More leader traits for BOA2

[Heldenkaiser]

I really enjoy the added complexity that the many leader traits per individual leader bring to the command structure of AACW and NCP. It means you really have to think whom you put in command where.

Compared with that, in BOA traits per leader are comparatively few, often none at all. Especially many British leaders in the ARW are fairly nondescript and hence rather interchangeable. Yet I doubt that the commanders back then were any less individualistic than their ACW or Napoleonic Wars counterparts.

I was given to understand (here) the designers would not be opposed to adding more traits to existing leaders, if they are suggested. My problem is that I really know very little about the leaders in the wars portrayed by BOA. I wonder if some more knowledgeable members of the community would care to suggest additional leader traits, maybe in this thread? I understand it would have to be PDQ to be considered for inclusion in BOA2, but I believe it would make the game much more interesting.

What does everybody say?

(Philippe etc., please correct me if I have misunderstood you and this is a dumb idea. :innocent

____________________________________

(I shall edit this post now to compile the suggestions made so far.)

Amherst - Good Army Administrator, Good Subordinates, Master Logistician
Arnold (British) - Scorched Earth, Dispirited Leader
Braddock - "Militia Despiser" (to be added), "Easily Ambushed" (to be added), Reckless
Burgoyne - Slow Mover, Strong Morale or Brave, Admired Commander or Morale Booster, Cavalryman
Carleton - Slow Mover, Overcautious, Quickly Angered
Clinton - Dispirited Leader, Quickly Angered
Cornwallis - Very Fast Mover, Admired Commander, Superior Tactician
Grant - Good Army Administrator, Staffer
Greene - Very Fast Mover, Master Logistician, Pontoneer
Howe - Slow Mover, Siege Expert, Irregular Fighting Skill
Lafayette - Screener
Prevost - Fort Defender, Pillager
Tarleton - Cavalryman, Charismatic, Pillager, Hated Occupier, Reckless
Washington - Charismatic, Good Subordinates, Very Fast Mover, Superior Withdrawer

New traits, if possible.

"Militia Despiser"
"Easily Ambushed"

[PhilThib]

The idea is not dumb...on the contrary...please proceed

[Heldenkaiser]

Good! I'll start then by repeating my suggestion from the other thread, if that's OK.

"Shouldn't the performance of both Howe and Carleton in 1776 earn them the trait "slow mover"? Carleton's advance from Canada would probably also qualify for "overcautious" (waiting four weeks to build a ship when one already outnumbers the rebel fleet by 2 to 1?). Judging from Howe's action around N.Y., he should probably also get something like "entrencher" or "siege expert". He seemed to like to dig parallels whether there was use for them or not, but he *did* do well against forts. Finally, as I said before, he was apparantely known as a notable light infantry commander from the French and Indian War, so maybe "irregular fighting skill" or "screener" would reflect that?"

[Heldenkaiser]

You could probably add "quickly angered" to Carleton's traits. According to Piers, he liked to quarrel with subordinates and would remove them on a whim.

[lodilefty]

I'm starting to put this together, at least as a proposal.

Would we consider Washington in the same category as Napleon or Wellington in terms of many traits? [No, he was no Welly or Boney, but in game terms?]

If so, what? ...and they don't all have to be positive!

Additionally, I'm preparing a version where the British leaders in 1775 have reduced Strategic ratings, as done in BoA mod by runyan99.....

Also, what about leaders in 1755 FIW: any thoughts?

[lodilefty]

How abouth these for Washington:
[INDENT]$Beloved_By_Army
$Superior_Withdrawer
$Brave
$Master_Spy
$Charismatic
$Strong_Morale
$GoodSub_Cmd
$Training_Officer
$Good_Admin_Army
$Very_Fast_Move[/INDENT]

[Heldenkaiser]

I will scan through my books on the three wars this weekend (there will be more War of 1812, right?) and come up with some things. I'll have to check the existing traits first, of course.

"Reckless" would probably describe Braddock best. Unless we can up with something like "easily ambushed".

[Heldenkaiser]

In fact, thinking about some more, maybe there *is* room for one or two additional traits related to the use of light infantry / Indians as a screen in difficult terrain. Leaders like Braddock would receive a penalty, i.e. would in fact fall easily for an ambush. Other leaders could receive a bonus. I don't know if this is in fact covered by "screener", but in any case, the opposite (doing badly, like Braddock) does not seem to exist.

[lodilefty]

I will scan through my books on the three wars this weekend (there will be more War of 1812, right?) and come up with some things. I'll have to check the existing traits first, of course.

"Reckless" would probably describe Braddock best. Unless we can up with something like "easily ambushed".

Yes re: 1812

Hmm, maybe we could create an ability "Walking Target" for Braddock...

I find that the Abilities DB is best way to look at traits. I would use the NCP one as more recent.

[Heldenkaiser]

Yes, I meant, which traits leaders in BoA (1) already have. I am in fact using the list from NCP for existing traits.

Regarding Washington, I think (given the limitations of war in the theater) he would probably qualify for a lot of bonuses. However, even more important than making the already interesting leaders more interesting I find it to add some personality to the yet "boring" ones, like most of the British.

[lodilefty]

Oop!

OK. Have you looked at some of the BoA mods? I did one that did a little bit of this....
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=7411

[Heldenkaiser]

I'll have a closer look this afternoon. I love the "non-militiaman" label.

[Heldenkaiser]

A few more suggestions ...

Amherst - Good Army Administrator, Good Subordinates, Master Logistician

Burgoyne - Slow Mover (obviously), Artillerist (the arm he relied most on)

Clinton - Dispirited Leader, Quickly Angered

Cornwallis - (Very) Fast Mover, Admired Commander, Supriser *or* Superior Tactician (come on, let's love at least one British general )

Grant - Good Army Administrator, Staffer

[Heldenkaiser]

A. Prevost - Fort Defender, Pillager

[FM WarB]

It is my impression that lowering Brit Commanders' strategic ratings is a response to a percieved imbalance in favor of the Brits. Other changes, such as to American oob, and Brit supply capabilities might be looked at first. Lets not make in impossible for the Brits to win.

While Howe was slow to move strategically, this oft had to do with supply issues. On the battlefield, against a non dug in enemy he was always better than Washington. One may wonder if the Brits hadnt done Bunker Hill as they did, if they would have been bolder on Long Island.

Washington was NO Napoleon or Wellington, and should not be depicted as such.

[Heldenkaiser]

It is my impression that lowering Brit Commanders' strategic ratings is a response to a percieved imbalance in favor of the Brits. Other changes, such as to American oob, and Brit supply capabilities might be looked at first. Lets not make in impossible for the Brits to win.

I do agree.

Different maybe from Steve's primary intention, my concern is not play balance, but making the game more interesting by making the leaders more individualistic, the way they are in AACW and NCP. So that it really makes a difference whom you put into command where.

Presently, in the leaders.doc for BOA the entries for the British generals mostly read "no abilities".

[lodilefty]

It is my impression that lowering Brit Commanders' strategic ratings is a response to a percieved imbalance in favor of the Brits. Other changes, such as to American oob, and Brit supply capabilities might be looked at first. Lets not make in impossible for the Brits to win.

While Howe was slow to move strategically, this oft had to do with supply issues. On the battlefield, against a non dug in enemy he was always better than Washington. One may wonder if the Brits hadnt done Bunker Hill as they did, if they would have been bolder on Long Island.

Washington was NO Napoleon or Wellington, and should not be depicted as such.

All things are on the table for WIA. I agree that supply has been 'too much, too easy'. I also favor historical OOB, etc. What we're discussing here is abilities to balance and give more life to the game....

You are correct about Washington vs. Napoleon or Wellington. IMHO, they would have packed up and gone home if given the resources and forces Washington won with.

IMHO Washington demonstrated more than 4 of the abilities available, so we can use the ability colection system that was originally designed for Welly and Boney.... Are any of the British leaders in BoA deserving of 4+ abilities? If so, give us your ideas.....

Howe many times did Howe attain the battle you describe? That is exactly what happens in the game when they meet, but it's too easy for Brits to get there: happens too often.....

IMO arrogance was what lead to Breeds Hill. Arrogance that only disappeared after Saratoga and Yorktown, if then.....

[FM WarB]

$Beloved_By_Army
$Superior_Withdrawer
$Brave
$Master_Spy NO...his reconnaisance and intelligence efforts were not good.
$Charismatic The problerms re-upping the army in the first two ys argue against this.
$Strong_Morale
$GoodSub_Cmd
$Training_Officer NO...other leaders, like Stueben did the training.
$Good_Admin_Army NO...The admin of the Continental army was too shabby.
$Very_Fast_Move

[lodilefty]

$Beloved_By_Army
$Superior_Withdrawer
$Brave
$Master_Spy NO...his reconnaisance and intelligence efforts were not good.
$Charismatic The problerms re-upping the army in the first two ys argue against this.
$Strong_Morale
$GoodSub_Cmd
$Training_Officer NO...other leaders, like Stueben did the training.
$Good_Admin_Army NO...The admin of the Continental army was too shabby.
$Very_Fast_Move

Thanks! Good inputs!

Did you look at the NCP database to see the effect of these? The titles alone don't tell all...

Good Army Admin: The leader is appreciated by his men, as he cares about their well-being. If the commander, provides a +15% increase in the fatigue recovery rate of units under his command.
Charismatic doesn't deal with reupping, but does similar to Gd Army, so it's double-dipping.
Training was left over from BoA, or somewhere....

My thinking on the master spy was to model the apparent [uncanny?] ability to anticipate and move out of the way: If the commander, improves the detection of enemy units (except irregulars) within the Department.

How about some malus?

[Heldenkaiser]

I am still a bit vexed by Burgoyne's character. He is described both as a slow mover who relied too much on artillery, but also as a bold light cavalryman (he raised the 16th L.D., the later famous 16th Lancers, afterall) and seeker of decisive engagements with cold steel. He should probably get a set of potentially contradictory traits.

Will leaders be promotable in BOA2 like in AACW, and have the ability to gain (or lose) traits thereby? That could be a solution for such cases, so that they are bold and rash in lower rank, but become slowed down by second thoughts in positions of higher responsibility.

[lodilefty]

We could give Burgoyne "Slow Mover" and "Cavalryman". His stack would move 25% slower if he's the stack leader in command, but the Cavalry bonus [25% combat bonus for all cavalry units in the stack, if in clear, woods, hills, steppes or desert terrain.] would apply always.

[Farfarer2]

Casting aside the conspiracy theorists longstanding suggestion that Burgoyne was ordered the Masons not to nip the "great experiment" in the bud, it appears he made some bad choices on who to trust, routes and did not "get" the terrain. Either way, that makes him a "slow mover" I suppose.

[FM WarB]

If Gentleman Johnny had cavalryman trait, he'd have a good a excuse to send the dismounted Brunswick dragoons off to Bennington (if they could capture horses in the game and if they WERE in the game).

But, seriously folks, how about a foul weather Jack Byron leader trait?

[PJJ]

I think Nathanael Greene of Continental Army fame should have a couple of traits that reflect his abilities as a fast moving operational commander and a capable logistics and administrative officer. He spent two and a half years as the Quarter Master General of the Continental Army (March 1778 - September 1780, he resigned in July 1780 but was unable to leave the job until September) and was arguably the most capable man in that position during the war. Washington would have had even more supply problems if Greene hadn't been his right-hand man.

As commander of the Southern Army (from Oct. 1780 until the cessation of hostilities in the South) Greene showed he was one of the most aggressive and fast moving commanders of the whole war. Cornwallis was considered fast and aggressive, but he couldn't catch Greene and not for lack of trying. The retreat of Greene's Southern Army from South Carolina to Virginia in the spring of 1781 ("The Race to the Dan") is one of the finest examples of fast moving operations before the era of mechanized warfare.

[Heldenkaiser]

Thank you for your comments. Keep them coming. - I shall edit my first post in the thread to compile the suggestions.

[lodilefty]

Thank you for your comments. Keep them coming. - I shall edit my first post in the thread to compile the suggestions.

Thank you! This will be very helpful!

[arclight]

Found this

http://revgen.tripod.com/mg.html

A resource, maybe???

[FM WarB]

Greene moved fast in 1781 because he gathered boats at the river crossing sites. Make him a Pontoneer to reflect this.

[runyan99]

I was watching a show about Lafayette the other day. He was extremely skilled at keeping his little army moving, and evaded Cornwallis and the British a number of times. I forget the name of the hill, but the British once surrounded his force, and he extracted it anyway.

You might add a skirmisher trait to Lafayette.

[Heldenkaiser]

Screener? +25% evasion value, +1 hide bonus.

I seem to be the only one interested in adding traits to British leaders.