, of course modding changes everything.

It makes complete sense to me that the average general be 3-0-0 and poor generals not only poor based on their stats but abilities as well. I know as the Union I have put high senority, terrible stat Generals off by themselves (basically retiring them, just leaving them there to sit in an empty city by themselves) because the number of generic 3-1-1 Generals increases quickly.

Senority needs to be taken into consideration also for Divisional command. It doesn't have to be a strict 1-2-3-ect chain since that would be impossible if the highest ranked general was outwest and the next one out east and you need a division in the east. Maybe something like by region? I dunno but something needs to be done. If there are 3 Generals in a stack but the lowest seniority is the best one you shouldn't be able to by pass the other 2 without some sort of consequence somewhere. Not so significant it makes it not worthwhile but significant enough it makes you at least consider the higher senority, less skilled general.

[McNaughton]

The designer/modder has total freedom to decide how many generals are available and when.

As for 'tucking away' bad generals, there was clearly a lot of this in the real war.

True, Pocus (one of the masterminds behind the game) himself (not to speak for him, but what got me going was an initial post by him) was posing questions as to what really consisted as 'generic' or 'average' and that maybe 3-0-0 is a 'better' representation. Not to say that this is right, but, in regards to the system mechanics, and people's observation while playing, that there is no incentive to assign leaders historically when it comes to those below Army commander.

While it was true that many were pushed to other theatres, some very good generals were shifted out to quiet zones primarily due to politics. Butler and Banks fought in relatively important and large commands throughout the war, even though they were very incompetent.

As someone said in another thread about generals, just because they won or lost some battles it should not be the determining factor in regards to their strength.

If a CSA general lost a lot of battles, this doesn't mean that they were poor, as an average to good general can lose battles if constantly outnumbered, outgunned, out supplied and using poor communication networks.

Also, a USA general who won a battle (Hancock is my wipping boy!), say at Gettysburg, when they weren't outnumbered, when they were in a good defensive position, when their foe gave them ample opportunities to harm them, etc., that their stats should not be high as a result.

Again, the Army leaders themselves will have impact. Hancock, again, may have been successful given the benefits of Meade as an Army commander. So, instead of a 5 strategy rating, he might be more accurately measured as a 4 (given Meade's bonus to Hancock).

Next we have abilities. Should a good general get good stats, and good abilities, does this not then turn them into great? As I said earlier, what is more useful, a 6-4-1 or a 4-4-4? Truely, a 4-4-4 is a magificent leader as they have no faults, even though the other leader has a 6 strategy, their 1 defense counters their ability.

I find that there is little choice, little variety, as there are (in the game) correct command choices, and incorrect command choices, there are very few 'lets try this and see what happens'...

To me, this feature could be 'improved' given the vast amount of changes and functions AGEOD has provided with leaders (abilities, statistics, changing ranks, events, etc.).

[McNaughton]

I agree with McNaughton when talking about Vanilla AACW, of course modding changes everything.

It makes complete sense to me that the average general be 3-0-0 and poor generals not only poor based on their stats but abilities as well. I know as the Union I have put high senority, terrible stat Generals off by themselves (basically retiring them, just leaving them there to sit in an empty city by themselves) because the number of generic 3-1-1 Generals increases quickly.

Senority needs to be taken into consideration also for Divisional command. It doesn't have to be a strict 1-2-3-ect chain since that would be impossible if the highest ranked general was outwest and the next one out east and you need a division in the east. Maybe something like by region? I dunno but something needs to be done. If there are 3 Generals in a stack but the lowest seniority is the best one you shouldn't be able to by pass the other 2 without some sort of consequence somewhere. Not so significant it makes it not worthwhile but significant enough it makes you at least consider the higher senority, less skilled general.

Seniority does work to an extent. A 1-star general with 20 seniority will come before a 1-star general with 30 seniority in the stack. If you don't have a 2-star general in the stack, the 1-star general with the highest seniority will command. That means their statisics are applied to the stack. With so many 3-1-1 divisional commanders, even with a 1-star general in 'command' of a stack, they won't provide any penalties.

