Matrix Games Forums

Sherman commanded his brigade at 1st Manassas as a colonel: http://www.civilwarhome.com/bullrunbattleorderunion.htm

Sheridan was made BG of volunteers on July 1 1862.

Sheridan was a captain in the regular army and a colonel of volunteers in 1861. He was promoted to brigadier general of volunteers in july 1862, and brigadier general in the regular army in sept. 1864.

Historical ranks are nice to have but in game terms they mean nothing. You have to look at the number of troops actually commanded. McDowell was a BG at Bull Run but commanded the whole Union Army. Since the Army of the Potomac was basically a corps sized unit at the battle, I would give McDowell a game rank of 3 stars. The whole database needs to be reworked into game ranks. R.E. Lee comes into the July game as a 1 star but historically commanded what amount to a division sized unit in western Virginia early in the war. I would probably make him 2 star rank. The database really needs reworked.

One other thing. Sherman actually was a BG of volunteers at Bull Run--promoted May 1861. He achieved BG regular army rank in July 1863. Either way you look at it, as a colonel or brigadier, he commanded a brigade at Bull Run and has to get 1 star game rank in the July scenario. 

Well, actually Sherman got physically made BG of Volunteers on Aug 7 1861, but was allowed to back date the rank to May 17.  They did this sort of backdating alot back then, usually for political purposes to boost seniority.  That's why Sherman is listed on the official OOB of 1st Manassas as a colonel...'cause thats what he really was then, w/o the temporal sheninagans of backdating.
 
Sherman is kinda a special case in any event, because of his leave of absense in late '61 for mental stress.  For simplicity's sake, it's probably fair to have him enter the game a bit later as a one star, on or about the time he was recovered his sanity and was reinstated by Halleck (mid-Feb 1862, IIRC).

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

Well, actually Sherman got physically made BG of Volunteers on Aug 7 1861, but was allowed to back date the rank to May 17.  They did this sort of backdating alot back then, usually for political purposes to boost seniority.  That's why Sherman is listed on the official OOB of 1st Manassas as a colonel...'cause thats what he really was then, w/o the temporal sheninagans of backdating.

Sherman is kinda a special case in any event, because of his leave of absense in late '61 for mental stress.  For simplicity's sake, it's probably fair to have him enter the game a bit later as a one star, on or about the time he was recovered his sanity and was reinstated by Halleck (mid-Feb 1862, IIRC).

If you make his arrival date feb 1862 he won't show up for some time after that because of the randomization. He commanded a division starting march 1st. He wouldn't show up by then. A bigadier at start would be most accurate. Also generals should be able to show up earlier than the arrival date as well as later.

One other thing. Sherman actually was a BG of volunteers at Bull Run--promoted May 1861. He achieved BG regular army rank in July 1863. Either way you look at it, as a colonel or brigadier, he commanded a brigade at Bull Run and has to get 1 star game rank in the July scenario.


And what about Grant? He was commanding an Army in the Spring of 1862 (Donaldson, Shiloh, sound familiar?) In the game he's not even on the map. Point is that the game gives the South a LOT of good leaders right from the start..., shouldn't the North get at least a few of the historic ones?

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

And what about Grant? He was commanding an Army in the Spring of 1862 (Donaldson, Shiloh, sound familiar?) In the game he's not even on the map. ...

Pretty sure that was already noted as a date mistake in the Generals file.

ORIGINAL: elmo3

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

And what about Grant? He was commanding an Army in the Spring of 1862 (Donaldson, Shiloh, sound familiar?) In the game he's not even on the map. ...

Pretty sure that was already noted as a date mistake in the Generals file.

I'm not sure you can call it a mistake when 95% of the arrival dates are wrong.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

One other thing. Sherman actually was a BG of volunteers at Bull Run--promoted May 1861. He achieved BG regular army rank in July 1863. Either way you look at it, as a colonel or brigadier, he commanded a brigade at Bull Run and has to get 1 star game rank in the July scenario.


And what about Grant? He was commanding an Army in the Spring of 1862 (Donaldson, Shiloh, sound familiar?) In the game he's not even on the map. Point is that the game gives the South a LOT of good leaders right from the start..., shouldn't the North get at least a few of the historic ones?

Sherman was just one example. Grant is another. The whole database needs to be reworked and it's not going to be as easy as just giving historical start dates and ranks. We're going to have to look at the size of their commands in order to get a good idea what game rank to give them. Once the whole database is reworked there will be just as many good leaders for the North at the start as there are from the South. The problem then becomes a reworking of scenario data to allow those ranks to enter the game. Both the general database and scenario data have to be redone or the ranks won't work right due to the academy system and it's limits.

I'm not sure if it's possible with this game engine but I'd like to see generals restricted to moving up one rank per turn with battlefield exp being a prerequisite for promotion of one and two star leaders. Leaders who are already three star or higher having already shown some ability at least in the minds of their superiors. This would force players to use leaders like Grant, Sherman, Longstreet, and Jackson in combat before promoting them and take the risk of losing them. As the game is now you can promote 1 star to 5 stars in one turn. Nobody moved that fast and the generals that did move up quickly like Grant did so through fighting battles. Of cours some generals started the war commanding large units without combat experience but they had a prewar reputation as leaders.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


And what about Grant? He was commanding an Army in the Spring of 1862 (Donaldson, Shiloh, sound familiar?) In the game he's not even on the map. Point is that the game gives the South a LOT of good leaders right from the start..., shouldn't the North get at least a few of the historic ones?

Good point. But when Grant does finally show up, he has the same ratings as Lee, which itself is a bit of a stretch. But I guess that's another discussion altogether....

Looking up all the sizes of the commands is a waste. If the restrictions on stars and corresponding units are lifted then anyone can command anything - which is historical. If the restrictions are removed the stars can equal real ranks and you can keep the North on historical terms by not allowing promotions to LTG until 64 if that is desired.

I did a mod of many of the generals
 
Some of the changes are

Both sides have correct cavalry commanders

Union at start

I McDowell and H Halleck start as 3 stars.
B Butler, N Banks, A Burnside, G McClellan and DC Buell start as two stars.

Most other starting commanders are historical

Confederates

No Navy other than Blockade runners at start

J Johnson and AS Johnson are 3 stars
RE Lee, PT Beauregard, L Polk and B Bragg start as 2 stars.

Most other starting commanders are historical

here
 
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1334111
 

ORIGINAL: William Amos

I did a mod of many of the generals

Some of the changes are

Both sides have correct cavalry commanders

Union at start

I McDowell and H Halleck start as 3 stars.
B Butler, N Banks, A Burnside, G McClellan and DC Buell start as two stars.

Most other starting commanders are historical

Confederates

No Navy other than Blockade runners at start

J Johnson and AS Johnson are 3 stars
RE Lee, PT Beauregard, L Polk and B Bragg start as 2 stars.

Most other starting commanders are historical

here

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1334111

I'm not understanding some of these changes. Is this for the July or November scenario?

ORIGINAL: General Quarters
There is a terrific (though expensive) book, Civil War High Commands, published by Stanford Univ Press, that has chapters called "Grades and Ranks" for both of the armies. The generals are listed alphabetically and also in order of seniority in rank.

If you own a copy of this book, would you mind scanning and posting this list?

Thanks,

JIM

ORIGINAL: chris0827

ORIGINAL: William Amos

I did a mod of many of the generals

Some of the changes are

Both sides have correct cavalry commanders

Union at start

I McDowell and H Halleck start as 3 stars.
B Butler, N Banks, A Burnside, G McClellan and DC Buell start as two stars.

Most other starting commanders are historical

Confederates

No Navy other than Blockade runners at start

J Johnson and AS Johnson are 3 stars
RE Lee, PT Beauregard, L Polk and B Bragg start as 2 stars.

Most other starting commanders are historical

here

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1334111

I'm not understanding some of these changes. Is this for the July or November scenario?

July Scenario

ORIGINAL: jsaurman

ORIGINAL: General Quarters
There is a terrific (though expensive) book, Civil War High Commands, published by Stanford Univ Press, that has chapters called "Grades and Ranks" for both of the armies. The generals are listed alphabetically and also in order of seniority in rank.

If you own a copy of this book, would you mind scanning and posting this list?

Thanks,

JIM

Sorry, I don't know how to do all that. I could ask my computer consultant to do it (at 65 an hour) but the oversized pages might make it difficult. I would suggest you see if you can get it at your local library through interlibrary loan. Or ask someone to give it to you for Christmas. It is terrific and a goldmine of certifiably accurate info. But it costs over $100, IRIC.

For July I would sugggest a few changes. Halleck and AS Johnston should not show up until august since they had not yet returned from California. McClellan should be three stars his command was over 20k men. You could go three or four stars for McDowell. Personally I would go four stars but his army was the size of a large corps. Beauregard should be three stars. His command was larger than any division on either side in the entire war. Joe Johnston should be 4 stars. His command was smaller than Beauregard's but when they linked up he was the army commander and Beauregard became a corps commander. Burnside should be one star. He comanded a brigade at Bull Run. Buell should be one star. He didn't command a division until october.