Generals and Quick Combat

[pjwheeling]

If I understand this correctly, the combat random number is amplified by the Tactics rating of the three-highest ranking generals on its side, plus any additional generals contribute 1/10th of their Tactics bonus. In addition to this, their Leadership ratings are used to rally troops that have dropped into the Rout section of the Combat Grid. Is this correct so far? My next question is regarding the other three ratings; Initiative, Command, and Cavalry. My reading of the manual seems to suggest that these ratings only come into play in Detailed Combat. Is this correct? If so, it would seem to me that when leading my forces using Quick Combat I should only be concerned about the Leadership and Tactics ratings of my generals. If that is the case then it would not be representing the true overall value of a general.

The reason I am asking all these questions is because a few years back I started an AAR, but became dissatisfied with it because I felt like I could always find a way to defeat the AI in most battles so that it ended up being quite unrealistic. It seems that using the Quick Combat method that the outcomes are more realistic and would make for a great AAR, not knowing how the war would end. So to make a long story short I'm just taking a closer look at how the game would play out using all Quick Combat battles to see if it would be worth the time that would need to be devoted to it to make a good AAR.

Patrick

[pjwheeling]

Have I stumped the panel?

Patrick

[terje439]

I believe you have it right, but I am not sure as I usually just set the AI at max difficulty and have a harder time defeating it due to that rather than play QC.

Terje

[pjwheeling]

I want to have the South's resources set a bit higher to represent a "What if" history, but when you set the level of difficulty higher for the AI, while playing the battles on Detailed Combat, you basically make the South's economy even worse, don't you?

What I am considering doing is introducing an ahistorical scenario in which the Southern Economy and population would increase about 15%, and then use the Quick Combat system, to see how much difference it might have made.

Patrick

[Rekm41]

Interesting...

[terje439]

ORIGINAL: pjwheeling

I want to have the South's resources set a bit higher to represent a "What if" history, but when you set the level of difficulty higher for the AI, while playing the battles on Detailed Combat, you basically make the South's economy even worse, don't you?

What I am considering doing is introducing an ahistorical scenario in which the Southern Economy and population would increase about 15%, and then use the Quick Combat system, to see how much difference it might have made.

Patrick

Think you read me in reverse sort of speak. I UP the AI to the max giving me the harshest combat losses, minimzing the AIs and boosting the AIs economy [;)]

Terje

[pjwheeling]

What I am looking to do is explore an ahistorical situation where some political events effect the populations and economies of both the North and the South, to see how it would play out on the system. I would be playing the South.

It won't work using Detailed combat. In order to do what you did I would have to boost the Northern economy, so that wouldn't follow the situation I am describing above.

I am probably doing a miserable job of explaining myself. I'm sorry.

Patrick

[Rekm41]

I get it. You want the south to have an easier time economically speaking and you want the battles to fight out fairly using the QC system at all times as it can be quite easy at times to beat the AI in detailed combat.

[pjwheeling]

You got it. Terje mentioned in an earlier thread that using exclusively Quick Combat that the South would do well initially, but would be defeated eventually due to a lack of manpower. Which is what happened historically. I think giving the South a bit of boost both economically and in manpower might make for an interesting war, and by using exclusively Quick Combat I will not be able to take advantage of AI shortcomings. It will probably take advantage of mine. [:D]

Patrick

[Gil R.]

I've lost track of whether there's something here I can still answer.

[pjwheeling]

Gil,

Is my understanding of how the Tactics and Leadership ratings of Generals work in Quick Combat correct (see beginning of thread)?
The questions about how Initiative, Command, and Cavalry Ratings work in Quick Combat you already answered for me; that you are looking for clarification from Eric and will get back with me. That's everything, Thanks.[:)]

Patrick

[Gil R.]

Yes, Tactics and Leadership definitely are factored in. I couldn't explain just how Tactics is -- and I'm not sure Eric could, either, without launching into a discourse about algorithms -- but Leadership, at the very least, factors into the chance of units being rallied.

"Brother Against Brother" introduces artillery ratings, something I'd hope to do for FOF if we produce a FOF2 someday. There are certainly a view generals who would merit such a rating.