Generals

[Fastheinz]

I don't like starting with T.J.Jackson and Early as Lt. Generals when R.E. Lee and both Johnston's are Brigadiers! How can I change the starting Generals? When i open the commanders file I haven't been able to change the starting Generals the way I would like!
Any help appreciated.... BTW great game....

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: Fastheinz

I don't like starting with T.J.Jackson and Early as Lt. Generals when R.E. Lee and both Johnston's are Brigadiers! How can I change the starting Generals? When i open the commanders file I haven't been able to change the starting Generals the way I would like!
Any help appreciated.... BTW great game....

Change their rank to 1 instead of 3.

[Gil R.]

Since chris0827 has correctly answered Fastheinz's question, permit me to hijack this thread, since it's so well named...

Sometime in the not-too-distant future Eric will finish up the second patch, which is devoted to fixing bugs (see his thread in the support forum on this). While there will not be time to add new features to this patch, we can easily sneak in changes to data files, as we did when we removed the CSA ironclad in the first patch. So, at the risk of opening up a major can of worms (Exhibit A: the Generals' Ratings sub-forum), what changes to the commanders.txt file should be made? I know that one or more of you have been collecting errors in generals' start dates (and there's a long-buried thread on the topic), and if those were provided we could implement the changes. What else?

[AU Tiger_MatrixForum]

Personally I don't see the need to change Lee et al because you can promote at your leisure at the end of turns.

[Gil R.]

This thread has already been shunted to the near-bottom of pg. 2, so here I go again: if anyone has info that should be used to correct the generals data file, please let me know. Since we're trying to get the next patch out in about ten days (Disclaimer: That is not a legally binding promise) or so I would need this info by Friday. Thanks!

[jsaurman]

Does anyone have a list of the actual ranks of the Union Army generals at the time of Ft Sumpter?   I would think you would want to set up the starting list of generals to match that, then promote or demote from there.
 
I tried to look at the commanders.txt file and there was some strange stuff in there...
 
Here are the generals for the Union army that enter the game with 4 stars:






[font=arial]Meade,_G.G.[/font]

[font=arial]Grant,_U.S.[/font]

[font=arial]Butler,_B.F.[/font]

[font=arial]Buell,_D.C.[/font]

[font=arial]Marston,_G.[/font]

[font=arial]Russell,_D.A.[/font]

[font=arial]Dana,_N.J.[/font]

[font=arial]Hackelman,_P.A.[/font]

[font=arial]Hays,_A.[/font]

[font=arial]Carr,_J.B.[/font]

[font=arial]Chapman,_G.H.[/font]

[font=arial]McClernand,_J.A.[/font]

[font=arial]Duval,_I.H.[/font]

[font=arial]Vincent,_S.[/font]

[font=arial]Wool,_J.E.[/font]

[font=arial]Shaler,_A.[/font]

[font=arial]Stoneman,_G.[/font]
 
Now, Meade, Grant, Buell, I can agree with.  But who were these other guys?  Do they deserve 4 stars right off the bat?
 
But wait, it gets even better.... guess who enters the game with 5 stars???
 






[font=arial]Lowell,_C.R.[/font]

[font=arial]Ullman,_D.[/font]
 
Now please, someone clue me in, who were these guys?
Granted, those two only have a 9 percent chance of appearing... so its not a big deal.  I would rather have everyone start out at 1 star and promote those guys who kicked ass, just like Lincoln had to.

[AU Tiger_MatrixForum]

Strong Vincent may have earned the stars had he survived. Meade never deserved four. Three yes, but four no. McClernand - if it is the fellow I am thinking of, it is laughable. Stoneman, possibly. The others I am unfamiliar with off the top of my head, although Dana and Shaler ring a bell, but I cannot place them.

[chris0827]

Almost all generals should start at 1 star. Only those commanding more than a brigade at the start of the game should get more. Vincent starting at 3 is a joke. He commanded a brigade at Gettysburg as a colonel, was mortally wounded and was promoted to brigadier general shortly be fore his death. As I've said before the entire generals database needs to be redone. Apart from the rank problem at least 95% of the arrival dates are wrong. I can't understand how that happened but it did. Most of the information on those generals is easily obtained on the internet.

[Fastheinz]

I am in agreement with Chris, most generals should start at Brigadier, with a few Major Generals, and promote from there. Anyone should be able to put the Generals in order by date of rank with Excel, or somewhere closer then they are now, and better than me, heh!

[Crimguy]

I agree that, for gameplay purposes,they should start as 1 stars as well.  However, I wonder about having 4 Union Armies at the start, while for the first 2+ years, you only have two 4 star generals allowed to command them.  Maybe change those containers to corps?

[bountyhunter]

Note: Promotion dates are for U.S. Volunteers (USV) unless otherwise noted. BG, Brigadier; MG, Major Gen; LTG, Lt Gen

Meade,_G.G. BG 31 Aug 61, MG 29 Nov 62 (BG, USA 3 Jul 63; MG, USA 18 Aug 64)

Grant,_U.S. BG 31 Jul 61, MG 16 Feb 62, LTG (USA) 2 Mar 64, GEN (USA) 25 Jul 66

Butler,_B.F. BG 17 Apr 61, MG 16 May 61

Buell,_D.C. BG 17 May 61, MG 21 Mar 62

Marston,_G. BG 29 Nov 62

Russell,_D.A. BG 29 Nov 62

Dana,_N.J. BG 3 Feb 62

Hackelman,_P.A. BG 18 Apr 62

Hays,_A. BG 29 Sep 62

Carr,_J.B. BG 7 Sep 62

Chapman,_G.H. BG 21 Jul 64

McClernand,_J.A. BG 17 May 61, MG 21 Mar 62

Duval,_I.H. BG 24 Sep 64

Vincent,_S. BG 3 Jul 63

Wool,_J.E. BG (USA) 25 Jun 1841, MG (USA) 16 May 62 - 4th ranking general when he retired in 63.

Shaler,_A. BG 26 May 63

Stoneman,_G. BG 13 Aug 61, MG 29 Nov 62, Lt Colonel (USA) 30 Mar 64

Lowell,_C.R. Wasn't a Col until 10 May 63, Promoted posthumously to BG effective the date he was mortally wounded (19 Oct 64)

Ullman(n),_D. BG 13 Jan 63


I would say that all generals should enter as one stars unless they were appointed higher before the start of the scenario they enter in. Additionally I would have to say restricting armies to only 4 star generals is a little too restrictive - as you can see both Grant and Buell commanded "armies" at Shiloh and both were MGs. And that is just one example of many.

[chris0827]

The number of stars a general has in the game shows the size unit they can command. It has nothing to do with their actual rank.

[jsaurman]

Does the AI even promote generals?   Is this why they have to be assigned a starting rank? 
 
I'd still like to know why fat old Winfield Scott isn't in there, he certainly was the only guy deserving of three or four stars at the beginning of the war, everyone else was totally unproven.  Even though he was old and couldn't lead a field command, he ought to be in the game, just for historical accuracy sake.
  
According to Wikipedia's article on General Wool, the United States Army in 1860 only had FOUR GENERALS!
So that is Scott, Wool, and I don't know who else, maybe Haleck?, and Buell?

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: jsaurman

Does the AI even promote generals?   Is this why they have to be assigned a starting rank? 

I'd still like to know why fat old Winfield Scott isn't in there, he certainly was the only guy deserving of three or four stars at the beginning of the war, everyone else was totally unproven.  Even though he was old and couldn't lead a field command, he ought to be in the game, just for historical accuracy sake.
 
According to Wikipedia's article on General Wool, the United States Army in 1860 only had FOUR GENERALS!
So that is Scott, Wool, and I don't know who else, maybe Haleck?, and Buell?

Halleck was a civilian and Buell was Lt. colonel. Joe Johnston was a Brigadier General. He was the highest ranking officer to join the confederacy. Scott isn't in because he was unable to ride a horse and needed help to stand. He was incapable of commanding troops in the field. There are other generals who never commanded in the field and should probably be taken out. There is one who was the highest ranking doctor in the army. It would be strange seeing him commanding troops. Samuel Cooper is one confederate who should be removed. He sat at a desk the whole war. You could probably cut out a couple hundred generals who never saw a battlefield.

[bountyhunter]

ORIGINAL: chris0827

The number of stars a general has in the game shows the size unit they can command. It has nothing to do with their actual rank.

Understood, but I think that is the problem... some of these guys on the list weren't generals until late 62 and beyond - so why should they show up in the early part of the game at all?

We have to start somewhere or there is no argument at all especially "if it has nothing to do with their actual rank."

Talking of the 61 scenarios no one should show up capable of commanding an army as no had done in 20 years. The player should hahve to figure it out just as it was in 1861.

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: bountyhunter

ORIGINAL: chris0827

The number of stars a general has in the game shows the size unit they can command. It has nothing to do with their actual rank.

Understood, but I think that is the problem... some of these guys on the list weren't generals until late 62 and beyond - so why should they show up in the early part of the game at all?

We have to start somewhere or there is no argument at all especially "if it has nothing to do with their actual rank."

Talking of the 61 scenarios no one should show up capable of commanding an army as no had done in 20 years. The player should hahve to figure it out just as it was in 1861.

It's easy. The person or persons who put together the generals database didn't do his job. 95% of the arrival dates are wrong. Many are years off. Generals who never commanded more than a brigade are given 4 or 5 stars. It almost looks like all of the values are random.

[ericbabe]

The arrival dates -- as we've mentioned before -- come from a data table we found which gave the year, but not the month, at which generals made brigadier rank.  We added a fudge factor to the year so that generals wouldn't all appear in January.  It also appears that the data table we found contained some definite errors, as have been pointed out.  We did not have the manpower to look up each starting data by hand.

I don't know about the 4,5 star generals, I hadn't seen those -- but will have Gil look into them...

[dude]

It can also be hard for the Union generals depending if you are going by when they received their ranks in the “volunteers” vs. the “regular” army.
 
Sherman is a good example:
[font="times new roman"]Brig Gen (volunteers) Aug 3, 1861[/font]
[font="times new roman"]Maj Gen (volunteers) May 1st 1862[/font]
Brig Gen (regular army) July 1st 1863 (yes Brig Gen... not a mistake.)
 
... and consider that in July 1863 he was commanding more than just a brigade.
 

[jsaurman]

Well if you have the data table, you certainly could post it here and everyone would devour it with a vengence and spit out the right info.
 
JIM

[bountyhunter]

ORIGINAL: dude

It can also be hard for the Union generals depending if you are going by when they received their ranks in the “volunteers” vs. the “regular” army.

Sherman is a good example:
[font="times new roman"]Brig Gen (volunteers) Aug 3, 1861[/font]
[font="times new roman"]Maj Gen (volunteers) May 1st 1862[/font]
Brig Gen (regular army) July 1st 1863 (yes Brig Gen... not a mistake.)

... and consider that in July 1863 he was commanding more than just a brigade.

I think we have to stick to their Volunteer ranks or else we won't have many to work with.

The more I think about all this the more I get confused as far as "ranks" go... If the stars don't have anything to do with rank then the dialog box asking me to select a general for promotion to 3 stars probably should read select a general for corps command. Honestly I can't think of why it wouldn't correspond to rank.

But if the argument is the Union army didn't create the rank of LTG until 64, then I say if you are playing as Lincoln (the commander-in-chief) in the game you can create whatever rank(s) you please! Remove the 4 star restriction on army command and we are in line with the way things happended- that is if historical correctness is the main issue.