AGEOD Forums

Hey all its me again lol another quick questions. so I know mcdowell is commandin in charge of the army of the potomac so after he is replace i send mac from ohio to replace him (following the civil war history) but now not sure who to give the hq to the next three star general and where to place him. like who should I give command to army of the ohio, tenessee, or western command? I know ulysses s grant will be command of the tennesse so im waiting to promote him. thanks again

I am among those who think it is better to have two Armies than three. Note that a Corp will march to the sound of the guns to help Corps from the same Army. I usually play with 2 Armies, one in the East and other in the West. Try to choose the best general for this purpose. I especially like Grant, Sherman and Sheridan.

Good luck and enjoy playing!

thanks for the info

jnels80 wrote:thanks for the info

You're welcome!

Just to make it clear, you don't have to promote Lil Mac and give him an army if you don't want to, at least in the campaign game under 1.16. So, I almost never do. There are better generals to lead armies I think, and Mac is a pretty good trainer, so I let him do that. There! I poked the hornet's nest! Let the McClellan defenders emerge!

I agree with you, Longshanks, I never promote him. 'Little Mac' can't be more incompetent, bumbling and inept than he already is.

Anyway, there is a vast list of useless USA generals... It's frustrating to have to handle them. I would send them into battle as human shields

Longshanks wrote:Just to make it clear, you don't have to promote Lil Mac and give him an army if you don't want to, at least in the campaign game under 1.16. So, I almost never do. There are better generals to lead armies I think, and Mac is a pretty good trainer, so I let him do that. There! I poked the hornet's nest! Let the McClellan defenders emerge!

Longshanks, you invited McClellan defenders. Actually, one of the delights of all games where leaders have actual influence on play is you see the designers' ideas of each leader, which I love even when I disagree.
While I would have given McClellan excellent recovery and defense values, he does not have these qualities in this game.

Maybe a "Discover CSA Orders" event providing McClellen with a two or three turn elimination of all the bad qualities, including bad spy network, and some special initiative values, would provide an incentive to play more historically with McClellen.

As is, let him train. He does this well.

lol ok thanks again guys so who should be army of the east?? wait for mead in 1862 and who should be commander of the west

In my book, Hooker is not a bad first choice, while armies are organizing.

When you promote Hooker to three-star general, he loses offensive value (4-4-2 / 4-2-2). In addition, his strategic value (4) is not very high in terms of activation. Note that strategic value is equal to or more important than offensive and defensive values. If a general is not activated he won't be able to execute any action without penalty, for example.

Because a general appears in the East that does not mean you have to use him there. You can move them (generals) wherever you want to.

G. Meade is not a bad choice (5-4-4). Winfield S. Hancock is a great general too (5-4-5). Both of them have 5 as strategic value.

Another option, as I said, is William Sherman, although he is better as a 2-star general (6-5-4) than a 3-star general (6-4-3). Anyway, he has a superb strategic value of 6.

Another good choice is Phil Sheridan (6-5-2). He is a bit more offensive than Sherman, but less defensive.

As you can see, I think you have enough to choose from. But don't forget a very important thing... Enjoy playing!!

Regards!

The Union's choices for Army Generals is bleak until about halfway into 1862, unless you've lucked out and got Grant or Lyons (only a 4/2/2 as army commander, but better than most others) up to army commander level in 1861. Then, options are better, but you have to watch out for all the jealous old fogeys who will cost you NM and VPs if they don't get their precious promotion. Sometimes you just have to give it to them and take it away later, when the penalty is gone (like for example when Grant has a higher seniority level).

Yeah, most of the time I also use Lyon as Army commander until others good generals arrive. Lyon is better than Banks, McClellan, Paterson, McDowell, Butler...

Same here if I don't get him killed first.

So why use Lyon if his values are no better than Hooker?

I am pretty sure that Lyons is a 5-

Hooker has a 4- and Lyons is already in the west.

Durk wrote:So why use Lyon if his values are no better than Hooker?

Because Hooker is better as a 2-star general than 3-star general. I think he would be unprofitable, at least IMHO. I like Hooker as Corp commander.

Later, when other generals arrive, they may replace Lyon.

Ol' Choctaw wrote:I am pretty sure that Lyons is a 5-

Hooker has a 4- and Lyons is already in the west.

