In conjunction with Winfield S. Hancock, here are my proposals for new Confederate Leaders
Maxcy Gregg (4-3-3) (October 1862)
- Very talented Brigadier in Jackson's Corps. Was very highly regarded by Lee, Jackson, as well as his own divisional commander, A.P. Hill. Died at 2nd Manassas. Likely to have been promoted sometime close to Antietam.
Johnston Pettigrew (3-2-2) (August 1863)
- Took temporary command of Heth's Division after Heth was wounded on the 1st day at Gettysburg. He continued to command the division in the retreat from Pennsylvania, but was killed. Would have been in line for a division after Gettysburg.
William Starke (3-2-2) (September 1862)
- Commanded Jackson's Division following the death of Taliaferro on the first day of 2nd Manassas. Killed at Antietam.\
Turner Ashby (6-4-1) - cavalryman, partisan (April 1862)
- Commanded Jackson's cavalry during most of his Valley Campaign. Was killed in May 1862. Not sure if he would (could) have ever commanded a division, but he was one of the most talented cavalry officers of the war and would be utilized in a role similar to Quantrill or Mosby.
William H.F. Lee (4-2-2) - cavalryman (October 1864)
- Commanded a cavalry division in the retreat from Petersburg. Regarded as one of the better Confederate cavalry brigadiers.
Micah Jenkins (4-3-2) (November 1863)
- Wounded at 2nd Manassas, he recovered in time to take part in Longstreet's expedition in Tennessee. He commanded Hood's Division through much of the campaign, and upon Hood's return to duty, he resumed command of his South Carolina Brigade.
Alexander Lawton (3-2-2) (October 1862)
- Took temporary command of Ewell's Division when Ewell was injured at 2nd Manassas. Severely wounded at Antietam, he became Quartermaster General. Likely would have assumed full time divisional command in late 1862.
William Pendleton (1-3-3) - artillerist (March 1862)
- Was Chief of Artillery for the Army of Northern Virginia. Brigadiered in March 1862.
John Imboden - (4-1-1) - partisan, cavalryman (August 1862)
- Famed Virginia partisan commander, he commanded a brigade of partisans. Left active service in 1864 and commanded prison camps until the end of the war. As with most partisans, his appearance should predate divisional command.
Josiah Tatnall (naval) (3-0-1) (February 1862)
- Commanded Confederate river gunboats at Island #10 as well as later during the war. He oversaw the sinking of the CSS Virginia when Norfolk fell to federal troops during the Peninsular Campaign.
William Barksdale (5-2-3) - strong morale (May 1864)
- One of Longstreets favorite Brigadiers. He commanded a brigade in I Corps and was killed at Gettysburg. Extraordinarily aggressive and beligerent, he gained fame for his single brigade holding off 3 Federal Corps crossing the Rappahannock just prior to Frederiskcburg. Due to seniority and being one of Longstreet's favorites, he would likely have been promoted to divisional command during or after the Wilderness.
Nathan "Shanks" Evans (3-1-2) (October 1861)
- Commanded an independant brigade (colonel) at 1st Manassas (where he preformed excellently) and retiained that independent command until Antietam. He was brigadiered in October 1861 following his participation in the battle of Balls Bluff. Transferred to North Carolina folowing Antietam, his war record it fairly ordinary, aside from being acquitted on charges of drunkenness in combat.
Great job by yourself & Gen. Hancock. I really look forward to the mod. Is there an ETA?
I would suggest also:
Jo Shelby appearing 1/64 in Ark. 5-3-3 Cavalryman, Raider.
Samuel French appearing in 1/64 in Ga. 3-1-1.
Gabriel Wharton appearing in 1/64 in VA 3-2-1
Henry Heth whom I think you've already addressed.
Again great job & I hope the mod will beout soon because I am not looking forward to trying to do all the Excel stuff & csv splitter whatever that is myself.
I would suggest also:
Jo Shelby appearing 1/64 in Ark. 5-3-3 Cavalryman, Raider.
Samuel French appearing in 1/64 in Ga. 3-1-1.
Gabriel Wharton appearing in 1/64 in VA 3-2-1
Henry Heth whom I think you've already addressed.
Again great job & I hope the mod will beout soon because I am not looking forward to trying to do all the Excel stuff & csv splitter whatever that is myself.
-
McNaughton
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
Just a question, how are these generals to be represented if they were killed? Given the very low rate at which generals die (presently), would the introduction of a lot of these 'what if' commanders before they actually took divisional command just result in them seeing service 99% of the time, when in reality, historically died before they achieved this?
I think that before they are introduced, their introduction should be tied to specific events. I am not sure what the limitations are to triggers, but, if there is a possibility, to have triggers based on battle casualties. Given that the Army of Northern Virginia doesn't experience a substantially large battle in mid 1862 (representing Antietam and 2nd Bull Run) or mid 1863 (representing Gettysburg) then these brigadiers that were killed during these battles would appear, yet, if they do experience heavy casualties, it can be historically deducted that they were indeed historically KIA.
I personally think that divisional commanders should face greater chances of being KIA, thereby increasing the need for larger leader pools.
I think that before they are introduced, their introduction should be tied to specific events. I am not sure what the limitations are to triggers, but, if there is a possibility, to have triggers based on battle casualties. Given that the Army of Northern Virginia doesn't experience a substantially large battle in mid 1862 (representing Antietam and 2nd Bull Run) or mid 1863 (representing Gettysburg) then these brigadiers that were killed during these battles would appear, yet, if they do experience heavy casualties, it can be historically deducted that they were indeed historically KIA.
I personally think that divisional commanders should face greater chances of being KIA, thereby increasing the need for larger leader pools.
McNaughton wrote:Just a question, how are these generals to be represented if they were killed? Given the very low rate at which generals die (presently), would the introduction of a lot of these 'what if' commanders before they actually took divisional command just result in them seeing service 99% of the time, when in reality, historically died before they achieved this?
Pretty much. Its the same for the generals who appear in the game and only commanded a division or a corps due to the death of another general that is not likely to take place in the game. I'm going a step further and trying to lay out what would have happened if certain brigadiers were not killed historically (which works out well since the game doesn't kill them either often) and see how they would have fit in to various command structures.
-
Winfield S. Hancock
- Captain
- Posts: 176
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:14 pm
- Location: Lovettsville, VA, USA
Dogrobber, I have now posted a working version of the Mod in the Union Leader thread. It is compatible with 1.05d. This version has the group of Stonewall's changes from his previous post and has all of my changes. It is ready to download and play.
Once Stonewall and I confer, look for the mod to improve and be refined further. However, dont hesitate to use what is up there now, there are probably over 100 changes at least already included.
Once Stonewall and I confer, look for the mod to improve and be refined further. However, dont hesitate to use what is up there now, there are probably over 100 changes at least already included.
"Wars are not all evil; they are part of the grand machinery by which this world is governed, thunderstorms which purify the political atmosphere, test the manhood of a people, and prove whether they are worthy to take rank with others engaged in the same task by different methods" -- William T. Sherman addressing the Grand Army of the Republic in 1883
Second in War, Second in Peace, First in the Hearts of His Countrymen -- General Winfield Scott Hancock, USA
Second in War, Second in Peace, First in the Hearts of His Countrymen -- General Winfield Scott Hancock, USA
Winfield S. Hancock wrote:Once Stonewall and I confer, look for the mod to improve and be refined further. However, dont hesitate to use what is up there now, there are probably over 100 changes at least already included.
Indeed. I have not yet even begun to refine the CSA's already existing generals.
1) I think adding such short term commanders or hypothetical division commanders could be problematic unless leader losses are raised dramatically.
2) If such leaders are to be added (mod or otherwise), I'd add James McIntosh to the list, he was a brilliant brigade commander and assisted Ben McCulloch from the earliest time, almost certainly being the best leader of that army. His ratings would probably be 4-3-2, Cavalry (raised a cavalry Regiment, commanded a cavalry brigade, preferred to charge with his mounted troops..., also a good aide the camp and rapid thinker which is why I'm definite on the 4 command rating). Arrival sometime after april 1862 (after Pea Ridge, the battle he died at).
2) If such leaders are to be added (mod or otherwise), I'd add James McIntosh to the list, he was a brilliant brigade commander and assisted Ben McCulloch from the earliest time, almost certainly being the best leader of that army. His ratings would probably be 4-3-2, Cavalry (raised a cavalry Regiment, commanded a cavalry brigade, preferred to charge with his mounted troops..., also a good aide the camp and rapid thinker which is why I'm definite on the 4 command rating). Arrival sometime after april 1862 (after Pea Ridge, the battle he died at).
Marc aka Caran...
We are ok, Philippe Thibaut and I to incorporate officially a score or so of new generals in the DB, which you the modders would propose. We thus need serious people which are able to modify directly the database and then provide events to get the new generals. We also need a consensus on the stats. One of the old forumer there which showed sustained dedication to our games would be the coordinator.
Any volunteer?
Any volunteer?
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Adding additional leaders is okay, but I'd first rather see the existing leaders get more historical treatment, so that guys like David Birney and Milledge Bonham aren't ranked higher than Joe Hooker or James Longstreet. Can that be part of the DB modification?
If the history has to be bent slightly so that the AI can form corps from the start of the game, can't we at least bend the history in favor of Heintzelman and Keyes, and not Charles Hamilton?
If the history has to be bent slightly so that the AI can form corps from the start of the game, can't we at least bend the history in favor of Heintzelman and Keyes, and not Charles Hamilton?
My policy would be to treat leaders in a way as neutral as possible, ie in later scenarios, the OOB are of course pretty set up already, that general is 2*, that general is 3*, etc..
But in the 1861 campaigns I really think that except a few leaders with extreme political clout or with a very specific situation, all other generals should start at 1*.
The CSA should therefore only get 3* generals (JJ,PGT,ASJ,REL) and 1*, with variable seniority (pretty high for the likes of Van Dorn, Jackson, etc...).
Same for the north except that they should get a few crappy 2* as well, otherwise just put everybody at 1* and let the game play itseff..
But in the 1861 campaigns I really think that except a few leaders with extreme political clout or with a very specific situation, all other generals should start at 1*.
The CSA should therefore only get 3* generals (JJ,PGT,ASJ,REL) and 1*, with variable seniority (pretty high for the likes of Van Dorn, Jackson, etc...).
Same for the north except that they should get a few crappy 2* as well, otherwise just put everybody at 1* and let the game play itseff..
runyan99 wrote:Adding additional leaders is okay, but I'd first rather see the existing leaders get more historical treatment, so that guys like David Birney and Milledge Bonham aren't ranked higher than Joe Hooker or James Longstreet. Can that be part of the DB modification?
If the history has to be bent slightly so that the AI can form corps from the start of the game, can't we at least bend the history in favor of Heintzelman and Keyes, and not Charles Hamilton?
I can't comment ion the obscure Union leaders as I'm not as familiar with them as I am with the southern ones. Bonham had a good deal of seniority. He resigned from the army in January 1862 to take a seat in the Confederate Congress. Theo Holmes, was the Department Chief for the Trans-Mississippi. Longstreet didn't start with loads of seniority. He earned his promotions based on his performance. This is one of the biggest differences between north and south in terms of early-mid war leadership. The north was much more liable to be stuck with political generals at the top of the chain of command than the south was.
Well, the South did have a fair number of political generals as well, they were just less often in charge of critical fronts. Henry Wise (my great-great-great-great-grandfather) springs to mind. A poor leader most times, apt to screw up, but too politically important to dismiss.
The Union had a greater pool of ranked leaders initially, meaning that they could fill positions with them. The early brigade leaders for both North and South were a mixed bag, and it took some time to sort out the cream. However, the seniority of certain leaders - along with the greater political needs - meant that it took longer for the military meritocracy to establish itself.
One thing about Civil War leadership that stands out is the marked early Southern edge, and the marked late Union edge - both a direct influence of the North's greater pool of starting talent. I am always leery of games that have the entire war filled with wonderful Confederate leadership and perhaps a few very good Union leaders by the end. Beyond Grant, Sherman, Hancock, Sheridan, and (though not to all) Thomas, many games seem to make the Union leaders a pale shadow of the South.
I guess what I am arguing is that the talent of the South should be represented, but not to the degree that it overshadows the Northern leaders - especially by late in the conflict.
The Union had a greater pool of ranked leaders initially, meaning that they could fill positions with them. The early brigade leaders for both North and South were a mixed bag, and it took some time to sort out the cream. However, the seniority of certain leaders - along with the greater political needs - meant that it took longer for the military meritocracy to establish itself.
