Union Leader Modifications

[McNaughton]

The main thing I like here is the reduction of Union General statistics. There were just too many 'average' choices that I never felt I was hard pressed to put a sub-par commander in an important role.

Regarding 'god generals' like Jackson, I think that the whole needs, and is being taken account for over a few isolated incidents. Not every general is perfect. What makes ACW good is that you have general's with statistics, (strategic, attack, defense), plus you gain valuable traits that affect them positively or negatively in specific situations. Jackson, for example, would be a good Corps Commander, yet I could see him become similar to Hood if ever given control of a very large independent force (Jackson's independent commands rarely got over 10 000 men).

Some commanders are good leaders, some are better at being led, some just faced bad luck, some were truely incompetent.

[PDH]

There are many myths about leaders in the Civil War, many of these come from the fighting of the war in the decades following the war. Longstreet joined the Republicans, and so his memory gets tarnished - Jackson dies accidently at about the high water mark in the East, and so (well, along with his Virginian roots) annoints him as a battlefield saint.

Neither were saints, but both could and did perform great feats and rather lousy antics. Longstreet is remembered as a "defensive" general, Jackson as "offensive" but Longstreets greatest moments came in the offensive - 2nd Bull Run, Gettysburg, Wilderness; Jackson triumphed in the defensive at 2nd bull run and numerous times in the Valley (operational offensive, tactical defensive).

Who is right, who is wrong?

[Jabberwock]

This is true. Jackson was brilliant, driven, and lucky (until Chancellorsville). You could say his aggressiveness and luck were two sides of one coin.

His tactical performance at Kernstown was lousy. Poor preparation and intelligence. His troops were outflanked and out of ammunition. If Garnett had not retreated without orders, Jackson would probably have lost half his command, or more. But because of the impression his aggressiveness there made in minds of Federal commanders, it turned into a strategic victory.

Richard Garnett was a good brigadier, who might have gone on to greater things, but he was unlucky in commanding under Jackson. If he were in the game, what kind of numbers would he get?

[frodon]

I rate Sigel as 3-0-0. I removed his Training Officer trait and replaced it with Recruiting Officer. He had decent initiative, but it only served to bring him closer to defeat in the field. However, he could be counted upon to increase enlistments in the German immigrant community, hence the recruiting trait.

I have studied Sigel for some time and historians seems to have underrated him. IMHO he was definitely not worse than the average union generals.
But a lot of West Pointers seems to have been jealous that Sigel became a Major General early in the war, and his reputation has suffered since.

Recruiting officer is a good trait. Might consider artillerist as well. Sigel did a superb job in directing the artillery at Pea Ridge. And he certainly deserves more than 0/0 offensive/defensive ratings...

Stephen Engle has written an excellent biograpgy of Sigel, which is reccomended for everyone interested in Germans in the civil war or the trans-mississippi theatre...

[McNaughton]

I have studied Sigel for some time and historians seems to have underrated him. IMHO he was definitely not worse than the average union generals.
But a lot of West Pointers seems to have been jealous that Sigel became a Major General early in the war, and his reputation has suffered since.

Recruiting officer is a good trait. Might consider artillerist as well. Sigel did a superb job in directing the artillery at Pea Ridge. And he certainly deserves more than 0/0 offensive/defensive ratings...

Stephen Engle has written an excellent biograpgy of Sigel, which is reccomended for everyone interested in Germans in the civil war or the trans-mississippi theatre...

Something I said earlier (I believe) about Sigel is that his good performance was while he was at a junior rank. How about reducing his statistics to 0-0 in relation to his Major and Lieutenant General ranks? He did seem to be unable to effectively lead his corps in battle. 3-1-1 is the 'average' ranking, meaning anything lower is sub-par. I would rate Sigel to be a low-level Union general, hardly at the average, while commanding forces larger than a Division.

Rate him as 3-1-1 for Brigadier General, with the Recruiting Officer trait, but, since he was adored by the men who served him, I think that something in regards to improving troop morale for troops serving under him would be good as well. Sigel had a popular following, and strong politics behind him.

Sigel - Brigadier
3-1-1
Recruiting Officer

Sigel - Major and Lieutenant General
2-0-1
Recruiting Officer
*Charismatic or Strong Morale

Siegel was next to useless as a corps/army commander, defeated heartily, and generally incompetently while in command of larger forces. Probably promoted beyond his means (like Burnside). The 'bait' to have you promote him to Major General is the extra trait he gets, otherwize, players will just keep him as a Brigadier General.

[caranorn]

Note, Sigel already led a corps at Pea Ridge, so the differing stats at differing rank levels probably doesn't work after all.

[McNaughton]

Counternote, the entire Union force at Pea Ridge was 10 000 men, with Siegel commanding probably around 5000 men, making him more align to commanding a division's worth of troops. On paper, he commanded a corps, in reality, a division. What matters is his ability to command Division or Corps sized forces, he did reasonably well commanding 5000, horribly commanding more.

[PDH]

Sigel is an excellent example of just how hard it is to mod leader statistics well. To some he has been unfairly maligned (especially when leading smaller sized forces), to others he was always an incompetant hack. As mentioned before, others also get this treatment - A.S. Johnston for instance - and most representations of a leader become footballs to kick around.

Thomas springs to mind. To some, especially given his preparations at Nashville, he was afflicted by the worst kind of "slows" and needed to be basically threatened with removal before he would attack. However, others have pointed out that his integration of new units alongs with factors such as the weather and season meant that he had to be methodical. Certainly he had been capable of good movement before, and when he attacked it was a mightly blow to the Army of Tennessee. I personally am of two minds concerning him, perhaps as an army commander he was "slower," but he also seemed to be fully capable of a brilliant and driven two day attack.

Just some thoughts.

[McNaughton]

Yes and no to the above. AGEOD has given us some very powerful tools in which to model the effects of characters in ACW.

#1. Combat Statistics, you have Strategic (ability to be an active commander), Offensive and Defensive (general attack and defense) statistics.

Most games just leave it here, with general numeric stats for generals. But...

#2. Each commander can have up to 4 distinct traits affecting them in specific situations positively or negatively.

More still!

#3. Different statistics for different ranks! You can have a general great as a low ranking Brigadier, but sucky as a Major General, reflecting on their ability to command larger numbers of troops.

#4. Seniority and Politics, affecting your use of these commanders! You now are encouraged to use and promote 'sucky' commanders!

#5. Command system, a commander now affects subordinates to their command (in positive and negative ways). You could have someone who is good at following orders, but poor at giving them (or vice versa).

We have so much flexibility here that we can represent just about every aspect of a commander. I think with enough discussion and thinking about specific commanders we can come to some conclusions.

--EXAMPLE--

If we take Thomas.

We can rate him according to...

How well he commanded large vs small forces
How well he defended vs attacked
How well he commanded other formations
How he was looked upon by others
etc...

Take a look at my earlier summary of Joseph Hooker.

On the surface, it appears that he was a totally incapable Army Commander, due to his disastrous battle at Chancellorsville. However, it was pretty easy to decipher him to discover that it wasn't the fact he was a poor commander, but other aspects.

Hooker didn't defend well. His defensive battles (2nd Bull Run, Chancellorsville) weren't very well fought. His offensive battles tended to result in him retaining more prestige (even if the attack failed, it was because primarily of the situation, not his command).

Since we cannot fully model how Hooker lost his nerve at Chancellorsville, and that afterwards he fought very well out West, it is noted that quite possibly it wasn't command that caused him problems, but the situation. Hooker's defensive rating was lowered substantially, representing his inability to mount an effective defense. He can still easily win at Lookout Mountain later in the war as a Lieutenant General Rank, but he will still be defeated in a defensive battle against Lee at Chancellorsville.

Since Hooker attacked well before and after Chancellorsville, planned Chancellorsville meticulously and brilliantly, and executed it flawlessly until the moment of engagement, we can determine that Hooker's behaviour there was specific, and based on situation (fighting defensively). It can be extrapolated that he was a superb strategist, and attacker, but, not very good commanding an army on the defensive. The stats can then reflect this, and a historic representation, in game, can be done.

So, we must look at each problem general, and figure out all of their situations, and try and match up the situation to a specific factor we can modify. There are a lot of things we can do, and I think it can be done to get a good representation.

[PDH]

My point was not that a game cannot model a leader - ACW clearly can - but that the argument itself about what a leader was, how they should be rated, is the crux of the problem. Getting to the point of modeling is where the bloodshed lies.

The passion that is still there about some leaders, Less vs Grant for instance, makes this task nearly impossible.

In the end, I suppose my observations are not too helpful - but the historian in me just wanted to pipe up that the "facts" concerning variousl leaders are still fought over, with some major dissent.

[will b]

Is the mod okay to use with version 1.05f?

[Winfield S. Hancock]

As far as I know, the answer is yes it is compatible. However, I havent been able to test this yet as am on a cruise ship in Alaska right now. I would think everything is fine, but backup and use at your own risk.

[McNaughton]

Someone missing is...

John E. Wool

Brigadier 1861, then Major General in 1862, retiring in 1863. Regular army Brigadier General, he commanded the forces which occupied Fort Monroe (currently, Butler is rated as commanding here, but took command after Wool left), and commanded operations in the Penninsula (and surrounding area) before and after McClellan's operations there, moving on to garrison duty (quelling the draft riots). Retires in 1863 after 50 years of service. Don't know how he should be rated, but he was generally successful in his roles.

Starts off at Fort Monroe
3-1-1 (average general)
Occupier

[Dogrobber]

Gen. Hancock & Stonewall I just wanted to let you know great job on the leader mod. Playing the USA is more historical since it forces you to use bad leaders in '61 & early '62. Also it prevents the ahistorical formation of corps at least from the Union perspective in '61. Will you be updating your leader mod for 1.06? Straightening out the leaders to appear in a more historical timeline & with appropriate ranks is the only "punchlist" item I can see on this most excellent game.

[Winfield S. Hancock]

Dogrobber,

Thanks for the kind words. I have just returned from my vacation and am working on updating the mod for 1.06 right now. I will post the new files as soon as I am finished.

[tagwyn]

Old Pete was Lee's hammer. He personally won at least two major battles (
Chickamauga and 2nd Bull Run) with his timely and unstoppable attacks. He was a great general both on offensive and defensive. Tag

[tagwyn]

I am not changing any ratings for any general unless Pocus agrees. This is his game, not yours. Tag

[tagwyn]

Prince de Polecat??? LOL Are you kidding? It is close as to which smells worst: Polecat or Skunk!! Tag

[Winfield S. Hancock]

Tag,

I respect your views regarding not wanting to change any of the generals ratings. That is your choice.

However, I disagree with what seems to be your other premise, which is that we should not be moddding the general's ratings, when you state that the game is Pocus' and not ours. Of course, he is the designer, developer, programmer, mastermind, etc, and is worthy of tremendous praise for bringing about what I feel to be the best computer wargame in many years. But your post implies that it might somehow be wrong or disrespectful of Pocus for us to mod the game or change the leader's ratings. I dont think Pocus would agree with that. While he may not endorse any changes or make them official, he certainly does not seem to be against modding. In fact, he has offered helpful hints in modding and made all the databases and the like accessible to aid modders. In fact, if Pocus did not want to allow his design to be modded, it would be very easy for him to have hardcoded many more items such as leaders and units, than he did.

So, dont change any ratings in your game if that is what you desire, but please dont think that modding the game by changing leader ratings is somehow an unwarranted intrusion on a game that is not 'ours'.

[McNaughton]

I am not changing any ratings for any general unless Pocus agrees. This is his game, not yours. Tag

I kind of wonder why Pocus is adamant at releasing elements to the game from hardcoded in the EXE ported into moddable TXT files explicitly for modders to allow them to tweak values then..

[Pocus]

Don't start a flame war here please

First this is a team work, not mine. Philippe Thibaut did all historical research and a good half of the design, not even speaking on how he does the administrative works, relieving me of this burden so I can code without interference. And let's not forget the artist (Sandra), François (doing admin and web), Ludovic (doing web and marketing), Sunray (doing docs) etc.

Ok, back to the topic, you have the right to edit all the data exposed in the game. If they are exposed, this is because we don't mind you tweak them. If you do a particularly good mod, then we can even incorporate officially the changes, because there is no way we have enough time to find the perfect data and game balances, in all aspects of the game, for something as complex as the ACW. So your input, as players and historical buffs are always welcome.

I hope I don't disapoint you Tag, but a community, doing tweaks and mods, is always a good sign for a company.

[Rafiki]

It's tempting to draw parallells to Paradox and their games; I'll be the first to say that there are some really odd modifications that I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole, but there are a whole lot of mods that players say give them a better gaming experience (and having used some of those mods, I count myself among them). Also, there can be little doubt that Paradox have benefitted from having various tweaks and twists tested though the various mods

[Korrigan]

Hi all,

As you may know from the Forum archives, I was the AGEod guy who coordinated the General rating workshop. (link here)

It's been a tough work but thanks to community work I think we did a fairly decent job. Kudos to Chris0827, Franck7530 and Rickd79. These guys rocked.

Being French, I had no special emotion in assessing these generals but I understand how this can go personnal (you would not want to read some of the first messages of the French team working on Napoleon's Campaigns!!).

As this has been stated, we were working solely on generals achievements in given situations. We did not take in account how they were seen at the time. The rule was to provide facts, and solely facts, when making your case in favour of a general. Indeed, the Civil War was a very political conflict, and some generals have been dis or celebrated for propaganda or political reasons during or after the conflict. So, the only thing we can agree on are facts.

I've been reading your work with a lot of interest. I think you're using the good method, and there is no reason IMHO why our early work should be better than yours based on experience. Thanks to a collective reflexion you can only improve it. I only wish to have more time to take part in it.

Please, keep it on!

Korrigan

[Winfield S. Hancock]

Pocus and Korrigan,

Thanks for your input and kind words on the topic. You will have no flame war from me.

I am doing modding work because I absolutely love this already excellent game, and the mod for me makes my personal gaming experience that much better. It has been my assumption that with a small design team, only so much time can be allocated to any particular segment of the game's development, such as general's ratings, unit ratings, etc. While the work done was excellent and thorough, you could literally spend years doing further research and refining and tweaking it. However, if the developers did this, the game would never be released and become vaporware such as 'Road to Moscow' or a couple of Matrix titles I can think of that have been in development for what seems to be a decade. So the game is released with good work overall in every area, and Pocus makes available to us much of the database that we as his customers can mod and tweak and refine to an even higher level. I am very appreciative of this.

I am very much a Civil War fanatic, and have read and researched extensively on the Union side. As such, while I thought the initial general ratings were pretty good, after playing several times, I felt that they could be refined even further, and that some leaders who were promoted to a higher rank historically needed to be able to achieve that rank in the game as well. Finally, I wanted the ratings to reflect the great difficulties the Union had in finding competent leaders during the first 18 months of the war, and then the gradual emergence of an officer corps that by the end of the war, exceeded that of their remaining Confederate contemporaries.

I am continuing to work on and refine the mod. I am currently updating it for compatibility with 1.06, and adding a few new tweaks, such as further splitting up leader arrival times, and changing the arrival locations for some leaders so that the historical leaders of the Army of the Tennessee show up in the Cairo and the West, and the historical leaders of the Army of the Ohio and the Army of the Cumberland show up in Louisville and the upper mid-south. This should be a boon to players who will no longer have to shuttle a large number of generals from out East to Western commands, if those generals historically held a western command. I consider these changes to be good improvements to historical accuracy that should make gameplay even more enjoyable. As before, I will post the mod up here when it is completed, so anyone who wants to try it is welcome. And if Pocus and Korrigan feel that any of the changes are worthy enough of including in an official patch or database, I would indeed be flattered. Regardless, I know that my personal gameplay experience has been even further enhanced and I have enjoyed doing this modding work.

[runyan99]

In a recent 1.05 game, I noticed that N. Lyon is senior to E. Sumner, meaning I paid a penalty if I promoted Sumner first. That doesn't seem right to me, as Sumner was one of the oldest generals, and would have replaced McC during the Peninsular campaign had anything happened to McC. McC even wrote something to the effect of 'must take care of myself, Sumner would ruin everything in a few days'.

Anyway, you might want to ensure Sumner has a high seniority.

Are you doing any work on the existing Confederate generals? M. Bonham corps commander is still driving me nuts, and Theopilus Holmes needs to start as a brigadier.

[Winfield S. Hancock]

Attached is Union leader mod beta version 0.95 for AACW 1.06. This mod has been tested to successfully load and run the game without crashes or errors. I still consider it a beta as I have not given it an extensive test myself in a game situation, but I believe it to be a reliable build. Please report any errors so I can fix them.

In this version, I kept all previous changes plus added a few new features, such as changing the arrival locations for leaders based on their historical theater of appearance. So no longer will you have to ship guys such as WHL Wallace and AJ Smith out west from an initial appearance in DC. Instead, they appear where they did historically. I also put in a few other tweaks, deleted a few leaders, and made some modifications with a few promotions. Also, after much reflection, I took a new approach on Franz Sigel as suggested in some well thought out posts here. Sigel now is better as a one star than a 2 or 3 star. However, to keep players from not promoting him, he is now promoted to his 2 star rank automatically, reflecting political pressure from the German community on the Lincoln Administration. Finally, Sigel is given high seniority and a high political cost at the 2 star rank, meaning it will be somewhat painful for the Union player not to use him in a field command and to promote others ahead of him. A complete list of all changes for this version so far is found below. I would highlight a key change in the increase of leader casualties. There is a new file in the mod, combats.opt, that needs to be copied and pasted into your AACW/ACW/Settings directory. As always, back of this and every other original file before putting the modded files into your game directories. A reminder from earlier versions -- when copying the models and units files into the game data directories, first delete all existing files in both of those directories (after first backing them up elsewhere) and paste in the new modded files. This procedure will help avoid any problems with duplicate numbers that could cause your game to crash.

Finally, I am calling this version 0.95 as I am going to do some work on the Confederate leader arrival areas and dates, and perhaps correct a few other issues. It is my goal to have these changes implemented sometime tomorrow, work schedule permitting. For the most part, I am going to leave the leader ratings alone, as Stonewall is the expert in this area. When his changes to Rebel leader ratings are ready, they will be incorporated into the mod.

As always, all suggestions and comments are welcomed.

Other Changes for 1.06

Removed California Brigade as it is one and the same with the Philadelphia Brigade

Renamed Old Brigade to the Old Vermont Brigade

Filled in correct regiments for Eagle Brigade – 8th Wisconsin, 26th Illinois, 47th Illinois, 11th Missouri

Reduced C. Hamilton to 1 star only

Reduced L. Rousseau to 1 star only

Joe Hooker arrival date changed to early October (10/11/61) to reflect when his division was historically incorporated into the AOP.

John McClernand arrival state changed to Illinois

US Grant arrival location changed to Alexander IL.

Franz Sigel arrival moved up between 9/1/61 and 10/31/61 to reflect his role in early actions in Missouri.

Franz Sigel automatically promoted to 2-stars in Sigel rated at 3-1-1 with recruiting officer and artillerist trait at 1 star rank. At 2 and 3 star rank, Sigel rated at 2-0-1 with recruiting officer and strong morale trait. Sigel’s political value increased to 25 due to popularity with his men and the German community. Seniority increased to three at the two star rank, to make it harder to promote more capable commanders past Sigel without penalty.

Edward O.C. Ord arrival area changed to Alexander IL.

Phil Sheridan arrival area changed from Missouri to Kentucky

Winfield S. Hancock arrival moved up to 10/1/62

James Wilson arrival area changed from DC to Alexander, IL

Lew Wallace arrival area changed to Indianapolis

Bull Nelson and Robert Milroy now arrive in Cincinnati. Arrival dates postponed to July/Aug 1861 range

Stephen Hurlbut now arrives in Chicago IL. Arrival dates postponed to July/Aug 1861 range.

WHL Wallace and Benjamin Prentiss now appear in Cairo in January 1862.

Thomas Crittenden now appears in Louisville or Cincinnati

John McArthur and AJ Smith now appear in Cairo

Thomas Wood, Lovell Rousseau, Orsmby Mitchell, Joseph Reynolds and Horatio Van Cleve now appear in Louisville or Cincinnati

Frank Herron now appears in St. Louis

Francis Blair now appears in St. Louis

John Caldwallader removed, never had a significant field command

Grenville Dodge, Speed Fry, Sooy Smith, Jacob Lauman, Peter Osterhaus, and James Veatch now appear in Cairo.

David Stanley and Richard Johnson now appear in Louisville or Cincinnati

William Emory and James Mower now appear in Cairo

Edward Sumner, Erasmus Keyes, and Samuel Heintzelman all promoted to 2 star rank in mid February to reflect their historical roles as the initial corps commanders of the Army of the Potomac along with McDowell and Banks.

FitzJohn Porter and William B. Franklin promoted to 2 star rank in late May 1862, reflecting McClellan’s creation of the Fifth and Sixth Corps of the AOP.

Thomas Sherman added as leader, rated 3-1-1 with the Quickly Angered trait, appears in Cairo with mid 62 Division generals.

Alvin Hovey added as a leader, rated 3-2-2 with the Recruiting Officer trait. Appears in Cairo with mid 62 Division generals.

Joseph Totten removed as active general, he only supervised construction of various fortifications and held no field commands.

Calvin Pratt removed as he never served in a higher capacity than brigade commander before resigning the service.

Combat made more bloody for leaders. Number of sides on casualty die reduced to 350 from 500.

[Pocus]

Not tested, but the list of changes look good and really interesting! We will have to discuss of the opportunity to incorporate your changes officially, Philippe Thibaut, Korrigan (Ludovic) and I in late august/september. PhilThib did all scenarios setup, so we must be sure that some of your changes don't go against some events or setup decisions though.

[runyan99]

Finally, I am calling this version 0.95 as I am going to do some work on the Confederate leader arrival areas and dates, and perhaps correct a few other issues. It is my goal to have these changes implemented sometime tomorrow, work schedule permitting. For the most part, I am going to leave the leader ratings alone, as Stonewall is the expert in this area. When his changes to Rebel leader ratings are ready, they will be incorporated into the mod.

Excellent. Once done, the leader mod is complete.

I for one have spent a lot of time with the Confederate chain of command, and I have to say I really don't have an issue at all with any of the stats. It's just the ranks and arrival times that need some attention.

Feel free to consult my previous comments on this issue.

[Bodders]

This looks excellent, I'm going to start a campaign with the Union to see the full effect and will let you know if I experience any bugs.

I quite agree that the main changes the Confederacy require are arrival dates and rank ones - the ratings are, in general, excellent in this game I think

I know it's been covered before but Polk as the only two star commander at the start would probably be best (shifting him east to form a corps will waste western opportunities so I wouldn't be concerned about that). The others should all be one star and appear embedded with their brigades (not sure why Longstreet is later currently). The only other decision then is whether to bar Confederate division command for longer or allow this earlier to help the AI. Personally, I think the AI has enough penalties that it'll help a USA AI against a CSA player more than it hinders a CSA AI against a USA player. Big decision though

[Pdubya64]

First off, thanks for taking point on this project- I know there are many who look forward to optimized leader files. I also feel you and Stonewall have adopted as much of an "arms length" policy as is humanly possible when it comes to a subject as divisive as historical performance. Also, you have incorporated well thought out and researched input where appropriate. Kudos!

On to the latest...

Joe Hooker arrival date changed to early October (10/11/61) to reflect when his division was historically incorporated into the AOP.

Whew! I was wondering if I was the only CSA player seriously sweating "Fighting Joe" arriving on the eastern front in early June of '61! Cripes, my boys in Winchester are barely half strength! Typically, the AI has him try to retake or occupy Harpers Ferry, WV pronto (which is a no-brainer), but having him riding around on the front line thumbing his rather long nose at you is too much... Not to mention his habit of nibbling at Winchester itself if given the chance (i.e., the CSA didn't take Harpers Ferry).

A question for you Hancock- after looking at the redistribution of the Union leaders (which looks great), it got me thinking, is either Stonewall or yourself checking the CSA side of things to ensure that the Confederacy has at least some more leaders to help out in the West? The cupboard looks mighty bare at the moment...

Thanks for listening,
PW