AGEOD Forums

Obviously he is an enormous liability. Presently, I have him just sit on the Potomac with three corps that, of course, never move, but would at least defend should the Rebs attack. As a theater of war, Virginia is perfectly neutralized right now.

Firing McClellan, for a virtually war-losing VP/NM penalty, is not an attractive option. Not to mention that the next senior three-stars would be no great improvement either (presently, Fremont, Butler, Banks, McDowell, Halleck).

So is the only hope to carefully nurture better officers into three-stars, over the years, until their quality makes the exchange worthwhile, and their seniority makes it less costly? I almost fear that's the way ... and afterall the one that Lincoln had to take, nolens volens.

With four Army HQs, I also consider the chance to waste one on putting McClellan out of the way by appointing him supreme commander-in-chief of the coastal defenses of Oregon. But I am not even sure if that works properly, under the game engine ...

Has anyone ever tried to send Little Mac, his HQ and 50 horse as forlorn hope in a headlong charge into Richmond? He won't be killed, of course (more's the pity), but he will lose a battle and maybe drop in seniority?

Ah well, guess I am stuck with him ... what was good enough for the "original gorilla" is good enough for me I suppose ... just venting.

You can promote him and give him command of an army with 0 troops and 0 corps. If u send him to the north and keep in Virginia the guy next in line, you can avoid the VP/NM penalty for not keeping him in charge but still keep him out of the fray and use a good general.

Sending him to Oregon made me roll over and laugh, when i say to the north, consider Alaska as an option

Commander in chief of the Army of Fort Laramie is tempting, however I usually find a use for him after Scott has gone as commander of the garrison of Washington and also the commander of Army of the Potomac, which usually includes strangely enough just the Washington garrison and maybe the Harpers ferry garrison once there are a few more 2* generals than I need and the manassas garrison if the front line moves south of the rappahanock.
This satisfies my desire to be historical and find him a role that could be considered in line with commander of all the armies in name, but also keeping him relatively out of harms way and away from affecting the actually fighting, unless it comes to Washington obviously... thankfully he is yet to have to prove himself yet. But I cant bring myself to do gamey things like banishing him to the wilderness or sending him on suicide missions. One of these days I think I will play him historically in a PBEM and see what I can do, but I'm not confident enough yet to commit to that pain just yet. McDowell is inactive enough as it is for now.

I think little Mac gets an event (at late 62 perhaps??) that reduce his political cost to a normal level and allow you to fire him with only "reasonable" losses of NM and VP.
Can anybody comnfirm this??
Regards!

While we're at questions time, does anyone know whether firing an army commander is worse (in NM/VP terms) than bypassing him?

arsan wrote:I think little Mac gets an event (at late 62 perhaps??) that reduce his political cost to a normal level and allow you to fire him with only "reasonable" losses of NM and VP.
Can anybody comnfirm this??
Regards!

Yes and in 64 he is removed altogether. The basic problem with 3 star generals in ACW is that they rarely lose seniority even if they lose a lot of men. It is usually the 2 and 1 star generals that take the hit. Example in most of my games Mac and McDowell and Fremont rarely go down the pecking order and have to pay through the nose each time a Grant, Sherman or Thomas get 3 stars. Unfortunatly this is one of the aspects which does not mimick the Civil War since Lincoln changed generals with the same regularity of his underpants.

GShock wrote:You can promote him and give him command of an army with 0 troops and 0 corps. If u send him to the north and keep in Virginia the guy next in line, you can avoid the VP/NM penalty for not keeping him in charge but still keep him out of the fray and use a good general.

Sending him to Oregon made me roll over and laugh, when i say to the north, consider Alaska as an option

There 2 or 3 CSA generals I would like to send to Alaska especially as the game wont let me shoot them - or have firing squad animations either?

I did manage to get some of my generals killed though. If they the northerners really want to rid themselves of generals?

To address a larger issue, I believe the current command system to be somewhat flawed after playing with it for some time.

You could....in some cases end up with the exact same commanders, many of them with the exact same commands in 1864 as you did in 1861 with the current system.

I'm wondering if there could be a system where CP allowed...is somehow tied to Senority perhaps?? rather than rank.

And tie the two together with certain benchmarks in seniority equalling an increase in rank.

Another note....regarding promotions....they happened VERY regularly in history...even if a side lost a battle. For example...Hooker, goes from Brigade Commander to Division Commander to Corps Commander to Army Commander in the span of just a few Campaigns...all of them failures....I've yet to notice any general receiving accolades after a loss. I suppose I just think that the bump in seniority in this game is a little too hard to achieve right now.


Perhaps introducing a role after every battle...win or lose that takes into account a general's political ranking....a role that could boost his seniority....or something...

There is something coming for the next iteration of the 1.10 public beta, seniority losses from being discharged from command have been added. Before, you would only lose seniority 'ranks' if you were being passed over for a promotion... Something which can never happen if you were already at rank 3.

OT: I don't remember right now but do the general's stats change when he's promoted to a new rank?

Q: Isn't it rather gamey to send Mc Clellan in Alaska with his Army HQ so the Union player doesn't have to bypass him and pay its penalty?

m8: Isn't this a game? Is there some cosmic place inside of an atom where the outcome of this "game" makes any real difference? I don't think so!! T

GShock wrote:Q: Isn't it rather gamey to send Mc Clellan in Alaska with his Army HQ so the Union player doesn't have to bypass him and pay its penalty?

I am not sure. Historically, political generals were sometimes placed in some quiet backwater of the war with a small command courteously called an "army". And afterall, what happened to McClellan just before 2BR -- his army being broken up and sent to Pope in small bits -- is a somewhat similar practice. Now of course Pope lost and Mac returned ... but that's a later part of the story.

tagwyn wrote:m8: Isn't this a game? Is there some cosmic place inside of an atom where the outcome of this "game" makes any real difference? I don't think so!! T

No, but you always wanna try and win...

which is hard to do with McClellan.

Skibear wrote:Commander in chief of the Army of Fort Laramie is tempting, .

OMG that was sooo funny ROFL Larimie, WY. still do this day is a little nowhere place if youve ever been through there...cold n miserable, wonder how the poor indians can stand it.

My last opponent put Little Mac in charge of an amphibious attack. He made a mistake (I think it was a mistake, he had done no recon) and attacked the port where my reserves where. I knocked out 800 points of exhausted inf and captured Little Mac. Problem solved for both of us!

I prefer the give another general an Army HQ an strip Mac of most of his corps...

Point is a general is appointed not only because of the rank but because of what happens if you don't.

Now that Mc Clellan was a highly politicized general and the subject of the influence the whole military establishment had on the political picture of both sides is simulated into the game with seniority with appointment of army commands and promotions.

If there's an easy way such as this: buy HQ (laughable expense for the Union) and send Mc Clellan's Army to Alaska...

...The whole system is flawed, which means people wasted time to program it and, in overall, an easily exploitable "glitch" such as this, fools the historical immersion of the game for all.
I do not question the possibility to do this vs the AI but the opportunity of doing this in PBEM.
CSA has advantage in leaders and disadvantages everywhere else. If you get rid of Mc Clellan this easy, you're unbalancing the game further towards the Union.

This is an exploit yes, and we have something planned to counter it since some monthes, but this is not our top priority. Thank you for your patience GShock!

I am patient Pocus, it just makes my nose itch that you worked your azz off to create the seniority system and then it's easily fooled by sending him to Alcatraz.
I have never had this prob, i played with the Union only ONCE.

If army-corps were required to have X divisions inside prior to forming then it would reflect the army structure.
No point in creating a corps or an army without troops to field them. Not only it's historical but also...
...At that point you either waste the units and costs by not making them fight under Mc Clellan or you pay the NM/VP price to build army under someone else's command.
We already discussed this elsewhere when observing a wounded leader whose army had been disbanded retained command....of no troops.

the system still achieves some result, because we made the number of army HQ rather low, so even if you don't want to use MCC, you still tie an army HQ.
Yes this is a cost which can be seen as rather low, and this is why the system must be rounded with something else. But we lack time and our task list is already dozens of lines long!

I disagree a little. I cannot use my "get dir of Mac" trick until 63 usually, as better leaders are not around to make it possible. But it is actually historical. It is pointed out in this thread that Mac lost most of his troops while retaining his army after the 7 Days and if you look at the west, troops were always shifitng based on need and Lincoln's confidence in various generals. Three armies fought together for several battles in the west.

