W on Patch II or the Great General debate

[Hard Sarge]

well, the work and tests go on

here is a shot of my Union Command

[Drex]

Must be in the beggining as the quality looks mostly cowardly. I never get Sherman early in the game.

[Hard Sarge]

that is why it is testing

start dates have been changed (but I still think we should have Sherman wait until he gets out of the Hosp to take command again)

yes, that is the first turn

[Gil R.]

You can now have historical start dates for generals, or slightly randomized start dates (within X turns of their historical date). Personally, I think that randomized will be better, but it's just plain wrong for the Union to start the game with Grant and be able to promote him to four stars.

I don't have my data with me right now, but Sherman's historical start date was also probably in 1861.

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

You can now have historical start dates for generals, or slightly randomized start dates (within X turns of their historical date). Personally, I think that randomized will be better, but it's just plain wrong for the Union to start the game with Grant and be able to promote him to four stars.

I don't have my data with me right now, but Sherman's historical start date was also probably in 1861.

Sherman was promoted to brigadier general just after Bull Run. You could always limit promotions to 1 rank per turn to slow down Grant or make generals need battlefield experience to be promoted. If you think it's wrong for Grant how about Lee? He didn't command an army until june of 1862 but he can be promoted on turn 1 just like Grant. Grant was an army commander months before Lee.

[General Quarters]

I don't think there is any one right way to handle when generals appear. When I have created alternative rules for CW boardgames in the past, I usually went with when they were promoted to MG. But generals enter this game as BGs. An alternative would be when they reached a certain level of command, e.g., army or corps or ... department? There are also special cases such as generals who were high ranking early in the war such as Samuel Cooper and Edwin D. Morgan who never led troops.

Finally, there are the very special cases of guys like Lee and Grant. My own view is that Lee was universally recognized as a top flight general at the outset of the war, regardless of the fact that he did not command an army until well into 62, but others have equally good reasons, more or less, for starting him as BG. Grant is probably the most special case, because of his huge impact on the war. If he can be made a 4 star right away, and perhaps put in charge of the AoP, then the Union gets a jump start it did not have historically. On the other hand, theoretically, Lincoln could have picked him instead of McClellan at the beginning. Some players might like to be able to do that.

So I don't see this question so much as a matter of "getting it right" (except for obvious corrections which, I gather, have already been made in the new upcoming patch) as finding out what players want, or perhaps what options they want.

For myself, I always enjoy some random element, so that you don't really know when Grant or whomever is going to show up and each game is a bit different, but that is just a personal preference.

[freeboy]

u could alway house rule that a General starts out at one star, and must remain so for at least x months,
this in response to the Grant at begining comment above..

[Drex]

I like the idea of battle experience determing promotion, especially right after a victory.

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

u could alway house rule that a General starts out at one star, and must remain so for at least x months,
this in response to the Grant at begining comment above..

Grant went from a colonel in charge of a regiment to a major general commanding an army in slightly over 6 months. Lee's commands in that time period were the failed West Virginia campaign and commanding coastal defenses in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. If anyone needs to be restricted it's Lee.

[captskillet]

Grant went from a colonel in charge of a regiment to a major general commanding an army in slightly over 6 months. Lee's commands in that time period were the failed West Virginia campaign and commanding coastal defenses in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. If anyone needs to be restricted it's Lee.

well it aint like Lee just fell off the back of a turnip truck into command with no experience...........he was wounded and received 2 promotions, the 2nd to Lt.Col as a member of Winfield Scotts staff in the Mexican War and then was Super at West Point.............what did Grant do before the War besides get drunk and fail in the business world????

[Drex]

Both men distinguished themselves in the MAW. Lee was asked by Scott to run the army in the begiining wasn't he? Lee's rep was already in place but Grant had to establish his.

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: captskillet

Grant went from a colonel in charge of a regiment to a major general commanding an army in slightly over 6 months. Lee's commands in that time period were the failed West Virginia campaign and commanding coastal defenses in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. If anyone needs to be restricted it's Lee.

well it aint like Lee just fell off the back of a turnip truck into command with no experience...........he was wounded and received 2 promotions, the 2nd to Lt.Col as a member of Winfield Scotts staff in the Mexican War and then was Super at West Point.............what did Grant do before the War besides get drunk and fail in the business world????

Grant graduated from West Point, fought in the Mexican War and was brevetted twice for bravery. His business failures and drinking problem between the wars had nothing to do with his performance in the Civil War. My post was not a critisism of Lee, it was in reply to someone who suggested restricting Grant's ability to be promoted. Grant's quick rise to army command is a fact. He was an army commander months before Lee was. Allowing Lee to be promoted to army command on the 1st turn of the game while restricting Grant makes no sense.

[rook749]

There are really four issues with generals at start in any civil war game. Lee, Stonewall, Grant and Sherman.

Let me try and breakdown the issues with each one:

Lee declines the command off all union armies and joins the CSA. Lee started off the war in command of the forces in Virginia and the takes command of the forces in West Virginia and does poorly more to due to his brigade commander’s failures than anything he does but he does do poorly. From then until Joe Johnson becomes ill is a direct advisor to Jeff Davis and then in summer spring of 1862 get command of the ANV. Anyone who play a civil war game puts Lee in charge from turn 1 giving the ANV a huge edge early on.

Stonewall start the war off as a birgade commander. Again anyone who plays a civil war game promotes Stonewall to division/corps/army command from turn one. Something he did not get until the end of October 1861, and this was only more of division/corps. Stonewall never really had command of an army – I’ve played several PBEM games where one turn one Stonewall is promoted to 4 starts and railed out west.

Those are two big advantages to the CSA. To me, Stonewall causes more issues than Lee – though fighting Lee from turn 1 is a real pain for the Union.

Grant receives his promotion to brigadier general in Augusts (granted it was back dated to May) of 1861 and major general in February of 1862. He started leading forces into actual battles staring in November 17, 1861 at The Battle of Belmont. So he needs to show up at the end of August of 1861.

Sherman is appointed Brig. Gen. of Volunteers in may of 1861. He commands a brigade at Bull Run. Served in Kentucky but was relieved because of instability (he had not recovered from the battle of Bull Run). Then takes command of the 5th Division and fights with the Army as a division or corps commander until Grant is transferred to the east in Augusts of 1863.

Grant getting command of an army in 1861 is fine (to be historical it should be in the west but that is more up to the player I feel). I think that Sherman is more of an issue as most people promote him to command of an army right off the bat.

There first thing that needs to be done (Gil has stated this has been correct for the next release) is correct the entry dates.

The second thing is to limit a general from being promoted more than one star at a time. Possibly only getting one promotion for each general every three or six months?

What does everyone else think?

Rook

[Drex]

But generals were promoted ahead of seniors. this should be possible, but perhaps some kind of political penalty attached? I believe that has been mentioned by Gil before.

[chris0827]

Sherman is appointed Brig. Gen. of Volunteers in may of 1861

 
His date of rank was backdated to may. He was promoted to brigadier general on august 7th. Until Grant's promotion to major general Sherman outranked him but agree to serve under him. If you limit promotion to every three or six months then Grant can't command an army until at least may of 1862. A promotion every two months would work but I'd rather see promotions tied to combat experience. In 1861 you had to have someone leading the troops so inexperienced men ended up commanding armies. No one had experience leading that many troops at the time but the later army commanders had to move up the chain of command after showing at least some skill at lower levels.

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: Drex

But generals were promoted ahead of seniors. this should be possible, but perhaps some kind of political penalty attached? I believe that has been mentioned by Gil before.

That's true but you never saw a brigade commander promoted over division and corps commanders to lead an army. You did see lower ranked corps commanders promoted to army command. When Pope was given command of the army of Virginia Fremont outranked him and refused to serve under him. In 1864 Burnside was a corps commander and reported directly to Grant instead of Meade because Burnside outranked Meade. You can't really simulate that without adding senority to the game.

[Gil R.]

It would require a bit of programming to put in some sort of limitation on how often particular generals can be promoted. Limiting promotions to no more than one rank should be simpler to implement, and is under consideration.

[rook749]

What you really need is some method of seniority that allows generals to be ranked by date they are promoted – this would recreate some of the problems in game where you need to sit a three or four general in the rear if you wanted a newer three or four star to command the corps or army.

Also, need either a time delay between generals being promoted (say two/three months) or the game needs to keep track of battles the general is. Make it so the general must be a minor battle (more then 10,000 men total) at his current rank before the general can be promoted.

Rook

[General Quarters]

I agree that it is odd to be able to promote generals at will, which means really on the basis of historical hindsight. But it is hard to provide a historical justification for rules requiring battles or even time in rank. Early on, guys became generals on the basis of some combination of actual military record, reputation, personal presence, ambition, political standing, previous connections, and being in the right place at the right time.

Grant was lucky to have a congressman who could get him appointed general and he ended up in charge of the troops in Cairo which were not yet an army but became one. Halleck was given a major department without having seen a shot fired in the CW. Look at Polk, G.W.Smith, Lovell, Pemberton, Toombs, Fremont, Pope (whose father was a judge before whom Lincoln had practiced), McClellan (both a military record and a lot of connections as RR pres, including Lincoln as one of his attorneys), and so on.

One of main problems of command was that many of these guys had to be dumped or shuffled off into side commands. After a time, battle records played a larger role but not in those early months.

[rook749]

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

I agree that it is odd to be able to promote generals at will, which means really on the basis of historical hindsight. But it is hard to provide a historical justification for rules requiring battles or even time in rank. Early on, guys became generals on the basis of some combination of actual military record, reputation, personal presence, ambition, political standing, previous connections, and being in the right place at the right time.

Grant was lucky to have a congressman who could get him appointed general and he ended up in charge of the troops in Cairo which were not yet an army but became one. Halleck was given a major department without having seen a shot fired in the CW. Look at Polk, G.W.Smith, Lovell, Pemberton, Toombs, Fremont, Pope (whose father was a judge before whom Lincoln had practiced), McClellan (both a military record and a lot of connections as RR pres, including Lincoln as one of his attorneys), and so on.

One of main problems of command was that many of these guys had to be dumped or shuffled off into side commands. After a time, battle records played a larger role but not in those early months.

I agree, I don't really love my idea I’m hoping if I throw out my best ideas that someone smatter then me comes up with a good plan [:D]

How bout this as an idea:

1) You can promote any number of generals up one rank a turn (assuming you have space).
2) You may only demote one per turn.

This will mean either the union can not fills its leaders ranks or as new leaders appear it will take time to get rid of the dead weight....

Rook