runyan99 wrote:Here is an updated leader mod created with 1.07f. I suspect it would be compatible with any updated versions of 1.07 as well.
This is mostly Hancock's leader mod, but I did make a few changes. The major changes are for the eastern theatre in 1861.
First is the McClellan paradox. With McDowell in command of the army, and with better stats than McClellan, most players are not sending McClellan to the east at all because they don't need him. So, McClellan has been getting sent to Kentucky or Missouri most of the time by most players.
In this version of the mod, McDowell has been reduced to two star rank. In game terms, McDowell is just a Major General in charge of 4 or 5 poorly organized divisions.
CSA Changes
Joe Johnston's strategic rating reduced to 2-2-4. Much was expected of Old Joe, which he never delivered. His tactics were always retreating and delaying, and the problem with Johnston was he never seemed able or willing to make a counterattack when necessary.
McNaughton wrote:Technically, McDowell was just a Brigadier General in 1861, so if you are going to reduce rank, reduce him to a brigadier general.
A low strategic rating symbolizes a general who is 'slow to act', or who has 'little control' over their command, resulting in poor reaction of the forces under their command. This does not reflect Johnston's lack of offensive aggression, but creates a Johnston who has a lack of competence, and ability to command.
McNaughton wrote:Technically, McDowell was just a Brigadier General in 1861, so if you are going to reduce rank, reduce him to a brigadier general.
McNaughton wrote:Hmmm. I don't aggree that he 'did not deliver'. He was probably the best defensive general in the Confederacy. His operations as commander of the Army of the Tennessee, as well as the Army of the West were very successful. His delaying tactics were working, as he was winning the battles, at tremendous odds and inflicting substantial casualties without experiencing many of his own. To me, that's what you do when you are outnumbered 2-3 to 1. I would not call the battles of the Penninsula a 'defeat' for Johnston either. Frankly, he performed better than Lee did, when you calculate the state of the army after their term as field commander during this campaign. The battle Johnston was wounded in was the critical battle that stopped McClellan's advance. Johnston gained the initiative for Lee, who took it and lost 20 000 Confederate lives during the seven days battle (we will never know what Johnston would have accomplished).
He didn't meet Davis' impression on how the war should be fought, but, Davis also kept Hood and Bragg in command of the Army of the Tennessee which effectively destroyed that formation, and whittled away any chance of military success out West. Frankly, the only person who really had a good picture of the proper strategy out west was Johnston!
To rate his strategic rating to sub-average makes one of the potentially 'best' Confederate generals, the worst 3-star general. Nobody will give him a job anywhere, he will be the 'new McClellan' who gets shuttled off to Arkansas.
A low strategic rating means that he is inactive in both offense and defence, and it would be next to impossible to have him replicate the historic successes he accomplished. If you are to do anything, it would be to increase his defensive rating, keep his offensive rating at two (remember Bentonville, against all odds he nearly crushed a massively superior force), and his strategic rating at above average (meaning he will be active more than not).
A low strategic rating symbolizes a general who is 'slow to act', or who has 'little control' over their command, resulting in poor reaction of the forces under their command. This does not reflect Johnston's lack of offensive aggression, but creates a Johnston who has a lack of competence, and ability to command. Johnston reacted quickly, and performed more than capably, meaning that his strategic rating should be above average.
It was Johnston who wanted Pemberton to leave Vicksburg, unite with Johnston and then outnumber and crush Grant, but since Johnston wasn't given 'official command' over Pemberton, his requests and advice were ignored (resulting in the loss of the Army of Mississippi).
Frankly, I view Johnston as a very capable strategic commander, who was well aware of the situation but was always hampered by Davis who didn't give him enough official power to do anything until it was too late. In my opinion, he should be second in ability to Lee, and in some cases, much more of a 'balanced' military commander. Johnston didn't take the same risks as Lee, which meant he didn't have the same spectacular victories, but, he also didn't have the same crushing defeats (indeed, Johnston kept his army in better condition than Lee did in 1865, even though they were both up against relentless and overwhelming force).
I personally believe that Johnston should be the antithesis of Bragg. Both should have a high strategic rating, but one is designed to attack at all costs (Bragg) while one is to rely on defensive actions (Johnston). I personally think that Bragg is rated too high in stats over Johnston as is (strategic ratings should be the same), and that Johnston is not rated as well as he should be. Johnston's problem wasn't ability, but political connections, he simply didn't have any!
Code: Select all
8:50:34 PM [Error ] TUnitDef.GetFirstModel 859 L. Rousseau has no models registered, check if alias parsing was done correctly for the models of this unit.
8:50:34 PM [Critical ] TGameSim.ExportLedger1 - Units Game A Exception caught Violation d'accès à l'adresse 004A9A5E dans le module 'AACW.exe'. Lecture de l'adresse 000000BC ExportStep: 0
GShock wrote:I wanted to ask, if the leader mod is historical, why doesn't Ageod consider auto-implementing into next versions?
At present time, in Xmas patch, are there any leader mod features inside (coming from past versions) ?
richfed wrote:
- A doubled 1st Tennessee Cavalry unit appears in Knoxville early in the game. I thought this had been fixed sometime earlier by Ageod.
- Playing as the CSA, I see that certain units do not appear in the reinforment panel until Oct. '61, the same turn as divisions are allowed. i.e. - only 2 Marines [used to be 4], 3 Columbiad artillery [used to be 4], no big river guns in Georgia, one less Cavalry regiment, etc. Everything becomes "normal" in October ...
Pdubya64 wrote:I think initially there was sentiment to include the leader mod, but as we all know, how each leader gets "rated" is a very divisive subject. It leads me to believe they ended up deciding to just leave it as a separate mod to try and please the most people.
If you like it, use it. If not, no worries. Much easier for AGEOD that way.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests