Who plays with randomised Generals stats? And why not?

[Taillebois]

An underused feature I would say. Are stats based on a general's standing at the time or on a hundred and fifty years of nit picking?

[GraniteStater]

It's whatever Ageod says it is. Many people differ on whose stats oughta be what, but, there it is. They did a pretty good job, even with the nits.

Vey few play Ahistoric Stats in PbeM - just a buncha history junkies.

[Citizen X]

I personally like playing with slightly randomized generals. Enough to keep the overall line but it gives a little surprise now and then. Allthough it favours the Yanks of course, because generally they got more to win.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

Could the option be more useful if you designated all the 3-1-1 generals as generic and unaffected by the option? It wouldn't split generals into such distinct useful vs non-useful status.

Of course the thing I've wanted most is an option to hide leaders stats from players. Combine hidden ratings with some randomization and you could have some fun.

The option has always intrigued me, but there are just a few too many problems to use it often as is.

[Taillebois]

Agreed. Or add false stats to make you more worried or over confident.