AGEOD Forums

I was just curious, when Scott "retires" why another general is not sent to replace him (historically Halleck). Is there some purpose for Scott early in the game that is not needed after he retires?

I've wondered the same thing about Cooper on the CSA side. He shows up locked in Richmond for a few tunrs, then retires. From a historical perspective, great -- he was there in history so he's there in the game. But from a game perspective, this lse is just taking up space, adding another tab in the already cluttered over-tabbed space of Richmond. I just drop him onto the garrion tab and leave him there until he disappears. Same with Scott in DC.

Major Tom wrote:I've wondered the same thing about Cooper on the CSA side. He shows up locked in Richmond for a few tunrs, then retires. From a historical perspective, great -- he was there in history so he's there in the game. But from a game perspective, this lse is just taking up space, adding another tab in the already cluttered over-tabbed space of Richmond. I just drop him onto the garrion tab and leave him there until he disappears. Same with Scott in DC.

Oh, I do the same with them, I was just wondering for army commands and promotions, Scott (and Cooper) are out of the regular seniority. Historically, Halleck is promoted to Scotts position and is thus out of the seniority list for army commands. We can't do that in the game, so I was wondering if Scott (and Cooper) had any real use in the game, ie what was their purpose as far as game mechanics go?

Redeemer wrote:Oh, I do the same with them, I was just wondering for army commands and promotions, Scott (and Cooper) are out of the regular seniority. Historically, Halleck is promoted to Scotts position and is thus out of the seniority list for army commands. We can't do that in the game, so I was wondering if Scott (and Cooper) had any real use in the game, ie what was their purpose as far as game mechanics go?

As Pocus and company like to say. "Flavor!" More accurately stated "Historical Candy!"

deleted

Major Tom wrote:I've wondered the same thing about Cooper on the CSA side. He shows up locked in Richmond for a few tunrs, then retires. From a historical perspective, great -- he was there in history so he's there in the game. But from a game perspective, this lse is just taking up space, adding another tab in the already cluttered over-tabbed space of Richmond. I just drop him onto the garrion tab and leave him there until he disappears. Same with Scott in DC.

Sam Cooper is there to provide some historical flavor and I think he should stay in the Game

heres a short bio I found online of Samuel cooper..

Birth: Jun. 12, 1798
Death: Dec. 3, 1876

Civil War Confederate General. In 1815, he graduated from the US Military Academy and was commissioned a Lieutenant in the Army Light Artillery. He served in artillery units until 1837, when he was appointed chief clerk of the US War Department. In 1842, he served in the Seminole War, was promoted Colonel, saw action in the Mexican-American War and was appointed Adjutant General in 1852. At the outbreak of the Civil War, his loyalties were with the South and he resigned his commission in March 1861. He was immediately given a commission as Brigadier General, Adjutant and Inspector General of the Confederate Army, a post he held the entire war. In 1862, he was promoted to full general, the highest ranking officer in the Confederate Army and reported directly to Confederate President Jefferson Davis. Cooper's last official act was to preserve the official records of the Confederate Army and turn them over to the United States Government at the war's end. After the war, he returned to his plantation in Virginia and was farmer until his death. (bio by: John "J-Cat" Griffith)

It would have been interesting if the game had allowed the theatre commands that were historically in place at least in the north. So you would have to give a three star general that position. Maybe it would have a slight impact on the whole region's performance.

I mean if you are going to put Cooper and Scott into the game but lock them into a position where they will likely never do anything under the guise of "flavor", then you can't really ignore the theatre command level.

Sarkus wrote:It would have been interesting if the game had allowed the theatre commands that were historically in place at least in the north. So you would have to give a three star general that position. Maybe it would have a slight impact on the whole region's performance.

I mean if you are going to put Cooper and Scott into the game but lock them into a position where they will likely never do anything under the guise of "flavor", then you can't really ignore the theatre command level.

Well Cooper and Scott can be used to Defend your capitals if either side is very successful in those opening days of the war.

