General-ly frustrated

[grimjaw]

This has been bugging me for awhile, but now that I have been reading Shelby Foote's work I'm even more bugged. I'm sure this has been mentioned before, but I couldn't find a matching thread. I know many of you will already be familiar with this information, but please forgive a student.

It has to do with the generals, when/if they appear, their rankings, and the limitations imposed by the game as a result of the ranking system.

First, I'm really glad that the development team has expanded the list of leaders from the previous game, and I think even increased the number of leaders in CW2 since patches have been made available. I appreciate and enjoy the work that's gone into flavoring the game with those and their portraits. But there are several significant leaders who don't appear, or appear as general officers at wrong times. You may say they are minor figures (T.R.R. Cobb, William Barksdale, etc). However, there are already several minor generals who appear; some who lasted only as long as Barnard Bee, or who had little impact on the battlefield outside of failure, like John Floyd.

... and what's the deal with Floyd, anyway? On the Union side, Patterson is removed within a few months as per history. Floyd was also removed from command by presidential edict, yet I have to tuck him in some out of the way stack in the swamps of Louisiana for the entire game ...

As far as the ranking system goes there are several examples, but the first one in CW2 that I'll mention is Nathaniel Banks who, according to the sources I've read, never reached the rank of lieutenant general. Now this is a piddling detail, if you consider leaders such as Quantrill who only styled themselves as generals. But still, it bugs me. Maybe there ought to be a different level of "army" at the major general level, with reduced effectiveness? I know this would entail a major redesign, but I think it would go some way to helping achieve historical accuracy.

There were "armies" on both sides of the conflict that weren't commanded by 3-stars. On the Union side, the first Army of the Ohio was formed under a brigadier and led later by 2-star Buell and later 2-star Rosencrans. 2-star Van Dorn's Army of the West at Pea Ridge is a CSA example. Maybe a 2-star army could function like an army stack, but provide fewer base command points and/or not allow corps formation. I don't know what you might do to prevent having a couple-dozen 2-star armies running around, other than perhaps limiting formation to leaders with a certain minimum seniority level. But given that seniority can be negatively affected I don't know if that would do the trick.

[GraniteStater]

OneStar, TwoStar, ThreeStar in the game has little correspondence with actual grades and ranks. I wouldn't lose much sleep over this. In-game ranking is for game purposes. I'm here for the modelling - does the game reflect the problems and concerns of the era? Yes, it does, very well, IMO. Whether John Floyd should be retired at the point of a sword is a 'meh' to me. I'm more concerned with things like Dahlgren not appearing in a July start (probably sheer oversight), 6-lbers apparently not upgrading, enemy land units blithely running the river past three ironclads and four gunboats regardless of posture, and some other mechanics or settings.

Floyd can have a use, even with 3-0-0 and Dispirited. I have a feeling the CSA in particular wants every Leader it can. The Union, too, I feel, though not quite to the same degree. Armies and Divisions are free!

Let me repeat that:

Armies and Divisions are free!!!

This is huge and why you need every bum with a shoulder strap you can lay your hands on. Even General Loser with a Div is better than loose units piled together.

That's my view.

[grimjaw]

I was being facetious about Floyd, and I agree with you that the CSA needs generals (i.e. elements that can form divisions). I don't see that what I'm proposing goes against historical modeling, and in fact I think it enhances it. But I also agree there are probably bigger issues, like why a 3-star leader sitting on top of a few other stacks manages to completely mask 30K men moving across a clear landscape, in clear weather, in territory loyal to me. Amazing.

[Ol' Choctaw]

A lot of it is just game mechanics. Everything can’t be absolutely historical. Half the Union army was a major general. If they could all lead armies you would hardly need divisions or corps. If all ranks were historical you would have only one Lt. Gen. That would be Grant in 64. You would have no Admirals until mid 1862. Some of the leaders would not appear until later and a few not at all.

Yes, some armies were lead by brigadier generals. Again, coding and game mechanics trump history.

Part of the reason Shelby shows up so early is the expressed need by players for a cavalry leader in the Trans-Mississippi early in the game.

Now the rating and traits mostly go back to 2007 and the first game.

Go here and see how they developed: http://www.ageod-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?86-Officers-room

Some of the reasons are pretty opinionated and slim IMHO. If you have recommendations it is best to post them in the thread for each officer.

There are some fine offices with mediocre stats and traits and there are maybe some over rated too.

Feel free to express your views. I know that I do.

[grimjaw]

I should have been more specific when I said "rankings" in my original post. I don't really quibble too much over the ratings; it's the ranks that's got me, uh, rankled.

[Ol' Choctaw]

Like I said, half the union army were major generals with no body over them. Some had corps, some had armies, and some only had divisions. There were even a few who only had brigades.

Someone at sometime decided who gets promoted and who doesn’t. Check the individual leaders thread and see who and why. Then feel free to make your point.

If you do a convincing job of it maybe a dev will make some changes, or not.

But I don’t think you will get them to let major generals all lead armies.

[GraniteStater]

Ya gotta get over it, really - 'ranks' have little to do with Historical Reality.

Read Grant's Memoirs (everyone who appreciates clear and concise prose should, he was one very accomplished writer): he was a Brigadier General in late '61, IIRC; he was promoted to Major General after Belmont, I think, but it could've been as late as Feb 62, after Donelson.

And then he became the first Lieutenant General since George Washington. That's all they had for grades for general officers, really, Brigadier and Major.

Grant appears in the game in late 61 as a ** - zero correspondence to 'Reality'.

In CW2, it's Div/Corps/Army : */**/***. Tres facile.

[Eugene Carr]

Jacob D Cox's Military Reminiscences of the Civil War is also an interesting read, he makes a number of references to the restrictions in the number of generals allowed and how many of them were buried in meaningless posts where they couldn't do any damage.

S!