One thing about Civil War leadership that stands out is the marked early Southern edge, and the marked late Union edge - both a direct influence of the North's greater pool of starting talent. I am always leery of games that have the entire war filled with wonderful Confederate leadership and perhaps a few very good Union leaders by the end. Beyond Grant, Sherman, Hancock, Sheridan, and (though not to all) Thomas, many games seem to make the Union leaders a pale shadow of the South.
I guess what I am arguing is that the talent of the South should be represented, but not to the degree that it overshadows the Northern leaders - especially by late in the conflict.
Pocus wrote:Why not (about existing leaders stats), but many were already discussed in specific threads so we won't undo what beta testers did... But do your proposal anyway.
To be clear, I'm not talking about stats. Not offensive and defensive ratings, and special abilities. None of that.
Just dates of availability in the game, and rank, which alone have a large affect on play, and in many cases are different historically than they are in game.
My proposals for the existing leaders were already posted in a thread called 'Leader Revisions' from about a week ago, and forum member Hancock's leader mod is basically one big proposal for almost all of the Union leaders, and also incorporates some new arrival dates for the Confederate leaders. So, the forum is already full of the community's proposals on this point.
Just dates of availability in the game, and rank, which alone have a large affect on play, and in many cases are different historically than they are in game.
its ok then, but we are to be sure there is no unwanted side effects on gameplay, even if you are more historical than us. A game is a compromise as you know. Anyway, these things are more the realm of PhilThib, so it is him who will decide if the changes can be impacted. I will see with him what he thinks of all that.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
I globally agree on the proposal, but this much more difficult to implement that you think, because for instance leader's arrival date changes impact not only the events files but all scenario files as well...
So my recomendation is the following:
1 - Establish a clear document (word or excel) with all the proposed changes for all leaders.
2 - send it to me (before July 11th or after Aug. 1st, I'll be on vacation and unavailable in between)
3 - I'll inform you of all the consequences of the changes, and in particularly all files to be modified (usually excel DBs)
4 - You'll be doing the modifications requested
5 - Once OK, Pocus gets everything ready to exported. A version is made for you to test possible (almost certain) loopholes and bugs
6 - Once all the process is done, it becomes official (and you'll get the credits!) and goes to the following patch...
PS: if new leaders are to be added, this should be done early on.
NB: the same could be done with the thread on weather...
So my recomendation is the following:
1 - Establish a clear document (word or excel) with all the proposed changes for all leaders.
2 - send it to me (before July 11th or after Aug. 1st, I'll be on vacation and unavailable in between)
3 - I'll inform you of all the consequences of the changes, and in particularly all files to be modified (usually excel DBs)
4 - You'll be doing the modifications requested
5 - Once OK, Pocus gets everything ready to exported. A version is made for you to test possible (almost certain) loopholes and bugs
6 - Once all the process is done, it becomes official (and you'll get the credits!) and goes to the following patch...
PS: if new leaders are to be added, this should be done early on.
NB: the same could be done with the thread on weather...
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
Pocus,
I have a question specifically about C. Hamilton and R. Milroy. Both are 2 stars given to you right at the start of the april 61' scenario. From my understanding neither held a rank above brigadier general insofar as a field command was concerned. Though having 2 2 star generals (with decent stats comprativly to the 3 stars you have) give you corps options very early in the game and is a huge benefit. Are there things like this that are intentional and changing them will upset the balance intended?
If there changed should they be replaced with some other 2 star generals? Does anyone off hand know when the Union first started using the Corps Organization, and who the first Corps commanders were?
I have a question specifically about C. Hamilton and R. Milroy. Both are 2 stars given to you right at the start of the april 61' scenario. From my understanding neither held a rank above brigadier general insofar as a field command was concerned. Though having 2 2 star generals (with decent stats comprativly to the 3 stars you have) give you corps options very early in the game and is a huge benefit. Are there things like this that are intentional and changing them will upset the balance intended?
If there changed should they be replaced with some other 2 star generals? Does anyone off hand know when the Union first started using the Corps Organization, and who the first Corps commanders were?
-
Jabberwock
- Posts: 2204
- Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 12:12 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA
- Contact: ICQ
Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests