One feature a day serie: #1 Relegating generals

[Conhugeco]

Well, four of the Confederacy's ten largest cities had fallen by the end of 1862, so it's not like all Union generals lacked initiative or aggressiveness

DickH

[James D Burns]

Your proposal is interesting and elegant, we will discuss it in the beta forum, thanks for that Jim.

No problem, glad you like it. Given some of the concerns raised about bogging the game down too much, another possibility occurred to me.

Instead of preventing moves all together, you could limit moves of generals on turns they fail a roll equal to their strategic rating.

So a general with a rating of 1 can only move 1 area on a turn he fails a roll. A rating of 2 gets to move a max of 2 areas, 3, can move 3, etc.

I like my first idea much better even if it's just an option, but if those who prefer a fun non-historical game vs. hard history win out, perhaps this idea might be more appealing than the minimal limits we have now.

My main concern with the current system is basically all you have to do is park your huge army on whatever city you want to capture and then wait for a strategic roll to pass. This puts the impetus on the defender to then attack you and force a retreat if he hopes to keep his city, this kind of strategy has nothing to do with the realities of the civil war and is simply gaming the system in my view.

Granted strict limits like my first proposal might be frustrating to players but I bet its nothing compared to the frustration Lincoln felt in 1862.

As to limits on failed rolls in my first proposal, I need to modify the rule about being able to move towards friendly areas. Naval invasions should only be allowed to move back to the area they landed at. Otherwise clever players would land in North Carolina and then get to march every turn towards Richmond no matter what since it would take them closer to home areas. So invasions need a different set of limits on where they can move when a strategic roll fails.

Or possibly change the rule for everyone and state that failed rolls prevent a move period, unless that move ends in a friendly area that turn. So if you venture too deep into enemy territory with a strategic nitwit, you're in danger of becoming bogged down for quite a few turns.

Jim

[Pocus]

it's possible to have a fun AND historical game. You can't pretend to do a game on the ACW and have the Union handle the 1861-1862 year as if they had military geniuses in command and expert troops. If you do that, don't be surprised to have a game which end before 1863.

Not creating the rules which impede a bit the Union in his military decisions then force you to equilibrate Union and South armies, navies and economy and I don't think this is what you want. It's all tied really. You start to not design historical features, then you realize you don't have the semblance of an historical outcome (actual play should allow you to vary the exact outcome, we are not reading a book either), then you have to equilibrate forces and create artificial mechanisms, etc. etc.

Back to the point...

For now failing to have an activated leader means it can't switch to Offensive posture and move slowly. There is just a slight revision needed, to ensure there is no situation to exploit. Preventing the leader (and associated units) to enter a very hostile region seems a reasonable thing to do, but we will discuss that further anyway.

[marecone]

Great feature. It was very important in ACW. Political cost... Great job guys!

[runyan99]

Some nice ideas but you always have to consider that this is a game that we are playing and frustrating the player is not always a good thing for the fun factor!

Make such rules optional. Then those who find them frustrating need not use them.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

We have a short time problem (we need more staff / help leure: ) but we indeed plan to have at least one of these options, and may be up to three, as follows:

* Option 1: leader stats are hidden (till tried in battle) but not random
* Option 2: leaders are semi random (+-2 pts on each stat, with of course limits to avoid seeing R.E.LEE too low )
* Option 3: a combination of the above 2

As for the decreased / increased "effectiveness" of leaders when they change rank / command, this is already implemented This works both for the stats of the leaders and theirs special abilities...

This sounded very good to me when it was written in October, but I get the impression from messages in other threads that your plans may have changed since then. If so, what a pity!

[Spharv2]

Not really, they just went with a system more along the lines of #2. Random stats, with three levels of randomization so you can choose how much variation you want. For instance, playing last night on the high level of random generals, Jackson came out with nice offensive and defensive abilities (5 off, 6 def I believe) but his normally high strategic rating was instead a 3. Going the other way was John B Magruder, who normally is a good defensive general. In my version, he was one of my better all around generals at 5-5-4. If I'd played that one out, I would have done my best to get him promoted to higher command.

And of course, the adjustment of leader stats when they are promoted is still in there.

[Willard]

Just a suggestion to build upon the great ones in this thread.

How about incorporating some sort of "orders delay" or "orders penalty" when plotting and re-plotting moves.

For example, as it stands now in BoA, it is extremely easy to cancel orders or re-plot paths of your armies. Since you are playing the role of CinC, it seems to me that this should not be automatic.

Taking this further with the ACW game, getting armies of these sizes moving is a difficult task. I just can't see moving McClellan on Richmond in turn 1 in a certain plotted course, knowing that it will take X number of days (and perhaps several turns) to accomplish this and having the ability to cancel this with no penalty.

Perhaps incorporating a X day march penalty for cancelling and re-issuing orders would be more realistic. That would add a significant cost/penalty to bad moves.

To take this one step further, this penalty can increase/decrease depending upon the ratings of the Generals. This will allow generals like Lee and Jackson to outmaneuver and adapt quicker than plodding generals like McClellan. The better the general, the less the delay!

[Feralkoala]

I believe that suggestion would be more applicable to a game with days for game turns, rather than 2 week turns. Mind you, it is a cool idea, I just don't think it goes with the scale of this particular game.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

Not really, they just went with a system more along the lines of #2.

But the option I wanted was #1, and I get the impression that it's no longer in the game. Is that right?

There's nothing new about #2, it's been done in other games.

[Spharv2]

True, but there's a reason for that. With number one, you have no randomness. You see Grant appear, well, you know he'll be good. And if they hide the names and such, you will still know who is who simply by their date of appearance, position on the map etc. One thing I would like to see added would be a combination of #1 and #2 where the stats are randomized, and hidden until combat. I'll see if that can be implemented at some point.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

With number one, you have no randomness. You see Grant appear, well, you know he'll be good.

And that's a problem? If you think it's a problem, you just select #2 as well as #1.

And if they hide the names and such, you will still know who is who simply by their date of appearance, position on the map etc.

Why does a particular person have to appear at a particular time and place? These people were all born long before the war started, which means that they could have 'appeared' at any time during the war (though for the sake of historical plausibility it's just as well to have them appearing somewhere around the time when they actually began to be noticed). As for place, well, they can 'appear' wherever you like. If someone happened to be in New York when he was assigned to a command in Missouri, then I suppose he would just hop on a train and 'appear' in Missouri. From the game point of view, generals should appear in a central pool and be assigned somewhere -- either at random or at the player's discretion.

[Spharv2]

I don't think you read his original post correctly. Options 1, 2, and 3 wasn't the choice, it was 1,2, or 3. Given that, they made the correct choice.

[Pocus]

Hidden generals were too tricky to do right before release but this is not ruled out, if we mix that with Random Generals. There are many problems, like guessing who is this random general just by looking at the speed of the army, or if they use less supply, etc. (deducing something from the hidden abilities). Also you also get a bag of problem with promotion. Should we hide the ricochet promotion effect if the general is hidden (irritating bypassed generals and such), to have you pay full price because you demoted McClellan? Or should we tell you the outcome in advance, and thus hidden general serve nothing as you can guess many things for that?

[Jonathan Palfrey]

Hidden generals were too tricky to do right before release but this is not ruled out, if we mix that with Random Generals. There are many problems, like guessing who is this random general just by looking at the speed of the army, or if they use less supply, etc. (deducing something from the hidden abilities).

The effects of leaders' ratings should be subject to random variation. If you see a unit move fast, that could mean it has a fast leader, or it could mean it has an average leader who got a good die roll that turn. It shouldn't be possible to deduce anything reliable about a leader's ratings from a few turns of the game. If you reckon you can deduce something after more turns, well, that's not unrealistic.

Also you also get a bag of problem with promotion. Should we hide the ricochet promotion effect if the general is hidden (irritating bypassed generals and such), to have you pay full price because you demoted McClellan? Or should we tell you the outcome in advance, and thus hidden general serve nothing as you can guess many things for that?

It seems wrong to hide a general's rank (which couldn't be hidden in real life). But it may be true that the rank at the start of the game gives a bit too much information to the player. Maybe you could start all generals at the bottom rank and let the player determine all promotions?

