I usually play as Union using the 'highly randomized' generals setting. My question is this: Which side gets more benefit from this setting? It seems that this setting neuters the CSA and it becomes fairly passive. I've also noticed that poor generals benefit from this setting more than good generals. For example, Grant and Sherman are always standouts although their stats do vary somehwat, but other generals are much more varied, such as Butler (who once started with a 3-2-3 rating). Mclellan and Halleck are usually just as useless as non-randomized, while Lyon and McDowell seem to vary widely between being useless and being brilliant.
It seems that randomization only operates within certain parameters, so how does it work? Does it benefit the Union more than the CSA?
I think (although not too hard) that the Union could benefit more from this than the CSA, just because of greater number of generals they have. Most of the Union generals are 3-1-1, and even if you end up with some 2-0-0, chances are you'll come out with more 3-2-2 or 4-1-1 than the CSA can produce.
It sucks to get P Kearny as a 6-0-4. Non-randomized he's a decent General, but randomized, he's one those that varies wildly. As for 0-1-1 Generals, I end up with lots, but it's not a critical issue since as the Union as I always end up with enough good or great Generals that I can form the divisions and Corps that I need.
I suspect, as grimjaw mentioned, that the CSA might be more heavily affected since they have fewer Generals. If one or two of the CSA superstars have their stats lowered, they could be in trouble.
I also agree that the promotional system is frustrating. Certain Generals get promoted automatically even if they have abysmal stats, have been relegated to garrison duty in some backwater settlement and have never even fought a battle. I guess it's always a trade-off between reflecting history and letting players have the total flexibility they want.
It would also be nice to be able to dismiss useless Generals (remove them from the game) instead of keeping them in a stack named "Losers". ;-) Perhaps even have Generals that have been removed from command, or have been blamed for failing, resign their commissions as it happened historically. It sure would suck to have Grant or Lee lose a battle, get huffy, and quit though.
I suspect, as grimjaw mentioned, that the CSA might be more heavily affected since they have fewer Generals. If one or two of the CSA superstars have their stats lowered, they could be in trouble.
I also agree that the promotional system is frustrating. Certain Generals get promoted automatically even if they have abysmal stats, have been relegated to garrison duty in some backwater settlement and have never even fought a battle. I guess it's always a trade-off between reflecting history and letting players have the total flexibility they want.
It would also be nice to be able to dismiss useless Generals (remove them from the game) instead of keeping them in a stack named "Losers". ;-) Perhaps even have Generals that have been removed from command, or have been blamed for failing, resign their commissions as it happened historically. It sure would suck to have Grant or Lee lose a battle, get huffy, and quit though.
I also agree that the promotional system is frustrating.
Couldn't agree more. There were several examples of a commander being promoted over the heads of senior officers, without following merit from battlefield success, and it happened on both sides of the conflict. A possible system would be to add an additional promotion button that would send a general to the next rank, but compound the penalties to be worse than just one miffed commander (unless it happens to be just one). It could be limited to a certain number of promotions over a time period, say a year; similar to the way that leader redeployment used to work in AACW (three redeployments max per turn, I think it was).
But this is getting off topic. I have only tried randomized generals once or twice and never liked it. Rather than tweaking existing leaders, I'd rather it generate completely new leaders with random stats and abilities. But that would take quite a bit of work.
Couldn't agree more. There were several examples of a commander being promoted over the heads of senior officers, without following merit from battlefield success, and it happened on both sides of the conflict. A possible system would be to add an additional promotion button that would send a general to the next rank, but compound the penalties to be worse than just one miffed commander (unless it happens to be just one). It could be limited to a certain number of promotions over a time period, say a year; similar to the way that leader redeployment used to work in AACW (three redeployments max per turn, I think it was).
But this is getting off topic. I have only tried randomized generals once or twice and never liked it. Rather than tweaking existing leaders, I'd rather it generate completely new leaders with random stats and abilities. But that would take quite a bit of work.
I haven't really got into the game yet, but wouldn't it help to put those "useless" leaders into a stack with the great leaders so they can win a bunch of battles and receive better stats and maybe become a little more useful? It seems useless to just leave them by themselves. There isn't any malus applied to having a bunch of generals in a stack?
Although it sounds like a good idea to put low quality Generals into stacks, I think that only Generals that actually command a unit (ie a Division or Brigade) have their stats improved. I can't justify putting a 0-1-1 leader in command of a Division when there are 2-1-1 or 3-1-1 ( or better ) leaders available. I don't recall ever seeing a 0-1-1 General improve, no matter how many battles the stack participated in.
I have noticed that it appears Division or Corps commanders' stats can be temporarily improved if they are placed in an Army with a superb leader (high Strat value). Is this a special attribute that certain Generals have, or am I imaging things?
Another question about leader stats: Does a 0 rating have a negative impact on a unit or subordinate leaders or is it simply "no bonus"? For example, if I take a 6-0-4 Corps commander, but have a Division commander of 3-4-2, what is the cumulative effect?
Is it more beneficial to have a mediocre Corps commander but good Division commanders, or vice versa? Obviously, the best option is to have excellent leaders at all levels, but we don't always get what we want.
I have noticed that it appears Division or Corps commanders' stats can be temporarily improved if they are placed in an Army with a superb leader (high Strat value). Is this a special attribute that certain Generals have, or am I imaging things?
Another question about leader stats: Does a 0 rating have a negative impact on a unit or subordinate leaders or is it simply "no bonus"? For example, if I take a 6-0-4 Corps commander, but have a Division commander of 3-4-2, what is the cumulative effect?
Is it more beneficial to have a mediocre Corps commander but good Division commanders, or vice versa? Obviously, the best option is to have excellent leaders at all levels, but we don't always get what we want.
-
DrPostman
- Posts: 3005
- Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
- Location: Memphis, TN
- Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube
Don't forget that the promotional system was historically messed up by
political appointments. Quite a few generals would never have commanded
in the field had they not "known someone" or had favors owed to them. That
is reflected in the game. I wouldn't want that part removed.
political appointments. Quite a few generals would never have commanded
in the field had they not "known someone" or had favors owed to them. That
is reflected in the game. I wouldn't want that part removed.
"Ludus non nisi sanguineus"
-
Captain_Orso
- Posts: 5766
- Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
- Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests