AGEOD Forums

230 USA George B. McClellan ldr_USA_McClellan3max $Slow_Mover $Training_Officer $Charismatic $Bad_Spy 8 100 3 1 General 1 NULL 1 2 4

This looks good to me. Good trainer. Terrible at intelligence. Terrible initiative. Good in defence.

He should gain the Over Cautious trait in addition to a 1 in strat rating. This is so that we are sure that the Union are really lethargic until revoked from command.

I suggest replacing Slow Mover by Over Cautious. When you are not activated you move at -35%, so it is somehow taken into account.

Pocus wrote:He should gain the Over Cautious trait in addition to a 1 in strat rating. This is so that we are sure that the Union are really lethargic until revoked from command.

I suggest replacing Slow Mover by Over Cautious. When you are not activated you move at -35%, so it is somehow taken into account.

I agree. Overcautious fits better. He was liked his men and was reluctant to commit them to battle. He also held back large reserves fearing non-existent confederates.

note: Pinkerton spying reports issues is taken into account by Bad_Spy

Pocus wrote:I suggest replacing Slow Mover by Over Cautious. When you are not activated you move at -35%, so it is somehow taken into account.

Overcautious gives Command malus, no malus to movement. I prefer Slow_Move, unless I've missed something...

you want McClellan to impede his subordinates. Slow Move impacts the army HQ stack where he is, not the corps stacks. So it is preferable to gives overcautious, because less CP for the subordinates means slower movement and less prowess of the field too. The Union AoP was notorious to retreat after each battle...

I agree with the above + I also see a description of good Engineer cropping up in my Civil War book.

Before I looked at this thread I had him down as a Slow mover, Charismatic, Trainer and Engineer.
Cheers, Chris

taking into account the above, that leaves:

230 USA George B. McClellan ldr_USA_McClellan3max $Over_Cautious $Training_Officer $Charismatic $Bad_Spy 8 100 3 1 General 1 NULL 1 2 4

thoughts?

Why does he receive the better than average defensive rating? His lone defensive effort was at the tail end of the Penninsula campaign, and he didn't exactly cover himself with glory there. He left many openings for attacks that the ANV was unable to take advantage of. His only real high point was the choice of Malvern Hill for a line, and the allocation of such a large amount of guns to it.

If you want to have it that high to ensure that the CSA doesn't simply steamroll him, that makes sense, even though his advantage in numbers alone should prevent that. Just seems a bit high in my mind.

i would assume thats the reasoning.... the guy can barely move to start, if he can't defend either, then the union is really in trouble for the opening months/years.

I think that with a 1-6 scale for strategy and 0-6 for attack and defense most of us think of an average leader as 3|3|3 instead of 3|1|1. I wouldn't argue with lowering McClellan to a 1|1|3 or even 1|1|2

1|1|2 seems fine by me. This way the Union player can be as frustrated as Lincoln when he fails to do anything, but at the same time he should have an excellent training bonus. McClellan, for all his faults, did make turn the rabble that skedaddled back from Bull Run into a real army that could stand and fight against what was one of the best led armies the world has ever seen. With a big advantage in training, it'll force the US player to use him, if for nothing else, to get his units in shape for hard campaigning.

New proposition:

230 USA George B. McClellan ldr_USA_McClellan3max $Overcautious $Training_Officer $Good_Admin_Army $Poor_Spy_Network 8 100 3 1 General 1 NULL 1 1 1
237 USA George B. McClellan ldr_USA_McClellan3 $Overcautious $Training_Officer $Good_Admin_Army $Poor_Spy_Network 8 100 3 8 General 1 NULL 1 1 1
256 USA George B. McClellan ldr_USA_McClellan2 $Overcautious $Training_Officer $Good_Admin_Army $Poor_Spy_Network 8 100 2 1 General 1 NULL 1 1 1

question....

mcclellan's pol value is 100.... which i understand. but what must happen to make it palatable for the player to remove him?

also, saw a request for nicknames- Little Mac, the Young Napoleon

McClellan, with his engineer's eye, chose good defensive terrain at Beaver Dam Creek, Gaines Mill and Malvern Hill during the Peninsular Campaign. I would rather see him with a '2' on the defensive.

Agreed....McClellan should be bumped up to a 2 for "defensive" (for the same reasons runyan mentioned).

frank7350 wrote:question....

mcclellan's pol value is 100.... which i understand. but what must happen to make it palatable for the player to remove him?

also, saw a request for nicknames- Little Mac, the Young Napoleon

You have to wait for Lincoln decision to remove him from CiC then from the AoP, this is handled by the scripting engine. The 2 steps operation lower his POL to more reasonnable level each time. Once Lincoln's second decision is taken, you can in-game do what you want of him (but he will returns in 64, tadaaa!)

Can the troops take a morale hit if a popular general is removed? I know I wouldn't be very happy waking up and finding out that McClellan had been replaced by Burnside.

can be done yes with the scripting engine, I suppose you mean in addition to the loss to the maximum cohesion the soldiers had, because they were commanded by a good admin leader? We can send waves of demoralization across the map yes

230 USA George B. McClellan ldr_USA_McClellan3max $Overcautious $Training_Officer $Good_Admin_Army $Poor_Spy_Network 8 100 3 1 General 1 NULL 1 1 2
237 USA George B. McClellan ldr_USA_McClellan3 $Overcautious $Training_Officer $Good_Admin_Army $Poor_Spy_Network 8 100 3 8 General 1 NULL 1 1 2
256 USA George B. McClellan ldr_USA_McClellan2 $Overcautious $Training_Officer $Good_Admin_Army $Poor_Spy_Network 8 100 2 1 General 1 NULL 1 1 2

I would only add the following story. After the war Lee was asked which of the Union generals that he had faced had been the ablest.

Lee's reply? 'Without a doubt, George McClellan was the ablest.'

He had the best casualty ratio. Lee suffered more casualties than he inflicted on McClellan.

"Whom do you consider the ablest General on the Federal side?"

"McClellan, by all odds. I think he is the only man on the Federal side who could have organized the army as it was. Grant had, of course, more successes in the field in the latter part of the war, but Grant only came in to reap the benefits of McClellan's previous efforts. At the same time, I do not wish to disparage General Grant, for he has many abilities, but if Grant had commanded during the first years of the war, we would have gained our independence. Grant's policy of attacking would have been a blessing to us, for we lost more by inaction than we would have lost in battle. After the first Manassas the army took a sort of 'dry rot', and we lost more men by camp diseases than we would have by fighting."

Mosby's answer in some newspaper from 1867.
Interesting

After much play, I find myself disagreeing with the "Overcautious" trait as applied to generals like McClellan.

The problem is not that the historic McC was not overcautious. We all pretty much accept that as a fact. The problem, really, is with the Overcautious trait as designed. It is total overkill.

IMO, the trait is misnamed. It doesn't affect initiative directly, which is what you would think such a trait would do. No, it affects CPs, and does so in cataclysmically negative way. The trait should really be called "Administrative Dunderhead." Which BTW totally does NOT at all fit the historic McC.

Now, you can point out the command penalties for overcommand slow movement, and thats true. BUT it does worse...MUCH worse. It impacts combat, both offense AND defensive. Subunits with that red command penalty near the envelope suffer from "initiative, rate of fire, and and chance to hit" penalties (pg. 46). Which at 35% I imagine to be quite severe.

An overcautious commander should be, in theory, BETTER in defensive combat. But, as you can see, the Overcautious trait severely impacts combat, both offensive and defensive.

Hence, this trait is HORRIBLY misapplied to a commander like McC. I would also not give it to a superior defensive commander like Joe Johnston, for precisely the same reason.

Again, i'm not saying McC and JJ were not overcautious in real life. Quite the opposite. It is the Overcautious trait, as written, that is causing the problem. The CP command penalities for this trait are so severe, in terms of both movement AND combat (offensive AND defensive), that I don't see how any player in their right mind would ever appoint a commander with such a trait to a major army...something that happened historically with both McC and JJ.

IMO, the current Overcautious trait should either be radically redesigned, or just simply eliminated.

your arguments are very good... Redesigning would need to create a new effect, so this take time that I don't have. Eliminating it or replacing it with something else is more affordable. We would need the opinions of the players who gave to the leaders their traits to be sure.

I have to say I agree with JimWinsor, which experienced player would currently assign McClellan to command the no. 1 Union Army, similarly who would assign Johnson to the no 1 Confederate Army. Historically these two were considered more aggressive and more proficient then their predecessors (McDowell and Beauregard), yet in game terms McDowell and Beauregard are the prefered choices for command until other leaders like Lee (for the Union maybe Hooker, but iirc he also has some bad traits as 3 star) become available.

I think this stat should mainly affect activation and movement speed, not combat (activation indirectly does this, but that seems reasonable).

Note, were these topics just unhidden (I assume from a beta forum)? First time i see them and i plan to look into some leaders whose ratings I can't understand in the game.

jimwinsor wrote:IMO, the current Overcautious trait should either be radically redesigned, or just simply eliminated.

I agree that the Overcautious trait is poorly designed. I noticed it with respect to J. Johnston.

The trait gives -4 CP. But all that really does is limit the size of the force he can competently command. The penalty seems to reflect a poor ability to handle several formations at once.

It doesn't have anything to do with being cautious or reluctant to give combat. That should be simulated with the Stragetic Rating.

Perhaps what we need is another rating; persistence.

How willing was the commander willing to sustain and commit a blood bath to win a battle?

And then, what are its chances of doing so in certain regions?

A guy like Mac, who was opposed to the war and was thus very reluctant to press destruction of the Confederacy, might be considered somewhat fanatical in the defense of Md, but far less so moving South.

runyan99 wrote: That should be simulated with the Stragetic Rating.

Yeah thats my sense of it too. The Strategic Rating alone seems perfect to me; not only affects the commander but the corps commanders too, when the army commander passes a - rating down.

PhilThib and I agreed with you. Overcautious is badly designed, but we can't create a new ability class for now. On the other hand, the Strat Rating is very good in expressing overcautioussness...

So for next patch, all 8 leaders that had the trait don't have it anymore.