Leader promotion

[veji1]

Yeah 665 is just crazy... If one finds 662 really low on the defensive side, I could see a 663, but really nothing much more. And one has to remember that cav doesn't do much fighting per se so the offensive rating is really not that useful, a lot more useful would be traits that make him move fast, be very hard to hit when he wants to avoid combat, and be able to spend a looooooong time in hostile territory with little supply problems.

[KamilS]

Due to the scope o the game it is harder to distinguish between offence & defence in areas with lesser density of troops.

According to my understanding of game mechanics non-cavalry force entering region controlled by opposition is on offence so by that definition force controlling that region is on defence. From such perspective Battle of Brice’s Crossing occurred in such circumstances and fact that southerners defended in active fashion is irrelevant.

Generally speaking difference between attacking and defending in regions enabling manoeuvre warfare is blurred and I do not find enough special abilities to compensate for low defensive skill.

How would he perform in “trench warfare”, that developed in Virginia remains uncertain, but I guess he would be quicker to adapt than for example R.Lee.
I don’t know about Napoleon, I was mainly referring to the fact that such overrate figure like mentioned earlier Lee who have really might stats, plus there aren’t proper special abilities to describe kind of warfare I think Forrest was capable of.



Don’t get me wrong I am not on any personal mission, it is just my impression from comparing game and my understanding of developments in real life. I have to add I am far from being specialist in Civil War, but like to think, that I can recognize brilliance when I see it.

Sorry for wasting your time if I am talking rubbish.

[veji1]

I get what you are saying, this is why I think that for Forrest, stats are less important than proper traits I would be happy with 6/5/3 for example but with traits that make him a ginormous nuisance : Moves very fast, Can evade battle at will if commanding cavalry/irregulars, can live off the land for a very long time and has excellent scouting abilities (can see precisely the force composition of adjacent provinces for example).

You give him traits like these and with his strategic movement, either in command of a cavalry div, or in command of mixed cavalry/irregulars whether div or corps, he becomes a ginormous pain wherever he can be used effctively to roam : In Tennessee/Kentucky or even in the Transmississippi theater; wherever there is some space to manouver. Even with a corps of infantry, althoug he has as harder time evading battles than with Cav/irregulars, he would still be able to move around fast, know where to strike, and survive with low supply consumption. battle stats in themselves then become somewhat irrelevant.

[KamilS]

Well ... I am convinced.

Your proposal of enhancements refers to reality where I was rather speculating about what might have been.
Having said that, I would rather go for one more skill point. Something like 654 [;)].

[veji1]

Personaly, on the leader front what I would really like to see for the sake of gameplay are :
1/ variations that probably require a fair bit of Excel work, and therefore time, but shouldn't to complicated to implement
2/ Some fow to go with the variation that might be more difficult to put in place.

1/ Variation :
a) There is a random stats option, but it just makes it all too random. What would be still be somewhat (i hope) simple, but better because sort of keeping in line with some historical flavor would be a reshuffling of the deck in terms of stats : Divide per year the different generals per faction, and reattribute their ID randomly (ie 61 CSA generals get their ID reattributed, so you might end up with Holmes having Stonewall's stats, Lee having Hugers, etc...). For leaders who only had stats as a 3* star (Beauregard, Lee, etc...) than it might mean creating some 1* and 2* ids for them so that it can still work, but that way in 61 on average the CSA would still have better leaders than the Union, but one wouldn't know which is which.. Of course this only works with some FOW in the system (see below).
b) Create a bit of variation upon promotion. This would be an option one has to choose, just like random stats. Upon promoting a general, the computer would randomly choose from 3 possible profiles : one historical, and 2 with some variations (stat as well as traitwise) for a bit more uncertainty.

2/ FOW :
I find it frustrating that both players know the general stats from the game intel and the battle reports. There should be a way of having general stats stay unknown to the ennemy, ie you only experience that an ennemy general is good because he keeps beating you ! This might not be a big deal when playing with historical stats, but if one was to play with random stats, it would very quickly take away the chrome.

[willgamer]

This highlights a difficult problem, how to rate leaders for a rank above that they held in historically.

Forrest may be the most difficult one of all, but it applies to others as well. To me, giving Forrest stats as a 3* (and even 2* to a lesser degree) that exceed proven leader like Grant and Lee is saying that in an alternate universe history the South easily won the Civil War when President Davis saw a bright light that told him to promote Forrest to command of the Western theater.

The player can manipulate too much both in terms of whom to promote and whom to avoid promoting.

I suggest one answer may be along the lines of automatic randomization of stats for any general promoted above his historical established performance by rank. Perhaps the bias on the randomization should be to weaken the stats, reflecting both the Peter Principle and what happened with many generals historically. This might even include a bias toward acquiring a negative trait.