In my game as the Union, I had the McClellan event trigger that stated he had been placed in command of the Army of the Potomac. But in the next turn he was still near Kentucky and all that had changed is he had been promoted to a three star general.
So I diligently moved him via rail to the East and tried to place him in command of the army of the Potomac. But each time I did that it placed McDowell in command since he was the superior leader (had received some experience in two engagements with the South) in the area I was trying to reform the army in.
I was finally able to force the issue by moving McDowell out of the same area before re-creating the Army of the Potomac with McClellan in charge, but was left feeling a bit peeved that I had to jump through hoops just to get an historical outcome.
Shouldn’t McClellan be automatically moved into the Army of the Potomac’s area and placed in command when the event triggers? Or is it WAD and it’s truly up to the player to place him in command manually?
It was such a hassle getting him placed in command this time around, I doubt I’ll even bother moving him East in the future and will simply leave him in the rear training my militias from now on.
Jim
-
James D Burns
- Posts: 561
- Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:28 am
- Location: Salida, CA
James D Burns wrote:In my game as the Union, I had the McClellan event trigger that stated he had been placed in command of the Army of the Potomac. But in the next turn he was still near Kentucky and all that had changed is he had been promoted to a three star general.
Maybe you could change the script to simple say he has been promoted and is available or recommended to command the AotP.
Ray (aka LAVA)
One more question...
In the McClellan event, it talks about him being promoted due to the defeat at Bull Run. It might be better to make this a bit less definite. In my case, I won First Bull Run with McDowell and won something akin to Second Bull Run again with McDowell a month or so later (hey, he actually has experience now!), then shortly got the McClellan even which because of the description seemed a bit out of place. In fact, I had yet to lose a battle that actually deducted from morale, though I lost a few small ones. Could this in any way be triggered by an actual Union defeat or just have it say something more generic about McClellan's star rising in case the player actually won the battle(s)?
I agree, the McClellan event should probably worded more like :
"A brilliant general, bob (forgot first name...) MacClellan, has impressed the congress and the administration with his articulate plan to build the Union's army to ensure a quick victory against the rebels. Convinced that he is the man for the task, Lincoln Appoints him CiC of the Army of the Potomac in the eastern theater. bla bla..."
Then you should probably have a chain of events that checks every couple of months the size of the armies in the field and penalizes the player if McClellan's army isn't the biggest one :
"The CiC, General McClellan has voiced concern about the way the war is handled. Actions by the administration undermine the organizing of the army and jeopardize the victory. The Congress and the governors are increasingly worrying that not enough power is given to General McClellan to ensure victory against the Rebels and worry that the administration is ready to bow to the rebellion. Result : - 50 victory points, - 10 national Moral points, - ** loyalty points in selected provinces of different states (make that pretty significant so that it could jeopardize control of the border states, risking the emergence of partisans in the medium run, etc...)."
I believe that having such a sequence active for say 9 to 18 months once McClellan appears, every 2 months, would force the player to put McClellan in charge, or face the prospect of losing morale and having to spend forces clearing the rears of partisans and dissenters, etc...
"A brilliant general, bob (forgot first name...) MacClellan, has impressed the congress and the administration with his articulate plan to build the Union's army to ensure a quick victory against the rebels. Convinced that he is the man for the task, Lincoln Appoints him CiC of the Army of the Potomac in the eastern theater. bla bla..."
Then you should probably have a chain of events that checks every couple of months the size of the armies in the field and penalizes the player if McClellan's army isn't the biggest one :
"The CiC, General McClellan has voiced concern about the way the war is handled. Actions by the administration undermine the organizing of the army and jeopardize the victory. The Congress and the governors are increasingly worrying that not enough power is given to General McClellan to ensure victory against the Rebels and worry that the administration is ready to bow to the rebellion. Result : - 50 victory points, - 10 national Moral points, - ** loyalty points in selected provinces of different states (make that pretty significant so that it could jeopardize control of the border states, risking the emergence of partisans in the medium run, etc...)."
I believe that having such a sequence active for say 9 to 18 months once McClellan appears, every 2 months, would force the player to put McClellan in charge, or face the prospect of losing morale and having to spend forces clearing the rears of partisans and dissenters, etc...
I agree, the McClellan event should probably worded more like :
"A brilliant general, bob (forgot first name...) MacClellan, has impressed the congress and the administration with his articulate plan to build the Union's army to ensure a quick victory against the rebels. Convinced that he is the man for the task, Lincoln Appoints him CiC of the Army of the Potomac in the eastern theater. bla bla..."
Then you should probably have a chain of events that checks every couple of months the size of the armies in the field and penalizes the player if McClellan's army isn't the biggest one :
"The CiC, General McClellan has voiced concern about the way the war is handled. Actions by the administration undermine the organizing of the army and jeopardize the victory. The Congress and the governors are increasingly worrying that not enough power is given to General McClellan to ensure victory against the Rebels and worry that the administration is ready to bow to the rebellion. Result : - 50 victory points, - 10 national Moral points, - ** loyalty points in selected provinces of different states (make that pretty significant so that it could jeopardize control of the border states, risking the emergence of partisans in the medium run, etc...)."
I believe that having such a sequence active for say 9 to 18 months once McClellan appears, every 2 months, would force the player to put McClellan in charge, or face the prospect of losing morale and having to spend forces clearing the rears of partisans and dissenters, etc...
This sounds nice
. Good ideaForrest said something about killing a Yankee for each of his horses that they shot. In the last days of the war, Forrest had killed 30 of the enemy and had 30 horses shot from under him. In a brief but savage conflict, a Yankee soldier "saw glory for himself" with an opportunity to kill the famous Confederate General... Forrest killed the fellow. Making 31 Yankees personally killed, and 30 horses lost...
He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."
He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."
-
jimwinsor
- General of the Army
- Posts: 631
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:07 am
- Location: San Diego, CA USA
Another solution would be to just remove the McClellan event altogether. Seems a bit kludgy to me, trying to force specific historic decisions.
Random are best used to simulate events out of a player's control IMO, not to cajole a player to stick to a history script. Just a personal preference.
I had the same reaction to the Grant Entry event. He appears early '62 in my April '61 game, out west, already at *** rank, and with an army and assets ready to go. I have to take a VP and Morale hit for him to get assigned command over Butler, but not too bad.
Far too easy. I think it would have been more fun (and challenging) if I had a Grant as a lowly * in '61, and then had to work his way up the senority/promotion chain through some Belmont-like engagements. Kinda like Sherman is already.
Although perhaps events like this are necessary for the AI?
In any case, I have another McClellan related event question(s): General Order #2. It says I have to keep 12 units adjacent to DC for 2 months (4 turns I guess). My question is, what count as units? Or do the locked units in DC count? How about the locked garrisions in Alexandria, Port Tobacco, etc.. And what kind of units count? Just brigades, or can support units such as balloons, medics and wagons count too? Ships? How about Cav and Militia regiments?
Random are best used to simulate events out of a player's control IMO, not to cajole a player to stick to a history script. Just a personal preference.
I had the same reaction to the Grant Entry event. He appears early '62 in my April '61 game, out west, already at *** rank, and with an army and assets ready to go. I have to take a VP and Morale hit for him to get assigned command over Butler, but not too bad.
Far too easy. I think it would have been more fun (and challenging) if I had a Grant as a lowly * in '61, and then had to work his way up the senority/promotion chain through some Belmont-like engagements. Kinda like Sherman is already.
Although perhaps events like this are necessary for the AI?
In any case, I have another McClellan related event question(s): General Order #2. It says I have to keep 12 units adjacent to DC for 2 months (4 turns I guess). My question is, what count as units? Or do the locked units in DC count? How about the locked garrisions in Alexandria, Port Tobacco, etc.. And what kind of units count? Just brigades, or can support units such as balloons, medics and wagons count too? Ships? How about Cav and Militia regiments?
I agree with you but I guess it is needed for the AI. Otherwise they would need to devis a dynamic engine to allow the AI to evaluate generals so that to promote those that are good instead of the other ones, or not to just follow seniority stupidly... I guess you could script the AI so that it does not promote bad generals, ie give it a list of generals to promote (the good ones), and have it check the list regularly to see if the generals are available for promotion..
"Another solution would be to just remove the McClellan event altogether. Seems a bit kludgy to me, trying to force specific historic decisions."
The game should model the political reality of the Generals - it was politics first with promotions all the time, as well as seniority based on prior military status and military college graduation date, and local political connections.
Promoting just the 'good' generals would be a bad choice for a historical simulation.
This was a political war first and foremost.
The so far very good to excellent attempt to model this through events is a strong point of this game. To not have it would be a big black mark against it.
The game should model the political reality of the Generals - it was politics first with promotions all the time, as well as seniority based on prior military status and military college graduation date, and local political connections.
Promoting just the 'good' generals would be a bad choice for a historical simulation.
This was a political war first and foremost.
The so far very good to excellent attempt to model this through events is a strong point of this game. To not have it would be a big black mark against it.
-
pasternakski
- Colonel
- Posts: 341
- Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:50 pm
Why is it I find myself agreeing with every post on this thread? Nice work, gentlemen.
I at first thought that the best idea was to forget about the politics and make these bad boys show how bad they are before moving up.
Then, I was persuaded that a lot of the "politics" of general appointments and promotions were actually, as Wilhammer so ably implies, derived from pre-war circumstances that are beyond the players' control but need to be modeled to present the historical context accurately.
I also like what James D Burns had to say about the practical awkwardness of trying to follow through with what the game is telling you that you need to do.
My idea? What makes you think I have one? No, actually, I think that this presents "A Question of Balance." Yes, let's preserve historicity, but not forget that we humble humans actually have to play this sucker.
McClellan: I think you've got to keep the flavor of "Little Mac's" rise, but it seems that there ought to be a way to insert him automatically into Army of the Potomac command at the right time. If he gets caulked in the meantime, well, the Union just has to figure out a way to get along without him...
Sherman and Grant: I rather like the idea that these guys need to work their way up. After all, a large part of the fascination with these two men revolves around their rise, through their successes, gifts and efforts (including that, at critical times, they were just simply better than the available alternatives). Who knows where fate (and the whims of us players) might take them in our games?
Lee. Not yet discussed here, but I think that much of the above applies to him, as well. As it is, his fate seems pretty much locked in (lead ANV in the east, for better or worse, in sickness and in health, until death do us part - ugh, I'd almost forgotten how upsetting even the thought of those words can be).
Let's pause for a quick consideration of generals like Lyon, Jackson and Thomas. I look forward to getting into a game deeply enough that such leaders may come to full flower and have army-level responsibilities devolve on them...
In any event, I love the game as it is and trust that AGEOD will, with the aid of fine, thoughtful posters (myself excluded) on threads such as this, refine it even more.
I at first thought that the best idea was to forget about the politics and make these bad boys show how bad they are before moving up.
Then, I was persuaded that a lot of the "politics" of general appointments and promotions were actually, as Wilhammer so ably implies, derived from pre-war circumstances that are beyond the players' control but need to be modeled to present the historical context accurately.
I also like what James D Burns had to say about the practical awkwardness of trying to follow through with what the game is telling you that you need to do.
My idea? What makes you think I have one? No, actually, I think that this presents "A Question of Balance." Yes, let's preserve historicity, but not forget that we humble humans actually have to play this sucker.
McClellan: I think you've got to keep the flavor of "Little Mac's" rise, but it seems that there ought to be a way to insert him automatically into Army of the Potomac command at the right time. If he gets caulked in the meantime, well, the Union just has to figure out a way to get along without him...
Sherman and Grant: I rather like the idea that these guys need to work their way up. After all, a large part of the fascination with these two men revolves around their rise, through their successes, gifts and efforts (including that, at critical times, they were just simply better than the available alternatives). Who knows where fate (and the whims of us players) might take them in our games?
Lee. Not yet discussed here, but I think that much of the above applies to him, as well. As it is, his fate seems pretty much locked in (lead ANV in the east, for better or worse, in sickness and in health, until death do us part - ugh, I'd almost forgotten how upsetting even the thought of those words can be).
Let's pause for a quick consideration of generals like Lyon, Jackson and Thomas. I look forward to getting into a game deeply enough that such leaders may come to full flower and have army-level responsibilities devolve on them...
In any event, I love the game as it is and trust that AGEOD will, with the aid of fine, thoughtful posters (myself excluded) on threads such as this, refine it even more.
Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests