Jo Shelby.

[hindman]

First off I want to say I love the game. I am from arkansas and I study the Civil War in the trans-Miss district. I was just wanting to know in future games could you add a little more importance to leaders like Jo Shelby who many claim was one of if not the best calvary officer on either side and John marmaduke. I know he is in this version of the game but doesn't show up till very late and doesn't have the calvary emblom that I strongly feel he should have. He lost several of his battles but mostly due to the resources available to him. and like I said I love the game, thanks

[enf91]

A recent patch has Marmaduke show up in '63.

[hindman]

Yes but he was VERY intact as a primary leader in the theatre before that date, and almost always as a calvary officer.

[slimey.rock]

This thread may prove useful for you in regards to John Marmaduke.

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=14795&highlight=marmaduke

[hindman]

I still feel he appears to late, but the main point I was trying to make was about Jo Shelby. Thank though for the info.

[Colonel Dreux]

First off I want to say I love the game. I am from arkansas and I study the Civil War in the trans-Miss district. I was just wanting to know in future games could you add a little more importance to leaders like Jo Shelby who many claim was one of if not the best calvary officer on either side and John marmaduke. I know he is in this version of the game but doesn't show up till very late and doesn't have the calvary emblom that I strongly feel he should have. He lost several of his battles but mostly due to the resources available to him. and like I said I love the game, thanks

Joseph O. Shelby is not in the game if I'm not mistaken. Probably the next go round in the game will have all the major generals. People have brought up just about everyone it seems. Personally, I think it would be great if every general either side had would be made available, but only division leaders is just fine as well.

The game designers will won't proof that Shelby commanded a division level command though.

[arsan]

The game designers will won't proof that Shelby commanded a division level command though.

Exactly!
For what i know, the game's "rule of thumb" is to only represent as individual leaders divisional commanders and up.
There are a few flavor exceptions (Mosby, Quantrill...)
Shelby was only a brigade commander for what i know.
Marmaduke does not appear until 63 because up to then he did not command a divisional sized force.
Cheers!

[Nikel]

Exactly!
For what i know, the game's "rule of thumb" is to only represent as individual leaders divisional commanders and up.
There are a few flavor exceptions (Mosby, Quantrill...)
Shelby was only a brigade commander for what i know.
Marmaduke does not appear until 63 because up to then he did not command a divisional sized force.
Cheers!

arsan, the case seems identical to Mamaduke

At one point he was a Brigadier General commanding a Division size force. There are several references on the Records


And online too, for example here. Look at the botton of the page and the next one. Shelby and his men: or, The war in the West By John Newman Edwards. The book is on the public domain, so can be downloaded full


http://books.google.com/books?id=674LAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA382&dq=shelby+1864+division&lr=&as_brr=3&ei=X-3MStzICI3UMon-kbIK#v=onepage&q=shelby%201864%20division&f=false

[arsan]

You are right!
I recalled Price's 1864 Missouri raid one level down (as a division sized raid with Shelby leading one of the brigades).
But rechecking Shelby Foote Civil War trilogy shows i was wrong! It was a corps sized (12.000 cavalry) raid with Shelby commanding one of the divisions (3 brigades).
So i guess he would qualify for being in (starting summer 1864 or so).

Cheers

[Colonel Dreux]

Exactly!
For what i know, the game's "rule of thumb" is to only represent as individual leaders divisional commanders and up.
There are a few flavor exceptions (Mosby, Quantrill...)
Shelby was only a brigade commander for what i know.
Marmaduke does not appear until 63 because up to then he did not command a divisional sized force.
Cheers!

A problem that arises with the division and up rational is a number of generals led divisions temporarily or they led them as brigadiers and never got a commission for a higher rank. So it's easy to miss some generals who, might otherwise would qualify. There's a few others besides Jo Shelby. J.J. Pettigrew, James L. Kemper, or James J. Archer might would as well because they commanded a division at some point (mostly temporarily, although Pettigrew probably would have remained in command if hadn't been killed). It all depends on where you draw the line at. Some just got killed at the time they moved up in and command. Should they count (rhetorical question)?

[arsan]

Yes, i'm sure there were much more historical division commanders that the ones represented in game.
But game play wise i guess it does not make much sense to have hundreds of leaders around the map with nothing to command
Probably the max number of divisions per side give a rough estimate of the number of * generals .
Adding a good number of extra generals to allow for casualties, promotions independent commands, "aides de camp" and the like... maybe a 1,5 max division number are enough.
I have never counted them but i guess this is roughly what we have now

[W.Barksdale]

I lobbied to have him and his boys put in, (see this thread) however, Gray is already swamped with database corrections and he doesn't need any new distractions.

Maybe, just maybe, if you modded the files yourself and posted them for Gray he may be able to add them to his post legacy patch mod. I think that the final database adjustments have already been submitted to Pocus for inclusion in the legacy patch, although, Gray will need to confirm this.

BTW Sellmeyer's Jo Shelby's Iron Brigade is a great read if you are interested in that outfit.