Concern over Historical accuracy and "general's balance"

[1stvermont]

I may be overdoing this but I just want to be sure, so far I have loved the game but dont want to recommend to other family members [as I plan to] to get game if what I am concerned with is true. It all started after reading this post on this thread on the topic if grant was overrated.


Is Grant overrated?
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?34488-Grant



the second post by a game designer named "PhilThib "


The game stats have less to do with history and personal feeling / assumption of leaders... there role is to offer a balancing point vis-a-vis the other side... the CSA has Lee, the USA must have a "matching" Grant, that's the way our games are done....



As i said if so why label this game as a historical accurate game? Why not just have a "gray team" vs a "blue team". So i looked at the stats and grant has

grant
6-6-4
sherman
6-5-4


csa two best from history

lee 6-5-6
stonewall 5-4-4


so my concern is just what the designer said, the game is made on balance not historical accuracy. The south biggest advantage was great generals, that should be portrayed in game.


"The South also had a great nucleus of TRAINED OFFICERS. Seven of the eight military colleges in the country were in the South."
http://www.ushistory.org/us/33b.asp



So long a agod does not make or try their best historically accurate games, i will not recommend as i previously intended to nor buy future games. Is their historically accurate mods available.? Am i reading this wrong? what do you guys think?


I always agree with this

"Finally, the best military minds belonged to Southerners, where there were also more military leaders in general as well as a broader base of recruits with some military or martial experience. The list of brilliant Southern generals is extensive, while even at the highest command the North struggled to find a competent leader for most of the Civil War. "
http://www.civilwar.org/resources/confederate-states-had-many.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/







balancing


if we must balance a grant and lee, than what is the balance for NYC in the south? should we not balance the industry of the north and south? navey as well?

no clealrey not, no one would play, we want a historically accurate game not a "balanced game" only balance should maybe be in victory determination, not a 50/50 balance but if the south can do this good [ whatever that may be mach history etc] they win.






Also is their mods to fix?

[BattleVonWar]

The ratings of Generals are very important in situations but diminishes in the face of numbers. You can also I'm certain edit their values yourself if you're dying for precise historical accuracy. I would definitely put Stonewall and Lee way way higher than they're rated. Sherman and Grant also significantly higher. Forest would be off the charts... and I would alter the characteristic of drunkard to Grant. The Characteristic of reckless(plusplusplus) on Lee, especially as time goes on and victories rack up. Then lower that as he's humbled... Also you have to consider for instance that at Antietam that Burnside was one of the best performing Generals and is way underrated due to the pressure he received politically.. So how do you accurately punish him in game? Is he judged too harshly? Some say much too much. The South had an initial advantage. That evaporated and if you think on it how many times did the South Threaten D.C.

I'd put AP Hill as lightning fast mover :P


""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
As for industrial/manpower/Naval aspect... Tactical and strategic disposition of both forces you cannot find a more historical wargame in existence covering the Civil War.

The South can never win and should never win realistically. Save blunder after blunder into the Heavens by the North.

[1stvermont]

I think you missed what has me so concerned. That the ratings are not based solely on history but balance. Grant is rated high because the north needs a "lee". Why the south does not get a NYC or great navey to blocade north ports i am not sure, why generals only i dont know.

[Cardinal Ape]

I guess you could focus on that one line by Phil and use it to say the game is not historically accurate. Or you could look at all the work that was done in the Officers sub-forum and see how most of the generals stats came to be. If you were around at that time then your input could have affected the game. I'm sorry, but I think you latched on to that one line and twisted it a bit too far.

The hardest thing to quantify is the generals stats. It is very difficult to not let personal opinions affect your judgement of people. I'd be willing to bet that most people who play this game feel that there is one general that is severely overrated and there is one that is severely underrated. Who they are is probably different for each person. In that poll you referenced, did you vote Grant as nothing more than a common butcher?

Don't ignore the general's traits either, they are more important than one or two points of defensive or offensive ratings. I've won PBEM games solely because of Lee and Jackson's fast mover traits. If you just look at the ratings then Grant appears to be better than Lee, but Lee's traits are clearly better.

[1stvermont]

I guess you could focus on that one line by Phil and use it to say the game is not historically accurate. Or you could look at all the work that was done in the Officers sub-forum and see how most of the generals stats came to be. If you were around at that time then your input could have affected the game. I'm sorry, but I think you latched on to that one line and twisted it a bit too far.

The hardest thing to quantify is the generals stats. It is very difficult to not let personal opinions affect your judgement of people. I'd be willing to bet that most people who play this game feel that there is one general that is severely overrated and there is one that is severely underrated. Who they are is probably different for each person. In that poll you referenced, did you vote Grant as nothing more than a common butcher?

Don't ignore the general's traits either, they are more important than one or two points of defensive or offensive ratings. I've won PBEM games solely because of Lee and Jackson's fast mover traits. If you just look at the ratings then Grant appears to be better than Lee, but Lee's traits are clearly better.

I voted grant slight overrated. The issue is not that i feel grant and some other northern generals are overrated, its that they base how good grant should be on lee, that is what bothers me. I left total war type games for reasons like this. I hope I am reading or understanding it wrong but i dont see how i am not.



I also [if am reading this correct] feel bad promoting this game as a "historically accurate" game to others as i have done.

http://www.norbsoftdev.net/forum/other-games/66664-civil-war-2-by-ageod


those guys are like guys here history buff looking for historical games. Than i hear know about some auto NM thing going on, not sure what that is but sounds like more balancing.

[BattleVonWar]

The attachment zR0Zi0U.png is no longer available

In this particular attachment

Remember also these Generals became great but just as easy we are not playing history here we're playing a simulator of history. So Grant could have got shot in the eye long before he was ever Great that or lost too many battles and retired to the bottle and never returned. Or Lee could have been bypassed for another great Virginia Theater General(he would be better training cadets then serving in the field with all the great generals the South gets early IMO) but none of this matters as what Ape said is right if you run the game and you end up finding such a HUGE imbalance that the game is unplayable you will quit playing. I have played 5 PBEM games and each has lasted and recreated a portion of History. I think 1863 in 1...1863 in the 2nd...and now have 3 going much much better as I've learned to deal with the limited Southern Resources!!! (admittedly I could have ran 1 of the '63 games longer)

~Above game Grant was reduced in rating from losing so many battles, I beat Grant I think 4 out of 5 major engagements cause he attacked in poor conditions. Though I lost the game in Virginia! At the same time my Generals as in history gained experience!

[Cardinal Ape]

I guess everyone has their own tolerance for how much historical inaccuracy that they can handle. Over all I think ageod does a good job on the historical front. Maybe not perfect, but leagues above Total War.

Some sacrifices have to made in order to make a good game though. Historical war games are the most difficult;if they are too historical then one side would always win. Thats not a fun game.

[1stvermont]

ape, were you not the one saying it was to hard as south? they should be able to win more? yet its ok to be inaccurate to make northern generals better for supposed balancing that just makes north better?.

also shouldent the north always "win", yet because vp's the south can also "win" in this game? is it not more fun to play a real civil war game than simply a game that north and south are equally powered? also the players should have say in who wins, after historical settings are given accurate.



battle

are you referring to nm balance? than i can see what your saying, but not generals ratings balance.


also the stats are their regardless of how they do, grant could control a brigade and get wiped out, but the fact his ratings are based on balancing not history drives me nuts.

[rain94]

For me it is simple, as a gamer, would I be happy and satisfied loosing the war yet knowing that I did better as the South than historical?That is, if I could survive past the historical Appomattox date of April 26 1865, even by a week, then I have won "the game", albeit at the very least of miniscule margin. The longer I could hold out, the bigger my margin of victory as I continue to revel in "The Lost Cause". In that case, throw out all the balancing numbers and mechanics and give me historical ratings for all generals and units, give me the full historical deficiency of the South in terms of men, industry, etc. and give me an all-historical canvas for me to paint my own experience in attempting to try to at least tie or beat history. The same goes for the union where my goal as the player should be to end the war ASAP, utilizing the fullest of all of the benefits of the north to beat the historical date with the least amount of casualties, and ofcourse, putting up if you will, with inadequate Union command, although tactically,I happen to believe that Grant was at the same level as R.E. Lee. Where I believe Lee had the biggest of advantage was the morale that he brought to his troops with just his mere presence which can skew the tides of battle. I think the solution is simple in that all that is required is an option in the menu to allow or disallow balance for the enjoyment of how players wish to play, solo or pbem. Also, I wish that if Ageod made a Civil War III (surely they will!:thumbsup , they can model the morale in much greater detail.