In the beginning of the game there will be a lot of independent divisions, commanded by 2 1-star generals (to eliminate the CP penalty). A 3-0-0 provides no penalty to a division, but does to a corps. However, a 3-1-1 provides a bonus to a division, and no penalty to a corps, meaning that the average general being 3-1-1 results in very few penalties being faced, and that a lot of commands will be at, or greater than initial strength based on leader bonus', even if you are using 'generic 3-1-1 generals'.

My thinking is if Grant is no longer a 6-6-4, but rated at a 6-2-2, when compared to Hooker (who is now a 4-2-2) who would be a 4-4-0, the choice of who will command your army isn't quite as simple. Grant is probably still the better choice, but, if your army will be doing lots of attacking, you will strongly consider Hooker.

[Jabberwock]

It makes complete sense to me that the average general be 3-0-0 and poor generals not only poor based on their stats but abilities as well. I know as the Union I have put high senority, terrible stat Generals off by themselves (basically retiring them, just leaving them there to sit in an empty city by themselves) because the number of generic 3-1-1 Generals increases quickly.

I use them as scouts and spies. If they get spotted, it is often with just enough information to an opponent that they will misallocate troops. 'What is that force that suddenly appeared off the coast of Wilmington (or wherever)? Is it a full division, or just general whatshisname?' If they get wounded, who cares?

[Jabberwock]

Again, the Army leaders themselves will have impact. Hancock, again, may have been successful given the benefits of Meade as an Army commander. So, instead of a 5 strategy rating, he might be more accurately measured as a 4 (given Meade's bonus to Hancock).

There is also the possibility that Meade wasn't that good or effective, he just had several good corps and division commanders. I'm not planning to defend that idea, because I have relatively little emotional attachment to it; just throwing it out there to make trouble.

[McNaughton]

There is also the possibility that Meade wasn't that good or effective, he just had several good corps and division commanders. I'm not planning to defend that idea, because I have relatively little emotional attachment to it; just throwing it out there to make trouble.

True, and I agree with you, but in game both are rated highly, and in combination it is similar to a Jackson-Lee relationship. So one, or the other, or both should probably be reduced. I am leaning toward a reduction of both, not to make them useless, but, to put them more in line with what the Union commanders would probably be. Given that in many cases they had numeric superiority, as well as positional superiority (regardless of ability, Hancock could not stop the route on the 1st Day of Gettysburg).

[McNaughton]

I have gone through most of the Union Generals and have done some hefty revisions...

I have revisited the 'levels' and did a lot of reading up in regards to action and participation. Most changes are in regards to attack/defense stats (strategy left as is primarily)

While commanding a single unit (divison/brigade) a 0 offensive/defensive statistic is still a 'bonus' (improves the 'combat strength' of their division), but, when commanding the stack gives negatives (to me, this symbolizes the general commanding beyond their ability). A zero stat means neither good nor bad. So, a 3-0-0 is seen as a relatively unkown general, or someone who did their job, but neither spectacularly or poorly (poor generals gain reputation via abilities). These are generals like Paine, Brooks, Naglee, etc.

Generals who were promoted (unless they were horrid), or showed limited skill (as in defending a defensible position well) are rated at a combat level of 1. While not a battlefield genious, he showed some skill in regards to their ability to attack and/or defend. They are rated at 3-1-1 / 3-1-0 / 3-0-1. These are generals like Getty, McArthur, Negley, Griffin, etc.

Generals with 2 in offensive/defensive ratings show good ability given positive situations such as in a 1:1 situation. They are able to inspire their division, or corps, and could lead an army without difficulty (although they aren't going to provide their corps with any combat benefit). These are generals like *Grant, Gibbon, Slocum, Birney, Wilder, Dodge, McPherson.

*Grant's strength is not in his combat ability, but high Strategic Rating.

Ratings of 3 in offensive/defensive are starting to get noticable in ability. These are generals who are able to consistently show success in a variety of situations in this field. These are generals like Hancock, Warren, Porter, Kearny, Sherman, Reynolds, Thomas.

Ratings of 4 in offensive/defensive are those who showed strong combat ability. Usually, however, it is offset by a very low opposite (Hooker, for example has 4 offense and 0 defense). These are generals like Sheridan, and Hooker. Very few Union Generals have this level of combat ability.

