Henry *Hastings* Sibley, governor of Minnesota and brevet brigadier general during the Dakota Wars. Served under John Pope after Pope was transferred up there, and participated in several battles against the Sioux. He led several Minnesota volunteer units in a brigade that was one of the largest at the time assembled to combat Native Americans.
I have him coming into the game as of his backdated rank (September 1862). I cobbled together the brigade as a new unit from existing militia models and a couple of new ones: light cav and a 6lber (neither upgrade). The brigade appears about three months before the end of the Sioux Uprising event and also appears at Fort Ridgeley. It has a home area of Minnesota, and will disappear at the end of a year. I might have the brigade be AI-specific and the let the player assemble their own units, but still create Sibley. If it's possible, I might also give Sibley a Minnesota home area.
[ATTACH]31913[/ATTACH]
You got the jump on me. 
What are his stats? If you're going to simulate the US-Dakota war, you need to add the guy who basically massacred a Lakota hunting party toward the end of the campaign (starts with a C, can't remember his name right now) and you'll need to add the Dakota chiefs who were against the war but fought it well. They'll need some serious stats and traits, and should be Confederate controlled but locked or removed after the end of the conflict. You'll also need to eliminate the Minnesota militia units recruitable in the Union force pool.
Such was my basic plan for the US-Dakota war, anyway.
What are his stats? If you're going to simulate the US-Dakota war, you need to add the guy who basically massacred a Lakota hunting party toward the end of the campaign (starts with a C, can't remember his name right now) and you'll need to add the Dakota chiefs who were against the war but fought it well. They'll need some serious stats and traits, and should be Confederate controlled but locked or removed after the end of the conflict. You'll also need to eliminate the Minnesota militia units recruitable in the Union force pool.
Such was my basic plan for the US-Dakota war, anyway.
I hadn't given thought yet to adding in additional native American units but it's not a bad idea if they amounted to forces equal to what can be represented in the game. The number of people involved on both sides was never very large (by game standards) or centralized.
It shouldn't be necessary to make additional native American units part of the Confederate faction. You could either add them to the existing IND faction, or if you wanted to subdivide it you could create a new Sioux-Dakota faction to separate it from the stuff happening in the southwest.
I'm thinking about doing this anyway. When the Sioux event ends, the IND faction goes back to peaceful coexistence. Why is that a problem? Any territory they manage to control at that point becomes inaccessible to you. The vanilla Sioux Uprising in the game is three events: start; check for # of units and decide on morale change; end event, IND faction is peaceful again. I would prefer it to work something like this.
1. Sioux event fires, SIOUX faction at war with USA faction.
2. Sibley shows up with no troops before deciding factor in Sioux event
3. Event checking # units fires. SIOUX - USA still at war.
4. After 3. and not in the same turn, if conditions for 3. have been satisfied, troops for Sibley never show up. If 3. hasn't been satisfied, Sibley's force appears (and you lose a corresponding # of conscripts). It has to be after 3., otherwise there's no incentive for the player to do anything to resolve the Sioux event.
5. Sioux end event conditions: if # of SIOUX faction elements on map < X, faction goes back to peaceful relations.
There might be an end date at a certain time even if 5 isn't satisfied. I'd still have the potential problem of Sioux MC in some regions. I could remove the MN units from the pool, but since Sibley's force is only on a year-long volunteer stint and they're a small force, I don't think I need to. I'm already drastically changing forces available to the Union elsewhere.
Instead of setting up the units (women and children?) to simulate a massacre, I'd more likely put a text blurb in the event description with details.
... and I forgot to answer your other question. I have Sibley's stats at 4-1-1. I'm hoping that leaders can be affected by $HomeArea, and he'll be markedly less effective if somebody tries to take him out of the state.
It shouldn't be necessary to make additional native American units part of the Confederate faction. You could either add them to the existing IND faction, or if you wanted to subdivide it you could create a new Sioux-Dakota faction to separate it from the stuff happening in the southwest.
I'm thinking about doing this anyway. When the Sioux event ends, the IND faction goes back to peaceful coexistence. Why is that a problem? Any territory they manage to control at that point becomes inaccessible to you. The vanilla Sioux Uprising in the game is three events: start; check for # of units and decide on morale change; end event, IND faction is peaceful again. I would prefer it to work something like this.
1. Sioux event fires, SIOUX faction at war with USA faction.
2. Sibley shows up with no troops before deciding factor in Sioux event
3. Event checking # units fires. SIOUX - USA still at war.
4. After 3. and not in the same turn, if conditions for 3. have been satisfied, troops for Sibley never show up. If 3. hasn't been satisfied, Sibley's force appears (and you lose a corresponding # of conscripts). It has to be after 3., otherwise there's no incentive for the player to do anything to resolve the Sioux event.
5. Sioux end event conditions: if # of SIOUX faction elements on map < X, faction goes back to peaceful relations.
There might be an end date at a certain time even if 5 isn't satisfied. I'd still have the potential problem of Sioux MC in some regions. I could remove the MN units from the pool, but since Sibley's force is only on a year-long volunteer stint and they're a small force, I don't think I need to. I'm already drastically changing forces available to the Union elsewhere.
Instead of setting up the units (women and children?) to simulate a massacre, I'd more likely put a text blurb in the event description with details.
... and I forgot to answer your other question. I have Sibley's stats at 4-1-1. I'm hoping that leaders can be affected by $HomeArea, and he'll be markedly less effective if somebody tries to take him out of the state.
That's relatively in line with what I had planned.
The reason I don't like having the militia available, or at least available right away, is you can pack the stockades in the war zone as early as May, 1861 (though there's no reason to do this that quickly) and the AI will never accomplish anything. If you hand over about four Indian cavalry regiments to the CSA, then at least in PBEM the US-Dakota war becomes a fun little diversion.
As for Sibley, I'd be inclined to give him a 5-1-1 rating, maybe even 6-1-1. He goes away or gets locked anyway, and having a high rate of activation would rather accurately represent the independent nature of frontier commands. Also, both Sibley and Sully managed to hound the Dakota parties very closely and deep into the territories in 1863, even if they only caught them once. The Dakota chiefs like Big Eagle would be best treated the same way, though IIRC Little Crow is already 6-2-2 or something similar.
The reason I don't like having the militia available, or at least available right away, is you can pack the stockades in the war zone as early as May, 1861 (though there's no reason to do this that quickly) and the AI will never accomplish anything. If you hand over about four Indian cavalry regiments to the CSA, then at least in PBEM the US-Dakota war becomes a fun little diversion.
As for Sibley, I'd be inclined to give him a 5-1-1 rating, maybe even 6-1-1. He goes away or gets locked anyway, and having a high rate of activation would rather accurately represent the independent nature of frontier commands. Also, both Sibley and Sully managed to hound the Dakota parties very closely and deep into the territories in 1863, even if they only caught them once. The Dakota chiefs like Big Eagle would be best treated the same way, though IIRC Little Crow is already 6-2-2 or something similar.
As far as Sibley's rating goes, I'm ambivalent. If I create a leader, I'm usually creating with Athena in mind. There's no staying historical with that girl. Henry Hastings could end up leading a division on the eastern seaboard. Have you looked at some of the stacks the AI creates? Talk about too many chiefs and not enough Indians.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests