lodilefty wrote:The game engine for AACW is getting uniquer and uniquer every day, so the changess discussed belong to the AACW2 wishlist....
...but I'll take a quick look anyway
Finally, I note that Division leadership changed MUCH more often in history than it does in the game. Division commanders were often replaced because their superiors felt that they didn't follow orders fast enough, or didn't take advantage of a situation. Commanders also were replaced while wounded. These sorts of replacements happened on both sides.
Boomer wrote:While historically accurate, the idea of theater commands seems a little abstract to put into a computer game, especially one where the enemy might be the AI.
Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne wrote:I always wanted the randomize leader option to also hide their stats until they battle. Preferrably have the stats slowly level to what their actual stats are over time/battles. The only hint as to competance in the beginning could be a Political general/professional general trait.
Boomer wrote:While historically accurate, the idea of theater commands seems a little abstract to put into a computer game, especially one where the enemy might be the AI. However, in terms of mixing things up with diplomacy and event cards, it could actually make a civil war game a very fluid and difficult challenge.
Imagine marching a division to the relief of a besieged city, only to have the next turn reveal a page come up telling you that your theater commander has demanded that division be sent off somewhere else. Could make for some crazy opportunities... or disasters, however the results ended up.
Captain_Orso wrote:I would not play that game. As CiC of McClellan you would send him suggestions and orders and prods and pleas and after the turn is run you could find them on you Desktop in the Recycling Bin
To fill up my time recuperating I started watching Ken Burn's Civil War series. While listening to some of McClellan's quotes I realized that he's a classical case of paranoia; delusions of grandeur, overwhelming feeling of self-importance, feelings of persecution; he looked at his army and thought that the enemy must have a larger. Nothing but a back-slapper; mostly his own. He didn't want to command an army to fight the war, he wanted an army of buddies to look up to him. What a waist.
He said he would take Richmond, not conduct a maneuver to demonstrate that his army could march and coordinate their movements.
If he didn't have the stomach to fight his army then he was not the man for the job. Pulling over 100,000 men and material together to form a glee club was not his mission.
I don't question, whether he was a good administrator or a good person, but whether he was a good general.
Stauffenberg wrote:"Fate" was said with a certain sense of irony, and "ordered a bloodbath" is said after the fact.: Lee was prepared to was my point, McClellan not.
I'm done being the devil's advocate
I came here to bury McClellan with a more nuanced appreciation, not praise him.
Apart from that you are preaching to the converted about Lee in any case.
One other thing I will note however. There is a similarity between history's treatment of both McClellan and Bragg. Both are have been judged fairly harshly and the issue of their character flaws seems to cloud a more nuanced appreciation of their worth. The parallels are interesting: both were able trainers, and both had high level political connections that kept them on long after they should have left. Both seemed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory at critical junctures, and both seem to elicit strong antipathies even from beyond the grave.
wsatterwhite wrote:I think George McClellan was a man very lacking in personal courage and this led to most of his problems (that and the fact that his principal subordinates were subpar at best)- I think that an examination of McClellan's record shows that his ideas and plans, both strategic and tactical, were sound (the aforementioned Peninsula Campaign to my mind is a military masterpiece in terms of strategy) and that things only went wrong where they went wrong because McClellan constantly refused to take the field himself and essentially left his army to fend for itself time and time again. If he were born 50-60 years later than he was I think McClellan might have gone done as one of history's greatest military minds placed in a role similar to a George Marshall or maybe Eisenhower.
Captain_Orso wrote:But when one such as McClellan, who clearly has not earned his own self-praise, crows about his own importance and accuses other of not being his equal, attempting to attack him and plan his downfall, as he often did with Lincoln and others, it evokes a normal human reaction of distaste and disdain. How could it be otherwise?
Gen. Monkey-Bear wrote:I completely agree about Sheridan. But he is rather hard to kill, isn't he?
Similarly I think Schoefield was a real scoundrel, taking credit for victories that were never his, such as the Battle of Franklin. The only reason this was a Union victory was due to the actions of his brave subordinate, David Stanley. He was a thorn in the side of General Thomas throughout the Nashville campaign and was entirely a politician, not a general.
Gen. Monkey-Bear wrote:Stauffenberg, the Confederacy honors you with a thirty gun salute. That is one of the most admirable achievements in this game I have ever heard of; it is entirely deserving of its own AAR. An almost impossible victory, achieved over the most despisable of Yankees . . . You are a hero to the South . . . every Southern gentleman's grandson will be singing songs in your honor even generations after the war ends. Bravo!
Stauffenberg wrote:How does the song go, ♬"To dream the impossible dream..."♬
What is the official kill chance for generals I forget--2%?
It is extremely hard to target an enemy general and kill him--perhaps you can raise that to 5%--but i did it once. Yes it was Sheridan. I lost the war... but I got him
And Granite, re: "Ahh, don't sugarcoat it - tell us what you really feel."
I think I am going to start a thread on this called "Enemy Generals you love to hate... and WHY"
Works for me. You?
GraniteStater wrote:I'm just beginin' t' think you hate them dam bluebellies.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests