(pun intended).
There will never be universal agreement, but from my view, the leader mod is a huge improvement over the originals.
So I wanted to gauge the groups opinion.
Are there any other Generals about whose ratings/attributes you disagree?
-
AndrewKurtz
- Posts: 1167
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:49 am
- Location: Greenville, SC
Disagreement on General Ratings Poll
I'm curious. It was stated (very unofficially) that the thing holding back incorporating the leader MOD into the game is disgreement on some of the ratings. But from what I read, the only disagreement is on Joe Johnston and the disagreement is from a lone wolf (pun intended).
There will never be universal agreement, but from my view, the leader mod is a huge improvement over the originals.
So I wanted to gauge the groups opinion.
Are there any other Generals about whose ratings/attributes you disagree?
(pun intended).
There will never be universal agreement, but from my view, the leader mod is a huge improvement over the originals.
So I wanted to gauge the groups opinion.
Are there any other Generals about whose ratings/attributes you disagree?
-
Franciscus
- Posts: 4571
- Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:31 pm
- Location: Portugal
The problem is more to get someone from the team find the time to iterate thru all the files and see if everything is ok, you can screw badly events just by renaming a general one letter or moving his entry date one turn.
The ramp up on division number can be incorporated easily and soon though, as we wanted to do that, Philippe and I but did not by lack of time.
The ramp up on division number can be incorporated easily and soon though, as we wanted to do that, Philippe and I but did not by lack of time.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
I find the game much more challenging and enjoyable with the leader mod as published. Not just 'ratings war', but the reductions in rank making you get corps leaders the "old fashioned way: they EARN it"
there are plenty of options available (difficulty, activation, fow, stragegic 'jumps', etc. etc.) to allow you to adjust things.
I say we (users and modders) test it like a beta, report issues, and get it 'officialized'. I'm sure we can find someone in the community to do the 'drudgery' to get the updates completed....
...and as now, anyone not liking the ratings can mod their own.
I would suggest, however, that the current version be packaged as a mod, as some may not like the 'improved edition'.....
there are plenty of options available (difficulty, activation, fow, stragegic 'jumps', etc. etc.) to allow you to adjust things.
I say we (users and modders) test it like a beta, report issues, and get it 'officialized'. I'm sure we can find someone in the community to do the 'drudgery' to get the updates completed....
...and as now, anyone not liking the ratings can mod their own.
I would suggest, however, that the current version be packaged as a mod, as some may not like the 'improved edition'.....
AndrewKurtz wrote:I'm curious. It was stated (very unofficially) that the thing holding back incorporating the leader MOD into the game is disgreement on some of the ratings. But from what I read, the only disagreement is on Joe Johnston and the disagreement is from a lone wolf
You need to go back and reread that thread carefully. A number of us disgreed with Runyan's bogus misrating of Joe Johnston, including me, McNaughton, and Breckinridge. More importantly, historians disagree with it.
If you restore Joe Johnston's rating I would say make it official. Otherwise, no way.
__________________
"If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast." - General William Tecumseh Sherman, USA
"If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast." - General William Tecumseh Sherman, USA
I also would put my two cents worth in to support incorporating the Leader Mod into the official game.
What is needed to make this happen and is it something someone from the community could do?
What is needed to make this happen and is it something someone from the community could do?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
'Nous voilà, Lafayette'
Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917
'Nous voilà, Lafayette'
Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
Gray_Lensman wrote:Let's put this in perspective. Obviously, you only disagree with the ratings given to Joe Johnston. Now using your reasoning, if only one person disagreed with a particular RR change in just one location of the map, you would say "no way"?
What an amazingly flawed analogy! Let's visit reality instead of fantasy: if a number of people AND THE HISTORY BOOKS disagreed with a particular RR change in just one location of the map, you would say "no way"? Yes, I would say just that...and so would you, Gray Lensman, for you are also a man who seeks accuracy.
Gray_Lensman wrote:Much as I respect yours or anyone elses choice as to how they want to play the game, to object to an entire MOD for just one item which you yourself can change to suit yourself seems a little bit out of proportion.
Not so, for to loudly object to blatant error and rank injustice is the task of any man who loves both truth and justice. Would you not object publicly if someone released a mod with rail lines completely wrong? Of course you would, and I have done the same thing with a flawed and biased misrating.
__________________
"If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast." - General William Tecumseh Sherman, USA
"If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast." - General William Tecumseh Sherman, USA
Let's not go totally overboard over what you consider to be a misrepresentation of one leader in Runyan's mod. You're entitled to your opinion, but don't denigrate Runyan and the substantial amount of work he has put into his mod over what you perceive to be a great injustice. He has stated his reasons for the rating(s), and the only option I think you two have is to agree to disagree.
Oops, looks like Wikipedia is full of rank injustice and blatant error too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Johnston
Joseph Eggleston Johnston (February 3, 1807 – March 21, 1891) was a career U.S. Army officer and one of the most senior generals in the Confederate States Army during the American Civil War. His effectiveness was undercut by tensions with President Jefferson Davis, but he also suffered from a lack of aggressiveness and victory eluded him in every campaign he personally commanded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Johnston
Hi Wolf,I have not read Newtons book on Johnston and the Defence of Richmond,but I have read his McPhersons Ridge,and its a stinker.Full of many errors, such as his claim that Bufords Div. was armed with repeating rifles,when in fact they were armed with single shot carbines,saying that Devin was a brigadier when he was really only a col. showing a photograph and saying its of union dead on Mcphersons Ridge when for thirty years its been proven to be southern dead on the Rose Farm and showing a photograph of the Wardsworth statue and claiming its Buford, and thats just to name a few of the many errors in this work.I would hope that his research on the Johnstone book is better,but I won't be spending my money to find out.
In lieu of spending significantly more cash to get his audio course on CD, I am thinking of picking up a used copy of 'Leaders of the Lost Cause: New Perspectives on the Confederate High Command' by Gary W. Gallagher and Joseph T. Glatthaar. In his 'Robert E. Lee and His High Command' course, I know Gallagher has one lecture titled 'Gifted but Flawed—J. E. Johnston and Beauregard', so I don't think Gallagher is a Johnston fan either.
And Gallagher is an HISTORIAN (caps for Wolf).
And Gallagher is an HISTORIAN (caps for Wolf).
Hi!
Just my 2 cents
I am no expert on ACW (by far) but everyone is entitled to have and opinion...
Personally, i think Runyan is a little too harsh with Joe Johnstons on his mod, BUT… still think his work will be a very good official addition to the game.
It will be easier and most convenient for the comunity that some concerned players (maybe me included) manually edited that (or some other) general ratings to his liking/opinion that losing all the interesting work Runyan has made.
Anyway, this mod and Gray mod are very different.
That a RR line existed or not during the ACW era is something objective, a matter of fact that can be investigated and demonstrated by history books and documents, as Gray has done.
That Joe Johnston should be worthy of a 2, 4 or whatever strategy rating is something subjective, and depends on opinions.
One can look at all his battle performances and seen it as success, failure, or in between...
In this kind of things there is not absolute truth.
Luckily, one can easily mod one general rating.
Sooo... if this topic is some kind of a poll, i vote for including Runyan work.
Even if i am not 100% convinced with his ratings, i think the mod definitely improve the "vanilla" settings.
Cheers!
Just my 2 cents
I am no expert on ACW (by far) but everyone is entitled to have and opinion...
Personally, i think Runyan is a little too harsh with Joe Johnstons on his mod, BUT… still think his work will be a very good official addition to the game.
It will be easier and most convenient for the comunity that some concerned players (maybe me included) manually edited that (or some other) general ratings to his liking/opinion that losing all the interesting work Runyan has made.
Anyway, this mod and Gray mod are very different.
That a RR line existed or not during the ACW era is something objective, a matter of fact that can be investigated and demonstrated by history books and documents, as Gray has done.
That Joe Johnston should be worthy of a 2, 4 or whatever strategy rating is something subjective, and depends on opinions.
One can look at all his battle performances and seen it as success, failure, or in between...
In this kind of things there is not absolute truth.
Luckily, one can easily mod one general rating.
Sooo... if this topic is some kind of a poll, i vote for including Runyan work.
Even if i am not 100% convinced with his ratings, i think the mod definitely improve the "vanilla" settings.
Cheers!
We are thinking of creating a community committee restrained to an handful of people to debate and double check if a mod or a part of it can be officialized.
Know though that the board must provide a near turnkey solution to AGEOD, as for AACW we don't have time to spend on endless refinements on historical data. As a reminder, I said that we will always spend time on:
a) fixing bugs
b) retrofiting features developed in game n+1 to game n
c) add AI improvements, if developed for a new project and if adaptable to AACW
So most of the members must have modding skills as we will ask you to check seriously the mod and edit the official database, under the supervision of the committee coordinator.
To be on the candidates list (it does not mean you will be accepted, we only want an handful of people) you must have at least one of this criteria:
a) have registered since at least 6 months
b) have published an AACW mod of importance
c) be nicknamed 'serial modder' in your title (approved automatically)
d) be Gray_Lensman (approved automatically)
e) Already a beta tester in one of ageod projects.
Know though that the board must provide a near turnkey solution to AGEOD, as for AACW we don't have time to spend on endless refinements on historical data. As a reminder, I said that we will always spend time on:
a) fixing bugs
b) retrofiting features developed in game n+1 to game n
c) add AI improvements, if developed for a new project and if adaptable to AACW
So most of the members must have modding skills as we will ask you to check seriously the mod and edit the official database, under the supervision of the committee coordinator.
To be on the candidates list (it does not mean you will be accepted, we only want an handful of people) you must have at least one of this criteria:
a) have registered since at least 6 months
b) have published an AACW mod of importance
c) be nicknamed 'serial modder' in your title (approved automatically)
d) be Gray_Lensman (approved automatically)
e) Already a beta tester in one of ageod projects.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Pocus wrote:To be on the candidates list (it does not mean you will be accepted, we only want an handful of people) you must have at least one of this criteria:
a) have registered since at least 6 months
b) have published an AACW mod of importance
c) be nicknamed 'serial modder' in your title (approved automatically)
d) be Gray_Lensman (approved automatically)
Excellent!
Sadly, I don't qualify, but I'm willing to do research and do 'tedious database entry' for the team.....
-
Franciscus
- Posts: 4571
- Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:31 pm
- Location: Portugal
Well, I do not qualify, and nevertheless doubt if I would have the sufficient spare time to do it (damn, I have a tremendous difficulty even to get spare time to play... ).
But I am thinking of asking Runyan permission to adapt his mod to a JSGME-compatible structure. I have been thinking and believe that AACW's structure (and indeed other Ageod games) is compatible. I also believe that the way Gray_Lensman has his files arranged is also compatible with JSGME.
I believe that this would go a long way towards simplifying how mods are implemented in AACW and maybe obviate the need to go to such a hassle as creating committees...
).
But I am thinking of asking Runyan permission to adapt his mod to a JSGME-compatible structure. I have been thinking and believe that AACW's structure (and indeed other Ageod games) is compatible. I also believe that the way Gray_Lensman has his files arranged is also compatible with JSGME.
I believe that this would go a long way towards simplifying how mods are implemented in AACW and maybe obviate the need to go to such a hassle as creating committees...
Franciscus wrote:Well, I do not qualify, and nevertheless doubt if I would have the sufficient spare time to do it (damn, I have a tremendous difficulty even to get spare time to play...
But I am thinking of asking Runyan permission to adapt his mod to a JSGME-compatible structure. I have been thinking and believe that AACW's structure (and indeed other Ageod games) is compatible. I also believe that the way Gray_Lensman has his files arranged is also compatible with JSGME.
I believe that this would go a long way towards simplifying how mods are implemented in AACW and maybe obviate the need to go to such a hassle as creating committees...
I just 'fixed' RR mod for JSGME. Simply had to add 'ACW' directory at the top....
I also did some JSGME comppatible 'fixes' for BoA mods, if anyone is interested.
Runyans leader mod, however, currently requires deleting two folders to avoid duplicate UID.
I'd be glad to help collaborate on compatibility work there, too. 
JSGME is really slick. I strongly suggest it be used for mod structures....
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
-
McNaughton
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
Personally, I believe that everything is relative...
If, as AGEOD has stated, that 3-1-1 is the 'average', nothing great, nothing poor, then a strategy rating of 2 or less is 'bad'. Personally, I believe that most generals in AACW are over-rated in their statistics, which makes the reduction of Johnston ill fitting for the entire scenario of commanders. However, if other generals have lowered ratings based upon the real situations (instead of a blanked history of the general), then the change to a strategy of 2 might seem more logical.
I have ranted about him before, and I will bring him up again, but, Hancock does not deserve the superb ratings he is currently given. He is rated, almost singlehandedly, on his performance at Gettysburg. While he was competent, and successful, a lot of his success is based upon Confederate failure. He was in a strong position, and saw it was strong, which means he is more than competent, but, his combat stats reflect a commander who makes a weak position strong (not recognizing a strong position as one). Frankly, there are too many 'good' generals out there. A competent general is 4-2-2 (always active and with some bonus), a competent general succeeds in a basic situation, a good/superb general succeeds against all odds. Too many generals who were competent, are rated as good/superb.
Many generals are over-stated in this way (in that they are highly rated based on success when everything went for them), which makes this reduction just for one commander ill fitting.
Johnston may have had a lack of aggression, but that may be explained by the reality of his situation. Lee, Bragg, AS Johnston, Hood, etc. were all aggressive, and in every case whittled down their force with little to no gain (each one of them had their own version of 'gettysburg'). Now, maybe J Johnston is rated as unaggressive in 'comparison' to those other prominent Confederate Generals, but, in comparison to a 'generic' commander in his position (odds against him) that they would be as 'defensive' as well? I fear that these ratings (for a lot of generals) are based upon taking static reports for generals, and ignoring situations, and that a lot of history is based upon comparison rather than reality. Realistically, McClellan and J Johnston can be compared, except that Johnston was actually against the odds that McClellan thought he was up against. McClellan defenders use this to justify his behaviour, why no justification for Johnston's behaviour?
In my opinion, to be unaggressive one has to ignore initiative or opportunity when it is brought upon them. Johnston, from what I have read, was always outnumbered and rarely given the support or freedom that Bragg or Lee maintained. While other confederate generals would have attacked in his place, that might be more based upon the fact that most top CSA generals were 'reckless', while Johnston was more 'balanced' (he did attack, and did so with competency and when the moment called for it). Johnston did not attack Sherman, primarily because doing so was foolish!
I fear that things are getting too far into 'comparision', that if someone wasn't as aggressive as Lee or Hood, they are seen as timid and passive (when, in my opinion, it was Lee and Hood who are the extremes).
If, as AGEOD has stated, that 3-1-1 is the 'average', nothing great, nothing poor, then a strategy rating of 2 or less is 'bad'. Personally, I believe that most generals in AACW are over-rated in their statistics, which makes the reduction of Johnston ill fitting for the entire scenario of commanders. However, if other generals have lowered ratings based upon the real situations (instead of a blanked history of the general), then the change to a strategy of 2 might seem more logical.
I have ranted about him before, and I will bring him up again, but, Hancock does not deserve the superb ratings he is currently given. He is rated, almost singlehandedly, on his performance at Gettysburg. While he was competent, and successful, a lot of his success is based upon Confederate failure. He was in a strong position, and saw it was strong, which means he is more than competent, but, his combat stats reflect a commander who makes a weak position strong (not recognizing a strong position as one). Frankly, there are too many 'good' generals out there. A competent general is 4-2-2 (always active and with some bonus), a competent general succeeds in a basic situation, a good/superb general succeeds against all odds. Too many generals who were competent, are rated as good/superb.
Many generals are over-stated in this way (in that they are highly rated based on success when everything went for them), which makes this reduction just for one commander ill fitting.
Johnston may have had a lack of aggression, but that may be explained by the reality of his situation. Lee, Bragg, AS Johnston, Hood, etc. were all aggressive, and in every case whittled down their force with little to no gain (each one of them had their own version of 'gettysburg'). Now, maybe J Johnston is rated as unaggressive in 'comparison' to those other prominent Confederate Generals, but, in comparison to a 'generic' commander in his position (odds against him) that they would be as 'defensive' as well? I fear that these ratings (for a lot of generals) are based upon taking static reports for generals, and ignoring situations, and that a lot of history is based upon comparison rather than reality. Realistically, McClellan and J Johnston can be compared, except that Johnston was actually against the odds that McClellan thought he was up against. McClellan defenders use this to justify his behaviour, why no justification for Johnston's behaviour?
In my opinion, to be unaggressive one has to ignore initiative or opportunity when it is brought upon them. Johnston, from what I have read, was always outnumbered and rarely given the support or freedom that Bragg or Lee maintained. While other confederate generals would have attacked in his place, that might be more based upon the fact that most top CSA generals were 'reckless', while Johnston was more 'balanced' (he did attack, and did so with competency and when the moment called for it). Johnston did not attack Sherman, primarily because doing so was foolish!
I fear that things are getting too far into 'comparision', that if someone wasn't as aggressive as Lee or Hood, they are seen as timid and passive (when, in my opinion, it was Lee and Hood who are the extremes).
McNaughton wrote:Personally, I believe that everything is relative...
If, as AGEOD has stated, that 3-1-1 is the 'average', nothing great, nothing poor, then a strategy rating of 2 or less is 'bad'. Personally, I believe that most generals in AACW are over-rated in their statistics, which makes the reduction of Johnston ill fitting for the entire scenario of commanders. However, if other generals have lowered ratings based upon the real situations (instead of a blanked history of the general), then the change to a strategy of 2 might seem more logical.
I have ranted about him before, and I will bring him up again, but, Hancock does not deserve the superb ratings he is currently given. He is rated, almost singlehandedly, on his performance at Gettysburg. While he was competent, and successful, a lot of his success is based upon Confederate failure. He was in a strong position, and saw it was strong, which means he is more than competent, but, his combat stats reflect a commander who makes a weak position strong (not recognizing a strong position as one). Frankly, there are too many 'good' generals out there. A competent general is 4-2-2 (always active and with some bonus), a competent general succeeds in a basic situation, a good/superb general succeeds against all odds. Too many generals who were competent, are rated as good/superb.
Many generals are over-stated in this way (in that they are highly rated based on success when everything went for them), which makes this reduction just for one commander ill fitting.
Johnston may have had a lack of aggression, but that may be explained by the reality of his situation. Lee, Bragg, AS Johnston, Hood, etc. were all aggressive, and in every case whittled down their force with little to no gain (each one of them had their own version of 'gettysburg'). Now, maybe J Johnston is rated as unaggressive in 'comparison' to those other prominent Confederate Generals, but, in comparison to a 'generic' commander in his position (odds against him) that they would be as 'defensive' as well? I fear that these ratings (for a lot of generals) are based upon taking static reports for generals, and ignoring situations, and that a lot of history is based upon comparison rather than reality. Realistically, McClellan and J Johnston can be compared, except that Johnston was actually against the odds that McClellan thought he was up against. McClellan defenders use this to justify his behaviour, why no justification for Johnston's behaviour?
In my opinion, to be unaggressive one has to ignore initiative or opportunity when it is brought upon them. Johnston, from what I have read, was always outnumbered and rarely given the support or freedom that Bragg or Lee maintained. While other confederate generals would have attacked in his place, that might be more based upon the fact that most top CSA generals were 'reckless', while Johnston was more 'balanced' (he did attack, and did so with competency and when the moment called for it). Johnston did not attack Sherman, primarily because doing so was foolish!
I fear that things are getting too far into 'comparision', that if someone wasn't as aggressive as Lee or Hood, they are seen as timid and passive (when, in my opinion, it was Lee and Hood who are the extremes).
Excelent explanation!
I hope you take part in the comitee Pocus has proposed.
You work and systematization on leaders ratings and abilities (like in this post)
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=6172&page=2
Is absolutely great!
Are you still working on this mod??
And on a 1.08 compatible Brigade Mod??
Cheers!!
What I learned today.....
lodilefty wrote:I just 'fixed' RR mod for JSGME. Simply had to add 'ACW' directory at the top....
I also did some JSGME comppatible 'fixes' for BoA mods, if anyone is interested.
Runyans leader mod, however, currently requires deleting two folders to avoid duplicate UID.
JSGME is really slick. I strongly suggest it be used for mod structures....
Huzzah! I've succeeded in getting runyan's leader mod to work in JSGME without any file deletions!!!
The issue is/was that the mod duplicates UID's for models and units, by using some of the 'reserved' UID. Also, some of the 'base installation as patched' filenames were changed since runyan built his wonderful mod.
Thus, any attempt to simply copy the mod (which is sort of what JSGME does) results in duplicate UID, with a crash on startup.
My "ugly" fix is essentially to rename the files the mod that cause this, as it appears that the name of the FILE doesn't really matter, it's the UID , alias, etc inside that can't be duplicated!!!!
So, I renamed the (several) model files that now carry the word (conscript) in the filename (contents otherwise identical), and renamed the model files 699 to 1000 to match (some are actively used as leaders). Also model UID 695 was switched back to 'Bolton' from 'McArthur', as the contents were otherwise same.
Unit files had a lesser issue, with only UID 1292 to 1300 needing files renamed....
So now, with the proper directory structure in place, JSGME handles this mod without deleting folders!!!!
It loads OK, and I've plated two turns (so the late April geneals appear as modded). So far so good. Stay tuned......
Screenshot of the directory structure:
-
Franciscus
- Posts: 4571
- Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:31 pm
- Location: Portugal
lodilefty wrote:Huzzah! I've succeeded in getting runyan's leader mod to work in JSGME without any file deletions!!!
The issue is/was that the mod duplicates UID's for models and units, by using some of the 'reserved' UID. Also, some of the 'base installation as patched' filenames were changed since runyan built his wonderful mod.
Thus, any attempt to simply copy the mod (which is sort of what JSGME does) results in duplicate UID, with a crash on startup.
My "ugly" fix is essentially to rename the files the mod that cause this, as it appears that the name of the FILE doesn't really matter, it's the UID , alias, etc inside that can't be duplicated!!!!
So, I renamed the (several) model files that now carry the word (conscript) in the filename (contents otherwise identical), and renamed the model files 699 to 1000 to match (some are actively used as leaders). Also model UID 695 was switched back to 'Bolton' from 'McArthur', as the contents were otherwise same.
Unit files had a lesser issue, with only UID 1292 to 1300 needing files renamed....
So now, with the proper directory structure in place, JSGME handles this mod without deleting folders!!!!
It loads OK, and I've plated two turns (so the late April geneals appear as modded). So far so good. Stay tuned......
Screenshot of the directory structure:
Hey, you beat me to it !!
I was thinking about using the "-remove" function of JSGME, to remove the model and unit folders, but it seems to work on a file to file basis and not on a folder basis. So, I will wait for your solution...
McNaughton wrote:Personally, I believe that everything is relative...
If, as AGEOD has stated, that 3-1-1 is the 'average', nothing great, nothing poor, then a strategy rating of 2 or less is 'bad'. Personally, I believe that most generals in AACW are over-rated in their statistics, which makes the reduction of Johnston ill fitting for the entire scenario of commanders. However, if other generals have lowered ratings based upon the real situations (instead of a blanked history of the general), then the change to a strategy of 2 might seem more logical.
I have ranted about him before, and I will bring him up again, but, Hancock does not deserve the superb ratings he is currently given. He is rated, almost singlehandedly, on his performance at Gettysburg. While he was competent, and successful, a lot of his success is based upon Confederate failure. He was in a strong position, and saw it was strong, which means he is more than competent, but, his combat stats reflect a commander who makes a weak position strong (not recognizing a strong position as one). Frankly, there are too many 'good' generals out there. A competent general is 4-2-2 (always active and with some bonus), a competent general succeeds in a basic situation, a good/superb general succeeds against all odds. Too many generals who were competent, are rated as good/superb.
Many generals are over-stated in this way (in that they are highly rated based on success when everything went for them), which makes this reduction just for one commander ill fitting.
Johnston may have had a lack of aggression, but that may be explained by the reality of his situation. Lee, Bragg, AS Johnston, Hood, etc. were all aggressive, and in every case whittled down their force with little to no gain (each one of them had their own version of 'gettysburg'). Now, maybe J Johnston is rated as unaggressive in 'comparison' to those other prominent Confederate Generals, but, in comparison to a 'generic' commander in his position (odds against him) that they would be as 'defensive' as well? I fear that these ratings (for a lot of generals) are based upon taking static reports for generals, and ignoring situations, and that a lot of history is based upon comparison rather than reality. Realistically, McClellan and J Johnston can be compared, except that Johnston was actually against the odds that McClellan thought he was up against. McClellan defenders use this to justify his behaviour, why no justification for Johnston's behaviour?
In my opinion, to be unaggressive one has to ignore initiative or opportunity when it is brought upon them. Johnston, from what I have read, was always outnumbered and rarely given the support or freedom that Bragg or Lee maintained. While other confederate generals would have attacked in his place, that might be more based upon the fact that most top CSA generals were 'reckless', while Johnston was more 'balanced' (he did attack, and did so with competency and when the moment called for it). Johnston did not attack Sherman, primarily because doing so was foolish!
I fear that things are getting too far into 'comparision', that if someone wasn't as aggressive as Lee or Hood, they are seen as timid and passive (when, in my opinion, it was Lee and Hood who are the extremes).
Well put!
As I have said elsewhere, the unaddressed problem with Johnston being disrated in the leader mod is that he winds up spending most of the game being statistically penalized. As he was historically one of the South's best generals and was usually in command of a major Southern force, the disrating is going to be a severely unbalancing handicap for any Southern player.
__________________
"If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast." - General William Tecumseh Sherman, USA
"If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast." - General William Tecumseh Sherman, USA
I realize that I will never be able to return my copy of this game, but if the flawed leader mod is ever made official I would certainly like to.
Personal bias should never be allowed to play a role in a historical wargame. Especially one like AACW, which gets so very many things right.
Personal bias should never be allowed to play a role in a historical wargame. Especially one like AACW, which gets so very many things right.
__________________
"If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast." - General William Tecumseh Sherman, USA
"If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast." - General William Tecumseh Sherman, USA
-
AndrewKurtz
- Posts: 1167
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:49 am
- Location: Greenville, SC
The Wolf wrote:Personal bias should never be allowed to play a role in a historical wargame. Especially one like AACW, which gets so very many things right.
Quit with the "personal bias" comments
sheesh.
Opinion and personal bias are not the same thing. It's comes off as an emotional comment that says nothing.
Whereas McNaughton makes non-emotional, logical statements discussing the same point, and is, frankly, rather persuasive. His comments have me coming around to a change in his strategic rating back to a 4.
Curious? Does the Skirmisher attribute make him more LIKELY to retreat early or simply make it easier?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests