User avatar
Korrigan
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1982
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:33 pm
Location: France

Corps Generals

Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:03 pm

Image

Image
"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." Mark Twain

Image

daidojisan
Sergeant
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:44 am
Location: The Netherlands

Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:53 pm

What has happened to poor James Longstreet being reduced to a second rate Corps commander?? 3-1-4. surely this must be a typo. One of the most gifted corps commanders having ratings that put him squarely below "giants" like George Meade 5-4-4, Joseph Hooker 4-4-2, James Mc Pherson 4-3-3 etc. Even Ambrose burnside 2-2-3 has a higher Off rating than the man who crushed the union army at Chichamauga, almost crushed them at the wilderness, wiped the field at 2nd bull run??.

Sorry to get carried away here (no insult intended for anyone ! )

But i am left a bit speechless here :8o:

I do hope that these are not yet the final ratings.

:dada:

User avatar
rickd79
Colonel
Posts: 347
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:40 pm
Location: Connecticut

Tue Mar 06, 2007 2:01 pm

I think what probably happened with Longstreet, is they intended to drop his ratings just a little bit for the "Army" command level (given his problems in Southern VA and Knoxville in 1863).....This is probably just a cut and paste error where the "Army" levels were dropped into the "Corps" section, and vice-versa....
(If you look at his current "Army" stats (3/2/6 with "Entrencher"), that's right about where he should be at the "Corps" level)
At any rate, you're right, this definitely needs to be fixed.

User avatar
PhilThib
Posts: 13410
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:21 pm
Location: Meylan (France)

Tue Mar 06, 2007 2:15 pm

Confirmed, this is the result of trigger-happy copy pasting :nuts: :bonk: :p leure: My mistake, will be fixed... thanks for spotting :coeurs:

daidojisan
Sergeant
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:44 am
Location: The Netherlands

Tue Mar 06, 2007 2:34 pm

Ah well that sure solves a lot of the problems :sourcil: , although the strategic rating of 3 at the corps level still doesn't do the man justice certainly if you compare this to some not so prominent union leaders who have 4 and up strategic ratings.

In the breveted generals directory consensus seemed to be something like this

CSA James Longstreet ldr_CSA_Longstreet3 $Entrencher NULL NULL NULL 16 20 2 7 General 1 NULL 3 2 6
CSA James Longstreet ldr_CSA_Longstreet2 $Entrencher $Gifted_Cmd NULL NULL 7 5 2 2 General 1 NULL 5 3 6
CSA James Longstreet ldr_CSA_Longstreet $Entrencher $Gifted_Cmd NULL NULL 2 2 1 8 General 1 NULL 5 3 6

Why was his strategic rating at the corps level reduced to 3 ?

Thanks :dada:

User avatar
moustic
Posts: 487
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:00 am
Location: Angers (France)
Contact: WLM

Tue Mar 06, 2007 3:01 pm

Korrigan wrote:...excel table...

- John Bell Hood arrived at West Point and acquired the nickname of "Sam" (1849).
- William Tecumseh Sherman, nickname "Cump" and "Uncle Billy".
- James Longstreet nickname "Old Pete" became known as Lee's "Old War Horse" and the best fighter and corps commander in the Army.
- Richard H.Anderson, nickname "Fighting Dick".
- Nathan Bedford Forrest, nickname "Wizard of the Saddle".
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_figures_by_nickname
[color="Green"][CENTER]http://wiki.baronnerie.com[/CENTER][/color]
[CENTER][SIGPIC][/SIGPIC][/CENTER]

Chris0827
General
Posts: 522
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 9:39 pm
Location: Florida

Tue Mar 06, 2007 3:08 pm

Longstreet hit very hard but was often slow.

Chris0827
General
Posts: 522
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 9:39 pm
Location: Florida

Tue Mar 06, 2007 3:11 pm

You gave George Thomas' nickname to Gordon Granger.

User avatar
marecone
Posts: 1530
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:44 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

Tue Mar 06, 2007 3:13 pm

Forrest is included as corps commander but I belive that those are his marks for brigade level. I am maybe wrong but just in case :sourcil:

User avatar
rickd79
Colonel
Posts: 347
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:40 pm
Location: Connecticut

Tue Mar 06, 2007 3:18 pm

I think the seniority for the Union Corps commanders needs to be reevaluated a little bit. For instance, in the East the Union player should have to work his way through leaders like Fitz John Porter, Heintzelman, Mansfield, Sigel , "Bull" Sumner (not listed), Keyes (not listed), before he can get to the better generals like Reynolds, Hancock, Sedgwick, etc. (Or face the political penalties).

