One feature a day serie: #1 Relegating generals

[Pocus]

#1 Relegating generals
One of the cool features of AACW is that you can remove any general from command, or name any general you want to any position... with a cost! You don't really think that removing McClellan from the Army of Potomac could be done without some grinding of teeth! Players will have to take into account the political cost of removing an important general from a position he is eligible to hold. In contrast, if you name a general to command an army without seniority, thus bypassing more senior generals, be prepared to face some disgruntled officers!

(art previously posted)

[PDF]

Hi Pocus
Could you elaborate on the "cost" incurred by relegating generals or appointing them regardless of seniority ?

[Sol Invictus]

Nice feature and very appropriate for the ACW. Lincoln had serious problems trying to find competent grnerals and dealing with the political ramifications of shuffling commanders.

[Pocus]

Each general has a political cost associated with him. When you are bypassing or relegating a general, the POL cost translates into a loss of victory points and National Morale.

[flintlock]

The strategy of internal political strife and national morale. This may prove to be an interesting dilemma indeed.

[type7]

My excitement factor for this game +1

[vonkraus]

#1 Relegating generals
One of the cool features of AACW is that you can remove any general from command, or name any general you want to any position... with a cost! You don't really think that removing McClellan from the Army of Potomac could be done without some grinding of teeth! Players will have to take into account the political cost of removing an important general from a position he is eligible to hold. In contrast, if you name a general to command an army without seniority, thus bypassing more senior generals, be prepared to face some disgruntled officers!

This is a good idea to keep players from going around the mostly bad senior leaders for the Union to get to the good guys down in the ranks. Of course, this is completely unhistorical because Lincoln had no idea who was a "good" general and who was a bum until they had been in command for a bit. However, do I understand it correctly that even if a bum leader is sent off to Detroit to be the General of a match stick factory or something and a better, lower ranked general is promoted to lead the Army of the Potomac, there will be political ramifications? I hope that this is true because this will hold the Union leader to a more historical standard. What about sending the leader on a suicide march by himself into enemy territory? I got rid of Abercromby this way to get to better leadership for the army that I was besieging Louisbourg with in BoA. It is probably impossible to prevent this type of behavior via code, huh.

[Pocus]

This is a good idea to keep players from going around the mostly bad senior leaders for the Union to get to the good guys down in the ranks. Of course, this is completely unhistorical because Lincoln had no idea who was a "good" general and who was a bum until they had been in command for a bit. However, do I understand it correctly that even if a bum leader is sent off to Detroit to be the General of a match stick factory or something and a better, lower ranked general is promoted to lead the Army of the Potomac, there will be political ramifications? I hope that this is true because this will hold the Union leader to a more historical standard. What about sending the leader on a suicide march by himself into enemy territory? I got rid of Abercromby this way to get to better leadership for the army that I was besieging Louisbourg with in BoA. It is probably impossible to prevent this type of behavior via code, huh.

The cost is tied to how the general was seen as important or how he was politically tied to a governor. The cost is not tied to how good or bad he was. So even removing a bad general can cost you dearly.

We will try to have an option masking the values of a general until he fought in a battle, so you will possibly end giving command to an untried and bad general.

If you bypass a general, even if he is in Detroit in charge of the local militia, you will pay a cost.

You can send to death a general, but more often than not they will be only wounded and you will have lost a combat unit. If he dies in the end, you still pay a victory points loss.

[Hidde]

We will try to have an option masking the values of a general until he fought in a battle

Great! Does it also meen that the values are randomly assigned. So that you don't know in advance if Lee or Bragg is the better general? The old game ACW by Frank Hunter did this and I think it's nice too have as an[font="Arial Black"] option[/font].
It also would be nice if generals could be good at one level but less so on another. When you promote one good brigade general to division command you would risk a nasty surprice as he might be on a level above his capabilties. Or maybe that that would be more frustrating than fun?
Anyhow, locking forward to this game.

[PhilThib]

We have a short time problem (we need more staff / help leure: ) but we indeed plan to have at least one of these options, and may be up to three, as follows:

* Option 1: leader stats are hidden (till tried in battle) but not random
* Option 2: leaders are semi random (+-2 pts on each stat, with of course limits to avoid seeing R.E.LEE too low )
* Option 3: a combination of the above 2

As for the decreased / increased "effectiveness" of leaders when they change rank / command, this is already implemented This works both for the stats of the leaders and theirs special abilities...

[Hidde]

That's more and better than I wished for. Outstanding!
I'm flabbergasted.

[Ayeshteni]

Ooooh Batey!!! Sounds immensely good.

Aye.

[vonkraus]

It also would be nice if generals could be good at one level but less so on another. When you promote one good brigade general to division command you would risk a nasty surprice as he might be on a level above his capabilties. Or maybe that that would be more frustrating than fun?
Anyhow, locking forward to this game.

There is a board game that was designed by Eric Lee Smith and published by Victory Games in 1983 that is an absolutely fantastic representation of the the operational aspects of the American Civil war that is called The Civil War. This was one of the features of this game, which made leadership a key factor in the game, was the possibility of a leader being a great brigade commander, a good division commander and an absolutely awful army commander, or vice versa. This could be a powder keg feature for a game like this because leadership (both military and political), in fact, played such a critical and large part in the actual conflict.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

This all sounds good. However, I don't see much point in hiding the ratings of generals if they're historically-based, and therefore the same in each game. Unless you hide the names of the generals (at the start of the game) too...

[Pocus]

sure, with hidden stats comes hidden names

[Jonathan Palfrey]

sure, with hidden stats comes hidden names

Oh, really? That's excellent. I've tried to argue for that feature in other games, but without success up to now.

[PDF]

We have a short time problem (we need more staff / help leure: ) but we indeed plan to have at least one of these options, and may be up to three, as follows:

* Option 1: leader stats are hidden (till tried in battle) but not random
* Option 2: leaders are semi random (+-2 pts on each stat, with of course limits to avoid seeing R.E.LEE too low )
* Option 3: a combination of the above 2

As for the decreased / increased "effectiveness" of leaders when they change rank / command, this is already implemented This works both for the stats of the leaders and theirs special abilities...

I like Option 2. Or maybe it can be an .. option, I mean the player could choose "fixed" or "randomized" leader values.
I think that the old ACW game by Adanac had this

[Pocus]

Yes, the feature will be optional, in 3 variations: 1, 2, or 1+2

[Generalisimo]

We have a short time problem (we need more staff / help leure: ) but we indeed plan to have at least one of these options, and may be up to three, as follows:

* Option 1: leader stats are hidden (till tried in battle) but not random
* Option 2: leaders are semi random (+-2 pts on each stat, with of course limits to avoid seeing R.E.LEE too low )
* Option 3: a combination of the above 2

As for the decreased / increased "effectiveness" of leaders when they change rank / command, this is already implemented This works both for the stats of the leaders and theirs special abilities...

That's great.. everything we were waiting for.

[James D Burns]

We have a short time problem (we need more staff / help leure: ) but we indeed plan to have at least one of these options, and may be up to three, as follows:

* Option 1: leader stats are hidden (till tried in battle) but not random
* Option 2: leaders are semi random (+-2 pts on each stat, with of course limits to avoid seeing R.E.LEE too low )
* Option 3: a combination of the above 2

As for the decreased / increased "effectiveness" of leaders when they change rank / command, this is already implemented This works both for the stats of the leaders and theirs special abilities...

How about an option #4?

Leaders are all represented by a generic picture and named simply General until they distinguish themselves in combat. Their underlying stats still work, but the player has no idea who is who other than their rank. You could have each combat they participate in reveal just a few of their stats to the player until finally after several battles all stats get revealed and the named general replaces the generic one.

Then have generals appear randomly so players can't memorize starting locations and you have a good mix of the unknown while maintaining the south’s historical advantage in early leadership.

Jim

[Frank E]

[quote="James D Burns"]How about an option #4?

Leaders are all represented by a generic picture and named simply General until they distinguish themselves in combat. Their underlying stats still work, but the player has no idea who is who other than their rank. You could have each combat they participate in reveal just a few of their stats to the player until finally after several battles all stats get revealed and the named general replaces the generic one.

Then have generals appear randomly so players can't memorize starting locations and you have a good mix of the unknown while maintaining the south’]

I like that idea. If you're going to randomize, that seems like the most elegant way of doing it.

[James D Burns]

I like that idea. If you're going to randomize, that seems like the most elegant way of doing it.

I guess I should mention when I say random appearance, it shouldn't be too random. Just enough so players can't memorize things from game to game, thus keeping the mystery of who is who alive each time you play.

In other words if a General should appear historically in July 1863, then let his appearance be shifted forward or back by one or two months, or none at all. Just don't make the time adjustment too much else the south’s early leadership advantage would be nil if the Union got lucky and a bunch of great generals appeared in 1861.

For those that should start a scenario on map, I guess if they all started in one place, there would still be a great level of mystery. It would be great if they were all 1 star generals that have to be promoted by the player to higher ranks as well, but I'm not sure if that's supported with this system.

Jim

[WallysWorld]

Actually I am hoping for options to make the ratings for generals to be both random and also hidden until at least the first battle. And maybe even beyond the first battle as initial ratings could change until the first few of battles have been fought. An initial good general could turn out to be timid after a few battles.

I still play Frank Hunter's 1996 "From Sumter to Appomattox" game and that game had both options and I believe it made the game more fun to play as you had to take a chance on an unknown general until his random and unknown ratings were discovered.

And I do like the political aspect of removing and promoting generals.

[Pocus]

Side note: this political cost allows us to simulate the 'McClellan problem'... If you don't do that, you have a game where the Union can use his army as he wants, attacking relentlessly in Virginia in 1861-1862.

[James D Burns]

Side note: this political cost allows us to simulate the 'McClellan problem'... If you don't do that, you have a game where the Union can use his army as he wants, attacking relentlessly in Virginia in 1861-1862.

One thing I would like to see added to the old BOA strategic ratings offensive posture limit is the inability to enter enemy territory unless a strategic roll is passed first.

So not only will generals be unable to switch to offensive posture, they can only maneuver in friendly territory on turns they fail a roll. You could then state that an army already in enemy lands can only move if that move is one that takes it closer to the closest friendly owned area or to board a fleet in the case a player wishes to evacuate the coast.

I think this additional limit would go a long way to recreating McClellan’s unwillingness to move on Richmond throughout most of 1862 even though Lincoln was urging him to on a regular basis.

It would also go a long way to simulating his plodding advance up the Peninsula once he actually did get going. Sure you pass a roll and get to land, but it may be 2-3 turns or more before you pass another roll that lets you then move towards Richmond.

Jim

[Sol Invictus]

Nice idea James.

[PhilThib]

I vote vor this nice feature too

[Pocus]

To tell the truth, we were not entirely satisfied with the activation (or lack of) effects on general, one loophole being that you can't switch to offensive, but the game will switch you nonetheless if you enter a very hostile territory, so this could be exploited theorically. We already debated in the beta forum on a revision of the effects of activation and we had difficulties to all agree on the new proposals made.

Your proposal is interesting and elegant, we will discuss it in the beta forum, thanks for that Jim.
A note of importance though, the new Command Chain rule is made is such way that you are better with a passive general (McClellan) in the head of your army compared to no general at all. And a passive general can give penalties to corps commander, to activation and also offensive rating... so we already have rules to take into account McClellan (or another passive leader) leadership, but an additional rule can be needed indeed.

[PDF]

I kind of like the idea of limiting movement by using generals values, but fear it'll end up with having too much arbitrary limitations and make the game slow, plus players unhappy (US player will see his troops doing near to naught for some months whatever strategy he'd like to try) !
Sure history taught us that the 61-62 US staff was quite apathic and fearful, but we shouldn't have it taken as granted and not possible to change. Note also that McClellan was not especially more offensive when he had to defend *friendly* territories !
This could also end up with players changing all the staff, whatever the political cost, because they'll still prefer to have an useful army...
So this kind of rule has to be carefully balanced *and* optional IMHO !

[Hobbes]

Some nice ideas but you always have to consider that this is a game that we are playing and frustrating the player is not always a good thing for the fun factor!