AGEOD Forums

Please be aware that the Patterson problem (removal of leader by event also removes his division) also applies to Porter (in my experience) and probably Hancock as well. In Hancock's case (if it does apply), you have to wonder about the wife of the jealous husband, if he felt the need to kill an entire division.

I shall see if I can find a solution to this mess, because the same will also apply to Van dorn and Breckinridge on the CSA side...

Le Ricain wrote:you have to wonder about the wife of the jealous husband, if he felt the need to kill an entire division.

Havent got to the Hancock event yet. I take it from what I read here, he is removed at some point because of extramarital troubles, or a jealous husband killing him? Is that the case? Sounds more like it should be a Dan Sickles problem than a Win Hancock problem.

I doubt that Hancock gets killed by anyone because he actually led his corps all through the war. And Dan Sickles I believe shot his wife's lover, but wasn't shot himself either.

Heldenkaiser wrote:I doubt that Hancock gets killed by anyone because he actually led his corps all through the war. And Dan Sickles I believe shot his wife's lover, but wasn't shot himself either.

The Hancock event is in the game....just a fun little thing that the developers threw in to mirror the real, historical situation that Van Dorn got himself into on the Confederate side (which is also in the game). Hancock was considered to be the best looking guy in the Federal army. Did he ever fool around outside of his marriage...I don't have clue....but I'm sure he had the opportunity....
(clarification: for both of these guys, there is only a % chance this will happen...its not a sure thing)

Good point about Sickles though....maybe it is more appropriate to set up the event for him since he was known to be such a "ladies man"

The Dan Sickles scandal happened just before the war, when he was a Congressman. (so, should be no in game event unfortunately). He shot the son of Francis Scott Key (composer of the Star Spangled Banner) who was having a torrid love affair with his wife.

Sickles was tried, but interestingly not convicted. He had a brilliant defense attorney who argued successfully, for the first time in US legal history, the concept of "temporary insanity."

The defense attorney was Edwin McMasters Stanton.

The Hancock event is in the game....just a fun little thing that the developers threw in to mirror the real, historical situation that Van Dorn got himself into on the Confederate side (which is also in the game). Hancock was considered to be the best looking guy in the Federal army. Did he ever fool around outside of his marriage...I don't have clue....but I'm sure he had the opportunity....
(clarification: for both of these guys, there is only a % chance this will happen...its not a sure thing)

Good point about Sickles though....maybe it is more appropriate to set up the event for him since he was known to be such a "ladies man"

I would vote to switch this event from Hancock over to Sickles. Hancock was the single outstanding Corps commander in the Army of the Potomac throughout the course of the war. While he was described as a fine looking man, there is no reason to believe that he ever dallied outside of his marriage to Almira. Furthermore, he is a very valuable leader for the North, much more so than Van Dorn is for the South. In an army with a shortage of strong corps commanders, it is IMHO unbalancing to Hancock vulnerable to this type of occurence. I think Sickles would be a good choice, of comparable value to Van Dorn, or perhaps Joe Hooker, who was so notorious for womanizing that the ladies plying their trade around his tent became known as 'hookers' which has stuck ever since. Perhaps an event where abolitionists/moralists etc insist on Hooker's removal due to the deplorable moral state of his camp would be both more realistic and a comparable value to Van Dorn's removal for the South.

I can see that Winfield S. Hancock might be biased in favour of one who presumably he admires, but surely he is correct.
I don't recall any scandal in David Jordans biography "A soldiers life",or any other source studied over the last 40 years.
I know it's only a game and perhaps I should lighten up ,but this seems so silly.
It traduces the character of a fine commander and future presidential candidate .There are plenty of others characters who might deserve such treatment.
Perhaps every historical figure in the game ,should be given a 5% chance of
an affair ,5% chance of embezzlement,5% chance of drunken behavior and so on!
Sorry to rant on this friendly,helpful and sensible forum,maybe it's the historian in me.

PhilThib wrote:I shall see if I can find a solution to this mess, because the same will also apply to Van dorn and Breckinridge on the CSA side...

I'd prefer not to see leaders removed at all on historical dates. The player is taking the role of Jeff Davis or Lincoln. Let the player decide who to use and who not to use. Don't force it by removing leaders.

Fair enough.....

Perhaps we can agree that Sickles is a scandalous enough character to keep a similar event in the game on the Federal side? He is roughly on par with Van Dorn in terms of rank and ability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Sickles

Got my vote on that. Sickles was a scandalous character, and many in the Union army did not want to serve with him. He and Meade were particularly at each others throats.

I agree.
Bet Hancock never imagined an Englishman ,living in North Wales, would be leaping to his defence 140 years later

Don't touch Hooker.
He did a lot to train and organize the AoP.
He created the Cavalry Corps. The intelligence service. Improved hygeine and sanitation.
He was a hard fighting general that stalled out as Army commander at Chancellorsville.
After that he was back to being "Fighting Joe" for the remainder of the war.

Le Ricain wrote:(...)you have to wonder about the wife of the jealous husband, if he felt the need to kill an entire division.

"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned", y'know

Hi folks, is nothing to be done about this problem? It seems like a major bug to me as there are 10 leaders that can removed by event and all of these would lose all the men in their division!

I would think players would stop using these leaders rather than risk losing a division. Please can we have a fix for this?

Cheers, Chris

I'm neutralizing these events for now: Van Dorn, Breckinridge, Porter, Fremont, Sickles.

W. Scott, Patterson, McClellan (in 64) and Cooper remains.

for the latters, only the element will be removed, not the entire unit, so at worse you will have a weird division but combat units will remains on map.

Oops

Thanks Philippe, how does it work when a general is lost in combat - his division is not lost then as well is it? I don't think I have checked when losing a leader in battle or the carnage has been so great it's difficult to tell.

EDIT - posts crossed. I assume combat loss is the same as you describe above?

Cheers, Chris

P.S. should Raphael Semmes also be included - I think he is removed also?

deleted

deleted

Sounds like the leaders can now be removed without removing their attached units. Personally, I don't mind having a small, very small chance of a random event removing leaders. But, I wouldn't want to see more than one or two leaders removed in this fashion throughout the course of the war. So, I imagine the odds would have to be very, very low.

deleted

deleted

Instead of removing leaders, reduce their rating to 0-0-0. The player can then decide what to do with the hapless flunkie.

The best thing would be to replace them with a lieutnant or chief of staff perhaps.

If a division ever lost his leader, as the leader is now the division HQ, you will get an illegal division, ie this will be a division in all aspects, except it will be leaderless...