As a result, some of these guys need to have their senorities adjusted. :siffle:

User avatar
Korrigan
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1982
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:33 pm
Location: France

Tue Mar 06, 2007 3:23 pm

daidojisan wrote:Why was his strategic rating at the corps level reduced to 3 ?


Hi Daidojisan,

This workshop is based on community work. This means that everything can be challenged if you have proper evidence to oppose.

Rightnow, you're obviously discovering the whole work. I suggest you take a moment to read relevent threads in order to figure out what everything means (ie: Rank 3 is Army level, not corps level).

If you disagree with a rating:

1) Read the previous discussion in the "Breveted general" room. You should find how ratings were granted to each general (ie: There was a discussion about Longstreet performance in independant command. Have you read it?)

2) If you disagree, post in the breveted general room. I will bring back the thread in the discussion room until we reach a decision. However, be aware you have to come with military facts and sources to support your point of view. "I disagree" is not enough :sourcil:

We might have done some typing mistakes, we might have judged wrongly some leaders but, on the whole, you'll come to see that people involved in this community work were pretty tough on ACW matters...

Thanks for everything you can bring to the discussion!

:cwboy:


To All:

- Individual leader discussion: In the breveted generals forum

- There are surely some typos (ex: Longstreet, Forrest, etc.). So fire away, I'll fix them.

- We'd appreciate general comparison between Union and CSA. Give us feedback (Early CSA high command will have an edge, everything is not supposed to be equal).
"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." Mark Twain



Image

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 24756
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Tue Mar 06, 2007 5:18 pm

a reminder on how the Political (POL) rating is used, as it can be needed to tweak the values of some (mostly too low I would say).

You pay the full price of the POL rating if an army commander is removed from command or if a 3-stars general, less senior is named before him in charge of an army.

You pay 1/2 of this cost if a less senior general is promoted to a higher rank.

1 POL = 1/5 Morale Lost
1 POL = 0.5% of your current VP count, or 0.5 VP (whichever is higher) in victory points

So demoting McClellan, or just passing him over cost 20 Morale and 50% of the Union VP.

On the other hand, a leader with 10 POL is fairly affordable. If a leader has 1-5 POL, he is really in the 'don't care' department I would say.

The POL rating is used mostly for the 3-stars general, but 2-stars which are promoted before others can triggers a POL cost.

Last but not least a new rule is in the pipeline to prevent the relegation of army commanders in some backyard lands with only an handful of militiamen...

IMHO, tweaking correctly both seniority and POL will result either in a more historical game where the Union has trouble pressing hard and fast the CSA in the earlier years, or will result in a juggernaut being launched without too much restrictions.
Image


Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

User avatar
rickd79
Colonel
Posts: 347
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:40 pm
Location: Connecticut

Tue Mar 06, 2007 7:26 pm

How exactly are the nicknames going to work?
Do they only show up when we bring up the specific details window for a leader, or will they show up in the regular map screens?

I ask this because some of the nicknames are more appropriate for referring to a leader, almost like it is his regular name (i.e. "Stonewall" Jackson, "Fighting Joe" Hooker). However, some of the other nicknames are not particularly applicable in this way (i.e. "Old Snapping Turtle" Meade......someone might have said this about Meade, but I don't think it was a "common" occurence to refer to him by name like this....)

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 24756
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:03 pm

err in fact I just saw that there was some nicknames given to leaders, so this was not really planned, on my side at least :)
I can perhaps find some time to add them in the details window though.
Image


Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

User avatar
PDF
Posts: 548
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 11:39 am

Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:12 pm

Mc Clellan demotion costing 50% VP to the Union seems a bit overdone, at least if we want to be "realistic", he wasn't an half-god whose firing will have spurred revolts all over the place...
Sure if it's too easy to fire him everyone and his horse would do it, but I wonder if our "design by effect" is really acceptable. But I don't have any good alternative neither, sorry :siffle:

User avatar
Korrigan
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1982
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:33 pm
Location: France

Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:18 pm

Pocus wrote:err in fact I just saw that there was some nicknames given to leaders, so this was not really planned, on my side at least :)
I can perhaps find some time to add them in the details window though.


The work for the nicks was done in order to be included later on. This planed with Phil Thib and you, but you may zaped it.
Don't worry and concentrate on the AI :niark:
"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." Mark Twain



Image

Chris0827
General
Posts: 522
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 9:39 pm
Location: Florida

Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:22 pm

No Union army commander was more popular with the troops than McClellan and he had a lot of Political pull with Democratic party as well. He turned a rabble into the Army of the Potomac. Unfortunately he didn't lead that army very well.

frank7350
Brigadier General
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:18 am

Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:18 am

Korrigan wrote:

There are surely some typos (ex: Longstreet, Forrest, etc.). So fire away, I'll fix them.

...hmm..... :)


Otherwise, I agree with Pocus...the way its set up now...its as if the pol value doesn't exist, except for McClellan....that doesn't make sense. So, yes, we need to bump them up, for both sides, I would think. But on average, Union should be higher...

daidojisan- which union leaders are you referring to? reason i ask is that strat refers to move then one might think...it takes into account the generals iniative, ability to react, etc, as well as his strategic skill. so, technically, we could have a general who does a poor job of leading his men on the battlefield (and therefore looked upon poorly in the history books), but is always in the right place, at the right time....and therefore be assigned a higher strat rating then other, more prominent, generals.

also, keep in mind, that there still is testing to be done with these ratings... after a few days of beta, it could be discovered that the ratings need to be tweaked one way or the other

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 24756
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Wed Mar 07, 2007 7:43 am

PDF wrote:Mc Clellan demotion costing 50% VP to the Union seems a bit overdone, at least if we want to be "realistic", he wasn't an half-god whose firing will have spurred revolts all over the place...
Sure if it's too easy to fire him everyone and his horse would do it, but I wonder if our "design by effect" is really acceptable. But I don't have any good alternative neither, sorry :siffle:


That's the problem, perhaps it is somehow gamey to impact up to 50% of his VP to the Union player if he demotes Mc Clellan, but you have to remember that you will have to handle him while your VPs are still low, so the important point is : 100 POL = -20 Morale. And such number is needed to be sure you will more often than not prefer to keep him as an army commander, thus having a lethargic Union in the Potomac.
If the cost is too low, the Mc Clellan 'problem' does not exists, and you will see the union concentrate as much as possible troops and steamroll without problems to Richmond.
Image


Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

User avatar
Le Ricain
Posts: 3281
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 12:21 am
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland

Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:05 pm

More nicks:

Thomas: 'Pap'
Hancock: 'The Superb'
Sheridan: 'Little Phil'

Ewell: 'Baldy'
Ambrose Hill: 'Little Powell'
E K Smith: 'Seminole'
A Stewart: 'Old Straight'
J Stuart: 'Jeb'
Cleburne: 'Stonewall of the West'
Forrest: 'Wizard'
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

'Nous voilà, Lafayette'

Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917

User avatar
rickd79
Colonel
Posts: 347
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:40 pm
Location: Connecticut

Fri Mar 16, 2007 3:00 pm

Here's my take at Union Corps Commander Seniority:

