General ranks still seem to be off

[tevans6220]

In both the Coming Fury and Southern Steel scenarios ranks for some generals seem to be off. Stuart and Early both come in at 3 stars for the South and Butler comes in at 3 stars in the Coming Fury scenario. According to my books Stuart and Early commanded brigades at 1st Manassas and should only be 1 star. Butler should be only be 2 stars at the beginning as he did command a division sized forced at New Orleans. Stuart didn't really command a divisiona sized forced until June 1862 as Lee's calvary commander. Early commanded a brigade until December 1862 when he commanded a division at Fredricksburg.

Not trying to nitpick and it doesn't matter all that much unless you play with historical ratings on. Having Early and Stuart at the beginning sort of tips the balance as both are good commanders. If I can help fix things in any way feel free to call upon me. I'm willing to help in any way that I can.l

[Gil R.]

I made the necessary changes for the patch a week ago, but we're still beta-testing the newest version of the patch before releasing it for a second (briefer) round of public beta-testing. Since it will be a bit longer before you have that, I'll attach the proper files, so that you can see what you think of generals ranks. One file is for the new July scenario (Coming Fury) and the other file does double duty for the Standard scenario and Southern Steel. After downloading these files rename them so that they are just called "commanders.txt."

Here's the first:

[Gil R.]

And the second:

[Gil R.]

While I'm at it, here's the revised version of the Legendary Units file, which I've enhanced by giving out a lot more abilities and brigade attributes, so that they'll be significantly better than other units. I'll still be adding two more LU's, but there's no reason why people who want to start new games can't use this. Be sure to rename the file by removing the word "Updated," and then stick it in the Data folder.

[christof139]

"The_“Arizona_Brigade”_technically_was_not_a_brigade,_since_the_cavalry_regiments_that_were_associated_with_it_never_fought_together,_and_instead_served_in_different_brigades._These_regiments_formed_after_Arizona_was_captured_by_the_Union_in_July,_1862,_and_their_ranks_were_filled_mostly_with_Texans_–_not_Arizonans_–_whose_purpose_was_to_reclaim_the_former_Confederate_territory_(which_had_been_established_a_year_earlier_when_Union_forces_in_the_area_were_defeated)._But,_while_the_brigade_was_still_being_organized_and_equipped,_the_threat_to_eastern_Texas_emerging_in_the_form_of_Union_Gen._Nathaniel_Banks_caused_the_regiments_to_be_dispersed_and_sent_to_different_parts_of_the_Trans-Mississippi_theater."

Statement should read **the cavalry regiments bearing the name 'Arizona' never fought ALL together as a brigade**, and the fact is that frequently 2 of the regiments did serve in the same brigade. The Valverde Battery of Artillery was also considered an Arizona Brigade unit.

For instance, the Second and Third Texas Cavalry, Arizona Brigade were assigned to Bde. Gen. J.P. Major's Brigade along with the First and Second Texas Cavalry, Partisan Rangers Regiments during 1863 and the the 1864 Red River Campaign. The First Texas Cavalry, Arizona Brigade ended up serving in Gano's Texas Cav. Bde. in Indian Territory while the 4th Texas Cavalry, Arizona Brigade served in Slaughter's Texas Cavalry Brigade along the Rio Grande River and included in Slaughter's Brigade were the Second Texas Cavalry, Anderson's-Border's Texas Cavalry and Benavide's Texas Cavalry Regiments. Source for this info. is: 'Lone Star Regiments in Gray', by Ralph A. Wooster and Sifakis' Texas Volume of his Compendium of Confederate Armies.

Chris

[tevans6220]

Thanks Gil. And thanks for all your hard work. Like I said I wasn't trying to nitpick. I played a historical game and something seemed off with Early, Stuart and Butler. Just thought I'd mention it and lend a hand if needed.

[Gil R.]

cristof139:
Thanks! I'll rework the bio.

tevans6220:
Nitpicking is good. And in this case, you were pointing out something quite wrong (not something done deliberately, but something that still needed fixing).

[christof139]

cristof139:
Thanks! I'll rework the bio.

You're welcome. I never was trying to be a DH you know, and DH does not = Double header but rather something else vaguely similar. [8|]

Chris