You can move generals wherever you want to, so that (Lyon appears in the West) is not a problem. Anyway, when you promote Lyon to 3-star general, his strategic value decreases to 4.

longshanks wrote:same here if i don't get him killed first.

Ethan wrote: Anyway, when you promote Lyon to 3-star general, his strategic value decreases to 4.

I didn’t notice that!

Well why the heck would that be?


They couldn’t very well know what kind of army commander he would have made, had he lived. He made his first star in 1861 and died in July.

He was never promoted past the first star so did we have someone channel what he would have been like with 2 and 3 stars?

I think you're right. But I really don't know the reason for this.

Ol' Choctaw wrote:I didn’t notice that!

Well why the heck would that be?


They couldn’t very well know what kind of army commander he would have made, had he lived. He made his first star in 1861 and died in July.

He was never promoted past the first star so did we have someone channel what he would have been like with 2 and 3 stars?

While you're right that there's no way to know for sure, Civil War officers generally fell off a bit the higher they rose and the more responsibility they had placed on their shoulders. Even Ambrose Burnside performed very well managing a handful of brigades in North Carolina. The obvious exceptions here are Grant and Sherman who seemed to elevate their performance as their responsibilities grew.

From what I know about Lyon, a comparable officer who could serve as a general guide would probably be Joe Hooker who was excellent as a lower level commander but his service as an army commander left much to be desired- still solid but just lacking the flash he had as a division and corps commander and not as aggressive.

Since the higher ranks for Lyon exist only as a what if to begin with, it seems fair to err on the side of caution and assume that the hypothetical Lyon who can command an army wouldn't necessarily measure up to the actual Lyon who died commanded no more than the equivalent of a brigade or a division.

One reason I like to actually use McClellan for the main army in the East is that his skill set is ideal for what is really a limited theater- outside of marching down to Richmond and/or reacting to Rebel moves (which can mostly be done via rail), there's really not much for your main army to do in the east other than sit back and drill. I think history is a good guide here as the more active commanders are better utilized in the west where there's just more targets to go for. Unless you're playing with the option that actually locks inactive forces, there's just not really much to do that requires a highly active army in the east- the war is to be won in the west.

wsatterwhite wrote: While you're right that there's no way to know for sure, Civil War officers generally fell off a bit the higher they rose and the more responsibility they had placed on their shoulders.

Yes, that is logical and I had already thought about it . But note that there are many generals who don't lose strategic value when they promote.

Ethan wrote:Yes, that is logical and I had already thought about it . But note that there are many generals who don't lose strategic value when they promote.

True. It's possible that Lyon's rating decrease is meant to balance things out a bit as his survival and availability for higher higher command at a time where there should be a shortage of capable high level officers for the Union side would potentially unbalance the game a great deal.

Interesting foot note on Nathaniel Lyon, Brigadier General Lyon assumed command of the Army of the West on July 2 1861.

Since we have no way of knowing what Lyons would have turned into: Halleck? Lee? his stats should be random when he hits 2 star and based on that result for 3 star

Longshanks wrote:Since we have no way of knowing what Lyons would have turned into: Halleck?

[SIZE="4"]What a INEPT!![/size]

PS: Well, really, I use him for train my troops. Only for that. A very sad story.

PS #2: I think what you have said is very interesting!

There's no way to tell what Lyon would have been. He could have been a dumb butcher like JB Hood, or a masterful strategic genius like WT Sherman. 4-2-2 seems fair enough. What would ASJ's stats be if he would've survived at Shiloh?

Ethan wrote:Because Hooker is better as a 2-star general than 3-star general. I think he would be unprofitable, at least IMHO. I like Hooker as Corp commander.

Later, when other generals arrive, they may replace Lyon.

So, might a consensus be, early in the game, keep Hooker as a very good corps commander, maybe even under McClellan, but especially under Lyon, if he is still alive?

From my experience, if I were you I would forget McClellan. Use him to train your troops, but not to command anything.

Regarding to Hooker, try to promote him to a 2-star general for command a Corps under Grant's Army. The Grant's high value strategic will convert Hooker in a magnificent commander.

On the other hand, try to promote Lyon (fighting with him as commander) to a 3-star general and so you may replace McDowell or McClellan as Army commander in the East, for example.

Well, I think I've written enough for today. It's too late here. I'm going to bed.

Regards!