AGEOD Forums

Thought id do this as kind of a fun post. Does anybody think the game is generous with ratings in the game. For instance. Not sure why Albert Sydney Johnston has such a low Offensive rating He is a 4-2-1. If I am not mistaken, his Army did well at Shiloh on the offensive. If the other Union Army had not shown up then perhaps they would have won the battle. However, Johnston did win the day and there was a different commander the next day. I think he should be at least a 4-3-1 if not a 4-4-1.


Does anybody else think a certain commander should have a better rating wether its Overall - Offensive - Defensive.


Just thought this might be a fun post.

Civil War commanders were bad at their job. I think the only one who grasped a bit of modern war was Grant, who won the war. The same can be seen in the Franco-Prussian war in which the French seemed amateurish and the Prussians won only by their aggressive strategy and artillery as they had people like Steinmetz etc. in command.

Personally, I think Lee is inflated as he really fought his first battles against fools.

Searry wrote:Civil War commanders were bad at their job. I think the only one who grasped a bit of modern war was Grant, who won the war. The same can be seen in the Franco-Prussian war in which the French seemed amateurish and the Prussians won only by their aggressive strategy and artillery as they had people like Steinmetz etc. in command.

Personally, I think Lee is inflated as he really fought his first battles against fools.

If Lee had at his disposal the sheer amount of men & material that Grant was able to call upon then Lee would've run through the Union like a hot knife through butter. Fools those Union generals very may well have been, but they were fools with unfailingly far greater resources than Lee was ever so fortunate to possess. Lee, while certainly not without his flaws, had no equal in that war.

Well that's the never ending problem with commanders and their skill levels in video games.

Have to agree with Thunder on this. Grant had all the advantages in the world over Lee and it was still very difficult for him to beat him. However, I was making this post to get peoples ideas about how maybe the command numbers should differ than what they are. If you think Grant was better than Lee then what should his command ratings be? From my original statement, I think Johnston should have a better Offensive rating due to Shiloh and I gave the reasons. 2 Seems kinda low. Do you think Grant should have a 6-7-4? Do you think Lee should be a 6-4-4. Or should Lee have better stats than Grant? That was the purpose of the thread.

I do love this post and will be interested in what others say. But here is my take - I buy games to discover the game designer's notions of factors influencing the war. This applies to leader ratings also. When I wish to experiment with the designers ideas, I use the game options for variable ratings.
I do suspect none of us can actually rate leaders accurately. For instance, my favorite Union general, Rosecrans, is always underrated in all games for his ability to maneuver and press his opponents back. But who am I to say? Ah yes, if I design the game then I can say.

Durk wrote:For instance, my favorite Union general, Rosecrans, is always underrated in all games for his ability to maneuver and press his opponents back. But who am I to say? Ah yes, if I design the game then I can say.

In the old Victory Games Civil War boardgame I used to call him "Rosencruddy". Opinions do differ

Gary Grigsby games are notorious for how they show the German commanders as better than others almost always.
A game by wehraboos but with huge detail and complexity is a sad combo where German tank divisions are unbeatable supermen 99% of the time.

The actual effect on combat for the General's stats is explained here:

viewtopic.php?f=331&t=38273

So the difference between a given General having a "4" instead of a "2" would equate to a change in element to-hit chance of times 0.1 in offensive fire percentage or times 0.06 to defensive fire (a 40% to-hit chance becomes 44% or 42% respectively).

As pgr pointed out in that thread, the big effect is on frontage, where more troops are deployed "in the line" for higher rank and off/def commanders.

In open terrain only (clear/prairie/desert/wood), the Units Quotas are modified by leader (rank)*(offensive/defensive rating) depending on whether in offensive or defensive posture:

* Combat Units Quota: (+25 frontage points)*[(rank)] x (off/def rating)]

* Support Units Quota: (+10 frontage points)*[(rank)] x (off/def rating)]

Then the change from a "2" to a "4" doubles the quota bonus only if in open terrain with good weather.

In short, it's not the size of a Commanders stats that counts, it's how you use him.

Blood and Thunder Brigade wrote:

Searry wrote:Civil War commanders were bad at their job. I think the only one who grasped a bit of modern war was Grant, who won the war. The same can be seen in the Franco-Prussian war in which the French seemed amateurish and the Prussians won only by their aggressive strategy and artillery as they had people like Steinmetz etc. in command.

