Page 1 of 1

Winfield Scott

Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:57 am
by runyan99
231 USA Winfield Scott ldr_USA_Scott4 $Slow_Mover $Good_Administration NULL NULL 25 20 3 1 General 1 NULL 4 3 3

Not quite sure what to say about Scott, as he rode a desk throughout 1861 until Little Mac took over. Given the general's age, and the fact that he never lead troops in the war, maybe it would be better to lower his stats, so that the player is disinclined to use Scott in the field.

I notice that none of the generals have the Strategist trait. The trait description says something about generals who are 'Chief in the Department', whatever that means. Sounds like a good role for Scott to fill, instead of leading troops into battle. Not sure how this game mechanic works.

I am inclined to think of Henry Halleck in the same way. And Samuel Cooper.

Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:21 am
by Pocus
old Scott is fixed in Washington until he resigns, so you don't have to lower his stats... He will be used as the last line of defence if Washington is attacked by surprise though :)

edit Philthib: same for Cooper in Richmond

the CiC of a theater is the most senior officer who is in charge of an army, then the most senior officer, so be sure to check also the seniority of the leaders at the same time.

Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:41 am
by frank7350
how does a CiC affect gameplay?

Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:08 pm
by Pocus
Out of chain of command rule:

the CiC Strategic is used to see how much units can move and fight efficiently outside of the main command structure (ie outside armies and corps). We call these formations 'independent stacks'. If the CiC has a poor strat rating, you will be obliged to have all your units in corps, if you want them to be somehow efficient (if you are not moving you are not penalized by this rule).

The rule is optional, as it add a bit of complexity.

Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:54 pm
by frank7350
ok, thanks!

Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 5:17 pm
by Chris0827
Being fixed makes sense but I think his offense and defense needs to be zero. He needed help to stand and could no longer ride a horse. If Washington had been attacked he would've been unable to effectively command the defense

Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 5:57 pm
by Spharv2
Command doesn't necessarily mean jumping on your horse and riding majestically around the field. Scott was a solid officer, and would have been in place to position defenses, ensure people are where they are supposed to be, and funnel reinforcements where they needed to go in case of attack. Nothing that couldn't be done, at worst, from a carriage. Besides, if the US or CS has their capitol attacked early enough for him or Cooper to be the last line of defense, you've got bigger problems than Scott not being able to ride a horse. :)

Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:32 am
by Pocus
I agree with Lee (Spharv2), the man has not lost his mind (don't forget he is behind the Anaconda plan, his last great suggestion) and his feats ware unmatched since the War of 1812. 3-3 for Off and Def seems fair for me.

Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:57 am
by marecone
He was also first one to realize that this is not going to be a one month war. I agree with Pocus.

Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:41 pm
by Korrigan
231 USA Winfield Scott ldr_USA_Scott4 $Slow_Mover $Good_Administration NULL NULL 25 20 3 1 General 1 NULL 3 3 3