A Proposal to Improve the Historical Flavor: Please Comment

[Q-Ball]

I posted on this before, but I would like to formally propose to the community here some changes relative to who are the early 2* leaders in the game. The fortunes of war will sort out leaders post-early 1862, so I am most concerned with those who are "Automatic", without any battles at all.

IRL, several leaders of course were given Corps or important commands with no battle experience at all. Someone had to command the early armies. The game offers "free" 2* and 3* leaders to simulate this.

However, I find that several of the choices are puzzling. Some leaders in-game as early, important commanders had virtually no importance to the Civil war at all. Others who attained early command, without ANY combat experience, have to somehow fight their way to the top.

Therefore, I propose some changes to each side in terms of who and when are appointed early command.

I WANT YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS, as my opinion is only 1, and if there is a chorus, I think a change will get made, at least in a mod. PLEASE COMMENT.

Objectives:

1. To include more early commanders that were historically early commanders.
2. To remove commanders who figure prominently in early GAME, but didn't in real life
3. To not materially impact play balance with these choices
4. Overall, to enhance historical flavor

Note on Ranks:

Before getting started, a note on CSA and USA ranks.

I think a number of Union choices that don't make historicaly sense are driven by actual promotion of some leaders to the grade of Maj Gen of Volunteers, or "MGV" as I will call it. Understandible, but I think rank of promotion does not necessarily correlate to the level of responsibility entrusted in a leader.

In game, IMO, 1* really means "Division Commander", and 2* means "Corps" or "Department" commander. I think this should be the primary criterea, rather than actual rank.

Samuel Curtis, for example, was given the important independent command of the Army of the West in early 1862. He was not promoted to MGV until after Pea Ridge, effective March 1862. At Pea Ridge, he commanded a force of 3 divisions, and was senior to Franz Sigel, Asboth, Dodge, among others. I think, for example, that this billet is deserving of an in-game 2*, even if he wore only 1 star on the shoulder.

For the CSA, actual rank pretty much has to go out the window, as the CSA used more ranks than the USA, and tended to promote into them. Most division commanders were Major Generals. Clearly, you can't have every CSA divsion leader be an in-game 2*.

So, I look at FUNCTIONAL responsibility rather than actual rank.

[Q-Ball]

Leader Changes: CSA

The Conferates are not as puzzling as the Union. However, I think some changes have to happen. Here are my proposed changes:

SUBTRACTS:
Edward Johnson: Remove event promoting him to 2* in early 1862. Edward Johnson was not appointed to a DIVISION command until 1863. He never commanded a Corps.
John Forney: Should enter as 1*, not 2*. Forney was a division commander at Vicksburg; that’s it. Never commanded a Corps.
Neither Forney or Johnson really make any sense as 2*; there are multiple better candidates

ADDS:
Bragg: Should enter as 2*, or be promoted to 2* in early 1862 by event. Bragg was a Corps commander at Shiloh, his first battle. He was a prominent commander in the war, and well-known prior to the start of the war.
Hardee: Should enter as a 2*, or be promoted to 2* in early 1862 by event. DITTO everything for Bragg.
Van Dorn: Should enter as a 2*. He was sent west at the end of 1861 to command the District of Trans-Mississippi. Commanded a 13,000 man army in his first battle (Pea Ridge).

ADDITIONAL CHANGE: (You can debate this one)
John Pemberton: Should enter in late 1862 as a 3*, not 1*. Pemberton was appointed commander of the Army of Mississippi with no prior battle experience.

[Q-Ball]

The Union Army

Union Army 2* in game are a bit of a mess early. I am listing several commanders in the order in which I think they should be kicked off the 2* list. Some may need to be retained for play balance reasons:

SUBTRACTS:
All of these should enter as 1*, instead of 2*. In Dix’s case, I would remove him from game

Amiel Whipple: He never commanded a Corps. He was never promoted to MGV. He really shouldn’t be in the game as a division commander until late 1862.
Robert Milroy: Never attained the rank of MGV. Never commanded a force larger than 6500.
Hiram Berry: Brigade commander until November, 1862. Promoted MGV in Nov, 1862. Never commanded more than a division.
Charles Gilbert: Until October 1862, his rank was Captain, USA. Temporary corps commander at Perryville. His appointment as BGV was never confirmed by Congress. Never a MGV.
Charles Hamilton: Division commander under McClellan, who had him removed. Promoted MGV in Sept 1862, but never held a field command at that rank. Left army in early 1863.
John Dix: Rank of MGV is legitimate, but he was considered too old for field command, and had none in the Civil War

ADDS:
For play balance purposes, I realize losing 6 2* leaders is a lot for the Union. So, some of my adds may be technically “On the fence” types, but I still think they are more deserving, all of them, than the list above

Samuel Heintzelman: Should enter as 2*. He was an early Corps commander in Army of the Potomac.
Joseph Mansfield: Should enter as 2*. Mansfield was a Brigadier General in the Regular Army. He was promoted MGV in July 1862. Commanded Washington Defenses (important), commanded Corps at Antietam.
Samuel Curtis: Should enter as 2*, or receive early promotion to 2*. See notes in first post.
Ambrose Burnside: Should enter as 2*. First command was an important one, the NC Expedition. He was promoted MGV in late 1861 after capturing Roanoke. Granted, this is battle experience, but I would rather give Burnside a free pass than Milroy, etc.
Alexander McCook: Should enter as 2*. Yes, technically he was promoted to MGV in July 1862 after success at Shiloh, Corinth. I would rather give McCook a free pass, though, than a couple of these other guys. He was an important Corps commander under Rosecrans.

COMMENTS ON PLAY BALANCE:
The last couple are a bit thin, but I strongly feel that the 6 Union guys listed should go.
With this list, the Union loses a bit with quantity, but gains a bit with quality, as Sam Curtis in particular is better than the average 3-1-1. And in the end, I feel McCook and Burnside deserve a free pass more than Dix or Berry or whomever, and would add to the historical flavor

Please comment, so the powers that be may change all this!

[oldspec4]

IMHO, these seem to be very valid changes; and would benefit those of us looking for a more historical tilt to the game.

[Eugene Carr]

Any substantial changes would need the DB to be made available.
There has always been a touch of eccentricity in who you get, when you get them, where you get them and what grade they are.
I'm playing through a mini mod where I've not altered any models but changed entry to better reflect their grades ie Milroy appears in 1863 when he commanded in the Valley which is closer to ** grade and spread them out more over time and location. It probably slows things down at the start as you have less generals but things pick up in 1862.(Sept 1862 there are 90 US v 46 CSA leaders).
If anyone's interested I could tidy it up a little and upload it.

S!

[Geohff]

Poor old Rosy forgotten again. Rosecrans was the General in the early Western Virginia campaigns, Mac got the credit but Rosy did the fighting. He then got "lost" in the Capital, too important to ignore, not enough tits to give him one to command, but he was respected and powerful still and a result was he was feared by high command who gave him courior work to get him away from the capital. Next he went west and again he did all the best fighting but Grants rising star outshone him and Halleck and Grant got the credit for Rosy's wins. Along comes Vicksburg and Gettysburg bathed in blood while Rosy moves south so brillantly it is a model of military manuver taught at West Point later on, yet bloodless gains are not so interesting as gory ones so he is snubbed. Then he suffers his only major defeat and Grant pounces on him - always jealious of Rosy he removes what is in my opinion the very best all around Union General of the entire war.

Now Q-Ball don't even mention him as a canidate for 2 *'s, sad so sad.... Poor old Rosy - I love you guy, I beg Ageod to show him a little of the love he deserves!

[John S. Mosby]

I for one, am all in favor of anything that provides a more historically accurate database and appreciate any efforts towards that goal.

[fred zeppelin]

Is this moddable? Anyone know how?

[CajunNavy]

I for one, am all in favor of anything that provides a more historically accurate database and appreciate any efforts towards that goal.

+1

[Jim-NC]

Remember to think about the AI in these type discussions. Part of the reason for the automatic promotions is to give the AI something to work with (for corps/army commands). If you take away 6, you should add back 6 around the same time period.

[Captain_Orso]

Also a couple of Union leader are promoted per event to represent their political ambitions. Sumner and Franklin for example.

I think McClellan was left out of such promotions because it would have been a bit too ... how should I put it ... controversial

[Eugene Carr]

Remember to think about the AI in these type discussions. Part of the reason for the automatic promotions is to give the AI something to work with (for corps/army commands). If you take away 6, you should add back 6 around the same time period.

The promotions can be separated so that the AI side get more automatic promotions. As a general (geddit?:w00t rule you need some auto promotions as a balance early on with promotion by result later on.
(Longstreet and Jackson v Heintzelman and Keyes:mdr

S!

[minipol]

To make the AI more competitive, you could let the computer have more generals to work with than the player.
It would have to be optional off course to allow this or not.

[Q-Ball]

Good comments, but keep in mind my proposal included replacing the exact same number of take outs with adds

If balance is an issue, then CSA should probably auto promote Bragg and Van Dorn, and forget Hardee (but still remove Forney/Johnson from 2* status)

For the Union, some of the replacements are merely name changes, with no game impact at all (Heintzelman, Mansfield, for Berry and Gilbert, for example)

I think at a minimum, we can change the neutral ones

When can we get our hands on a DB to mod?

[Eugene Carr]

Edward Johnson is fairly easy to deal with he enters as a * and autopromotes - delete this event evt_nam_CSA_62PromotionsB from the CSA Leaders event file found in the Events folder.
Forney needs a change to the model file.
Heintzelman/Mansfield just need an auto promote added

An opinion from myself is that Banks and Butler should start as ** and auto promote to *** during 1862 so you can't make so many proper Armies in 1861 and then when you can you are stuck with rubbish high seniority commanders as per RL.
I would also ditch the Recruiting Officer trait because these generals were in the field until dismissed.

S!