The rationale behind this reduction is that to fight with success, at even odds (numeric and positional), one does not require high statistics. Take the Battle of Fort Donelson. Initial ratings (based on Leader Mod) puts Grant at 5-6-4 (with abilities) with Pillow at 2-0-0 (with abilities) and AS Johnston at 4-2-1 (with abilities). In tactical combat Pillow and AS Johnston suprised Grant during their engagmeents. The Combat at Fort Donelson can be tactically rated as a Confederate victory. The Sea and Land battles were won with great skill against overwhelming force (16000 vs 24000). The reason for the defeat was a strategic blunder after the tactical victory was won. However, as the game currently is, put the historic forces together and Grant will not only win a Strategic Victory, but be a tactical success as well (due to Pillow's horrid stats, Grant's superb stats, and the forces numerically in the favour of the Union). Even at Shiloh Grant experienced initial parity in numbers with AS Johnston, yet (like at Donelson) was caught off-guard and was tactically outfought (in game, Grant was tactically defeated by two generals who are rated significantly below him). Both battles were 'strategic' victories for Grant, but due to AS Johnston's untimely death, and Pillow's inability to strategically exploit his tactical success.

This was typical of the 'top' Union Generalship. They were successful, but had a lot of factors adding to their success (numbers and usually initiative). Even in defeat, the Union held many advantages, meaning that in victory (for the most part) the Confederates were fighting against the odds.

Generals are a force multiplier. In order to get historic results the Confederacy requires that their numeric strength be raised from real numbers. While at Gettysburg, the armies were eventually rated at 90000 vs 70000, yet the odds were closer to 1:1 with the CSA attacking and USA defending (even after the USA got all of their troops to battle). While individual generals in the Union showed great ability, the force as a whole of 70K was seen as a substantial threat to the Union 90K. Yet, given AACW values (at this time) you end up with Meade at 5-4-4 with corps commanders such as Howard at 4-3-3, Sickles at 3-2-1, Reynolds at 4-4-4, and Hancock at 5-4-5 against Lee at 6-5-5 with corps commanders such as Longstreet at 5-3-6 and AP Hill at 3-2-2 and Ewell at 2-3-1. In no way will the Confederate attacking force ever compare to the Union defending force as it historically threatened. Indeed, the lowest Union Corps commander (Sickles) is as good as the average Confederate Corps commander (Hill) and better than the worst (Ewell). I don't see how this Confederate force would be a threat to the Union formation given these circumstances, as not only does the Union have numeric superiority, they have a qualitative superiority in generalship.

In my opinion, the Union Generals were good (at best) nevery outstanding in their ability to wage a tactical war. Even in the waning days of the war, the 'top of the top' Union generals were outfought by their Confederate counterparts (even with substantial odds in their favour). Numbers, strategic positioning, and High-Level Strategic Generalship won the war for the Union, while Quality for the South delayed their defeat by 3-4 years.

[Eugene Carr]

This looks really good!,I like to go thru the process of superseding commanders with more senior but better generals or "promoting" less able generals to frontier garrisons.
I too would like a more "historical " initial seniority list with greater opportunities to promote those who do well.

I did mod the text files in an earlier version of the Leader Mod based on the approx date of their BG appointment and it did give some different looking armies!
I think the current seniorities are as much for game reasons as history so you have to take the penalties of promoting good but junior generals too early.

S!

[McNaughton]

I am working on a few extra abilities, some are just more of the same but in a different name, others are trying to represent something in a different manner.

1. Poor Tactician - This commander has difficulty coordinating his command on the battlefield. 5% combat penalty for all land combat units in the stack.

*This represents a poor divisional or brigade commander who cannot lead his regiments on the battle effectively.

2. High Initiative - This commander shows a strong sense of initiative when engaged in battle. +1 Initiative in battle to the whole unit.

*This general will get their troops into position and act faster than an average general.

3. Low Initiative - This commander shows a complete lack of initiative when engaged in battle. -1 Initiative in battle to the whole unit.

*In my opinion, an overcautious general represents one who has the abilities of... a) Low Initiative, b) Slow Move, c) a lower strategic rating.

4. Poor Logistician - If the commander, 10% increase on the whole army supply consumption.

*If there is a master logistician, there should be a poor one too!

5. Arrogant - This general is overly arrogant and does not take advice from his subordinates or colleagues. -2 Command Points to any stacks he commands.

6. Self Aggrandizer - This general thinks overly highly about himself at the expense of his subordinates and peers. -2 Command Points to any stacks he commands.

7. Dispirited Commander - This commander is absolutly not charismatic for his men, or is a defaitist. -2 Command Points to the stack he commands and to subordinates corps if any.

8. Political General - This general gained his position through political connections and is unqualified for command. -2 Command Points to the stack he commands and to subordinates corps if any.

9. Unqualified - This general is unqualified for this level of command. -2 Command Points to the stack he commands and to subordinates corps if any.

[Korrigan]

Very interesting thread.

I'm quite behind you for the "average" general. Only the need to have "poor general prevented us to use 3-0-0.

FYI, the engine can handle negative values... (ex: 3 -1 +2)

This should open you new prospectives...

[McNaughton]

Very interesting thread.

I'm quite behind you for the "average" general. Only the need to have "poor general prevented us to use 3-0-0.

FYI, the engine can handle negative values... (ex: 3 -1 +2)

This should open you new prospectives...

Really? That's neat to hear! Thanks!

[Pocus]

yes it should, and if not, it will

[McNaughton]

--LEADER ABILITIES DETERMINATION--

Given a better understanding as to abilities, I am testing a few ideas for new, and modified abilities. Basically, there are three levels (all described in regards to application for commanders). Some are already listed below, others are new and/or drastically changed.

A) Leader - this only applies to units in the stack IF the commander is leading the stack. This is good for representing corps commanders.

B) Group - this applies to all units in the stack if the leader/unit is present (all brigades/divisions/regiments/batteries in the stack regardless if the leader of the stack). All and all, this is the most 'useful' as all you must be is present in the stack. This is good for representing general's aides.

C) Unit - this applies to all elements in a particular unit (brigade/division). This limits things to commanding purely to single units. This is good for representing divisional commanders.

--COLOURS--

I have also modded the colours in my mod (as they appear to be somewhat randomly determined).

A) Blue - Good Combat Abilities (those which directly affect combat and ability to fight).

B) Dark Orange - Negative Combat Abilities

C) Green - Good Non-Combat Abilities (those which affect movement, command and control)

D) Red - Negative Non-Combat Abilities.

This way you can quickly determine if a general has a good, or bad ability based not only on the graphic, but the colour of the ability icon.

--NEW ABILITIES--

1. Cavalryman - Changing this ability to be 'unit based', as in only applies to the division that the leader will command. This represents a 'divisional' level of cavalry command, where one is proficient only in moving around regiments (i.e., a divisional cavalry commander).

2. Cavalry Commander - Changing this ability to be 'leader based', as it only applies if the general is in command of the stack. This represents a general who is proficient at commanding larger forces of cavalry (i.e., a cavalry corps commander).

*The inclusion of these two variations will differentiate a cavalryman who may be good at commanding their own brigade/division, but, does not have the operational ability to command larger forces. The 'Cavalry Commander' ability will only be applied to 'cavalrymen' who are capable of commanding corps (therefore limit the cavalry ability to a few historic men, meaning that you may be inclined to put Pleasanton in command as he is one of the few who 'could' lead a cavalry corps, albiet not necessarily well).

3. Decisive Commander - Leader - This changes the initiative of all units in the stack by +1 if this commander is the leader of the stack. This represents a corps commander who is quick to react in battle, and is able to act quickly and deploy their divisions/brigades in good/quick order (corps commander).

4. Decisive Leader - Unit - This changes the initiative of the unit (division/brigade) by +1 that this commander would be attached too. They are good at moving around their own regiments quickly and in good order (divisional commander).

5. Indecisive Commander - Leader - Similar to decisive commander, except a -1 initiative. (Corps commander)

6. Indecisive Leader - Unit - Similar to decisive leader, except a -1 initiative. (divisional commander)

*Decisive and indecisive leaders and commanders (in my opinion) better represent over-cautious, or very daring generals. Initiative affects their ability to react to combat situations, who fires first. Divisional and Corps Indecisive/Decisive abilities are mutually inclusive, meaning that you could have a corps commanded by a decisive commander, with a decisive leader commanding a division in the corps (this division recieving +2 initiative). Also, it is possible for a mix of indecisive and decisivie.

7. Aide de Cap - Group - +2 CP to the stack (represents a good aid de camp, who if in the stack provides help in ordering/commanding the stack they are in). All that this general needs to do to give his bonus is to be in a stack.

8. Uncooperative - Group - -2 CP to the stack (represents a general whose actions interfere with the smooth runnings of the corps). All that this general needs to do to give his penalty is to be in a stack. (these generals are arrogant, or self-promoting at the expense of their peers).

*These two abilities represent generals who 'supported' or 'hindered' their commanders. If these generals are present in the corps, either as independent brigadiers, or even as divisional commanders, they provide their +/- 2 CP to the corps. These abilities work like 'balloon' and 'signal' abilties (yet are applied to individual leaders).

9. Poor Besieger - Leader - -1 point of seige value added to the stack while attacking. This represents a commander who is incompetent at laying sieges (lines not fully fortified, etc.).

10. Poor Fort Defender - Leader - -1 point of sieve value added to the stack while defending. This represents a commander who does not effectively prepare or man his defenses.

*I hope that these will work, as they will represent a general who is very bad at assaulting a fort or defending a fort (something which I think was lacking).

11. Poor Tactician - Unit - This represents a Brigadier General who cannot effectively lead their division (thereby making a 'worse' general than a 3-0-0), with their forces recieving negative combat values (when in acual combat, they move their forces into vunlerable positions).

12. Slow Mover - Group - I figure that it only takes one divisional commander in which to slow down an entire corps, so I am changing the designation of this ability from Leader to Group.

13. Unqualified - Leader - This general is unqualified at leading a corps or army and recieves a -4 CP penalty to their command, as well as to subordinate commands. This represents political generals, as well as regular army commanders who were promoted above their abilities.

[Pdubya64]

First off, thanks for going through the exercise McNaughton- all very enlightening and necessary in my opinion, considering how important leadership during the ACW was and is in the game.

I really like the leveling out of the base ratings here. I think it better represents our "average" general by tying their ratings to a neutral effect on their troops. Once you start thinking hard about it, those baseline generic generals can have a powerful effect for the Union due to the sheer number of them available. Possibly unbalancing.

Do you plan to do some testing with negative attributes and the like? I will be interested in the outcome.

I like your methodology McNaughton- work to establish a baseline and move outward from there. Care more about in-game results; in the end that's all that matters anyway. Minimize subjective evaluations of leaders as much as the existing research will allow.

Well, enough late night blathering.
Keep up the good work and we will be here to bounce ideas off of and provide you feedback.
Take care,
PW

[McNaughton]

First off, thanks for going through the exercise McNaughton- all very enlightening and necessary in my opinion, considering how important leadership during the ACW was and is in the game.

I really like the leveling out of the base ratings here. I think it better represents our "average" general by tying their ratings to a neutral effect on their troops. Once you start thinking hard about it, those baseline generic generals can have a powerful effect for the Union due to the sheer number of them available. Possibly unbalancing.

Do you plan to do some testing with negative attributes and the like? I will be interested in the outcome.

I like your methodology McNaughton- work to establish a baseline and move outward from there. Care more about in-game results; in the end that's all that matters anyway. Minimize subjective evaluations of leaders as much as the existing research will allow.

Well, enough late night blathering.
Keep up the good work and we will be here to bounce ideas off of and provide you feedback.
Take care,
PW

Holy crap!

Wow, now I know who you are...! I have been thinking and thinking who this "Pdubya" is since I first saw a post by you here as it is such a familiar name, and after reading "MazX Falcon" it clicked in (I remember a name change a while ago)... by the way, my MazX name is 'Corporal Kirby'... Nice to see you here!

It feels like we are a part of a secret club, like the masons or something...