Generals rating

[BodyBag]

Hi all

New to FoF, but the game has cost me all social life the past week![;)]

As a true control-freak, (for games only...) I started out reading the full manual, read-me files, and AAR's before I even attempted to play. Not being a ACW-buff, (I'm from Europe, - we are more into Napoleonics) I even read Ospreys book about First Bull Run.

Good preparation is vital, (have moonshine and grits ready...) and then I started with all Advanced Rules on, diff. First Sergant, as the CSA.

My first detailed battle went well,- with an army about 70 k against Union 75 k, I opened up a can of whoop-ass in Virginia! With total losses just over 12 k (USA 9 k - CSA 3 k) I won my first decisive battle and recieved the surrender of 8 Union brigades and a couple of generals.

Love the game, but I have one complaint: It does not seem realistic that a general will have the same skills as brigade, divisional or corps commander.
History is full of commanders who was great at a certain level, but failed misereable with a bigger command and responsibility. (Marshall Ney comes to mind...)
I think there should be some kind of trade-off between skills and promotion. That would give the player the option to keep Jeb Stuart as Brig. Gen. where he is brilliant, and not promote him to a position where he would be out of his depths.

Same thing in reverse with demotion, - if the general does not resign, there should be a chance that his skills could actually raise at a lower level of command.

Anyway great game.

Cheers.

[Ironclad]

On random stats there is a slight possibility of a minor change in ratings when promotion/demotion occurs.

[Gil R.]

Love the game, but I have one complaint: It does not seem realistic that a general will have the same skills as brigade, divisional or corps commander.
History is full of commanders who was great at a certain level, but failed misereable with a bigger command and responsibility. (Marshall Ney comes to mind...)
I think there should be some kind of trade-off between skills and promotion. That would give the player the option to keep Jeb Stuart as Brig. Gen. where he is brilliant, and not promote him to a position where he would be out of his depths.

Same thing in reverse with demotion, - if the general does not resign, there should be a chance that his skills could actually raise at a lower level of command.

Bodybag,
Thanks for all of your comments. Regarding your suggestions, I should say that I'm sympathetic to them. If/when we come out with a FOF expansion one of the main things we would do would be to make generals even more multifaceted, and I think that having different ratings at different levels of command would be high on our list to address.

[haruntaiwan]

I tend to keep the guys with the Superb tactics but low inititiative, etc. at the brigade or division level because they give the combat bonus.

If the general is all around good, he goes up higher...so it is sort of included in the game. High initiative, because it is multiplied by the number of stars the general has, ends up being important for 3 and 4 star generals.

[GIJim]

I've aften thought about this reality not reflected in the game. You have your Marshall Ney and we have our General Hood. Probably the best division commander of the Civil War, did limited duty as a Corps Commander and a total, complete, abject failure as an Army Commander.