Comtedemeighan wrote:Sam Cooper is there to provide some historical flavor and I think he should stay in the Game

heres a short bio I found online of Samuel cooper..

Birth: Jun. 12, 1798
Death: Dec. 3, 1876

Civil War Confederate General. In 1815, he graduated from the US Military Academy and was commissioned a Lieutenant in the Army Light Artillery. He served in artillery units until 1837, when he was appointed chief clerk of the US War Department. In 1842, he served in the Seminole War, was promoted Colonel, saw action in the Mexican-American War and was appointed Adjutant General in 1852. At the outbreak of the Civil War, his loyalties were with the South and he resigned his commission in March 1861. He was immediately given a commission as Brigadier General, Adjutant and Inspector General of the Confederate Army, a post he held the entire war. In 1862, he was promoted to full general, the highest ranking officer in the Confederate Army and reported directly to Confederate President Jefferson Davis. Cooper's last official act was to preserve the official records of the Confederate Army and turn them over to the United States Government at the war's end. After the war, he returned to his plantation in Virginia and was farmer until his death. (bio by: John "J-Cat" Griffith)

Another interesting fact about Cooper was that he was a Northener. He was from New Jersey. However, his wife was from a prominent Virginia family, the Masons, and this is what led him to support the South.

Cooper has one of the training traits, a fact that is often missed because it is kind of blocked by the always present padlock symbol. So be sure to stack him appropriately while he's there and he'll give you some benefit.

Sarkus wrote:It would have been interesting if the game had allowed the theatre commands that were historically in place at least in the north. So you would have to give a three star general that position. Maybe it would have a slight impact on the whole region's performance.

I mean if you are going to put Cooper and Scott into the game but lock them into a position where they will likely never do anything under the guise of "flavor", then you can't really ignore the theatre command level.

Both didn't have real influence about real operations, and Halleck not much more. For different reasons, Scott being too physically weak to exerce real influence, the 2 others by lack of charism. So creating a such post like in Gary Grisby is IMHO a game feature, not an historical one.

Sarkus wrote:It would have been interesting if the game had allowed the theatre commands that were historically in place at least in the north. So you would have to give a three star general that position. Maybe it would have a slight impact on the whole region's performance.

I mean if you are going to put Cooper and Scott into the game but lock them into a position where they will likely never do anything under the guise of "flavor", then you can't really ignore the theatre command level.

Also, the area of command that armies have is sort of reflective of Theatre commands. I think it covers that quite well already.

Clovis wrote:Both didn't have real influence about real operations, and Halleck not much more. For different reasons, Scott being too physically weak to exerce real influence, the 2 others by lack of charism. So creating a such post like in Gary Grisby is IMHO a game feature, not an historical one.

While I don't disagree about the positions held by Scott and Cooper, it is a different matter when talking about the "theatre" command Halleck held for a time. Fremont and Halleck had an impact on things, if only marginally. That's all I'm suggesting would have been an interesting thing to model. Again, if the game is going to force the player to accept Cooper, Scott, and even McClellan in their historical roles for "flavor" then ignoring the theatre command level entirely seems an odd choice.

soloswolf wrote:Also, the area of command that armies have is sort of reflective of Theatre commands. I think it covers that quite well already.

Not really. At one point Halleck commanded three seperate armies. The game doesn't allow anything like that. And, of course, Grant also commanded the west theatre for a time as well.

What I have in mind would be a relatively simple designation where the person in that position would have to be an army level commander and would have only a small impact on what was happening beneath them in the form of small adjustments. That way the game would reflect the early war strategic problems that were the result of the theatre commanders of the Union.

When Scott "retired" he went to the RR station with McCllelan who then assumed overall command. t

Sarkus wrote:Not really. At one point Halleck commanded three seperate armies. The game doesn't allow anything like that. And, of course, Grant also commanded the west theatre for a time as well.

What I have in mind would be a relatively simple designation where the person in that position would have to be an army level commander and would have only a small impact on what was happening beneath them in the form of small adjustments. That way the game would reflect the early war strategic problems that were the result of the theatre commanders of the Union.

The game does allow for that: You.

Where are these 3* generals going to come from? What impact will they have? Why are these theatre commands needed? If you want to add layers, why stop there? Let's throw in district commands too! If you want to role-play theater/district commands, great! I do too. But it is an entirely unnecessary game change.

Further, the game will not reflect early war strategic problems due to theatre commands because you can see the whole map. You only have yourself to bicker with when deciding who to send where. You are the final say on all orders.

soloswolf wrote:The game does allow for that: You.

Where are these 3* generals going to come from? What impact will they have? Why are these theatre commands needed? If you want to add layers, why stop there? Let's throw in district commands too! If you want to role-play theater/district commands, great! I do too. But it is an entirely unnecessary game change.

Further, the game will not reflect early war strategic problems due to theatre commands because you can see the whole map. You only have yourself to bicker with when deciding who to send where. You are the final say on all orders.

Sure, but the point here is that we are being forced to accept some things under the argument that they provide "flavor." In another thread Gray and others have argued that forcing McClellan on the Union player keeps the game more "historical." All I'm suggesting is the same thing, which has a historical basis. Adding that "layer" would make the game more realistically reflect the difficulties Lincoln had in getting things done.

I'm not arguing that these changes need to be made. I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency in forcing some things and ignoring others.

What would you want these generals to do if this was added to the game? How would they affect gameplay and/or reflect the troubles with the Federal command system?

As far as inconsistencies... If you agree that Cooper and Scott do not do much (if anything) and are there just for flavor, then why don't you just stick some of your spare 3*'s into areas that you feel might be at the heart of these theatres and call it a day? Then, they will be doing as little as Cooper and Scott, but will be "in command of a theatre" and satisfy your want for it. (I'm not trying to be prickly, but if it's flavor you are after, then deploy these leaders and call it what you want. Right?)

By game design, the actual highest level active command is the 3-stars that are assigned to the various active army command. We won't be redesigning the game command structure to add another layer of command to the game. The Command system that you observe now is what will remain. Units -> Divisions -> Corps -> Armies. The game is 2 years old. There's no need to comment any further on this particular subject.

soloswolf wrote:What would you want these generals to do if this was added to the game? How would they affect gameplay and/or reflect the troubles with the Federal command system?

As far as inconsistencies... If you agree that Cooper and Scott do not do much (if anything) and are there just for flavor, then why don't you just stick some of your spare 3*'s into areas that you feel might be at the heart of these theatres and call it a day? Then, they will be doing as little as Cooper and Scott, but will be "in command of a theatre" and satisfy your want for it. (I'm not trying to be prickly, but if it's flavor you are after, then deploy these leaders and call it what you want. Right?)

I think I explained my idea above about how I would implement it. I'm certainly not advocating it be patched in. I'm just pointing out that it is an additional element of "flavor" that could have been added to the game that would have a historical basis.

Possibly Hallecks seniority could be looked at - he was appointed as a Regular Major General and ranked after Scott, McClellan and Fremont.

Shortage of *** and a higher ranking would force his use and slow down subordinates like Grant and Pope.

S!

Le Ricain wrote:Another interesting fact about Cooper was that he was a Northener. He was from New Jersey. However, his wife was from a prominent Virginia family, the Masons, and this is what led him to support the South.

Yeah I saw that in my Encyclopedia of Nineteenth Century Warfare tonight should have looked in there instead of on the Net

In my last game I game Halleck "Western Command" and parked him in St. Louis. Not having any corps or troops never seemed to bother him. That's good enough for me, having to potentially burn an Army HQ to keep my generals from whining.

Besides, most generals preferred field commands to department commands anyway. Rosecrans is a good example of someone who was "exiled" to department command after a defeat.