Matrix Games Forums

Fitz Lee and Custer were both ratings I came up with, and then posted for public comment. I believe that there is still time to make changes. Also, Hood could probably be tweaked too. Does someone want to suggest concrete changes for replacement ratings? My impression is that the cavalry ratings for the 100-percenters are about right, but that those of some 25-percenters could bear some deflation.

Gil, I will take you up on that challange to suggest concrete changes. As you yourself suggest, most of the cavalry ranking problem, if there is a problem, is in the 25 percenters. I think they are each rated about 1 to 2 too high. I suggest the following cav ratings for the 25 percenters.
Custer - 5
David McM. Gregg - 6
Fitz Lee - 6
J. Shelby - 5

This draws the clear distinction that should be there between the good (the 25 percenters) and the legends (Forrest, Stuart, Sheridan). I also suggest that for the 100 percenters, there should be separation between the legends and Wheeler, who was good, maybe great, but not a timeless leader. Make Wheeler's cav rating a 6.

As I posted before, I am most impressed with the ratings voted by the group for the infantry generals. The only one that jumps out at me as being perhaps a little careless on our part is Hood's 6 rating in command. Lee himself wrote to Davis, when asked about putting Hood in command of the AoT that while Hood was a hard fighter, he was "doubtful" of his other qualities. I think these other qualities are exactly the army command qualities we are rating here. And time certainly proved Lee's doubts justified. Giving Hood a 3 for a command rating seems to bring his ratings back in proper comparison with the rankings we have voted the other generals.

can values be changed by the player?

ORIGINAL: Guz

can values be changed by the player?

Yes, easily modded by opening a file in Excel.

Ivaces,
Thanks for the suggestions. Are others okay with those? Also, there seems to be more than enough consensus that Hood should be lowered. Would it just be in command?

Gil,
 
I've unfortunately been out of town the whole week and not been able to contribute.  I think that I have a problem in general with the cavalry generals that we have chosen to include.
 
The US has 2 100% cavalry generals, Sheridan and Buford.  Sheridan will undeniably be used as a cavalry general, when he served the majority of the war in infantry command in the west, and only emerged late as cavalry.  Buford, on the other hand was more or less a "one hit wonder."  The man gets a ton of credit for only 3-4 hours of a delaying action on the 1st day of Gettysburg.  Also, I'm not hip on Custer being included.  Because of his screw up in 1876, he is thought of in retrospect to the Civil War - and remember he is noted for his vanity and audacity more than leadership.  Had Little Big Horn never occurred, he would be reduced to a footnote in history for the ACW, less well known than someone like Robert Mitchell (who commanded a US cavalry Corps at Chickamuaga).  Personally I think Custer was an arrogant bonehead who got lucky that he came along when the US had some better numbers.
 
I would much rather see US cavalry generals that had a major stake in the fighting included - Stoneman, Pleasanton, Grierson, Streight, Wilson, and to be sure, Sheridan.  Buford and Custer are fun to have, but have been amplified favorably in historical spotlight in my mind.  I always fail to see how a guy like Emory Upton (see Spotsylvania) is overlooked when a bonehead like Custer is glorified beyond belief just for mostly what I can tell is wearing a cool uniform. 
 
Additionally, I would bump Stuart's cavalry rating to somewhat less than that of Forrest.  Forrest in my mind should be one step above any cavalry general - he was in my mind one of the very few tactical geniuses of the ACW, perhaps more so than Lee.  Stuart I would argue was great, Forrest however was the cavalry general of the war.

Ok - wow - I just re-read and saw that I can easily mod my own generals if I ever decide "the heck with you guys!!" 
 
Very exciting to see the prgoress of the last week.  Once again Gil, very very well done.  My hats off to the whole team.  This is appears to be a very exciting game about to emerge - the best ACW of all time I would think.
 
AS

Abel Streight, are you kidding me? I agree with your Upton reference, but he po'd too many high ranking generals to advance any further. But Custer beat Stuart and killed him, also his brigade turned the tide on more than just one occasion. In regards to his flamboyancy, Stuart was even more vainglorious. Also Buford was not a one-hit wonder, he stopped Longstreets Corps at 2nd Manassas for almost a whole day. Mitchell deserves the footnote he gets.

I'll weigh in on the other issues soon -- I'm letting more people share their views before I decide what to change and how to change it -- but I'll say that Custer should stay not only because he did have some real accomplishments, but because of the name recognition factor. The game will be a bit more fun for people if they have Custer running (or riding) around.

Remember that generals are programmed to appear at roughly the time they became generals, so there's no danger of Custer appearing in the first turn. So for those of you who don't want him, there's a pretty good chance you'll hardly see him.

Gil,

In re: Custer - that seems good logic.  Despite my opinion, he certainly adds an interesting layer to the game.

In re: Streight - not saying Streight (or Pleasanton for that matter) was necessarily a good general, but I would argue that he held a much more significant position than Buford.  Certainly as significant to the north as someone like JH Morgan, Mosby, et.al might be to the south, there are not too many classic cavalry raiders on the US side.

Once again, my thanks and compliments Gil on a very fine and diligent effort.

AS

Keystone - your point also taken on Buford at 2nd Manassas - I had forgotten about that one.  However, I'd still say there are other US cavalry generals that I would much rather see as "100%-ers" that had much more responsibilty (not necessarily ABILITY) in the war, my examples still withstanding.
 
AS

Yes, I would agree with you on Stoneman and Pleasonton. But in general it looks like much thought is going into this game, and that indeed bodes well for the rest of us.

Can I just check something my understanding is that over the course of a game you should have about 60 generals per side ?
 
15 x 100%
10 x 25% = 2 - 3
say 475 x 9% = 43
 
And that the more generals option will increase this number
 
Am I also correct in assuming that any general even one with a 1 rating is better than no general ?
 
Otherwise I can see McClellan being unused
 
 

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Can I just check something my understanding is that over the course of a game you should have about 60 generals per side ?

15 x 100%
10 x 25% = 2 - 3
say 475 x 9% = 43

And that the more generals option will increase this number

Am I also correct in assuming that any general even one with a 1 rating is better than no general ?

Otherwise I can see McClellan being unused

I've never counted the generals, but if playing with More Generals you start with around 15, and every turn or so tend to get a new one. So, with two-week turns, you get around 20 in 1861 (if playing the standard November scenario), and then about 25 per year after that. So if the game goes into 1865 you might get around 100 generals. Of course, some of them will be killed in battle.

And there's always some chance of a benefit from generals, so it's best not to leave them unused. Rating numbers, after all, are used in randomized calculations and checks, so even someone with "Terrible" can get a lucky dice roll, so to speak.

In response to your feedback, I’ve made the following changes:
Cavalry ratings for Fitzhugh Lee have dropped from 8 to 7 and for Buford, Gregg and Custer from 7 to 6
Leadership ratings for Rosencrans and Armistead have been lowered from 7 to 6.
Tactical ratings for Custer and F. Lee have been raised from 3 to 5.

I decided not to make any changes to Hood’s ratings just yet, despite the misgivings of some. As I see it, very good arguments could be made for giving him high ratings OR for giving him low ratings – it depends which period of the war you’re focusing on. I’d prefer to wait until the game is out and more feedback is available before deciding on this.

For now, the generals datafile is set. Once the game is out we can revisit all these issues.

hey Gil, I had some idea's - one of them on Generals. When will you open the suggestion forum ?

ORIGINAL: spruce

hey Gil, I had some idea's - one of them on Generals. When will you open the suggestion forum ?

I'm not sure what you mean. You're free to start a thread here or on the main forum anytime.

The one downside is that not everyone on the development team is regularly visiting the public forum, since some are way too busy getting the final product together. In a few weeks, though, you'll have everyone's attention.

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

Grant and Lee have the same values?
Fine by me, but don't be surprised to have a minie ball crash through your front window sometime soon. Some of them southern boys get a bit twitchy about Saint Robert

I believe that Grant is probably over-rated in Tactics. Where he shown mightily in Lincoln's eyes was in getting out and actually doing something instead of "sitting down in the mud and bawling for more of everything". He fought one brilliant campaign in surrounding Vicksburg, and a quite competant one at Henry and Donaldson. But mostly his real strength was observed by Sherman. "Grant don't give a good God-Damn for what his enemy is doing..., but it scares the Hell out of me!". When Grant got his teeth into something, he didn't let go. Not so much tactical brilliance..., but a lot of bulldog determination. Which was what the Union (with it's superior resources) needed.

Do promotions affect ratings? Many of these generals were capable leading small units and only ended up falling to poor when they were out of their depth (Hood, for example). A few (Lee, Stuart, Grant, Sherman) remained unaffected in their rise from smaller commands to larger ones. Some actually improved as they reached larger command (Sheridan comes to mind).

ORIGINAL: Murat

Do promotions affect ratings? Many of these generals were capable leading small units and only ended up falling to poor when they were out of their depth (Hood, for example). A few (Lee, Stuart, Grant, Sherman) remained unaffected in their rise from smaller commands to larger ones. Some actually improved as they reached larger command (Sheridan comes to mind).

No, ratings are permanently fixed.