RickInVA wrote: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%?
If Lee fought Patterson in open terrain with clear weather, Lee would be able to effectively field significantly more men in combat because of his strategic rating.
Traits do make a big difference. Charismatic leaders turn normal infantry into quasi elites. Fast movers spend less cohesion getting to the fight.
Have you ever seen the traits on an ageod version of Hannibal or Napoleon? They are truly sick.