Personally, I think Lee is inflated as he really fought his first battles against fools.

If Lee had at his disposal the sheer amount of men & material that Grant was able to call upon then Lee would've run through the Union like a hot knife through butter. Fools those Union generals very may well have been, but they were fools with unfailingly far greater resources than Lee was ever so fortunate to possess. Lee, while certainly not without his flaws, had no equal in that war.

I would watch the ACW lectures by Professor Gary W. Gallagher on thegreatcoursesplus. The confederacy achieved a mobilization rate of 80% fighting age white men. The percentage is quite staggering.
But it's true, the south was against many odds but not all of them.

Remember that commanders ratings can increase in value the more you use them.

I once got Fremont to 9 experience stars, as he was the closest 3 star early in the war when the South came through Cairo. 3 years of Verdun-like warfare later, he was something like a 5-5-6.

Rod Smart wrote:Remember that commanders ratings can increase in value the more you use them.

I once got Fremont to 9 experience stars, as he was the closest 3 star early in the war when the South came through Cairo. 3 years of Verdun-like warfare later, he was something like a 5-5-6.

That a surprise. I hate having to use him as an Army commander.

The entire war must have been conducted in Fremont's theater

BTW strategic levels don't rise through gained experience levels, only offensive and defensive.

Captain_Orso wrote:The entire war must have been conducted in Fremont's theater

BTW strategic levels don't rise through gained experience levels, only offensive and defensive.

BTW strategic levels don't rise through gained experience levels, only offensive and defensive.

This is important to realize as strategic rating is the most important one.

Maybe if they do a CW3 they can just double the ratings so it will be easier to distinguish the commanders. For example, if Grant was a 6-6-4 then in CW3 he would be a 12-12-8. That way Generals could be a little more different in command ratings. For instance I think Grant should be a 12-12-6 and Lee would be a 12-9-11.

Captain_Orso wrote:BTW strategic levels don't rise through gained experience levels, only offensive and defensive.

For every three experience stars, the strategic rating increases by 1. To a maximum of 6.

Really, experience raises the strategic ratings. I did not know. I wonder how many victories of what magnitude a 3 rated leader would need to get to be a 4, let alone a 5? Very nice to know.

[quote="Rod Smart"
For every three experience stars, the strategic rating increases by 1. To a maximum of 6.[/quote]

Are you sure Rod?

I seen many a leader's attack and defensive values increase, or decrease in some cases. But, I don't recall a game where someones strategic rating increased over its starting value.

Rod Smart wrote:

Captain_Orso wrote:BTW strategic levels don't rise through gained experience levels, only offensive and defensive.

For every three experience stars, the strategic rating increases by 1. To a maximum of 6.

Hi Rod, do you have a Save in which we could see this as an example?

Just for a side discussion, has anybody seen any of their units gain more than 5 stars in experience? On every unit there are experience stars. I have personally never seen any go above 5. I think there are 9 or 10. Has anybody ever maxed them out? I know some of the best units have descriptions like "unfaltering" and "deadly". I wonder if they read something different with 10 stars, like "can walk on water" or "angels of death".

Are command ratings based on post war analysis or what was perceived before the event?


For example: Smith might have a bad reputation so I give him a minor job but he turns out to be brilliant; Jones is highly regarded so I put him in charge of an army but he turns out to be useless - e.g. freezes under pressure.

lightbrave wrote:Thought id do this as kind of a fun post. Does anybody think the game is generous with ratings in the game. For instance. Not sure why Albert Sydney Johnston has such a low Offensive rating He is a 4-2-1. If I am not mistaken, his Army did well at Shiloh on the offensive. If the other Union Army had not shown up then perhaps they would have won the battle. However, Johnston did win the day and there was a different commander the next day. I think he should be at least a 4-3-1 if not a 4-4-1.


Does anybody else think a certain commander should have a better rating wether its Overall - Offensive - Defensive.


Just thought this might be a fun post.

I have been doing my own CSA leadership fixing mod, I have A.S Johnston at 4-3-1 with Charismatic leader and Deceiver traits.

I posted them in the mod section if you want to take a look.

viewtopic.php?f=340&t=53110