George McClellan 1 (AP 61 - Maj Gen)
Edwin "Bull" Sumner 2 (Mar 61 - Brig Gen, Jul 62 - Maj Gen)
U.S. Grant 3 (May 61 - Brig Gen, Feb 62 - Maj Gen)
Nathaniel Lyon 4 (May 61 - Brig Gen, Dies Aug 1861)
John McClernand 5 (May 61 - Brig Gen, Mar 62 - Maj Gen)
Samuel Curtis 6 (May 61 - Brig Gen, Mar 62 - Maj Gen)
John Pope 7 (May 61 - Brig Gen, Mar 62 - Maj Gen)
Ambrose Burnside 8 (May 61 - Brig Gen, Mar 62 - Maj Gen)
Franz Sigel 9 (May 61 - Brig Gen, Mar 62 - Maj Gen)
Samuel Heintzelman 10 (May 61 - Brig Gen, May 62 - Maj Gen)
Erasmus Keyes 11 (May 61 - Brig Gen, May 62 - Maj Gen)
Joe Hooker 12 (May 61 - Brig Gen, May 62 - Maj Gen)
William Sherman 13 (May 61 - Brig Gen, May 62 - Maj Gen)
Fitz John Porter 14 (May 61 - Brig Gen, Jul 62 - Maj Gen)
William Franklin 15 (May 61 - Brig Gen, Jul 62 - Maj Gen)
Joseph Mansfield 16 (May 61 - Brig Gen, Jul 62 - Maj Gen) * Backdated after his Death at Antietam
Philip Kearny 17 (May 61 - Brig Gen, Jul 62 - Maj Gen)
George Thomas 18 (Aug 61 - Brig Gen, Apr 62 - Maj Gen)
John Sedgwick 19 (Aug 61 - Brig Gen, Jul 62 - Maj Gen)
Henry Slocum 20 (Aug 61 - Brig Gen, Jul 62 - Maj Gen)
George Stoneman 21 (Aug 61 - Brig Gen, Nov 62 - Maj Gen)
John Reynolds 22 (Aug 61 - Brig Gen, Nov 62 - Maj Gen)
George Meade 23 (Aug 61 - Brig Gen, Nov 62 - Maj Gen)
Edward Ord 24 (Sep 61 - Brig Gen, May 62 - Maj Gen)
Alexander McCook 25 (Sep 61 - Brig Gen, Jul 62 - Maj Gen)
Oliver Howard 26 (Sep 61 - Brig Gen, Nov 62 - Maj Gen)
Winfield S. Hancock 27 (Sep 61 - Brig Gen, Nov 62 - Maj Gen)
Dan Sickles 28 (Sep 61 - Brig Gen, Nov 62 - Maj Gen)
George Sykes 29 (Sep 61 - Brig Gen, Nov 62 - Maj Gen)
Jesse Reno 30 (Nov 61 - Brig Gen, Jul 62 - Maj Gen)
John Schofield 31 (Nov 61 - Brig Gen, Nov 62 - Maj Gen)
Jefferson C. Davis 32 (Dec 61 - Brig Gen, Aug 64 - Maj Gen)
Frederick Steele 33 (Jan 62 - Brig Gen, Nov 62 - Maj Gen)
Abner Doubleday 34 (Feb 62 - Brig Gen, Nov 62 - Maj Gen)
Gordon Granger 35 (Mar 62 - Brig Gen, Sep 62 - Maj Gen)
John Logan 36 (Mar 62 - Brig Gen, Nov 62 - Maj Gen)
Edward Canby 37 (Mar 62 - Brig Gen, May 64 - Maj Gen)
Quincy Gillmore 38 (Apr 62 - Brig Gen, Jul 63 - Maj Gen)
James McPherson 39 (May 62 - Brig Gen, Oct 62 - Maj Gen)
John Gibbon 40 (May 62 - Brig Gen, Jul 64 - Maj Gen)
Phil Sheridan 41 (Jul 62 - Brig Gen, Dec 62 - Maj Gen)
Alfred Pleasonton 42 (Jul 62 - Brig Gen, Jun 63 - Maj Gen)
John Buford 43 (Jul 62 - Brig Gen, Jun 63 - Maj Gen)
Gouverneur Warren 44 (Sep 62 - Brig Gen, May 63 - Maj Gen)
James H. Wilson 45 (Oct 63 - Brig Gen, May 65 - Maj Gen)

Chris0827
General
Posts: 522
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 9:39 pm
Location: Florida

Fri Mar 16, 2007 3:09 pm

Grant's promotion to Brigadier General was on august 9th but backdated to may. He didn't return to the army until June. Some of the other Union generals from early 1861 were backdated as well as were the five original Confederate Full Generals.

User avatar
rickd79
Colonel
Posts: 347
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:40 pm
Location: Connecticut

Sat Mar 17, 2007 1:45 pm

Here's my take on Confederate Corps commander seniority:

Braxton Bragg 1 (Mar 61 - Brig Gen, Sep 61- Maj Gen)
Leonidas Polk 2 (Jun 61 - Maj Gen)
Earl Van Dorn 3 (Jun 61 - Brig Gen, Sep 61 - Maj Gen)
James Longstreet 4 (Jun 61 - Brig Gen, Oct 61 - Maj Gen)
Thomas Jackson 5 (Jun 61 - Brig Gen, Oct 61 - Maj Gen)
William Hardee 6 (Jun 61 - Brig Gen, Oct 61 - Maj Gen)
Edmund K. Smith 7 (Jun 61 - Brig Gen, Oct 61 - Maj Gen)
Theophilius Holmes 8 (Jun 61 - Brig Gen, Oct 61 - Maj Gen)
John Pemberton 9 (Jun 61 - Brig Gen, Jan 62 - Maj Gen)
Richard Ewell 10 (Jun 61 - Brig Gen, Jan 62 - Maj Gen)
D.H. Hill 11 (Jul 61 - Brig Gen, Mar 62 - Maj Gen)
Benjamin Cheatham 12 (Jul 61 - Brig Gen, Mar 62 - Maj Gen)
Jubal Early 13 (Jul 61 - Brig Gen, Jan 63 - Maj Gen)
J.E.B. Stuart 14 (Sep 61 - Brig Gen, Jul 62 - Maj Gen)
Simon Buckner 15 (Sep 61 - Brig Gen, Aug 62 - Maj Gen)
Richard Taylor 16 (Oct 61 - Brig Gen, Jul 62 - Maj Gen)
Robert Rodes 17 (Oct 61 - Brig Gen, May 63 - Maj Gen)
John C. Breckenridge 18 (Nov 61 - Brig Gen, Apr 62 - Maj Gen)
Alexander P. Stewart 19 (Nov 61 - Brig Gen, Jun 63 - Maj Gen)
A.P. Hill 20 (Feb 62 - Brig Gen, May 62 - Maj Gen)
Patrick Cleburne 21 (Mar 62 - Brig Gen, Dec 62 - Maj Gen)
John B. Hood 22 (May 62 - Brig Gen, Oct 62 - Maj Gen)
Wade Hampton 23 (May 62 - Brig Gen, Aug 63 - Maj Gen)
William D. Pender 24 (Jun 62 - Brig Gen, May 63 - Maj Gen)
R.H. Anderson 25 (Jul 62 - Brig Gen, Jul 62 - Maj Gen)
Nathan B. Forrest 26 (Jul 62 - Brig Gen, Dec 63 - Maj Gen)
Joseph Wheeler 27 (Oct 62 - Brig Gen, Jan 63 - Maj Gen)
Stephen D. Lee 28 (Nov 62 - Brig Gen, Aug 63 - Maj Gen)
John B. Gordon 29 (Nov 62 - Brig Gen, May 64 - Maj Gen)

User avatar
Le Ricain
Posts: 3281
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 12:21 am
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland

Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:58 pm

Great job. I hate to nitpick, but should the US and CSA generals be listed in order of date of promotion to Major General rather than Brig General?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]



'Nous voilà, Lafayette'



Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917

User avatar
PDF
Posts: 548
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 11:39 am

Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:19 pm

Pocus wrote:That's the problem, perhaps it is somehow gamey to impact up to 50% of his VP to the Union player if he demotes Mc Clellan, but you have to remember that you will have to handle him while your VPs are still low, so the important point is : 100 POL = -20 Morale. And such number is needed to be sure you will more often than not prefer to keep him as an army commander, thus having a lethargic Union in the Potomac.
If the cost is too low, the Mc Clellan 'problem' does not exists, and you will see the union concentrate as much as possible troops and steamroll without problems to Richmond.



There should be a better way... An idea : why not rather consider "seniority" as related to "command experience", and give penalties to a leader's abilities (Strat/off/def) if he's promoted "too early" ?
For example if Grant is rank #20 it could "lose" 1 or 2 Strat rating when promoted, that he would regain later ?
Thus the Union will face the real challenge, leading her armies without inspired and capable generals in the early war, without resorting to gamey rules".

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 24756
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Mon Mar 19, 2007 9:45 pm

So you would not have the player pay a political cost? between a 6-6-4 promoted too early and McClellan, I would choose the 6-6-4 with a penalty of 2 without too much thoughts.
Image


Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

Chris0827
General
Posts: 522
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 9:39 pm
Location: Florida

Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:06 pm

Many brigadier generals on both sides commanded divisions and some union brigadiers became corps commanders. McDowell commanded an army as a brigadier general. I would assign senority according to when the general commanded at a particular level rather than his date of rank.

User avatar
PDF
Posts: 548
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 11:39 am

Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:29 pm

Pocus wrote:So you would not have the player pay a political cost? between a 6-6-4 promoted too early and McClellan, I would choose the 6-6-4 with a penalty of 2 without too much thoughts.

No, political cost should still occur, but at a more "realistic" level - what bothers me is to have a skyrocketting cost just to prevent Mc Clellan demotion. The idea of having reduced ratings if a general is "overpromoted" would allow to balance the costs.

User avatar
Le Ricain
Posts: 3281
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 12:21 am
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland

Tue Mar 20, 2007 12:15 am

Chris0827 wrote:Many brigadier generals on both sides commanded divisions and some union brigadiers became corps commanders. McDowell commanded an army as a brigadier general. I would assign senority according to when the general commanded at a particular level rather than his date of rank.


OK, I agree. I only asked the question in order to clarify. Your way gets around the knotty problem of Thomas, in real life, actually outranking Sherman, although it did not seem to have caused any problems between them. Still, nice work you did.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]



'Nous voilà, Lafayette'



Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 24756
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:10 am

PDF wrote:No, political cost should still occur, but at a more "realistic" level - what bothers me is to have a skyrocketting cost just to prevent Mc Clellan demotion. The idea of having reduced ratings if a general is "overpromoted" would allow to balance the costs.


This would then mean that a general get a penalty until he reach a seniority of ??? 1?

The McClellan cost is here because he has Lincoln confidence, early. All players on the other hand have historical knowledge of his performance (or they just have to look at his stats), and will demote him assap otherwise, whatever the penalty you give to another general.
Image


Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

Return to “Officers room”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests