Random leader stats

[incbob]

Okay I understand somewhat now. 

[satisfaction]

The math and how it works does make sense. Just wishing that I would not know who my army commanders would be. Takes some of the edge off knowing it will be Grant (keep clicking till you get him) and then just not knowing how good he will be. What I run into is the same "keep clicking until you get general X", with everything riding on how his ratings are randomized. It would be great if there was no "keep clicking until X", who knows maybe that general is out there at the start.....or maybe not until 1863 does he show up....just hoping I don't know who I'm waiting for. Still don't get me wrong, I'm totally addicted and have yet to beat AI. This would just add tremedously (IMHO) to the longer term reply value and PBEM value.

ORIGINAL: incbob

Okay I understand somewhat now. 

[madgamer2]

If your really into random generals get FoF. I found that this was the only interesting thing in that game for me. I am sure there are lots of folks who love it, and it is a good game but not for ME. If your really interested (I can't think of why) PM me for a personal game review LOL

Madgamer

[hgilmer]

    I am one of the ones that hate this kind of randomization.  What's the point (I'm not trying to attack anyone, so please don't take it as such) to randomize generals like Grant, Lee, Sherman, Stuart, Jackson, if they are bowwows after being randomized?  Tio me it is like, hey let's just make up a fantasy game with made up leaders with fictional names.

I've had a few beers so if I seem like I'm confrontational, just say, "Oh well, Gilmer is drunk again, ignore him."

[:)]

[PyleDriver]

Gilmer I feel they same way. I don't like playing with random leaders, and yes I love my beer and say somethings at times I shouldn't...[:D]

[8D]
Jon

[satisfaction]

Gilmer believe it or not I almost totally agree with you. [&:]
I hate random fantasy type games based on historical events....aka FoF before the option of historical start was introduced. Didn't want an even fight, I wanted the real fight to see if I could do better. That is what is driving my interest here. It seems, historically, that the union search for actual fighting generals was one of the key facets of the war. The unknown is what I would like. I'm not demanding this, or thinking it should be for all....just an option that randomized the CP points. Also please keep all the real names. It takes away a lot of immersion (and replay to some extent) for me to know that I need general X, Y and Z....bet Lincoln would have killed for that knowledge. Also due to the CP requirements of AC and TC you know which generals will rise to that level....as they tend to start that way (the CP gain in battle, when battles are not terribly frequent, makes it come down to just a few known generals) . I don't like the "good 3 more clicks and I'll get Grant". From the CSA side, especially so in PBEM I believe, this would add a much needed boost and dose of reality. You will get that variety of generals facing you....you just need to hope that this one is not THE ONE. Now you know Lee will be facing Grant, probably in 1862. If this were WW2 I wouldn't really care, as then the war was so industrial and huge this facet of battle was just a smaller part of a much bigger whole (still important, but not like the ACW). I'm more keen on this, as this is one of the biggest parts of the Civil War. This will also add urgency to find your generals on the Union side as that 1864 election will be looming. Finally if this were a tactical game (or even AACW level) this would be less important, but from a strategic point of view this was one of the main strategic problems the USA faced. Sorry for the rant, just killing a lunch hour. [:D]

[incbob]

I understand gilmore's point of view, but I have to agree with satisfaction.

This is a great historical game and appears to be very good from that realm and in that realm there is no reason to have random generals.

However, in truth if you want a real historical game you HAVE to have random generals. Lincoln did not start 1861 just waiting for Grant to get victories so he could be promoted to and come to the east. Lincoln went through so many generals for the Army of the Potomac because he kept looking for a General that would not only go out an fight, but would win. Look how many generals he went through.

But not if you use the historical generals. Now as Lincoln all you do is wait till Grant comes along. With non-random generals you don't have the surprise that Lee and Grant where. Even in 1862 no one really understood how good Lee and Grant were, but of course since you don't have random generals in 1862 you already know who your generals will be in 1864-5.

I, and I think satisfaction, want that mystery. We don't want the hindsight.

[satisfaction]

ORIGINAL: incbob

I understand gilmore's point of view, but I have to agree with satisfaction.

This is a great historical game and appears to be very good from that realm and in that realm there is no reason to have random generals.

However, in truth if you want a real historical game you HAVE to have random generals. Lincoln did not start 1861 just waiting for Grant to get victories so he could be promoted to and come to the east. Lincoln went through so many generals for the Army of the Potomac because he kept looking for a General that would not only go out an fight, but would win. Look how many generals he went through.

But not if you use the historical generals. Now as Lincoln all you do is wait till Grant comes along. With non-random generals you don't have the surprise that Lee and Grant where. Even in 1862 no one really understood how good Lee and Grant were, but of course since you don't have random generals in 1862 you already know who your generals will be in 1864-5.

I, and I think satisfaction, want that mystery. We don't want the hindsight.

You got what I'm saying right on. I do like the current randomization (and always use it), however I don't like knowing who the main generals will be. Right now with random, you know it will be Grant/Sherman etc...just not how good they will be. If you get a bad Grant you are in trouble. Also incbob you got my point about random being historical exactly. Good to know I made sense.

[Frido1207]

For my understanding the randomazation doesn´t mean to make this game fantasy.
incbob & satisfaction pointed exactly out, what I´m thinking about this question.
Its the uncertainty, of not knowing how a specific leader will perform, that simulates the historical situation of Lincoln & Davis, & thus would increase the historical immersion of this game & not the other way around.