Disagreement on General Ratings Poll

[The Wolf]

What are the values of JJ Johnston in the leader mod?

2-2-4. He should be a 4-2-4, as AGEOD originally rated him, or better. I would support a 4-2-6, as he was peerless on defense. Dropping an important CSA army commander to a 2-2-4 is unbalancing, not to mention ahistorical.

[The Wolf]

I would favor 3-2-4, as a 2 in strat rating always give a further 1 malus passed down to corps commanders, so it seems extreme.

A 2 is indeed extreme, which is why I was objecting so loudly. But a 3 still does a great deal of damage to his abilities. If you're going to make him a 3-2-X, then make him a 3-2-6 - after all, he was the premier defensive general of the war - or a 3-2-5 with additional special defensive abilities.

Remember that Johnston's army commander status in the CSA means that reducing Johnston in ability directly reduces the South's ability to defend itself, which in turn directly affects game balance. Johnston needs to be strong, or else the South only has one good Army commander in Lee, and that's just not hisotircal.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Clovis]

I would favor 4-2-5. Initiative of 4 will let a small chance Johnston to be inactive in a situation where offensive is possible. An attack rating of 2 will force player to wait the most favorable circumstances to attack with Johnston. 5 ( or even 6...) will show the real defensive skill he had.

[Ian Coote]

This is getting to be a hoot,why dont we just get it over with and make him a 6-6-6.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[lodilefty]

I like 3-2-4, plus add the "Defensive_Engineer" attribute....

Makes him neutral for subordinates command, plus boosts his defensive ability.


...and Lee was a far better Engineer (defensive) when he needed to be, and Longstreet was the CSA's best Defensive General by a long shot....

[Clovis]

I like 3-2-4, plus add the "Defensive_Engineer" attribute....

Makes him neutral for subordinates command, plus boosts his defensive ability.


...and Lee was a far better Engineer (defensive) when he needed to be, and Longstreet was the CSA's best Defensive General by a long shot....

Antetiam wasn't so great in term of defensive engineer...and Longstreet was never in command of an army.

[lodilefty]

Antetiam wasn't so great in term of defensive engineer...and Longstreet was never in command of an army.

Good points.

Let's not take 60+ posts per General, only to agree to disagree

Pocus and team should have ample inputs by now, plus I'll mod my installation if I disagree!

The leader mod adds too many good things to get hung up in a ratings war....

[Clovis]

Good points.

Let's not take 60+ posts per General, only to agree to disagree

Pocus and team should have ample inputs by now, plus I'll mod my installation if I disagree!

The leader mod adds too many good things to get hung up in a ratings war....

Exactly

[AndrewKurtz]

Pocus,

Please, could you clarify if the no activation penalties (see above) are applicable on offensive and deffensive actions or only on offensive ones??

I thougt it was the latter, and that a no activated leader could deffend normaly...

Knowing that will be important for disscussing if the effects of a 2 o 4 strategic rating would be adecuate for J.Johnston.

Thanks in advance!!

Pocus...could you provide insight into this?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[lodilefty]

This is what I said at first...

I never claim to be original!
My career was built on reinforcing good ideas...

[The Wolf]

We will always disagree on this because you are wanting to rate him on "what could have been" and I am looking at the historical results regardless of the reasons.

Nonsense. I am without doubt more familiar with his record than you are, unless you have read a number of books solely devoted to him as I have. At 4-2-4 he is just adequately rated; I would rate him 4-2-6 or 4-2-5 with additional abilities. If you reduce him to a 3-2-4 you are underrating him. Changing him to a 3-2-6 or a 3-2-5 with additional abilities would be fair.

Again, think about the consequences: when you reduce the already-just-adequately-rated skill levels of a major CSA army commander, you unbalance the game in the Union's favor.

[The Wolf]

...and Lee was a far better Engineer (defensive) when he needed to be, and Longstreet was the CSA's best Defensive General by a long shot....

No. Neither Lee nor Longstreet could have faced Sherman and preserved their forces the way Johnston did. Forrest, maybe, but Lee didn't have the patience and Longstreet didn't have the talent, and neither of them had Johnston's eye for terrain.

A lot of you appear to be operating on some questionable premises. Take a hard look at Johnston's actual outcomes versus what he had to work with, as opposed to what Davis trash talked about him. He was in reality a very successful general.

[The Wolf]

I'm going to repeat this, because it's very important to this discussion, and some of you seem to be reading right over it:

Remember that Johnston's army commander status in the CSA means that reducing Johnston in ability directly reduces the South's ability to defend itself, which in turn directly affects game balance. Johnston needs to be strong, or else the South only has one good Army commander in Lee, and that's just not hisotircal.

[Clovis]

Nonsense. I am without doubt more familiar with his record than you are, unless you have read a number of books solely devoted to him as I have.

leure:

[Aurelin]

Johnston may of been a better commander than history shows. But, he didn't drive Lil Mac away from Richmond. He didn't save Vicksburg. He did hold Sherman from Atlanta, but sooner or later he would of lost the city anyway. And he didn't win his last battle either.

As a Field Marshall would say some 80 years later, "I'd rather lose a city than an army." I'm fairly certain Joe thought like that. Lincoln, Grant, Sherman thought that destroying the enemy army was far more important than taking a city, but that isn't the way the war was thought of by most.

But really, it's all academic anyway. Leader ratings, among other things, are subjective. I'm sure Runyon didn't just throw dice when deciding on the ratings. He did the research, and made the decisions.

Can two people look at the same research and come to two different conclusions? Sure they can. Damn, for all I know Joe Johnston may be one of his favorites.

But to cut the ramble short. Use his mod, don't use it. I doubt he'll lose sleep over it. But to attack him because you don't agree with how he rated one general is beyond contempt.

The best thing to do is rate him in your own game the way you want.

[Aurelin]

leure:

[Dan]

Any reason all of the proposed ratings are fixed on the "2" for attack for JJ? Wouldn't something along the lines of 4-1-5 or 4-1-6 work better to reflect his defensive nature as well as to encourage the player to use him in such a manner?

PS: I have not been a big fan of the average ratings being 3-1-1, I think it would be easier to assign general's ratings if the generic ratings had been
2-0-0. But this is water under the bridge.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[McNaughton]

Johnston may of been a better commander than history shows. But, he didn't drive Lil Mac away from Richmond. He didn't save Vicksburg. He did hold Sherman from Atlanta, but sooner or later he would of lost the city anyway. And he didn't win his last battle either.

As a Field Marshall would say some 80 years later, "I'd rather lose a city than an army." I'm fairly certain Joe thought like that. Lincoln, Grant, Sherman thought that destroying the enemy army was far more important than taking a city, but that isn't the way the war was thought of by most.

But really, it's all academic anyway. Leader ratings, among other things, are subjective. I'm sure Runyon didn't just throw dice when deciding on the ratings. He did the research, and made the decisions.

Can two people look at the same research and come to two different conclusions? Sure they can. Damn, for all I know Joe Johnston may be one of his favorites.

But to cut the ramble short. Use his mod, don't use it. I doubt he'll lose sleep over it. But to attack him because you don't agree with how he rated one general is beyond contempt.

The best thing to do is rate him in your own game the way you want.

Actually, Johnston did stop McClellan's drive on Richmond. From most accounts, the Battle of Seven Pines convinced McClellan to stop his advances and he moved completely into a defensive posture. This battle was planned and run primarily by Johnston. Lee took over after G Smith broke down. Lee began this campaign after Johnston's actions. Who is to say what Lee would have done at the beginning? The fact is, Johnston retreated, and built up the strength of his force to equal that of his opponent, then he attacked.

Johnston planned to do so at Vicksburg, but, Pemberton refused to follow the plan. How can Johnston defeat Grant's army when he had a force equivalent to a weak Corps? Who could have done that? Seriously, Johnston never had a unified command as versitile as the Army of the Tennessee or Army of Northern Virignia when they were at their peak of efficiency.

The problem is, if you look at generals purely by what happened (ignoring the actual situations, and actual reality) we over-estimate some, and under-estimate others. That is what is truly being done here. We assume that Lee would have been more successful in all of Johnston's campaigns, ignoring the fact that Lee, for the bulk of his successful career, had the 'best' Confederate army under his command. Johnston was always in command of ad-hoc formations, which were quickly cobbled together from other commands (which never worked together before), or forces which had been demoralized from an eariler defeat. Lee's actions in the Peninsula were no better than Johnston's, and in some ways much worse (never before would Lee have such numbers, and his casualty lists were exceptionally higher than those of the Union). In fact, the Union 'won' the battle of the Peninsula while Lee was in command, except that McClellan retreated (Lee was lucky).

Hood also couldn't stop Sherman from taking Atlanta, yet, Hood is rated as a better commander than Johnston after the changes in the Leader Mod... Hmm... Makes me wonder why a BAD general is rated BETTER purely because he was more aggressive? Johnston kept his army together, and caused significantly more casualties (even based on ratio) than he recieved. His strategy was sustainable (Lee caused more causalties, but, his losses were not proportionately favourable). Johnston could win a war of attrition, Lee could not. Also, this is totally unfair, as Johnston was removed from command on the eve of one of HIS planned attacks! Totally unfair to say he was unaggressive, given that when he saw the time being correct, he WAS aggressive!

Johnston was balanced, not timid. Lee, Bragg, Hood were all reckless and extremely aggressive. In comparison, if you see Lee, Bragg and Hood as balanced, of course Johnston is timid. However, Johnston reminds me as someone as aggressive as General Meade. He attacks when he believes it is prudent, but defends when the situation calls for it (unlike the aformentioned Confederate leaders who attacked when they should have defended).

[Aurelin]

Well, he stopped Mac, but didn't drive him back. I submit that the AoTP was a much bigger threat before Mac's retreat than after.

I can't recall at the moment, but when Joe was out west, didn't he consider the department much bigger than he thought he could control? I have to wonder why he didn't releive Pemberton? Did he think he didn't have the authority?

Everything you've written makes alot of sense to me. I think your assessment of the man is spot on. ( I forgot some of it myself.) I think JJ's way was the right way, considering the manpower difference between the two.

I don't have the mod. I didn't know that Hood is rated better. I don't get that one, considering Hood pretty much destroyed the army. But, I'll just agree to disagree.

[McNaughton]

The problem with a "2" as a default rating is as stated above, other additional penalties are passed on to corps commanders, and in most cases that is too much of a penalty. With that info explained, I am more inclined to agree with the 3-1-1 average ratings.

The problem is, basic ratings are different for each 'rank' a general is in. Totally ignoring abilities.

For 1-star the basic stat (no bonus, no penalty).

3-0-0

For 2-star the basic stat (no bonus, no penalty, average activation).

3-1-1

For 3-star t he basic stat (no bonus, no penalty transfered to subordinate corps). *However, for their own stack they need stats like 2-star.

2-0-0

The stack commander is the most important general in the game. They affect the units to the greatest amount. Having their stats maximized is the most important thing to do. Even still, getting their Strategy to 4 is the key (any more and it is somewhat wasted), as having an active stack is more important than any attack/defence bonus. A strong army commander is good, but, unreliable (as chance of giving bonus is random), and a 3-star's goal is to make the 2-star's Strategy to be 4 or more.

[McNaughton]

Well, he stopped Mac, but didn't drive him back. I submit that the AoTP was a much bigger threat before Mac's retreat than after.

I can't recall at the moment, but when Joe was out west, didn't he consider the department much bigger than he thought he could control? I have to wonder why he didn't releive Pemberton? Did he think he didn't have the authority?

Johnston didn't drive him back because he was wounded! Lee didn't drive McClellan back until after a few days of battle, yet he isn't penalized. Johston was wonded early in his attack in the peninsula, he was removed from command early in his attack before Atlanta, of course he isn't aggressive, if he was never allowed to fight the battles he planned... He didn't have the manpower at vicksburg. He had about 10000 men, Pemberton around 40000, Grant around 50000. He tried to link up with Pemberton at Jackson (I believe that's the town), but Pemberton was slow to act, and Grant got there first (5:1 odds, Johnston was defeated and withdrew). Pemberton decided it more prudent to defend Vicksburg than to abandon it and link with Johnston. Lee, even at Sharpsburg, never faced 5:1 odds against him and did better than Johnston...

Everything you've written makes alot of sense to me. I think your assessment of the man is spot on. ( I forgot some of it myself.) I think JJ's way was the right way, considering the manpower difference between the two.

I don't have the mod. I didn't know that Hood is rated better. I don't get that one, considering Hood pretty much destroyed the army. But, I'll just agree to disagree.

Given the effects of stats and abilities, Hood makes the better army commander (a lot of Hood is reduced from his 1 and 2-star variation, but, still provides bonus', and his negative abilities only affect his stack, not subordinate stacks). So, as an army commander, his high strategic rating is all important, and over-rides Johnston's abilities. (a 3-1-1 is better than a 2-2-2, even though the later has a greater total of stats). the key of an army commander is to provide strategic bonus' to their subordinate commands, since other stats are pure bonus', the activation of a stack is the difference between a 35% penalty, and no penalty at all...

[Dan]

The problem with a "2" as a default rating is as stated above, other additional penalties are passed on to corps commanders, and in most cases that is too much of a penalty.

I apologize if I was not clear in my first message. I have been away from the game for a couple of months so I am going off of some 'old' knowledge but here goes.

The penalty is related to the first number. The strategic rating. If it is below 3 then a penalty is passed down. I believe that the offensive (2nd number) and defensive ratings (3rd number) do not pass down penalties. If these are rated "0" then you just don't pass down any bonuses.

I agree that if an unactivated general in friendly controlled territory receives a -35% while on the defensive then JJ should be rated with a 3 AT WORST for strategic. Since this would mean that JJ would be penalized about 50% of the time I would say he should be rated as a 4 for strategic simply because JJ used defensive measures to delay the enemy instead of refusing to do anything for long stretches of time..

In all of the examples of what JJ should be rated as, it appears everybody was leaving his offensive number at "2". I was just wondering if increasing his strategic to "4" while decreasing his offensive to a "1" would perhaps reflect his image as not being very aggressive. Hence 4-1-5.

With that info explained, I am more inclined to agree with the 3-1-1 average ratings..

I think that by establishing generic leaders with a rating of 3-1-1, it makes us overvalue all(most) of the real generals in the game. If a generic leader has an attack value of "1" then of course almost EVERY leader should be rated at least a "1". If the baseline was set at 2-0-0 (or 1-0-0 which would give a the player a very bad leader) then I think it would be easier to establish a better rating for the generals. I just feel like by not starting with "0" (at least for offensive/defensive ratings) we are already overrating the average generals that are in the game. This causes us to overrate the good generals which in turns causes us to overrate the really good leaders and so on...

[McNaughton]

No, a 3-star works like this...

Strategy Rating

3+ Bonus
2 No Bonus
1 or 0 Penalty

So, a general with 2 strategy will not give any bonus to their subordinates. A general with 1 will give a -1, a general with 4 will give a +2.

[McNaughton]

The problem is, divisional generals only need strategic ratings in order to be active to form a division. Once in command of a division, their strategic rating does not matter. What is important is the stack commander, they determine the greatest ability of the command. They affect the power of the stack to a greater extent than a single division has on their own command. They also determine if the stack is active or not. The stack commander, the 2-star generals, are the key to the game.

[McNaughton]

The problem about lowering Johnston's attack value is that it states he was a bad attacker. This isn't true, he was effective, competent, even brilliant when attacking. The issue is, he didn't attack when he felt the odds were not right. Is this unaggressive? To some, I guess it is. To others, it shows that he was more average. To me, an average strategic rating is 3, a poor one is 2 or less, a good one is 4 or more.

You have to take Jonston into account as a stack leader as well. He will be commanding armies, but also leading stacks. His strategic should be, at minimum, 3. However, in lieu of other generals having 4, most CSA players will never use Johnston, even in his historic roles. Part of strategic must be strategic planning, as well as operational will and ability. While abstract, it best represents this, otherwize the overly aggressive commanders will be truely the obvious options, as their negative aspects are actually not well represented in the game.

Johnston would be best represented at 3-2-4, or 3-2-5 (representing his good ability at defending even against heavy odds). In lieu that Longstreet has a 6, and he never really defended in situations as dire as Johnston, and with as success as Johnston, that a 5 value isn't unreasonable.

[Pdubya64]

My only comment on this debate is that I hope we can at least get clear guidance from AGEOD on what the underlying game rules are for leaders.

Only after we make sure we are not talking "apples and oranges" here can things move forward.

Oh... and let's all keep our cool guys. Getting upset won't help matters.

pw