More leader traits for BOA2

[runyan99]

It's hard to make a case for most of them, as they seem to have spent most of their time throwing parties and entertaining mistresses and such. They were really mediocre as a whole.

[tyrex]

To many peoples focuses on Lafayette. He was not a great leader. It's military performance during the early year of French Revolutionnary Wars were abysmall.
Ok he waq good to control very small armies and was charismatic. But that's all folks.
He wasn't indeed the very first french officer to help the insurgents. Rochambeau was indeed. And he was a for more efficient officer too. But he lacked the charism of Lafayette and is too often forgotten as THE great french leader of this war.

As for Washington does he really deserve such profusion of qualities? I've no great knowledge of this war but it seems to me that he was not really good when leading troops to battle. But I may be wrong at all.

As for Wellington super star...well I prefer not to say anything about it. He don't deserve its reputation as great leader. Great defenser may be but not efficient enough and too haughty with his allies (If it wasn't for the great resistance of Dutch Belgian brigades at Quatre Bras, Wellington will have been beaten hard there, outmaneuvred and beaten as cold as iron but THE great leader of this period). But I'm speculating. I don't own yet Napoleon's Campaigns

[PJJ]

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

Okay, what about Lt. Col. Banastre Tarleton? On the basis of his actions in the South, I think he deserves the traits Pillager and Hated Occupier. I don't have BoA installed at the moment, so I can't check what traits he has now... he was an able cavalry commander, but far too aggressive for his own good.

Generally speaking, most British generals of the Revolutionary war were quite mediocre. Some had certain good qualities (Cornwallis was probably the best, Clinton was good at planning and administration [but not with his colleagues!], Howe knew how to fight at the tactical level etc.), but none of them seemed to know what they were doing at the strategic level. The whole conflict was so difficult for the British side (long distances, mostly hostile populations & partisan warfare, and not enough regular troops and loyalists to hold such massive areas) that it would have been a difficult war to lead for any general.

[Heldenkaiser]

Generally speaking, most British generals of the Revolutionary war were quite mediocre.

Not sure about that, but in any case, there are not only positive traits in the game. Let's give them some negative ones then. Anything that makes them a bit more individualistic and thus less interchangeable.

[Heldenkaiser]

One more comment on British generals. I believe their image is suffering from the usual unkindness of history towards the losers in a conflict. History is written by the winners, because the losing side usually moves on quickly ... or blames its leaders for all that went wrong, which in the end has the same effect. But basically these guys were professional soldiers put in an impossible situation--fighting a war at the end of fragile supply lines spanning the width of an ocean, and in a huge country that they could never hope to pacify by military power alone anyway. Some may have had their jobs primarily due to political patronage (happened in all countries) and many of them may have lacked the flexibility to adapt to a kind of warfare that their training had ill prepared them for. But overall, they knew their job, even if some of them may have approached the task at hand with exaggerated caution--but then they knew their scarce resources were hard to replace, and certainly not on short notice. If Howe needed a couple of thousand replacements, they had to come from England, and even asking for them would take two months. Small wonder he ended up appearing somewhat less than decisive in his advances. Let's be fair.

[Heldenkaiser]

Okay, what about Lt. Col. Banastre Tarleton? On the basis of his actions in the South, I think he deserves the traits Pillager and Hated Occupier. I don't have BoA installed at the moment, so I can't check what traits he has now... he was an able cavalry commander, but far too aggressive for his own good.

I agree. Presently he has Cavalry and Charismatic, but Pillager and Hated Occupier certainly seem fitting.

[PJJ]

But basically these guys were professional soldiers put in an impossible situation--fighting a war at the end of fragile supply lines spanning the width of an ocean, and in a huge country that they could never hope to pacify by military power alone anyway. Some may have had their jobs primarily due to political patronage (happened in all countries) and many of them may have lacked the flexibility to adapt to a kind of warfare that their training had ill prepared them for.

True. That's what I was trying to say when I wrote that the Revolutionary war would have been a difficult conflict for any general on the British side to fight. And we shouldn't forget the fact that most American generals were just as bad as the British, if not worse.

None of the 18th century officers were true professionals as seen from our modern point of view. Military art as a science was still in its infancy back then, and most officers didn't go through any kind of formal academic military training. But 18th century was also the era of Enlightenment, and this was reflected by the fact that some of the famous modern day academies (or their predecessors) were founded back then. It's an interesting period in military history, a real mix of amateurs at war and budding professionalism.

Speaking of Tarleton, I think his often reckless tendencies on the battlefield should earn him also the title, well, Reckless.

[Heldenkaiser]

Speaking of Tarleton, I think his often reckless tendencies on the battlefield should earn him also the title, well, Reckless.

I had the same thought. I'll add it.

Glad we agree on the rest.

[lodilefty]

I propose for Washington:

$Charismatic [combines effects of $Brave and $Good Army Admin] +5 Cohesion, +25% fatigue recovery
$Good Sub cmd +3 CP to stack he commands
$Very Fast Mover +25% move bonus
$Superior Withdrawer allows increase chance of retreat first 4 hours of battle

This avoids need for a 'Genius' trait [or any angst some might have with that unfortunate label]

[Heldenkaiser]

I'll add it.

I am still pondering Burgoyne. He is a paradox. Apparantely he moved slowly not so much out of extreme caution (his foraging expedition to the East was the exact opposite of caution), but out of a desire to land one mighty blow and make it as decisive as possible. Hence the 52 guns he dragged through the wilderness although they slowed his march to a crawl. But he is actually described as cheerful, optimistic, certain of a positive result. He was an outspoken advocate of the bayonet charge, which certainly speaks for a bold approach and a readiness to stake everything on one card. He wanted to get the job done, but in his own good time. It may be stretching the point, but he reminds me of Longstreet or Thomas in the ACW.

I guess I am looking for Strong Morale or some similar positive trait? Or Brave?

[lodilefty]

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

Actually, I'd rather attach a Marine unit to Greene to reflect this.....
similar to the Marblehead unit...

[lodilefty]

Rather than typing and typing and typing.....

These are extracted from the WIA DB work in progress....
Inputs welcome.
OBTW, we are not yet entertaining discussion on Strategic, Offense, Defense ratings. Just Abilities [and mis-spelled names ]
Abilities in yellow are proposed changes from 'current Apha'....

[Carrington]

First, there's the interesting issue of Benedict Arnold.... He also deserves a nice range of traits, some better than others.

Then there are the Tory leaders -- an interesting bunch.

Mackesy's War For America presents a sympathetic picture of the British strategic problems, and of their leadership.

[Heldenkaiser]

First, there's the interesting issue of Benedict Arnold.... He also deserves a nice range of traits, some better than others.

Then there are the Tory leaders -- an interesting bunch.

Yes! Suggestions?

[StatboyVT]

First post, but a long time reader and I love these games. I was a history major and consider my specialty to be the Revolutionary War, so I have a few things to offer up. These are totally random and in no particular order, as I go through the Excel files provided above.

Benedict Arnold was made a Brigadier General by the British when he switched over, not a Colonel.

Lafayette was never a Brigadier General. His first and only rank was Major General, given to him by Congress after he arrived.

Also, will BOA2 use the same promotion system as AACW? If so, and if you want to start the game with the appropriate ranks, Benedict Arnold was a Colonel when he invaded Canada. He was promoted to Brigadier General after the invasion, and later Major General. Along the same lines, Daniel Morgan was a Colonel to start the war.

When Arnold switches over the British, I'd recommend the "Scorched Earth" trait. He led a raid in Connecticut and burned a town or two.

Joseph Warren was commissioned a Brigadier General by the state of Massachusetts in 1775. However, he died at Bunker Hill in June. He was fighting in the ranks, because he hadn't officially received his commission yet. IMO, he shouldn't be included as an officer at all at the beginning of the game, because he wasn't at that point. He was still just a regular doctor.

John Sullivan was a Major General.

Philip Schuyler was a Major General. He was one of the original Major Generals in June 1775 and given command of the Northern Department, which he held until General Gates took over in 1777.

Henry Knox was a Colonel at the start of the war. He wasn't promoted to Brigadier General until after the Battle of Trenton.

Regarding the General John Burgoyne discussion above, note that Burgoyne's troops loved him. Perhaps a trait to reflect that?

Thanks for a great game. I'm still into the orignal BOA, especially after the last patch. This is an era of American history that has gone neglected by Americans. Off all things, it takes a French company to make a proper game depicting the Wars in America during that time. Hats off to ya!

[Heldenkaiser]

When Arnold switches over the British, I'd recommend the "Scorched Earth" trait. He led a raid in Connecticut and burned a town or two.

Noted!

Regarding the General John Burgoyne discussion above, note that Burgoyne's troops loved him. Perhaps a trait to reflect that?

I had that thought too ... I don't know how many traits in any one person BOA2 will permit, but I'll add "Admired Commander", or maybe "Morale Booster"?

[lodilefty]

Noted!



I had that thought too ... I don't know how many traits in any one person BOA2 will permit, but I'll add "Admired Commander", or maybe "Morale Booster"?

Actual abilities per leader are almost unlimited. The display, however is limited to 4.

The 4 ability limit has led to 'Military Genius' ability, which displaysonly one symbol on the unit panel,but allows all abilities to be displayed in the unit 'pop-up'. A 'genius' can, therefore, have many negative traits, too!

These inputs are timely, as I am working up the next update of units and models....

[Heldenkaiser]

Actual abilities per leader are almost unlimited. The display, however is limited to 4.

I think no suggestions so far have added up to more than four traits per leader, excluding Washington. Note that I've sometimes two similar traits down with "or", only one which should be adopted.

These inputs are timely, as I am working up the next update of units and models....

Did you notice I am still keeping the list in my original post updated? All suggestions in this thread are there.

[lodilefty]

I'll add it.

I am still pondering Burgoyne. He is a paradox. Apparantely he moved slowly not so much out of extreme caution (his foraging expedition to the East was the exact opposite of caution), but out of a desire to land one mighty blow and make it as decisive as possible. Hence the 52 guns he dragged through the wilderness although they slowed his march to a crawl. But he is actually described as cheerful, optimistic, certain of a positive result. He was an outspoken advocate of the bayonet charge, which certainly speaks for a bold approach and a readiness to stake everything on one card. He wanted to get the job done, but in his own good time. It may be stretching the point, but he reminds me of Longstreet or Thomas in the ACW.

I guess I am looking for Strong Morale or some similar positive trait? Or Brave?

Right now I've got Burgoyne with
$Slow_Move $Cavalryman $Beloved_By_Army $Brave

I'm thinking of 'Dispirited Leader' for British version of Arnold - the Brits never really trusted him.... [would you? ]

[Heldenkaiser]

Right now I've got Burgoyne with
$Slow_Move $Cavalryman $Beloved_By_Army $Brave

I'm thinking of 'Dispirited Leader' for British version of Arnold - the Rits never really trusted him.... [would you? ]

No! I've added it.

[Pocus]

Genius is only a container yes, and it can be used creatively. Like creating a container named 'I'm the worse leader on earth', which would add 4 penalties for the price of one (Drunkard Stupid Moronic Idiot perhaps?).

[lodilefty]

Genius is only a container yes, and it can be used creatively. Like creating a container named 'I'm the worse leader on earth', which would add 4 penalties for the price of one (Drunkard Stupid Moronic Idiot perhaps?).

...and now we know that Pocus is all-knowing, all-seeing: he describes my personal attributes perfectly!!!!!