Different ratings at different ranks

[Artmiser]

This would be nice to see, some of the poor union generals at the start were decent division commanders. but couldn't command well at higher ranks.

Burnside good example, competent Division commander, not so good corp and poor army commander. And some of this we have to wonder was due to bad chains of command and even the crater incident was actually lincoln meddaling. The black troops that were trained for it were replaced at the last minute with white troops, who had not prepared for the assault and were under poor leadership.

[Artmiser]

I still think this is a great idea, when you promote a general his stats change. 

[marecone]

I agree with you

[dude]

My suggestion in the suggestion thread was to have a "hidden" trait that would specify up to what level a general was able to command at... above this level his traits would suffer.  Say you have a 1 star with great stats... fine promote him to 3 star and give him that corps... but his "hidden" trait says he's only good up to division level... so while he commands a corps his ratings would suffer... put him back in command of a division and he's fine again.  This wouldn't require and recalculating of stats at each promotion... just apply say a -2 to all his stats while his in over his head.
 
 
 
 

[bountyhunter]

Definetly a valid suggestion especially since we are "playing" as Lincoln or Davis and we all know how much trouble they both had finding the right general!

[sadja]

Sometimes things happen during the war and the stats may go down. Longstreet lost his whole family in 63 i think. And he really wasn't the same general. Pickett after gettysburg was a shell of his former self.

I'm sorry I don't have the game yet and some of these may already be incorperated. I'm looking seriously into purchasing as I love the civil war. My problem is WITP is a life all its own[:)][:)][:D] and sometimes occupies huge amounts of my time.[8D]

steve

[jack616]

terrific idea....


agreed that it would certainly add to the flavor of the game.  a similiar suggestion was made in the legendary units thread as well....

[Gil R.]

Dude's idea is quite interesting, and we'll definitely consider it. I doubt this could be done for the next patch, but perhaps a future one

[marecone]

Good idea. When we get general biographies and when (if) this will be implemented, game will get another level. Good call. [:D]

[christof139]

You all have put together some good bios. Chris

[Jonah]

Very True. J. Hood was A GREAT Division Commander, Brigade Commander and Corps commander. But When He took command of an army, he lost every time ang got massacered at Franklin and Nashville. Or J. Hooker, Who was one of the greatest Division and Corps commander, but was flanked and beat as an army commander, That would be a great  catagory to add for the  general's ratings:
 
(ie)Army Command 

[jkBluesman]

While I disagree about Hood as corps commander (he did not perform very well under Johnston in the Atlanta campaign), Dude's idea should definetly be considered for the expansion and it is good that you refreshed the thread.