I have no problem with putting McClellan in charge of the Army of Fort Laramie. He may have been second to Scott in seniority, but only a combination of events that occured during the grand campaign scenario had him rise to the command of the soon-to-be AoP: 1) McDowell lost at Bull Run and 2) McClellan won two minor victories in WV. If either of those two things don't happen, McClellan never gets called to the command of an army, nor is there any political or popular pressure to do so.

Since we're on the topic of what to do with McClellan, I have a related question. Does Athena ever replace or relieve generals? I've played well over a couple dozen games and don't think I've ever seen an enemy general replaced. Does it ever happen?

Stick him on an ironclad and send him into a se zone where it will not float - I got rid of Huger and some others via a watery death. It can be fun playing this game at times - it appeals to my sadistic side?

tevans6220 wrote:Since we're on the topic of what to do with McClellan, I have a related question. Does Athena ever replace or relieve generals? I've played well over a couple dozen games and don't think I've ever seen an enemy general replaced. Does it ever happen?

This is one of the issues I have with the game's command structure....there's little or no turnover. I wonder if it could be slightly MORE likely that division commanders get killed in combat....and that random commanders are generated to replace them or something?

Banks6060 wrote:This is one of the issues I have with the game's command structure....there's little or no turnover. I wonder if it could be slightly MORE likely that division commanders get killed in combat....and that random commanders are generated to replace them or something?

Oh I've seen plenty of division commanders get killed and even some corps commanders. I was talking more about army commanders being replaced for incompetence and losing battles. Sorta like Lincoln going through several generals before finding the right one. I don't think I've ever seen Athena replace an army commander. In one game played, I remember McDowell leading the AoP practically the entire war. Was just wondering if Athena ever replaced commanders and I missed it or if she even had the capability.

For the life of me I can't understand why anyone would want to get rid of Huger.

Just put him in Jackson's Corps and let him do his thing with the Artillery.

The CSA only gets (I believe anyway) 2 Artillerists early and Hugers 20% increase is as good as it gets.

There's no need for extra generals, there's more than plenty to do the job and yes they do die. My opinion is that even higher ranking generals should be killed or captured, especially when their army is annhilated. This obviously means that all generals should be rendered promotable (as replacements when the time comes of course). Some sort of random factor like wounds leading to death and falling sick and dying (which is how Stonewall died after all) could also lead to more spicy things.

As of Mc Clellan and the Seniority issue within the game, the solution of having few HQ is a good one. You either use him or use no army at all.
Perhaps...along with seniority, the ratings should be affected with winning/losing battles for ** and *** generals.

Which means if you lose too many battles, your strat rating drops and you are forced to dismiss a general in command...which in the end means you have to pay those VP/NM after all or keep a 1 strat rating which means max 1 corp (and lack of HQ to proceed with other army creations).

The best side of this game is that this system can do everything...even the coffee!

Well the Pepster has the perfect solution for Mac and any other bothersome cruddy union generals....a nice boat ride in a weak brigand right through southern forts (hope ya all can swim n walk the plank matey!) remember to click bombard forts so the forts will fire on em, true they wont die, but incaps them a few turns an thus solves your problems.

You know Im not a big Mac hatter tho, the only problem I see with him is he is going to dissapear to become a politician, thus destroying your comman structure...not good...so catch im as a 2 star if your lucky n sink his brigand at a fort; maybe he could actually die if your lucky?

Getting rid of McC-Just send up agaist a force 3x the size of his force - at the very least he will lose a lot of seniority if he does not get wounded etc. I had McC walk smack into Beauregard at Fredricksburg. Ouch!!!!!
My first camaign as Yanks - Just about wiped out his whole command and he does not even get wounded. leure: leure: leure:

pepe4158 wrote:OMG that was sooo funny ROFL Larimie, WY. still do this day is a little nowhere place if youve ever been through there...cold n miserable, wonder how the poor indians can stand it.

I was there a few years ago for a 2 week legal seminar. Never spent so much time under the influence. We drank, fished, drank some more. PLayed pool, and drank.

So I love Laramie. Fond memories of there and Medicine Bow Natl Park.

But other than drinking and a WalMart, ain't much to do.