[Jonathan Palfrey]

I don't think you read his original post correctly. Options 1, 2, and 3 wasn't the choice, it was 1,2, or 3. Given that, they made the correct choice.

He said "at least one of these options, and maybe up to three". As I'm an optimist, I looked forward to seeing all three options implemented.

[Pocus]

I was more speaking of the political and seniority rating. This would mean randomizing completely these parameters too, which lead to the problem that the Union without being impeded by senior but not very competent generals, is a steamroller as soon as early 61. Kind like playing an ACW themed fantasy game so.

[veji1]

Well lets say it's not the priority, but you could randomize Seniority and political value in a lottery way rather than in a totally random way : say Union starts in the game with the real not hidden generals and it gives it :
1 4 stars general with 100 Pol value
3 3 stars generals with 20, 15 and 50 pol
12 2 stars generals = 5*5 pol, 5*10 pol and 2*15 pol

Randomizing wouldn't be getting completely random results ( which would make the odds of getting a general with 100 pol very unlikely...) but make it a lottery with the pol values kept, with the random generals you will still have a 4 stars gen with 100, 3*3 stars gen with 20, 15 and 50, etc... It is just the stats and names that would change...

See what I mean ? this preserves the actual command structure issue ( having generals with High political value that "block" the command structure at the beginning of the war, etc...).

[Pocus]

good idea to have the things organized in a lottery. We prefer to do the things right, so this will have to be added in a patch and not rushed for release. If you followed BOA you know that you will get near weekly updates for AACW for quite some time (and gameplay bugs will be addressed in a matter of days)

[Director]

Please remember almost all the generals had been classmates at West Point or knew each other from service in the Army (like the Mexican war). Their personal attributes, foibles and tendencies were well known to each other; the pre-Civil War American Army was a very small place. Outside the Army many of these men were in business together (such as McClellan and Burnside working for the Illinois Central Railroad).

Lincoln, not having been part of the old Army, had less personal knowledge to help him pick good generals. Davis, on the other hand, rated loyalty (to himself) above other traits.

I like the idea of taking historical values and modifying them somewhat. You do lose the 'surprise' of finding out how good Thomas Jackson really was, but you keep some of the intelligence the generals actually had. Lee's comments about his opposing generals are insightful, as are Longstreet's.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

I was more speaking of the political and seniority rating.

Well, I think I agree with the suggestion from veji1.

I also think you've been getting a bit over-enthusiastic about the factors you're including in this game. Seniority and political ratings? Yes, they do represent factors that existed in real life; but, personally, I could live without them in a game.

Be careful not to get too carried away. You could find yourself representing each general's sex life, state of health, consumption of alcohol, business commitments, etc.

[Spharv2]

[quote="Jonathan Palfrey"]Well, I think I agree with the suggestion from veji1.

I also think you've been getting a bit over-enthusiastic about the factors you're including in this game. Seniority and political ratings? Yes, they do represent factors that existed in real life]


You can't live without seniority and political rankings if you want to come anywhere near representing the Civil War as it was. There's a reason bad generals were kept in place for so long (See Butler, Banks, McClellan, Bragg), and it certainly wasn't their cheerful dispositions.

Without a political cost to removing generals, and one that is variable, then there is no reason to use the historic generals. Seniority was a huge issue in the civil war era armies. Joseph Johnston had a fairly good relationship with Davis until their argument over seniority, after that, Johnston was usually the choice of last resort for anything important.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

You can't live without seniority and political rankings if you want to come anywhere near representing the Civil War as it was. There's a reason bad generals were kept in place for so long (See Butler, Banks, McClellan, Bragg), and it certainly wasn't their cheerful dispositions.

Without a political cost to removing generals, and one that is variable, then there is no reason to use the historic generals. Seniority was a huge issue in the civil war era armies. Joseph Johnston had a fairly good relationship with Davis until their argument over seniority, after that, Johnston was usually the choice of last resort for anything important.

Your argument seems reasonable; and yet it's generally possible to represent things in a game without going into so much detail. For instance, you can make it difficult or costly to remove or demote any general without needing to rate each general for political support.

