One feature a day serie: #11 Promoting Generals
In AACW you can't promote everybody as you wish. First the leader must have shown some capability in his current rank (unless he is one of the most seniors officers, they are always eligible to a new rank!), so don't expect a loser or simply an unknown officer to be the next commander in chief. Also you will find that in some cases the newly promoted commander is not as good in the new rank as he was in his previous one (John Bell Hood for an historical example). Our database has a profile for each general and each rank he can attains, and often the abilities of the officer will vary from one rank to another.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
I think that Sandra has done an exceptionally fine job in portraying the generals. I think that I can even identify the generals displayed based on her portraits:
My guesses:
1st row: Sherman, Howard, Grant, Scott and Halleck
2nd row: Jackson, J. Johnston, Watie, Longstreet and Winder.
Does anyone have a better guess?
My guesses:
1st row: Sherman, Howard, Grant, Scott and Halleck
2nd row: Jackson, J. Johnston, Watie, Longstreet and Winder.
Does anyone have a better guess?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
'Nous voilà, Lafayette'
Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917
'Nous voilà, Lafayette'
Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917
-
IronBrigadeYankee
- Major
- Posts: 225
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:28 pm
- Location: Loudoun County, Virginia
- Contact: AOL
IronBrigadeYankee wrote:I think you nailed all the Rebs, but i think the US generals are Sherman, McDowell, Grant, Halleck, and Scott
You are correct about Halleck and Scott. I mistakenly put them in the wrong order.
Oliver Otis Howard
Irvin McDowell
I think that you are probably correct on the second porttrait as well.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
'Nous voilà, Lafayette'
Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917
'Nous voilà, Lafayette'
Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917
-
Irish Guards
- Private
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 11:26 pm
This looks great, I must say that I am dying for a good strategic civil war game, Forge of Freedom looks dissapointing and it has been ovverun in the fourms by the micromanaging types that are willing to kill overall vision for endless quibbling over details.
Thanks for this..
Is that Hardee at the end?
Thanks for this..
Is that Hardee at the end?
Union: Sherman, McDowell, Grant, Farragut, Scott
Confederate: Jackson, J. Johnston, Watie, Longstreet, Sterling Price?
Farragut threw me as I was thinking generals not admirals.
Confederate: Jackson, J. Johnston, Watie, Longstreet, Sterling Price?
Farragut threw me as I was thinking generals not admirals.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
'Nous voilà, Lafayette'
Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917
'Nous voilà, Lafayette'
Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917
One idea for generals. Maybe you already did implement this but just in case.
I belive that placing generals right where they did have their first battle would be a very good call.
Lee in Mississippi looks so bad that I am transfered from 1861 to today in a second
leure: .
If they will all come from capital that would not be too bad as they have to get their ranks in capital but if they would appear in state they did fought you would get much more on historical level.
If you like the idea I could help with states and stuff.
I belive that placing generals right where they did have their first battle would be a very good call.
Lee in Mississippi looks so bad that I am transfered from 1861 to today in a second
leure: .
If they will all come from capital that would not be too bad as they have to get their ranks in capital but if they would appear in state they did fought you would get much more on historical level.
If you like the idea I could help with states and stuff.
Forrest said something about killing a Yankee for each of his horses that they shot. In the last days of the war, Forrest had killed 30 of the enemy and had 30 horses shot from under him. In a brief but savage conflict, a Yankee soldier "saw glory for himself" with an opportunity to kill the famous Confederate General... Forrest killed the fellow. Making 31 Yankees personally killed, and 30 horses lost...
He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."
He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."
Hmmm... I have one more idea for generals. Maybe it would be easier to give some kind of bonus for all general that fight in states they fought historically.
Just throwing ideas here.
Just throwing ideas here.
Forrest said something about killing a Yankee for each of his horses that they shot. In the last days of the war, Forrest had killed 30 of the enemy and had 30 horses shot from under him. In a brief but savage conflict, a Yankee soldier "saw glory for himself" with an opportunity to kill the famous Confederate General... Forrest killed the fellow. Making 31 Yankees personally killed, and 30 horses lost...
He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."
He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."
Hmmm... What about idea for generals? It is posted here and I am intrested what you all think about it.
Thanks
Thanks
Forrest said something about killing a Yankee for each of his horses that they shot. In the last days of the war, Forrest had killed 30 of the enemy and had 30 horses shot from under him. In a brief but savage conflict, a Yankee soldier "saw glory for himself" with an opportunity to kill the famous Confederate General... Forrest killed the fellow. Making 31 Yankees personally killed, and 30 horses lost...
He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."
He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."
Maybe some other model but that would keep genrals in states where they did fight historically. We could let say make Lee fight in eastern theatre only and if a player would move him west then he would get some penalty.
AGEOD team said that this will be historical simulation and if Forrest fights in Louisiana then it won't be
AGEOD team said that this will be historical simulation and if Forrest fights in Louisiana then it won't be
Forrest said something about killing a Yankee for each of his horses that they shot. In the last days of the war, Forrest had killed 30 of the enemy and had 30 horses shot from under him. In a brief but savage conflict, a Yankee soldier "saw glory for himself" with an opportunity to kill the famous Confederate General... Forrest killed the fellow. Making 31 Yankees personally killed, and 30 horses lost...
He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."
He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."
marecone wrote:Maybe some other model but that would keep genrals in states where they did fight historically. We could let say make Lee fight in eastern theatre only and if a player would move him west then he would get some penalty.
AGEOD team said that this will be historical simulation and if Forrest fights in Louisiana then it won't be
So if Forrest gets on a boat and crosses the mississippi he's not as good a general? It's a historical simulation not a historical straitjacket.
No, no. Ok. They could divide states in eastern and western theatre. So if Forrest historically fought in west then he should be there. If you move him to Virginia he could fight less efective. Like, he doesn't know the terrain or something like it.
And chris this is only my suggestion, no need to jump at me. I see it as good one and you see it as bad one. Only thing that matters is AGEOD team.
I played every sigle ACW game there is on market from the first coputer games and Commodore's 64.
I hated when generals fought in theaters in wich they didn't fight historicaly. That is all. If AGEOD doesn't like it I will live with it.
And chris this is only my suggestion, no need to jump at me. I see it as good one and you see it as bad one. Only thing that matters is AGEOD team.
I played every sigle ACW game there is on market from the first coputer games and Commodore's 64.
I hated when generals fought in theaters in wich they didn't fight historicaly. That is all. If AGEOD doesn't like it I will live with it.
Forrest said something about killing a Yankee for each of his horses that they shot. In the last days of the war, Forrest had killed 30 of the enemy and had 30 horses shot from under him. In a brief but savage conflict, a Yankee soldier "saw glory for himself" with an opportunity to kill the famous Confederate General... Forrest killed the fellow. Making 31 Yankees personally killed, and 30 horses lost...
He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."
He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."
PhilThib wrote:Right, but we have some features that makes generals leaving their 'favorite' theater of operation a bit less effective (the 'lose' some % of their characteristics and/or abilities)... this might be implemented...
The problem with that is most generals fought in multiple theatres. How do you decide which is their favorite? What is considered a theatre? How many do you have? East, West, and Transmississippi are the main ones. I'd ask that if you include that you make it an optional feature. I want a very historically accurate game but I'd rather have the freedom to assign my generals to where I want them to be.
It is my guess that Grant will be able to fight both in west and east. Forrest on the other hand should fight better in western theatre.
And BTW if you want very historically accurate game then generals should fight where they historically did.
Thne again I agree that this could be optional so that AGEOD team could attract both historical grognards and other, more casual, players.
And BTW if you want very historically accurate game then generals should fight where they historically did.
Thne again I agree that this could be optional so that AGEOD team could attract both historical grognards and other, more casual, players.
Forrest said something about killing a Yankee for each of his horses that they shot. In the last days of the war, Forrest had killed 30 of the enemy and had 30 horses shot from under him. In a brief but savage conflict, a Yankee soldier "saw glory for himself" with an opportunity to kill the famous Confederate General... Forrest killed the fellow. Making 31 Yankees personally killed, and 30 horses lost...
He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."
He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."
Pocus wrote:Personnaly I find too much constraints in your idea. And you will ask for historical death dates also?
Argh... I am talking as expirienced ACW player. If you are saying that this will be historically accurate game then do what ever you can to make it so. Forthe third time, if Lee will fight in Mississippi then it will not be historical no metter what you do with map, units and regiments. And, no I would not ask for generals to die.
I just wanted to help. I didn't want to go into any such unfriendly debate. Just forget it.
Forrest said something about killing a Yankee for each of his horses that they shot. In the last days of the war, Forrest had killed 30 of the enemy and had 30 horses shot from under him. In a brief but savage conflict, a Yankee soldier "saw glory for himself" with an opportunity to kill the famous Confederate General... Forrest killed the fellow. Making 31 Yankees personally killed, and 30 horses lost...
He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."
He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."
marecone wrote:It is my guess that Grant will be able to fight both in west and east. Forrest on the other hand should fight better in western theatre.
And BTW if you want very historically accurate game then generals should fight where they historically did.
Thne again I agree that this could be optional so that AGEOD team could attract both historical grognards and other, more casual, players.
A historically accurate game doesn't force the players to recreate history. A historically accurate game gives the player what the commanders in the war had and lets them go from there. It doesn't try to force the player to make the same decisions his historical counterpart did.
Chris0827 wrote:A historically accurate game doesn't force the players to recreate history. A historically accurate game gives the player what the commanders in the war had and lets them go from there. It doesn't try to force the player to make the same decisions his historical counterpart did.
leure: Ok, ok. I give up. Forget about whole thing. 
Forrest said something about killing a Yankee for each of his horses that they shot. In the last days of the war, Forrest had killed 30 of the enemy and had 30 horses shot from under him. In a brief but savage conflict, a Yankee soldier "saw glory for himself" with an opportunity to kill the famous Confederate General... Forrest killed the fellow. Making 31 Yankees personally killed, and 30 horses lost...
He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."
He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."
Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests