Historical 'What-Ifs'

[Jim-NC]

In real life, promotions (in game terms) were harder to come by for the Confederates- there were basically only 3 or 4 spots for Army-level generals at any given time (this is why the Confederates almost always had what amounts to a spare full General seemingly just hanging around) and then only around 6-7 spots for Corps-level commanders. The in-game promotion system is perfect for the Union who needs masses of high level generals to command a multitude of armies and corps but much less so for the Rebel side. In actual practice, the price to be paid for having Jackson or Longstreet out west is that it should result in Polk or Hardee serving in the east.

The interesting thing about the recent conversation regarding Longstreet going west is that everyone assumes Meade would still end up commanding the Army of the Potomac. Hooker wasn't never relieved after Chancellorsville and if I'm not mistaken, only quit himself over a disagreement regarding something having to do with militia or garrison troops while on the march to Gettysburg. Without a northern offensive by Lee, the situation is basically just as it was before Chancellorsville with an aggressive Hooker still in command of the AoP and now armed with the knowledge of what happens when he loses confidence in himself- except Lee is now still just as outnumbered while breaking in at least one new corps commander.

The thing is that the game doesn't take into account wounding. Both sides had lots of extra generals at each level as at any given time a % were recovering from wounds. I believe that at Chancellorsville, Jackson's Corps went through 3 commanders during the course of the battle (due to wounds). Lee only got the ANV because Johnston was wounded. This doesn't include those who lost favor with their respective leaders (Bory and Johnston were both transfered to "back water" posts, and almost all union generals spent a stretch of time on "garrison" duty).

What both sides did do was temporary command switches (in game terms, taking the highest 1 star and making him in charge of the corps). This is something that the current game engine can't do, and thus we have to have ranks.

[Stauffenberg]

The thing is that the game doesn't take into account wounding. Both sides had lots of extra generals at each level as at any given time a % were recovering from wounds.

Good point but you will see generals "recovering" from especially bad battle results, pinned in some town close by for x number of turns so wounding is partially covered at least.

Falling out of favour is definitely a potent factor, and not one that could easily be handled in the game. Daniel H. Hill has to be the best (worst) example of talent side-lined for the Confederacy because he fell out of favour with Lee in Virginia and then Bragg and Davis in Tennessee. One of the South's best generals who should have been in command of a key corps, he was side-lined for the rest of the war from 1863 onwards.

This is surprising because his sarcastic sense of humour was known to all. Jackson's very strange peccadilloes were forgiven--Hill's were not. He wrote a famous college textbook before the war that contained many examples of his irreverent humour as he ridiculed anything northern, as in the following:

The field of battle at Buena Vista is 6½ miles from Saltillo. Two Indiana volunteers ran away from the field of battle at the same time; one ran half a mile per hour faster than the other, and reached Saltillo 5 minutes and 54 6/11 seconds sooner than the other. Required--their respective rates of travel.

Or:

A man in Cincinnati purchased 10,000 pounds of bad pork, at 1 cent per pound, and paid so much per pound to put it through a chemical process, by which it would appear sound, and then sold it at an advanced price, clearing $450 by the fraud. The price at which he sold the pork per pound, multiplied by the cost per pound of the chemical process, was 3 cents. Required the price at which he sold it, and the cost of the chemical process.

[Longshanks]

Some interesting points.

I would like to know if anyone has ever used the randomized general setting for a campaign game. Using this would make concerns about commander deployment limitations irrelevant and has to inject some very interesting uncertainty into the game. I am really tempted to try it soon.

I have, several times. It favors the Union, who has many generals and can afford to throw away the 'bad' ones that get lousy stats.

[wsatterwhite]

Some interesting points.

Based on my own pbem I think an attempt to put limits on deployment of generals would introduce some pretty convoluted house rules that would end up being more trouble than they are worth. In game terms it all seems to average out for both sides, and if you are going to more or less prevent Jackson from scooting west easily, then you would have to pin Lyon in MO early on for the same historical reasons.

You don't mention teleporting limitations and what I have been using is a limit of only one 2 or 3 star general move per turn (out of the three moves available), with movement from the field to capital, or capital to the field the only allowable movement. This would prevent powerful corps--or even army--leaders from appearing for a fast attack and then flying back to their usual command by lear jet. You could still do it... if you are willing to see such a powerful leader basically sitting on his hands commanding nothing for 2 turns.

I'm not sure if it counts as a house rule exactly (and I only play against the AI so I'm never really tempted enough anyway ) but one thing I do is always ask myself if the teleporting move is a logical one- is there a non-gamey reason why Stonewall or Longstreet would suddenly go from Virginia to Tennessee in an instant? I don't see a problem with shuffling generals all over the place, it did happen historically (Halleck and Pope "teleported" from Mississippi to Virginia and Grant from Vicksburg to Chattanooga and then from Chattanooga to Virginia) for various reasons so if it makes sense inside the game I'm cool with it. Relating this back to the idea of what if's- if Jackson had survived his Chancellorsville wound, there's a very good chance one of Jackson, Longstreet, Ewell or AP Hill would have had to go out west since it's unlikely Lee would have created a fourth corps at that point.

[Stauffenberg]

I have, several times. It favors the Union, who has many generals and can afford to throw away the 'bad' ones that get lousy stats.

that makes perfect sense... when you think about it. thanks.

[Captain_Orso]

I've play with random generals a couple of times long ago. I found the completely erratic spread of characteristics to be ridicules. Generals with 1-0-6, 3-6-1 or 6-0-0 just make no sense from a realistic point of view. Looking through the actual stats of generals the most radical is probably Forest's 6-6-2, but Hood's 5-0-1*** could compete somewhat with that. But these are exceptions to the rule.

Additionally, from a Union standpoint, the progression of specific leaders that become somewhat to greatly better with promotion, falls away leaving you with no generals to protegee to become mid-game army commanders.

Interesting would be if there were certain generals that would receive large improvements when promoted to Maj.Gen., but an even smaller few who, when promoted to Lt.Gen., such as Hooker, Burnside, Hood and Longstreet, who then also showed a lack of command skills as Lt.Gen. army commanders.

Even more interesting would be if the attributes were less dependent on a leader's rank than the position (corp commander, army commander, theater commander). In Real-Life™ once Hooker and Burnside were returned to corp commander status they did well enough as long as they had a good army commander over them. Maybe the way corp structure works now in-game reflects this already well enough, but there is as of now no mechanism for having theater commanders who might improve the attributes to army commanders. So having Grant and Sherman for example as theater commanders would give them a more realistic use than having them simply used as one among many army commanders.

With such a system the player would then be confronted with the Real-World™ dilemma of trying to find The-Right-Generals™ to lead the nation's armies and corps. That would make for and excellent challenge.

[Stauffenberg]

With such a system the player would then be confronted with the Real-World™ dilemma of trying to find The-Right-Generals™ to lead the nation's armies and corps. That would make for and excellent challenge.

Certainly reason enough to choose the venerable option of Giving-It-A-Miss™.

And I intend to, thanks.

[Stauffenberg]

Here is another what-if, and not one advanced as seriously likely, but the effects and question raised are of interest.

Let's assume Kentucky goes strictly neutral and for various reasons both sides end up completely honouring this neutrality. Assume too, that Missouri and the Far West are tacitly allowed to "go hang" as both sides are drawn into an escalating and intense confrontation in Virginia. As more and more units are pushed into battle in this state, from the isthmus above Fort Monroe, to the Shenandoah and into the mountains of West Virginia, by 1864 a solid line of trenches has appeared, prefiguring the trenches of WW I by exactly half a century. As both sides attempt to break the stalemate created by such powerful defensive positions, massed batteries of cannon are employed, some 500+ for a particular battle, in an attempt to crack open the trenchlines. The Confederates are the first to start employing small groups of infiltrating "assault troops"....

Of course this started to appear around Petersburg and Richmond late in the war, but I wonder if a much larger, early version of trench warfare on the scale of France 1914-18, might have appeared in this variant.