[DrPostman]

I usually play against Athena and when I do I randomize general stats in the options. They
still have their special talents, but it makes for a much more interesting game, especially
when you end up with officers that have a 0 for a strategic stat.

[Captain_Orso]

I think one must be careful in the assumptions one makes, and we all make assumptions when we don't have all of the facts and we practically never do. I don't mean to discount anybody's arguments, only to offer some constructive criticism.

Leadership is not just a question of knowledge and will. Officers are not leading animated objects, they are leading men, which means the relationship between a leader and his men is purely psychological; it's based on trust and confidence. The respect a position of command instills is always tentative to the experience of the men being lead. What a leader does to instill trust and confidence is just as important as how he uses his knowledge and will to use that trust and confidence.

After Joseph Johnston was wounded Lee took over the Confederate army at Richmond. For the troops he was mostly known for being defensive, always ordering his men to dig in, which earned him the derisive title of "Granny Lee"; not the sign of a great leader. The Seven Days battles may only have eased the troops misgivings of him to some degree. He did force McClellan off the peninsula, but at a great cost. I believe he first truly became beloved of his men after 2nd Manassas.

Grant, through securing the surrender of Fort Donelson earned an enormous amount of trust and respect from his men. It was the greatest victory of Union troops to date, after nearly a year of war in which the North practically only suffered losses, and not only did the Union win the battle, they captured an entire army.

Which game considers so greatly the psychology of leadership to the extent it ought to be reflected? I can think of none.

Beyond the relationship between leaders and their men another aspect I've never seen addressed is interpersonal relationships between leaders. Lee got along well with most of his subordinate generals, Jackson and especially Longstreet for example. But Jackson was often very caustic to his subordinate officers and there was often strife between them. A. P. Hill was a leader who seemed to have a propensity to strife with his commanders, first with Longstreet and then Jackson. It didn't seem to influence his performance on the battlefield, but it did cause him and his division to be transfered from Longstreet's corps to Jackson's. There are many such incidents in both the Northern and Southern forces during the war. None of them are addressed and it would be very difficult to do at all.

The game more or less attempts to represent leaders based on their performances in battle, but who can actually say what the proper way should be to represent them? Are just 3 single digits enough to do justice to a single leader's influence on a battle?

The goal of historical games is generally to let the player experience the decisions of their historical counterparts yet maintain their interest through giving the player the opportunity to make other choices and change the outcome. Being practically forced to attack at Manassas in '61 as the Union player is not really one of the most entertaining aspects of the game, but it does present the player with a challenge. Since no game can actually capture the experience of the realities of war --playing such a simulation would probably leave most of the participants scarred for life-- they strive to represent at least the technical challenges.

Everybody and their brother can make arguments of the leadership qualities when comparing Lee and Grant and all commander making arguments of how they should be represented and who was 'better'. I believe in the end, if the game plays out similar to the way history did, the game is successful at least in that aspect. And if the game then also is entertaining, then the developers have succeeded. I know that the developers of CW2 have succeeded.

In conclusion, if PhilThib stated that Grant's ratings have been tweaked for balance, that does not conclude to what extent nor what influence it has on the game overall. To the greatest extent the game plays out pretty historically, which tells me that somebody did something right. This is not to say I think there is nothing which might be improved upon. I can think of probably, without exaggeration, 100 things I would like to change, but then this would not be AGEod's Civil War II, but Captain Orso's Unplayable Conglomerate of Complicated Rules for the Civil War™, which perhaps only few players could embrace; but I would have fun

[1stvermont]

For me it is simple, as a gamer, would I be happy and satisfied loosing the war yet knowing that I did better as the South than historical?That is, if I could survive past the historical Appomattox date of April 26 1865, even by a week, then I have won "the game", albeit at the very least of miniscule margin. The longer I could hold out, the bigger my margin of victory as I continue to revel in "The Lost Cause". In that case, throw out all the balancing numbers and mechanics and give me historical ratings for all generals and units, give me the full historical deficiency of the South in terms of men, industry, etc. and give me an all-historical canvas for me to paint my own experience in attempting to try to at least tie or beat history. The same goes for the union where my goal as the player should be to end the war ASAP, utilizing the fullest of all of the benefits of the north to beat the historical date with the least amount of casualties, and ofcourse, putting up if you will, with inadequate Union command, although tactically,I happen to believe that Grant was at the same level as R.E. Lee. Where I believe Lee had the biggest of advantage was the morale that he brought to his troops with just his mere presence which can skew the tides of battle. I think the solution is simple in that all that is required is an option in the menu to allow or disallow balance for the enjoyment of how players wish to play, solo or pbem. Also, I wish that if Ageod made a Civil War III (surely they will!:thumbsup , they can model the morale in much greater detail.

agree 100%, just what i am saying. Why alter the generals ratings? alter the victory conditions and give us the civil war.

[tripax]

Just a note, General statistics increase as they gain experience. Usually by the time Grant arrives, if the Union is aggressive and the Confederacy does well Jackson has gained enough experience to rate equal to Grant. Also, every time you promote, you lose some experience (if I remember correctly), so the fact that Jackson and Grant start at 2 star and Sherman at 1 star means that their ratings are a bit lower than they seem compared to Lee.

To me the game is a very good sandbox in which I can play with fair representations of historical figures. I don't like a lot of the decisions they made in designing the game, and it definitely feels like they were understaffed and overstretched when they did the research, but I understand that the market isn't huge and this game sets the bar pretty high and I don't think anyone has reached it. I can't prove the game to be historically more accurate than another game, or anything like that, but I find the inaccuracies to be minimally annoying (I play a slightly modded version, for what its worth).

Finally, try to play as the union making all of the high level mistakes the union made (ie always putting your highest seniority generals in positions of real responsibility, march from Norfolk to Richmond in 1862 and then march away if you lose a couple battles and don't have good supply lines, send Lyon to southwest Missouri with no real Army-Corps-Division structure in 1861, Change Army commanders (and take the NM hits) whenever you lose a big battle, don't organize support units (medical corps, signal corps) right away, and so on. Athena will make different mistakes from the real CSA, but don't worry that she won't make mistakes, too. When I play that way, I seem to get a very historical feel - although I have trouble not winning as soon as I move Grant East in 1864 or earlier.

When I play as the CSA I have to turn the level down one (so it isn't at the hardest setting, but is at the second hardest setting), and again I find if I make historically consistent decisions I get a fairly historic outcome. My complaint is that Athena does not behave like a human, but if you forgive her that, she can feel like a historically consistent actor.

[Ace]

Hi, since I started the poll about Grant, I might say few words. The poll is only the end of a long debate we had in beta where I argued that Grant stats should be lowered a bit (not too much, 6/5/3 sounds reasonable, I think Sherman and Jackson were actually best generals in the war from each side). The mayority was in favor of these stats standings, so I posted a poll wanting to know what the general public thinks. It seems most people are happy with the stats as they are so this was the end of discussion for me. I can't say anything why Phill posted what he did, he might have been influenced by the discussion we had in beta. But I can say that historicity is VERY important in Ageod games, regardless of his quote in the post you mentioned.

[1stvermont]

Hi, since I started the poll about Grant, I might say few words. The poll is only the end of a long debate we had in beta where I argued that Grant stats should be lowered a bit (not too much, 6/5/3 sounds reasonable, I think Sherman and Jackson were actually best generals in the war from each side). The mayority was in favor of these stats standings, so I posted a poll wanting to know what the general public thinks. It seems most people are happy with the stats as they are so this was the end of discussion for me. I can't say anything why Phill posted what he did, he might have been influenced by the discussion we had in beta. But I can say that historicity is VERY important in Ageod games, regardless of his quote in the post you mentioned.

well I hope that is all tue,but i would like to hear from ageod in some way explaining the post given in op.

[rain94]

I agree with Captain Orso in that 3 digits are not sufficient to portray generals and their influences in battles. However, for CW2's engine, in the end it does provide adequate to believable results and I am happy with that. But ultimately, generals are not baseball players where one's Batting Average, Home Runs, and Rbis can give you an accurate portrayal of their offensive capabilities.

As the engine evolves for future Ageod's games and hopefully with a CW3, CW4, we could get different layers of AI. I would love to send instructions to Stonewall or Jubal to sweep the Shenandoah region and delegate that task to him (AI) and then him to his subordinates similar to how the Command Ops game (another Matrix published) simulated chain of command. I should be able to define multiple regions, set basic outlines like aggressiveness, preservation of men at all cost, delaying and disrupting the opposition,etc., and then let the AI handle the rest based on the general's strategic abilities which should be expanded upon. Generals could ignore some or all of my commands, and likewise with him and his subordinates if they have a sour relationship. This would mean I have to switch out commanders to balance and appease their personalities. For the Shenandoah "mission", I can choose to send Jubal who I can trust to follow my instructions, or Stonewall who may modify some or all of my requests to adapt to the conditions.

Or perhaps I could delegate certain parts of the west to several commanders and give them missions to defend, raid, patrol or take specific towns or fort. It's up to them how they want to maneuver and the battles they wish to fight or avoid. Based on their judgement ability, maybe they will request more men, artillery and supplies. Or maybe they're risk takers or a showman and will attempt the assault to gain notoriety or to one-up his fellow leaders. At the end of their missions they will give me reports on their subordinates on how they think they performed and I could promote based on that.

Should I send Longstreet to take Knoxville knowing that he does not excel at a fully independent command? Or should I keep him close next to a more senior commander and give them the objective of getting rid of Sherman down south and to repair some of the scorched infrastructure.

Or if I'm in the mood, as the union, I could give Grant the mission of win and control the west and he will do everything strategically possible with his army. I could then just micromanage the East and keep and eye on Grant by sending him reinforcement or giving him another corp or two.

[1stvermont]

Is their any historical mods for generals?

[1stvermont]

I agree with Captain Orso in that 3 digits are not sufficient to portray generals and their influences in battles. However, for CW2's engine, in the end it does provide adequate to believable results and I am happy with that. But ultimately, generals are not baseball players where one's Batting Average, Home Runs, and Rbis can give you an accurate portrayal of their offensive capabilities.

As the engine evolves for future Ageod's games and hopefully with a CW3, CW4, we could get different layers of AI. I would love to send instructions to Stonewall or Jubal to sweep the Shenandoah region and delegate that task to him (AI) and then him to his subordinates similar to how the Command Ops game (another Matrix published) simulated chain of command. I should be able to define multiple regions, set basic outlines like aggressiveness, preservation of men at all cost, delaying and disrupting the opposition,etc., and then let the AI handle the rest based on the general's strategic abilities which should be expanded upon. Generals could ignore some or all of my commands, and likewise with him and his subordinates if they have a sour relationship. This would mean I have to switch out commanders to balance and appease their personalities. For the Shenandoah "mission", I can choose to send Jubal who I can trust to follow my instructions, or Stonewall who may modify some or all of my requests to adapt to the conditions.

Or perhaps I could delegate certain parts of the west to several commanders and give them missions to defend, raid, patrol or take specific towns or fort. It's up to them how they want to maneuver and the battles they wish to fight or avoid. Based on their judgement ability, maybe they will request more men, artillery and supplies. Or maybe they're risk takers or a showman and will attempt the assault to gain notoriety or to one-up his fellow leaders. At the end of their missions they will give me reports on their subordinates on how they think they performed and I could promote based on that.

Should I send Longstreet to take Knoxville knowing that he does not excel at a fully independent command? Or should I keep him close next to a more senior commander and give them the objective of getting rid of Sherman down south and to repair some of the scorched infrastructure.

Or if I'm in the mood, as the union, I could give Grant the mission of win and control the west and he will do everything strategically possible with his army. I could then just micromanage the East and keep and eye on Grant by sending him reinforcement or giving him another corp or two.

I think you may enjoy norb soft dev, their last civil war one was Gettysburg [ with expansions]. You control as large a force as you wish [micro manage] and have option to give commands to division/corps/brigade/regiment or all your units to work within your plan. But how well they follow depends on that generals [based in history] aggressiveness and ability to follow orders. But you give overall order like hold at all cost/probe atack/skirmish/push as hard as can/delay etc etc

[Mickey3D]

Is their any historical mods for generals?

But what is "historical" rating of generals ? There is no scientific way to rate leaders performance and this forum is full of argument on their correct rating : we all have a subjective assessment. At the end we all agree on the name of a few outstanding generals and the game must simulate this and the dilemna of both belligerents. For sure it could be improved but it is far above other games on the subject :

- The discrepancy in leader quality at the beginning of the war is well simulated.
- Maybe Grant is a little bit overrated but it is clear that historically he was the general needed by the North and his stats are designed to this effect.
- As it was historically the case, the challenge for the North is to promote his good leaders to army command and against a good southern player it's not always easy (you can even add a home rule to forbid Grant, Hooker, Sherman to be sent on coastal forts attack if you think it's too gamey.)

For me there is two points that could be improved (unfortunately changing the second could completely imbalance the game) : defective VP system and the march to the sound of guns that is basically a very good idea but tend to transform the game in a WWI war of position.

[havi]

Well if u look the casualtys at army of Potomac under grant against Lee, Lee just wipe the floor of grant even in year 64 the casualty rate was 2:1 to south so yes grant is overpowered and should bee under Lee for the stats. That dosnt change the thing that union will have more toys to kick CSA ass even with the bad generals I just had over 10000pwr army agains me at Va under of 2-0-2 generals agains Longstreet and Lee yes they made union bleed but still they lost. So yes grant is too good.

[James D Burns]

Calm down, you need to remember the designers are French and English is not their native tongue. Phil probably meant to say “to counter”, his games definitely have never been about balancing the sides just for the sake of balance, though some balance issues have crept in recently with some new beta testers on the team. Those issues have been worked out in the patching process though.

As to ratings, you need to remember that leader’s ratings grow as their experience grows. So when Grant and Sherman appear it’s very possible all of Lee and Jackson’s ratings will have grown by one or two points already. To make Grant and Sherman even less capable would make them practically impotent against a highly experienced Lee or Jackson.

Here’s an old post I put up on the Matrix site that shows Longstreet after winning a single big fight. So the real advantage the south has is the fact their best leaders appear first and have time to become much better before the union starts to get some leaders who might be able to compete if they manage to get their experience to grow, not easy vs. seasoned southern officers.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3422005

You probably can’t see this post unless you use the forum pull down to set it to ‘All Topics’ instead of ‘365 days’ which is the default setting. So navigate to All Forums>>New Releases from Matrix Games>>Civil War II page and use the pull down menu. Then re-click this link and you should be able to view it.

Note to Matrix: It is really a PAIN that the forum does this crap. We should be able to see all posts by default not just 365 days. The days of limited bandwidth are long over.

Jim

[tripax]

Is their any historical mods for generals?

There was one for AACW, I think, but that was before my time. There has been a suggestion of doing one for CW2, but that didn't go anywhere. It isn't something I'm interested in doing myself, but I'm happy to help implement if someone else did the research.

[Taillebois]

I usually play against Athena and when I do I randomize general stats in the options. They
still have their special talents, but it makes for a much more interesting game, especially
when you end up with officers that have a 0 for a strategic stat.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who randomizes stats.

[1stvermont]

But what is "historical" rating of generals ? There is no scientific way to rate leaders performance and this forum is full of argument on their correct rating : we all have a subjective assessment. At the end we all agree on the name of a few outstanding generals and the game must simulate this and the dilemna of both belligerents. For sure it could be improved but it is far above other games on the subject :

- The discrepancy in leader quality at the beginning of the war is well simulated.
- Maybe Grant is a little bit overrated but it is clear that historically he was the general needed by the North and his stats are designed to this effect.
- As it was historically the case, the challenge for the North is to promote his good leaders to army command and against a good southern player it's not always easy (you can even add a home rule to forbid Grant, Hooker, Sherman to be sent on coastal forts attack if you think it's too gamey.)

For me there is two points that could be improved (unfortunately changing the second could completely imbalance the game) : defective VP system and the march to the sound of guns that is basically a very good idea but tend to transform the game in a WWI war of position.

I guess i would say one that more acuretley represents the south advantage, but better yet one that determines ratings based on the generals alone not any balancing act.

[BattleVonWar]

I remember when I use to play Paradox's Europa Universalis II...essentially you would wait for your Grand Leaders and they dictated pretty much how the flow of things went along. Along with your manpower/land warfare settings... That would require many many years to adjust and perfect. Napoleonic Warfare was the highlight of the game and by the time that Napoleon came along with Suvorov/Prince Eugen/The Duke of Wellington/maybe a couple Spaniards/Dutchies and definitely Prussian Masters of war the whole game would slide into a stat system of warfare. You had to understand Army construction(as important) as often a guy would invade say Russia with Napoleon with all the cannon he needed but not infantry and they would attrit into the hinterland and you would be left with a dead General. The ratings were so bad, you could destroy armies 4 times the size of your own in a shock therapy type of attack. Really odd feel..from the slow grinding previous few hundred years of war.

All that said, I once played a game and held off 4 human players with equal everything but not equal Generals. I had the primo Generals and won 3 out of 4 wars. Meanwhile other games I have played since have modded down what a General is capable of doing. That or given you the gift of developing your Generals. i.e. Forrest enlisted as a Private and rose to General of a Division Status(meteoric rise) and with no formal military education. Since we're replaying history the stats should be modified by the player's actions unless a man is made pre-war... and Lee was good but what a Colonel pre-war? Ultimately he lost at Antietam and Gettysburg and wanted to retire his command and was just tired out.

History is best represented by this game so far, you should play it and see. Though it could use a ton of improvement. I would love for Virginia to be about 3 times larger ... for a title out today it does a great job of recreating the Civil War and I've played every Grand Strategy Civil War game so far created at least once : ) for a PC

I guess i would say one that more acuretley represents the south advantage, but better yet one that determines ratings based on the generals alone not any balancing act.

[Mickey3D]

I guess i would say one that more acuretley represents the south advantage, but better yet one that determines ratings based on the generals alone not any balancing act.

I'm really surprised by the quote of Phil about the game balance because there was so much talks about leaders rating (see the officers room). May be James D Burn is right and it is a translation problem ? Anyway, we can disagree with some ratings but globally I don't think they have been designed just to ensure balance.

[Gray Fox]

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?38273-The-effect-of-leadership-during-combat

This is a thread I did after analyzing the AGEOD Wiki entry for how leadership affects combat. A 6-6-6 will not overwhelm a 3-1-1. The straight 6 General only gives his units at best about a 16% better chance to hit. So if the great General has militia or low cohesion elements and the average Joe has line infantry with cohesion boosting elite elements, then it's almost an equal fight. An army is a team. If all of your Generals had straight 6's it would still be up to you to train an army, create tactical formations that make sense and formulate a strategy that will win. That's the historical part AGEOD got absolutely correct.

[Rod Smart]

oversimplified answer to original question:
Grant beat Lee

why would Lee be better than Grant?

[RickInVA]

oversimplified answer to original question:
Grant beat Lee

why would Lee be better than Grant?

If you played a tennis match against Roger Federer, and you won, but Federer's racket had no strings, would that mean you were better than Federer?

[RickInVA]

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?38273-The-effect-of-leadership-during-combat

This is a thread I did after analyzing the AGEOD Wiki entry for how leadership affects combat. A 6-6-6 will not overwhelm a 3-1-1. The straight 6 General only gives his units at best about a 16% better chance to hit. So if the great General has militia or low cohesion elements and the average Joe has line infantry with cohesion boosting elite elements, then it's almost an equal fight. An army is a team. If all of your Generals had straight 6's it would still be up to you to train an army, create tactical formations that make sense and formulate a strategy that will win. That's the historical part AGEOD got absolutely correct.

I believe your math. I don't like your math though. Why? Because while I can feel I, as the player, am directing strategy, I am certainly not directing tactics. At that point I would certainly hope that a X-6-6 general in command would be dramatically better than a X-1-1. The best general (whoever you feel that would be) in a straight-up equal forces battle against the worst general (whoever you feel that would be) has less than a 20% advantage? That just doesn't seem right. Napoleon vs. Mack, +20%?