Thankyou all ,for making my daily visits over the last months interesting and thought provoking
Views regarding the abilities of the generals are inevitably controversial.
However in the discussions, it seems to me that a vital point has been missed.
Every general,either a military man or political appointee, had to learn his trade during the war.Only Scott had ever handled several thousand troops before.
Look at the performances of the great leaders.
Grant- muddled his way to Shiloh,often censured barely escaping the sack.
As for Shiloh!
Sherman- had a nervous breakdown and was saved by Hallecks careful handling,presumably because of Shermans political connections.
Halleck and Buell( replacing Sherman were almost certainly superior early in the war.
On the other side Granny Lee failed miserably in W.Virginia and was hidden down in the Carolinas for a time.Later his performance in the Seven Days, while certainly audacious is usually portrayed as poorly planned and executed
with little command control.The great Jackson was hardly in evidence and Longstreet failed to organise and execute his orders effectively.
My point is, that these were not yet the arguably great leaders of 1863-5.
and yet due to hindsight,games give them their later abilities.
In a future patch, would it be possible to start them with lower abilities than early leaders such as Mcdowell, mcclellan,so that the player acting as president would likely choose the best available commanders at the time.
Could the programme then improve leaders traits over time and/or by event in a semi random manner to allow progress towards a generals optimum ability.
This would allow a more accurate portrayal of the difficulties facing the presidents in appointing commanders
Knowing that Grant is potentially a top leader, but not knowing when and if he would achieve his full potential would make for more realistic decision making
...but what you request is slightly different, because it adds randomness where we don't.. 
wilhammer, the point I was attempting to find words for,was that the promotion system doesn't get fit the reality closely enough.
Take Grant for example.
A quartermaster in the old army basically forced to resign and working as a clerk in his dads store As an ex army officer he was useful in knowing the procedures for helping muster volunteers.Promoted to Brigadier as part of an Illinois political quota after a few months.
I would suggest at that stage as a Brigadier his ability were extremely weak.
I happen to disagree with them, but I accept that many respected Historians would make Grant a military giant by 1863 yet the game is supposed to portray that with one single promotion.
Surely like most of us, he learnt his trade by trial and error so I suggest that it would be more realistic to improve his traits perhaps every 6 months or by certain activities and perhaps with a random element so that one would not be sure when he would achieve his full powers.
I would also suggest that if his traits were worse than say Buells at the start and the player didnt know exactly when he would reach his pinnacle,then is it not more likely that the player would put Buell in command rather than our hero?
Take Grant for example.
A quartermaster in the old army basically forced to resign and working as a clerk in his dads store As an ex army officer he was useful in knowing the procedures for helping muster volunteers.Promoted to Brigadier as part of an Illinois political quota after a few months.
I would suggest at that stage as a Brigadier his ability were extremely weak.
I happen to disagree with them, but I accept that many respected Historians would make Grant a military giant by 1863 yet the game is supposed to portray that with one single promotion.
Surely like most of us, he learnt his trade by trial and error so I suggest that it would be more realistic to improve his traits perhaps every 6 months or by certain activities and perhaps with a random element so that one would not be sure when he would achieve his full powers.
I would also suggest that if his traits were worse than say Buells at the start and the player didnt know exactly when he would reach his pinnacle,then is it not more likely that the player would put Buell in command rather than our hero?
There is a limit to your suggestion: if the promotion is linked to some kind of activity and the guy is "bad" at start, why would the player (not knowing the guy 'will' improve) put him in command in the first place...
And if you 'hint' the guy will improve, the desired effect might be lost....
Tricky at best...
anyway, we are working on a system for future patches and game and shall try to include that kind of thoughts..
And if you 'hint' the guy will improve, the desired effect might be lost....
Tricky at best...
anyway, we are working on a system for future patches and game and shall try to include that kind of thoughts..
With the idea of learning while doing,the simplest system I can come up with quickly might be time based.
example.
trait start value1 optimun value5
check every 3 months ,50% chance of increase
optimun value achieved in 2 years on average
maximum- 1year. worst- never?
By event is I agree difficult, but I have great faith in your genius as designers!
Once again,thankyou for your lightning response and for making us amateurs feel a small part of the AGEOD empire
example.
trait start value1 optimun value5
check every 3 months ,50% chance of increase
optimun value achieved in 2 years on average
maximum- 1year. worst- never?
