Generals' Ratings

[TexHorns]

Weren't the Gaussian Curves a French light cavalry brigade from the Napoleonic era?[:'(]

[dh76513]

And all this time, I thought the Gaussian Curves referred to the French women of the Napoleonic era. How disappointing!

[Hard Sarge]

Silly Rabbits, this is a Gaussian Curve

[Oldguard]

ORIGINAL: spruce
And also what about the general accepted fact that confederate generals were better then Union generals?

This is "generally accepted"? From whom?

Any study of the relative performance of Union vs. Confederate generals must take into consideration the political landscape on each side as well. In that respect, it would be true that the North had slightly more political chaos going on than did the South (though only a little - the South's governors were independent barons). Radical abolitionists and power-hungry Congressmen were the bane of Lincoln's existence, and Lincoln was in turn the bane of McClellan's. However, I would put the likes of Reynolds, Grant, Sheridan, Hancock and Buford up against any equivalent set of Confederates in terms of generalship and warcraft any time.

[andysomers]

I'm with oldguard here.  But I will make this caveat.  At the START of the war through, say, mid-1863, the Confederacy IN GENERAL had better general officers, primarily in the eastern theater.  Once Union high command was sifted through, and each side lost generals through attirtion, I would say that qualities equalled out, with US generalcy probably even trumping CS generalcy in the 1864-65 part of the war. 
 
This is typically simulated by giving the CS a better selection of generals at the start, and then slowly making better US generals available as the game progresses, through promotion of junior officers.
 
AS

[spruce]

ORIGINAL: Oldguard

ORIGINAL: spruce
And also what about the general accepted fact that confederate generals were better then Union generals?

This is "generally accepted"? From whom?

Any study of the relative performance of Union vs. Confederate generals must take into consideration the political landscape on each side as well. In that respect, it would be true that the North had slightly more political chaos going on than did the South (though only a little - the South's governors were independent barons). Radical abolitionists and power-hungry Congressmen were the bane of Lincoln's existence, and Lincoln was in turn the bane of McClellan's. However, I would put the likes of Reynolds, Grant, Sheridan, Hancock and Buford up against any equivalent set of Confederates in terms of generalship and warcraft any time.

look, if you read most historical books or works on the time frame they come up with this.

I'm not even a US - citizen so I don't want to be part of any rant on this topic - I was just offering my ideas as a humble way of assistance.

[*Lava*]

Hi!

Actually, it is a very good question.

Overall, the rebs probably did have better generals at the beginning of the war, however, a couple of "non-general" factors were at play as well:

First, the North was on the offensive... and it is far more difficult to attack than defend.

Second, the Confederacy had much better cavalry in the first couple years of the war. When you are able to figure out where your enemy is and he doesn't know where you are.. it makes being a "good" general a whole lot easier.

These two factors, the yanks attacking "blindly" (almost) combined with the rebs having a very good scouting ability gave the CSA a very big advantage in the Eastern theatre.

The Western theatre was, however, quite a bit different.

Ray (alias Lava)

[Gil R.]

In case anyone is wondering, I'm still waiting for the "Generals" sub-forum to be created by the moderator (who, I think, is on vacation, since he's been offline for several days). Likewise, I can't start any poll threads to get the voting going until my account's configuration is changed. However, since I don't want to lose more time on this, I'm wondering if any of the regulars here (e.g., Oldguard, dh76513, andysomers, etc.) is able to start poll threads, and would be willing to do so until I'm able to start adding them. Please private message me and I can tell you what should go into the thread.

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

In case anyone is wondering, I'm still waiting for the "Generals" sub-forum to be created by the moderator (who, I think, is on vacation, since he's been offline for several days). Likewise, I can't start any poll threads to get the voting going until my account's configuration is changed. However, since I don't want to lose more time on this, I'm wondering if any of the regulars here (e.g., Oldguard, dh76513, andysomers, etc.) is able to start poll threads, and would be willing to do so until I'm able to start adding them. Please private message me and I can tell you what should go into the thread.

Nothing against any of the posters referenced - they all have made GREAT contributions to this forums and I respect their insights and comments immensely. But they have less then 120 posts between them on this board and only 1 of them has been registered here for more than a month. I know you are workingg hard on the game Gil, but are you so exhausted as to seriously think any of them might have this authority when they do not carry the staff tag, they have all been registered for less time than you, and they combine for less than a third the number of posts as you have? [&:]

[8|]

[Hard Sarge]

Come on JC lighten up a little

the number of posts means nothing (all it means is someone posts alot)

I also think back in the old days, we used to be able to set up our own polls, but with the change over to the newer forum, it was not there anymore

for me, this is my 2nd name (nothing shady, my one was HARD_Sarge, but when I was asked to do a beta, they had linked the beta to this name instead, so I had to drop the one I normally used)

[Gil R.]

I've been assuming that my account is incorrectly configured, since the FAQ for the forum makes it seem as if anyone can start a poll. If there was some software changeover and people now can't do that without authorization and we're all in the same boat then the FAQ is less informative than it should be.

[Hard Sarge]

yea, I think it has been turned off (maybe they forgot to turn it back on ???

[Gil R.]

Yeah, that's the same configuration I have.

I'll try to find out from the Matrix people what's going on. It seems to me that if anyone can start a thread then anyone should be able to start a poll thread.

Anyway, my guess is that it won't be until Monday that I can get the polls up and running, but we can make do with that -- there should be enough time to vote on all of the generals who need to be voted on.

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Come on JC lighten up a little

the number of posts means nothing (all it means is someone posts alot)

I wasn't intending to criticize those with low post counts. In fact, I tried to stress that point. I was just attempting to suggest that if Gil did not have the authority to post polls, it was highly unlikely that brand new people without a lot of history on these boards would.

[Oldguard]

ORIGINAL: spruce

look, if you read most historical books or works on the time frame they come up with this.

I'm not even a US - citizen so I don't want to be part of any rant on this topic - I was just offering my ideas as a humble way of assistance.

This isn't a personal or emotional issue at all - it's an interesting historical question. IMO, The relative quality of Southern commanders may have been slightly higher at the start of the war but gradually declined (death of Jackson, A.S. Johnston, others) at the same time their instrument of war was degrading through attrition (promotion of commanders like Early beyond division level did not improve the quality of command). Meanwhile the Union commanders were learning their craft on the job and gaining promotions based on performance - the wheat was separating from the chaff. So yes, I'd say there was a shifting equality over the course of the war but the South had their share of mediocre, even bad, leaders.

ORIGINAL: jchastain
Nothing against any of the posters referenced - they all have made GREAT contributions to this forums and I respect their insights and comments immensely. But they have less then 120 posts between them on this board and only 1 of them has been registered here for more than a month. I know you are workingg hard on the game Gil, but are you so exhausted as to seriously think any of them might have this authority when they do not carry the staff tag, they have all been registered for less time than you, and they combine for less than a third the number of posts as you have?

FYI, I mostly lurk unless there's a subject or game that I'm excited about. I'm a veteran of about 15 years on Usenet, IRC, Compuserve and the Internet, and "number of posts" has never been a fair measure of a member's worth although it's usually thrown out at some point by older members as a way to assert their authority. Having said that, I don't care to create polls here and while I appreciate all of Gil's great feedback I don't want any of the dev team or testers to waste one minute here that doesn't advance the release of FoF.

[spruce]

fact is that the South had access to some excellent leaders at the start of the war and it had a big impact on the war effort. Off course "Southern" genes were not superior to Northern ones [:)] so the South had their share of poor generals.

But on the other hand, it's pretty difficult to make the game balanced if Union and Confederacy have exactly the same quality of leaders - given the fact that Union manpower and industry outranked the Confederacy.

My approach would be to either =

- make a "normal" distribution of generals for both Union and Confederacy - and give the right hand side of the CSA distribution a shift of one point upwards.

- make a "normal" distribution of generals for both Union and Confederacy - and just give the South a "bonus pack of generals" - those are good generals that are available to the South at the start of the war. Like an "extra" group of high rated generals to have a few random picks from,

Suppose there are 1000 generals in the game - chances are that the South never will get the "few better" generals, because that would be like a lottery. So basicly I'm in favour of my second proposal, there's a "bonus pack" where some extra generals are selected to perform for the South (f.e. Jackson, Lee, Stuart, etc) from the start of the war. Just a bit to roleplay.

[Oldguard]

More directly addressing gameplay issues, I'm wondering how the AI will handle a commander's personality? There should be generals who are either slow to react or reluctant to press an attack, and knowing the personalities of opponents can be a major advantage for the player. Many are the occasions in the ACW when a battle has been lost due to a corps or division commander not pressing his advantage at the key moment.

The answer to this question will bear directly on our freedom to utilize creative strategies in dealing with multiple prongs of an advance. If I know, for example, that the AI's Gen. Fremont will not push hard, I should be free to turn and deal with Gen. Shields first, leaving a few brigades to demonstrate in front of the former.

[spruce]

ORIGINAL: Oldguard

More directly addressing gameplay issues, I'm wondering how the AI will handle a commander's personality? There should be generals who are either slow to react or reluctant to press an attack, and knowing the personalities of opponents can be a major advantage for the player. Many are the occasions in the ACW when a battle has been lost due to a corps or division commander not pressing his advantage at the key moment.

The answer to this question will bear directly on our freedom to utilize creative strategies in dealing with multiple prongs of an advance. If I know, for example, that the AI's Gen. Fremont will not push hard, I should be free to turn and deal with Gen. Shields first, leaving a few brigades to demonstrate in front of the former.

that would be a very cool feature

[Hairog]

Frank Hunter's promotional ideas in ACW worked well.  Certain commanders were only available as the game went on.  As they were promoted or not it had political consequeces.  If he lost or won battles it became easier to promote or demote him.  Certain generals gained in competence as they were promoted and certain others lost.  Then he put in a little randomizer action in so that you couldn't always count on Grant or Lee being the best everytime.  The odds are that most times they are but not always.  This adds the uncertainty that Abraham and Jefferson had to live with.

[dh76513]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
However, since I don't want to lose more time on this, I'm wondering if any of the regulars here (e.g., Oldguard, dh76513, andysomers, etc.) is able to start poll threads, and would be willing to do so until I'm able to start adding them.

Gil, I tried to start a "poll thread" and the system will not allow me to implement such a request. All I can apparently do is make a "new" thread.