As for arguments over seniority: if these caused presidents to make unwise decisions, then in my role as president I'd prefer to be more enlightened and not to make such unwise decisions. For me, this is an excessive level of detail. But it's inevitable that different players will disagree about the level of detail they want to see in the game. It's a subjective matter.

[veji1]

I have to agree with Spharv there, Seniority and Pol rating are really part of the excitement of this game for me... If you don't do that then you'll have Grant in the east and Sherman in the west in 1861 and they will be able to concentrate, advance, seek and destroy at will.. The only way to avoid that without seniority and pol would be to give unrealistic amount of troops and or industrial capacities to the CSA, à la FoF...

We'll see how it plays out, but I really like the idea.. And couple with a good randomization and hiding of general traits, it could make for a great what-if where one really gets the feeling of being the leader of one or the other side.

[marecone]

I have to agree with Spharv there, Seniority and Pol rating are really part of the excitement of this game for me... If you don't do that then you'll have Grant in the east and Sherman in the west in 1861 and they will be able to concentrate, advance, seek and destroy at will.. The only way to avoid that without seniority and pol would be to give unrealistic amount of troops and or industrial capacities to the CSA, à la FoF...

We'll see how it plays out, but I really like the idea.. And couple with a good randomization and hiding of general traits, it could make for a great what-if where one really gets the feeling of being the leader of one or the other side.

I second this. Confirming that it play great

[Wilhammer]

If this is to be an option; it should cost a lot of Victory Points.

It was not an easy option then, and it was exercised only a few times at great cost - McClellan, for example, being ejected by Lincoln, could very well have ended the war in 1864 had the election not been bolstered by the successes of Sherman.

McClellan could of won the election running on the platform that included the butcher's bill Grant was submitting.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

I have to agree with Spharv there, Seniority and Pol rating are really part of the excitement of this game for me... If you don't do that then you'll have Grant in the east and Sherman in the west in 1861 and they will be able to concentrate, advance, seek and destroy at will.. The only way to avoid that without seniority and pol would be to give unrealistic amount of troops and or industrial capacities to the CSA, à la FoF...

I'm not rabidly opposed to seniority and political ratings, I just say that for me they're a level of detail that seems unnecessary. There are many different ways of preventing the Union player from promoting Grant and Sherman to top commands in 1861.

For instance, if the game hides the names and/or the abilities of the generals, then you won't know which general to promote: just as Lincoln and Davis didn't know which general to promote. I think that's a more important factor than seniority or political support: in real life the presidents just didn't know in advance which of their generals were good and which were bad.

[Pocus]

I would say that both features would be ideally needed, but historically even if Lincoln did not knew in advance how procrastinating was McClellan or how good Sherman was, he knew rather well not to irritate the proteges of some governors. So Hidden Generals would be a good option, but is not sufficient IMHO.

You also have to consider that many players want to play with names on generals, and that perhaps, after some games and some more knowledge on the ACW, will they get some interest in some randomness (or stats hiding), but the game is complex enough without forcing them to play from the start with hidden generals...

To sumarize you can have an option to hid generals, and this would be a good thing, but you must have something featuring the political aspect of the war. So mandatory things first, and done right, and then the bonus features. Bugs or no bugs, you will get updates to ACW every week or so in the first month, as in BOA. And then regularly after that.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

You think that the political support factor is more important; I think that not knowing the abilities of the generals is more important; but you're making the game and so it's your opinion that counts.

If a general is kept in his position only by political support, is there anything to prevent the player from assigning him to command a couple of useless brigades somewhere behind the front lines?

[Spruce]

having not read this entire thread, I only respond to the latest posts.

It seems to me that a president has to take into account he never knows the exact stats of his generals when he's making promotions. He has to go on his onwn judgement but has to take into account lots of other things - that easely outweigh the own judgement of the general.

General "louzy" might claim that general "great" did a poor job under his command. Or general "awfull" seems to have won a battle while being lucky and general "excellent" lost one under the worst ods possible.

The problem is that with historical correct parameters, you enter the risk of cranking up guys like Sherman, Grant and Lee from day one.

Let's all remember that Lee was "Granny Lee" in the first beginning of the war and Grant was considered to be a drunk, misfit, failure at the beginning.