By event is I agree difficult, but I have great faith in your genius as designers!
Once again,thankyou for your lightning response and for making us amateurs feel a small part of the AGEOD empire
PhilThib wrote:There is a limit to your suggestion: if the promotion is linked to some kind of activity and the guy is "bad" at start, why would the player (not knowing the guy 'will' improve) put him in command in the first place...
That's pretty much how it works in real life though, you hope they get better as they gain experience but there's no guarantee. So Lincoln or Davis might have to leave a bad general in place for a while and see whether he improves or not. If he's been in command for a year and he still sucks, then you fire him.
If you fire him before then, you run the risk of firing the next Sherman or Grant.Hmmm... Tremy's suggestion really sounds very intriguing... One could imagine that all generals would start the war with low stats, but "good" generals would progress quickly to reach their optimum... This way the beginning of the war would be slow and messy, with lots of failed checks, and slowly improving generalship.. Imagine the 1861 scenario : if you begin in april 1861, you could imagine that it takes 1 year to 15 months for generals that are actually in command of troops to reach their potential...
It is a complicated idea, so not sure it is worth including from the start, but it is very interesting if it could be added in a patch.. This would really well emulate the clumsiness of the first year...I guess this rule wouldn't apply to generals appearing later in game, say from january 1863 onwards since those are supposed to be battle hardened allready...
It is a complicated idea, so not sure it is worth including from the start, but it is very interesting if it could be added in a patch.. This would really well emulate the clumsiness of the first year...I guess this rule wouldn't apply to generals appearing later in game, say from january 1863 onwards since those are supposed to be battle hardened allready...
chris0827 sorry if I trod on a sore place.I mentioned Grant and Shiloh first as he is regarded as the senior, rather than chronological order A source for muddled see "War of the Rebellion"
VOL4.
My intent was not to disparage brave men,but to make a point about the immense learning experience even the seniors men had to go through.
VOL4.
My intent was not to disparage brave men,but to make a point about the immense learning experience even the seniors men had to go through.
There is one more complcation to promoting generals. There were no small number of promising officers who could not handle higher levels of command. For every Lee, Grant or Jackson who began poorly and improved, there was a Hooker or Burnside who did fairly well at lower ranks, but were disasters in higher commands. To be accurate, any system would haveto cover both possibilities.
-
Jonathan Palfrey
- Sergeant
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 12:11 pm
- Location: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
- Contact: Website
-
Jonathan Palfrey
- Sergeant
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 12:11 pm
- Location: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
- Contact: Website
tremy wrote:Every general, either a military man or political appointee, had to learn his trade during the war. Only Scott had ever handled several thousand troops before.
Look at the performances of the great leaders.
Grant- muddled his way to Shiloh, often censured, barely escaping the sack.
As for Shiloh!
Sherman- had a nervous breakdown and was saved by Halleck's careful handling, presumably because of Sherman's political connections.
Halleck and Buell (replacing Sherman) were almost certainly superior early in the war.
On the other side Granny Lee failed miserably in W.Virginia and was hidden down in the Carolinas for a time. Later his performance in the Seven Days, while certainly audacious is usually portrayed as poorly planned and executed
with little command control. The great Jackson was hardly in evidence and Longstreet failed to organise and execute his orders effectively.
My point is, that these were not yet the arguably great leaders of 1863-5,
and yet, due to hindsight, games give them their later abilities.
In a future patch, would it be possible to start them with lower abilities than early leaders such as McDowell, McClellan, so that the player acting as president would likely choose the best available commanders at the time.
Could the programme then improve leaders' traits over time and/or by event in a semi-random manner to allow progress towards a general's optimum ability.
This would allow a more accurate portrayal of the difficulties facing the presidents in appointing commanders.
This seems like a really good and interesting point. It's somewhat difficult to decide how best to handle it in a game, but I think there must be some truth in it. Surely these inexperienced generals would have improved with practical experience.
I propose that all generals should have a tendency to improve with experience (by which I mean action, not just sitting around doing nothing). But there should also be some tendency to get worse on promotion, because a higher rank requires somewhat different skills, and they're skills that would be new to the just-promoted general. So the skill level of a particular general gradually rises until he's promoted, when it may drop a bit, then it starts rising again as he gains experience in the new rank.
Of course a really stupid ("political"?) general may stay forever at his starting level...
If you doubt that generals learn from experience check out the 7 Days Battles. Lee lost control, Longstreet dithered, AP HIll went off half-cocked and Jackson fell asleep.
That's not including what the Union generals did... most fought well (on the defensive) but McClellan collapsed.
One of the things I notice is the South retained generals in high command much longer than the Union. The Northern 'command team' that had time enough together to 'jell' as a team was Grant, Sherman and McPherson, and much of the reason for that is Grant's early victories. Ft Henry and Donelson, then Shiloh and Vicksburg, kept the same officers together long enough that they learned how to work really well together.
Not sure how you simulate this in a game. I do like the idea of having generals with established ratings, modified slightly by randomization and reduced by, say, half at the beginning of the War. With each battle the numbers could improve. But it seems to me the factor that should improve most with experience is confidence... a leader trait that allows him to move easily and quickly, and to confidently seek battle.
That's not including what the Union generals did... most fought well (on the defensive) but McClellan collapsed.
One of the things I notice is the South retained generals in high command much longer than the Union. The Northern 'command team' that had time enough together to 'jell' as a team was Grant, Sherman and McPherson, and much of the reason for that is Grant's early victories. Ft Henry and Donelson, then Shiloh and Vicksburg, kept the same officers together long enough that they learned how to work really well together.
Not sure how you simulate this in a game. I do like the idea of having generals with established ratings, modified slightly by randomization and reduced by, say, half at the beginning of the War. With each battle the numbers could improve. But it seems to me the factor that should improve most with experience is confidence... a leader trait that allows him to move easily and quickly, and to confidently seek battle.
Hi!
Tremy has hit on a really good point here, and I am in total agreement.
One of the things which skews strategic games where leadership is important in gameplay is assigning static leadership qualities based on the leaders "historical reputation."
Although leaders do have inherent "traits" and potential for greater responsiblity, all is for nought if the leader does not have time to learn his craft.
Imagine we are playing a Napoleonic game and the leader "Napoleon" became available to be assigned to any army you wanted. Of course, the player would place Napoleon at the head of his largest army. But in real life, Napoleon "cut his teeth" with the Army of Italy, approx. 40,000 men strong.
So too a player in an American Civil War game would jump at the opportunity to place "Grant" at the head of the Army of the Potomac, but in real life he first commanded the Army of Tennessee, approx. 40,000 men strong. It was Grant's experience in the west which allowed him to eventually command an army in excess of 100,000 men in the East.
In gaming we have a tendency of seeing "command" potential/ability being equated with command structure. That is brigade, division, corps and army. But it is also a function of the actual size in numbers of the formation, that is the space the command occupies. This is especially true in nineteenth century warfare where maneuver played a great role in the outcome of battles, but command and control was limited essentially to couriers. It is one thing to be able to command an "army" in which the commander can ride to any point in the battle, and quite another in which he must rely on reports on actions occurring far beyond his naked eye.
It would, indeed, be terrific if the folks here at AGEOD could figure out some way of simulating the need for leaders to "learn" how to command not just the units of a given formation, but the space in which it occupies.
Ray (alias LAVA)
Tremy has hit on a really good point here, and I am in total agreement.
One of the things which skews strategic games where leadership is important in gameplay is assigning static leadership qualities based on the leaders "historical reputation."
Although leaders do have inherent "traits" and potential for greater responsiblity, all is for nought if the leader does not have time to learn his craft.
Imagine we are playing a Napoleonic game and the leader "Napoleon" became available to be assigned to any army you wanted. Of course, the player would place Napoleon at the head of his largest army. But in real life, Napoleon "cut his teeth" with the Army of Italy, approx. 40,000 men strong.
So too a player in an American Civil War game would jump at the opportunity to place "Grant" at the head of the Army of the Potomac, but in real life he first commanded the Army of Tennessee, approx. 40,000 men strong. It was Grant's experience in the west which allowed him to eventually command an army in excess of 100,000 men in the East.
In gaming we have a tendency of seeing "command" potential/ability being equated with command structure. That is brigade, division, corps and army. But it is also a function of the actual size in numbers of the formation, that is the space the command occupies. This is especially true in nineteenth century warfare where maneuver played a great role in the outcome of battles, but command and control was limited essentially to couriers. It is one thing to be able to command an "army" in which the commander can ride to any point in the battle, and quite another in which he must rely on reports on actions occurring far beyond his naked eye.
It would, indeed, be terrific if the folks here at AGEOD could figure out some way of simulating the need for leaders to "learn" how to command not just the units of a given formation, but the space in which it occupies.
Ray (alias LAVA)
I'm not saying that AACW already do all what you speak about, but a fair part is already there.
For example about what LAVA says: You just can't put Grant in command of the AOP at the start of the game, because he starts with Rank 2, not Rank 3. So he must gains his new rank by winning actual battles, not staying in the rear behind a desk. And no you can't exploit the rule by letting him win small battles or capturing objectives, this won't work either.
Sherman is even more interesting, as he starts at Rank 1. There is a long way before he is named army commander! And even when he is promotable, if you do that too early, you can infuriate many more senior generals around.
Also generals improve within a rank. They gain experience and can get a slight increase in characteristics. When they change ranks, they keep a part of this experience, but their stats are altered and can be worse in some cases.
For example about what LAVA says: You just can't put Grant in command of the AOP at the start of the game, because he starts with Rank 2, not Rank 3. So he must gains his new rank by winning actual battles, not staying in the rear behind a desk. And no you can't exploit the rule by letting him win small battles or capturing objectives, this won't work either.
Sherman is even more interesting, as he starts at Rank 1. There is a long way before he is named army commander! And even when he is promotable, if you do that too early, you can infuriate many more senior generals around.
Also generals improve within a rank. They gain experience and can get a slight increase in characteristics. When they change ranks, they keep a part of this experience, but their stats are altered and can be worse in some cases.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
-
DennyWright
- Lieutenant
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:15 am
- Location: London
-
Jonathan Palfrey
- Sergeant
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 12:11 pm
- Location: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
- Contact: Website
There are really several separate ideas here:
1. Leaders not only have different abilities but also different rates of improvement with experience.
2. When promoted, the change in ability also varies from leader to leader.
3. It's not enough to assess a leader's average historical ability during the war; to do a complete job, you ought to assess his ability at the beginning and at the end, in order to get his starting ratings and his capacity for improvement.
Unfortunately, it's virtually impossible to rate each historical leader accurately for starting ability, rate of improvement, and promotion penalty. How can you assess a leader's ability before he's actually done anything?
If you randomize the leaders anyway, this is much less of a problem. You can then randomize the starting ability, rate of improvement, and promotion penalty, and players will face much the same problems that the respective presidents faced in reality.
However, if you want to provide the historical leaders, you have a lot of work on your hands to estimate all these things, and someone is certain to complain whatever you do. I think the important conclusions to take away are these:
1. There should be some improvement with experience. To simplify, this could be the same for all leaders, or vary randomly.
2. Leaders should start the game with some deduction from their historical average ratings, because they'll improve later. The amount of deduction should depend on the amount of improvement to be expected later.
3. There should be some change in ability with promotion. To simplify, this could be the same for all leaders, or vary randomly.
1. Leaders not only have different abilities but also different rates of improvement with experience.
2. When promoted, the change in ability also varies from leader to leader.
3. It's not enough to assess a leader's average historical ability during the war; to do a complete job, you ought to assess his ability at the beginning and at the end, in order to get his starting ratings and his capacity for improvement.
Unfortunately, it's virtually impossible to rate each historical leader accurately for starting ability, rate of improvement, and promotion penalty. How can you assess a leader's ability before he's actually done anything?
If you randomize the leaders anyway, this is much less of a problem. You can then randomize the starting ability, rate of improvement, and promotion penalty, and players will face much the same problems that the respective presidents faced in reality.
However, if you want to provide the historical leaders, you have a lot of work on your hands to estimate all these things, and someone is certain to complain whatever you do. I think the important conclusions to take away are these:
1. There should be some improvement with experience. To simplify, this could be the same for all leaders, or vary randomly.
2. Leaders should start the game with some deduction from their historical average ratings, because they'll improve later. The amount of deduction should depend on the amount of improvement to be expected later.
3. There should be some change in ability with promotion. To simplify, this could be the same for all leaders, or vary randomly.
Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests