Random leader stats

[satisfaction]

Alright still really early in playing this but have a question. In my last game vs AI the leader ability was set to random and me as USA. Also abilities were unknown, so a lot of ??2 to start. As the stats got unveiled going into 1862 I noticed a definite pattern. The generals who were good historically were still good and the bad ones still bad. There was some variation but very small. This would seem to reflect a semi random selection, but I'm on full random. Grant, Sherman, Thomas were still very good....Mac, Burnside etc were still average and the usual losers were still apt to get their men killed. One or two I could understande but these leaders were all pretty much in line with reality. Due to random factor I did not automatically go straight for these generals but waited to see what I already had on hand, they showed up in 1862 for what that is worth. Starting another game and I'll see if this is a trend. I'm just hoping random really mean random, feels really gamey to just keep hoping and clicking until you get the commanders you know are good. Love the random and unknown feature, makes for a much more real experience for me.

EDIT: Ok into second game a few turns. It seems that a key value that is not very random is the number of command points. I'll add to this more when Grant and the boys show up out west.

[incbob]

I am really interested in seeing what you find out. I too like to play on random with unknown values because, as you stated, it makes for such an interesting game when you don't know who is good and who isn't. I just started playing around with the game and haven't gotten into enough to see any trends.

[JanSorensen]

CP and rank not random. Att, Def and AC mod are though to mention the key ones.

[satisfaction]

Ahh interesting. I wonder if CP could be randomized some, maybe rank too? Or perhaps just make all new generals 1 stars with a few colonels thrown in for artillery, admi, cavalry. Then it would be up to victories and the commander (us) to promote them. Think it would be really nice to not know who my important generals will be in advance, even if their stats are random. Who would have known a drunk [8D] failed clerk would be an important general back in 1861? Would love to see that value randomized, or make them all pretty low to start and have the impact of battles/luck? bring it up (which might have to be a little faster due to lower number of battles). For example Grant fights small battle in Kentucky and wins, even minor victory, cp moves up. Also not sure if there is a hidden max "potential" CP. If there is then this would be the random number perhaps. Just my thoughts.

[JanSorensen]

Rule 18.1 is the rule in question. It could be interesting with an even more random system - maybe Joel will consider it if you ask nicely

[Bo Rearguard]

What I think would be intriguing is if it was possible to randomnize the leader names as well as the leader numbers.
Basically where aside from a few leaders with a pre-war reputation the leader roster  would a mass of randomnized typical 19th American names.
 
The game would lose a bit of it's historical flavor to be sure. No Grant, Sherman, Forrest, etc. But that's the situation Linclon and Davis faced. It would surely slow the Union player down if his potential Grant was some nobody colonel in the West named Nash or Collins. [;)]

[satisfaction]

ORIGINAL: Bo Rearguard

What I think would be intriguing is if it was possible to randomnize the leader names as well as the leader numbers.
Basically where aside from a few leaders with a pre-war reputation the leader roster  would a mass of randomnized typical 19th American names.

The game would lose a bit of it's historical flavor to be sure. No Grant, Sherman, Forrest, etc. But that's the situation Linclon and Davis faced. It would surely slow the Union player down if his potential Grant was some nobody colonel in the West named Nash or Collins. [;)]

I like it, might be an easier way to do it (could just keep the existing names and randomize them, Grant is a no star engineer etc). This is also an official PLEASE to Joel [&o]. Awesome game so far, this is just a wish item for me. Back to Bo's comment. It would lose some of the actual history, but at least for me it would be even more historical in terms of what it would have been like to be in Lincolns shoes. I would love not knowing, I'm sure the war would have gone a little quicker if Hooker, Burnside, Pope, Fremont etc could have been "skipped". Also as the CSA you would not be able to look across and know who you can easily beat....Nash might be a sneaky one and flank you!

[Frido1207]

Second that.
Although still learning this game, i consider the semi-random / random concept as the greatest potential (aside from PBEM), concerning the replayability value of this game.
So i would also like to see an option, that us player set us as far as possible in a situation, with which Lincoln & Davis were faced.
 

[Joel Billings]

I'll have to speak with Gary to find out what kind of system of scrambling names is possible. Please keep in mind that in both armies there would be leaders with higher rank and command rating (an indication of seniority and experience and ability) at the beginning of the war, and others that would rise through the ranks by having performed particulary well during a battle (perhaps as brigade commander). There would also be those with political backing (including those from state militias), so not everyone is starting out as a colonel having to prove themselves. That said, I can understand the desire to further scramble the deck and we'll see if we can come up with something like that in a future patch.

[Erik Rutins]

To the original poster, I've had "random" games where the values diverged quite a lot from the historical so I think you ended up with similar ones by change. "semi-random" normally does that. The Command values don't change because the assumption is that these are the same leaders with the same seniority, rank and pre-war reputation but you have no idea how good they'll actually be in combat.

[Viking67]

I have to say in my game with full random set, the historically best generals clearly have the best atk, def, and cmd ratings. This does not seem very random.

[Bo Rearguard]

Cool! Well, I think the game is awesome as sold, and the random ratings will help certainly keep it re playable. If the leader names could be jumbled as a future feature, that would really extend it's freshness date. Like I said certain commanders with a strong and well-known reputation before the war began like Robert E. Lee or Winfield Scott should certainly be exempt from the name and ratings scramble. Other than that I think seeing a mass of unfamiliar names with unknown ratings would really put you in the dilemma of Davis and Lincoln. It would like Gene Hackman in the movie Hoosiers when he starts coaching his new basketball team...."let's see what hand I've been dealt." [:D]



<--- However, if by some bizarre coincidence this name gets randomly generated, he's getting command of ALL my calvary. North or South. I don't care what his numbers turn out to be. [:D]

[tran505]

I can see Erik's point, and I think it could be a bit frustrating if you really had absolutely no idea which general was good and which was not (especially with monthly turns). But, I also think it could actually be fun to have a truly randomized leadership option. How about making this an additional ramdomization option rather than "fixing" an idea that might not be broken?

P

[Joel Billings]

Yes, if we do something more, it will be a new option, not changing the existing options. By the way, if you look at the rules you'll see that some Confed leaders have a better chance of getting higher ratings, while Union leaders that start off map have a better chance of having higher ratings than those leaders that start in 1861 on the map. But within those ranges, there is plenty of randomness so play a few games before you conclude there is a problem with the lack of randomness.

[satisfaction]

Wow, must say I'm pleased with the responses. Just a few points in regards to what has been said. I totally agree with having the starting on map leaders being "known" quantities in terms of CP's and maybe abilities, although some generals people thought would be really good because of old army were duds. I also see that leaders will show up with higher ranks/CP's due to politics and the like; fine by me and pretty real. Finally it seems that randomizing names will prevent having the "distribution curve/array" of ranks and CP's messed up. Also really like the early war benefit to CSA in terms of abilities....this was a simple fact that the south ended up with better generals especially early on. I would just like not knowing exactly who they are by name alone. Who would have known that VMI artillery instructor was anyting but a somewhat crazy math teacher.

ps Maybe just bad luck, but seems that the good generals were still good again on random and my bad ones still pretty bad. I'm going to have to restart again (AI is kicking my butt), so I'll watch again on the next game.

[Joel Billings]

Remember that it's the attack rating, defense rating, and army mod that are the main items that are randomized. The skill ratings with infantry, cav, arty, are not randomized. Is this what you're looking at?

[satisfaction]

Indeed the skill rating is the one that keeps popping out at me. I'll know more about the others when the ?'s are gone this time around. Don't know if the skill is tied to CP?

[incbob]

Okay. So let me make sure I understand correctly.

When I put my game on Random Leaders (Not semi) the leaders Attack, Defense and Army Mod are randomized, but nothing else is randomized?

Is so, than could we say that a leaders Attack, Defense and Army Mod are the most important leader traits in the game?

The reason I ask is because I would like to find more randomization. If attack, defense and Army Mod are not a majority of what a player needs to look at when selecting leaders than the replay value of the game has gone down somewhat since you will always be using the same leaders.

Also, if the leader's skill values Inf, cav, itr, ctr, admin, etc are not randomized then what is the use of having the "?" when put on random. Players will know what their stats are after playing, or looking up in the games files.

[satisfaction]

incbob you are hitting it right on the head of where I was going with this thread. I would really like to not know who my commanders will be, not just how good their ratings are. As I understand it now, the primary leaders will always be the same but how well they attack and defend will be random. Again a big PLEASE to a more full randomization....I want a Gen. Fremont that can whip Lee (or TC Pickett [;)]) all the way to Richmond! [:D]

[Joel Billings]

It's all explained in section 18.1. The attack, defense, admin, infantry training, cavalry training, army mod, mortality ratings are the ones that change. The values that don't change will not have ?s. There is no good way to hide the skill ratings since they impact the number of movement points your units have. Since they are always known, Gary decided not to randomize them. Since Army Commanders are the key to the game, and the attack, defense and army mod are the keys to the Army Commanders, this provides the biggest randomness that the game can provide. Skill ratings are very important as well, but it's the AC's attack and defense ratings and army mods that win and lose battles. The unit commander ratings are important as well for lots of reasons (initiative, entrenchments and value for retreats). Down the road we may consider adding other random play options as well, but the current system will give you plenty to deal with.