Generals' Ratings

[RERomine]

I'm going to toss this out there for consideration.  At what level is a general officer being considered?  The highest level the achieved or their best level?  Hood was a much better divisional commander than he was leading the army around Atlanta.  The same could be said for a lot of generals.  While I'm sure the reverse is also possible, it isn't as likely to occur because adequate brigade commanders don't usually get promoted.  Attrition helped in this case.  Lee is a prime example.  The Lee wasn't exactly stellar in western Virginia, but got another field command when Joseph Johnston got wounded.
 
I was intrigued by some of the generals listed as potential zeros.  Personally, I would reserve a '0' rating for generals who were never successful at any point.  Burnside and McClellan certainly had moments of success.  Ambrose Burnside was likely at his peak as a division commander.  Even then, I would rate him as middle of the road.  He progressively got worse as he climbed the ladder.  McClellan lacked something as the bullets started to fly, but he did a great job in the 'bullets and beans' business.  Ultimately, I would have to see the list of generals and then try to sort them with respect to their peers. 

[Gil R.]

You raise a good point. While I think it would be optimal to rate generals in terms of the rank at which they performed best, that's not necessarily mutually exclusive to a higher or lower rank. A general who did very well as a brigade commander but flopped when given a corps can have high leadership and tactics ratings and poor initiative, which will make players think twice about elevating the guy to the rank of corps or army commander. Or, if a guy was good at different ranks, he should get a high command rating, since that one applies to generals of all levels.

It is, of course, difficult to quantify generals in terms of these 4-5 categories, especially when sometimes we don't know how they would have performed at a different rank, but overall this system does a good enough job making players face difficult positions regarding which generals to promote and demote and where to assign them.

[spruce]

I think there are 2 worlds. One of the lower command, and one of the higher command. And they are not the same ... enough examples were given...

Imho - this question has only 2 possible solutions =

- either work with double tables (one is brigade and division - the other is corps and army). But this ain't an option cause few generals were tested at "higher command" (army or corps level),

- or work with promotions - for each promotion beyond division command - your general might get a trait called "unfit for higher command". If you demote the general back to brigade, division or corps command, he'll get his old stats back. The "unfit for higher command" trait is a severe penalty ... and demoting that general back down will cost the president or chief of command prestige points or cause a morale malus for some period of time in the army.

by the way, this occurence should be random ... otherwise you know that Hood is not a good army commander and Jakcson would be so. So it should be random ... perhaps the chance for occurence from corps to army command should be lower then happening from division to corps command.

F.e. Hood is divisional commander, he gets promoted to command a corps or even army - he might get the "unfit for command" trait - either you leave him there and impose no malus on your troops. Or you "demote" him back and basicly he'll be unhappy and temporary demotivated, but he'll still be a good divison commander.

[Gil R.]

Spruce,
The "unfit for higher command" idea is an interesting one. Please suggest it again when the game is out, if you still think it would be worth adding.

(I'm not sure if this is worth stating, but I hope that when I tell people making suggestions to resubmit them once the game is out it doesn't seem to dismissive. My reason is that any changes we make through patches will be based on feedback from this forum, and it will be much more useful if we can see the reactions that other customers have to suggested changes -- not only will it become clear which ideas have the most support and should be prioritized, but also it's possible that someone else might have ways of improving on a suggestion. So, now that no more design changes can be made to the game before its release, it makes the most sense to base future changes on suggestions made as a response to the game itself.)

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Spruce,
The "unfit for higher command" idea is an interesting one. Please suggest it again when the game is out, if you still think it would be worth adding.

(I'm not sure if this is worth stating, but I hope that when I tell people making suggestions to resubmit them once the game is out it doesn't seem to dismissive. My reason is that any changes we make through patches will be based on feedback from this forum, and it will be much more useful if we can see the reactions that other customers have to suggested changes -- not only will it become clear which ideas have the most support and should be prioritized, but also it's possible that someone else might have ways of improving on a suggestion. So, now that no more design changes can be made to the game before its release, it makes the most sense to base future changes on suggestions made as a response to the game itself.)

I love it!! A place that understands that at some point during a project the requirements have to STOP. I'm working on a project now that is in the quality assurance phase and we are still getting requirements!

How would you apply the concept of fitness to generals who didn't get the chance? Nathaniel Lyon comes to mind. He might have made a great commander of a major army, but we will never know.

[spruce]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Spruce,
The "unfit for higher command" idea is an interesting one. Please suggest it again when the game is out, if you still think it would be worth adding.

(I'm not sure if this is worth stating, but I hope that when I tell people making suggestions to resubmit them once the game is out it doesn't seem to dismissive. My reason is that any changes we make through patches will be based on feedback from this forum, and it will be much more useful if we can see the reactions that other customers have to suggested changes -- not only will it become clear which ideas have the most support and should be prioritized, but also it's possible that someone else might have ways of improving on a suggestion. So, now that no more design changes can be made to the game before its release, it makes the most sense to base future changes on suggestions made as a response to the game itself.)

problem is that this will be forgotten when the game comes out - some things I say are like brainstorming - it just comes in the head ... shouldn't any of you guys log these kind of ideas anyhow ...

off course I agree with you about us taking those ideas one step further when the game is coming along ... I'll do my best to remember ... [;)]

by the way, something that's always a fun factor in computer games is the "fun factor", the small choices you make as player that can have a devastating effect.

just like the Heintzelman scenario I just played in MMG TC2M's. I rout one of Jackson brigades at Bull run creek. Instead of defending my VP locations I go for Jacksons entire corps ... oh boy that was a stupid decision there ! [:-] Jackson sends in 6 brigades and breaks my attack and virtually amputates Heintzelmans corps ... [X(]

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: spruce

problem is that this will be forgotten when the game comes out - some things I say are like brainstorming - it just comes in the head ... shouldn't any of you guys log these kind of ideas anyhow ...

off course I agree with you about us taking those ideas one step further when the game is coming along ... I'll do my best to remember ... [;)]

Start a separate thread to archive the suggestions [:)]

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: RERomine

How would you apply the concept of fitness to generals who didn't get the chance? Nathaniel Lyon comes to mind. He might have made a great commander of a major army, but we will never know.

Well, if you're asking about how to vote for the ratings of such guys, that's where everyone's collective wisdom comes into play. Based on what people know of Lyon, would he have been a competent (or even outstanding) army commander, or would he have been overwhelmed? There's no correct answer, so I'm willing to go with the consensus when it comes to rating categories for areas in which one of our generals was somewhat or completely unproven.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: RERomine


Start a separate thread to archive the suggestions [:)]

That's a dangerous suggestion. As Eric noted in one of these threads, a reviewer got much of the content for his review of "Crown of Glory" (our first game) by going through the forum and reading complaints about the game's design before it was even released. So in case a reviewer with a similar modus operandi is assigned to review FOF, I don't think I should be creating a thread that essentially says "Here are all of the ideas for things we left out of the game, even though it would be really nice to have them." If that hypothetical reviewer wants to find features we overlooked without getting to know the game, the bastard should at least have to work a little, instead of honing in on one thread!

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

ORIGINAL: RERomine


Start a separate thread to archive the suggestions [:)]

That's a dangerous suggestion. As Eric noted in one of these threads, a reviewer got much of the content for his review of "Crown of Glory" (our first game) by going through the forum and reading complaints about the game's design before it was even released. So in case a reviewer with a similar modus operandi is assigned to review FOF, I don't think I should be creating a thread that essentially says "Here are all of the ideas for things we left out of the game, even though it would be really nice to have them." If that hypothetical reviewer wants to find features we overlooked without getting to know the game, the bastard should at least have to work a little, instead of honing in on one thread!

You are correct. A thread would be cumbersome at best. And there are some people who will want it all, down to the general's gene sequences. I guess the best idea is to wait to see if suggestions come out after the release.

Are the attributes of the general officers going to be subject to fluctuations? Everyone has good and bad days or minutes for that matter.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: RERomine

Are the attributes of the general officers going to be subject to fluctuations? Everyone has good and bad days or minutes for that matter.

The ratings are fixed, but the ratings themselves are used in randomized calculations. So even McClellan with the "Terrible" initiative rating he seems destined to have can beat Lee in an initiative check. Just not too often, I hope...

[Joram]

This whole thing scares me. I've been looking at the results and some reflect that people have no sense whatsoever. I do hope you perform some due diligence when assigning rankings and not just leave it to a popular vote. I'm also surprised that this is being determined so late in the game.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: Joram

This whole thing scares me. I've been looking at the results and some reflect that people have no sense whatsoever. I do hope you perform some due diligence when assigning rankings and not just leave it to a popular vote. I'm also surprised that this is being determined so late in the game.

There will be quality control.

We already have ratings for all of these generals, and have had those ratings in place for months. But it makes sense to let everyone have input now, instead of when the game comes out.

[Gil R.]

And I should add that any screwy results so far can be attributed to the fact that, to my surprise, no one is creating discussion threads to argue for the merits of one rating or another for the different generals.

Nowhere is it written that only I can create threads in that subforum. (Unless, of course, it turns out that I'm the only one who can create threads in that subforum.)

[ezzler]

That and you have some diehard copperheads in the forum . Grant and Sherman zero for all their ratings ? Someone's from Atlanta and may be a tad blinkered ?

Are the ratings for the main politicians being examined also?

[dh76513]

ORIGINAL: tevans6220
I do think one thing you guys are forgetting is that some leaders were not very good at handling armies but may have been excellent corps or division commanders. Hood is a very good example. At brigade or division command he was a very good leader but as commander of the Army of Tennessee he left a lot to be desired.

ORIGINAL: Oldguard
…..I'd add Jubal Early to that list. A good brigade and division commander, but less effective at Corps level.

ORIGINAL: RERomine
Hood was a much better divisional commander than he was leading the army around Atlanta. The same could be said for a lot of generals.

Gentlemen,
Level of command (e.g., brigade, division, corps, army) is not necessarily representative of a general officer’s tactics or strategic genius success as much as it is their political ties. As such and in all fairness, I do not think one can rightfully judge the tactical skills and battlefield abilities of a commander because of his functioning at different levels or after they are promoted.

Remember the higher the rank, the more political involvement in the position. For the most part, if commanders are “great” at the brigade and division level they are “great” at the corps and army levels. A general officer does not lose his tactical skills or forget his battlefield capabilities or knowledge following a promotion.

ORIGINAL: RERomine
I was intrigued by some of the generals listed as potential zeros. Personally, I would reserve a '0' rating for generals who were never successful at any point. Burnside and McClellan certainly had moments of success.

I was one of those who brought intrigue in your life as I gave Burnside and McClellan both zeros. However, I would like to point out that of 1008 general officers of the Civil War, I only rated seven at the zero level. As for my reasoning to include these two on my list, look at their record of “blunders” and these certainly outweigh their greatest successes. For McClellan, I will quote historian Brian C. Pohanka:

With Sherman’s overestimations of the South’s abilities and McClellan’s reluctance to confront the enemy, the Civil War would continue with a far greater cost of men, economic devastation, and social havoc.

Sherman’s successes greatly outweighed his mistakes. And as for McClellan, I stated in another post:

ORIGINAL: dh76513
George Brinton McClellan (USA) – The master of over-estimation and slow movement, he constantly proclaimed himself the Savior of the Union, yet seemed unwilling to fight. At Antietam, he had the opponent's game plan and still could not win. Tommy Franks [speaking to U.S. soldiers], “I will avoid the McClellan strategy of sit and wait here and will employ those tactics of Cleburne repulsing the enemy from the heart of Iraq [Baghdad].

And for Burnside the blunders were far more serious costing sending many of his soldiers to a foolish death:

ORIGINAL: dh76513
Ambrose Burnside (USA) – Named for the "Burnside's Bridge" fiasco at Antietam; chief architect of the futile, murderous assaults at Fredericksburg; leader of Mud March; arrested for "seditious sentiments" and let’s not forget about his obvious failure at Petersburg.

Nonetheless, returning to my argument, I think most historians would agree that Germany boasted the better lot of generals at the start of World War II. For example, one would not judge the brilliant tactical skills or question the battlefield capabilities of Heinz Guderian, who is considered to be the father of Blitzkrieg. However, with rank came more political pressure and despite his proven battlefield genius, Guderian followed the orders of Hitler? The same happened to Patton. One cannot fairly say that Patten was less effective as an army commander. Both these commanders had greater limitations placed on them with higher commander responsibilities due directly to their promotions.

The same is true for Hood. Let’s not forget that Johnston failed to attack Sherman as ordered by Davis which eventually led to his replacement by Hood. As such, let’s not forget that Hood was following “Presidential” orders to attack. Also, I think it is important to note that Sherman’s force was very overwhelming against a much smaller, tired, hungry, sick, and already beaten army that was under siege during most of the Atlanta campaign.

Generally at the brigade and division levels, commanders are encouraged to bring their honest thoughts and strategies to the command table while at the Corps, Army, and Theater levels such actions are discouraged and highly politically influenced. And this case is well illustrated with Patton, Guderian, Rommel, and many, many more generals throughout history. So as I am certain that few if any with any knowledge of history would say that Patton’s battlefield effectiveness or “rating” (for this game’s sake) as a general officer declined when he was placed in command of a fictitious army for the Normandy invasion. However, his abilities were limited politically.

ORIGINAL: RERomine
I'm going to toss this out there for consideration. At what level is a general officer being considered? The highest level the achieved or their best level?

With the forgoing being said, I think this is a mute point.

ORIGINAL: Gil R
The ratings are fixed, but the ratings themselves are used in randomized calculations. So even McClellan with the "Terrible" initiative rating he seems destined to have can beat Lee in an initiative check.

Furthermore, I think the foregoing argument validates Gill’s rating system for general officers to remain being fixed.

ORIGINAL: ezz
Grant and Sherman zero for all their ratings?

Ezz, I think this individual must have failed history as reflected their ridiculous ratings given. Absolutely unbelievable, but I guess everyone does not have enough knowledge to be objective.

[Joram]

Makes sense. Good to know!

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: dh76513

ORIGINAL: RERomine
Hood was a much better divisional commander than he was leading the army around Atlanta. The same could be said for a lot of generals.

Gentlemen,
Level of command (e.g., brigade, division, corps, army) is not necessarily representative of a general officer’s tactics or strategic genius success as much as it is their political ties. As such and in all fairness, I do not think one can rightfully judge the tactical skills and battlefield abilities of a commander because of his functioning at different levels or after they are promoted.

Remember the higher the rank, the more political involvement in the position. For the most part, if commanders are “great” at the brigade and division level they are “great” at the corps and army levels. A general officer does not lose his tactical skills or forget his battlefield capabilities or knowledge following a promotion.

I agree with what you are saying in real terms but in the game itself the ratings are for initiative, leadership, tactics, command and cavalry. I don't see anything there that indicates politics are considered. The player will determine which commander will be used where and how. If my game generals start politicking, I'm going to think the realism in the game went a touch too far.

As far as tactical skill, a great brigade commander doesn't automatically make a great division, corps or army commander. Tactics at each level are different. I do agree that promotion does not cause a memory purge, but getting promoted also doesn't mean they come with instant knowledge of the new responsibilities. If it did, Lee would probably have won at Gettysburg before the third day because A. P. Hill and Richard Ewell wouldn't have missed a step going from division to corps commanders. Where people are concerned, nothing is automatic. The added responsibility just overwhelmed some.

ORIGINAL: dh76513

ORIGINAL: RERomine
I was intrigued by some of the generals listed as potential zeros. Personally, I would reserve a '0' rating for generals who were never successful at any point. Burnside and McClellan certainly had moments of success.

I was one of those who brought intrigue in your life as I gave Burnside and McClellan both zeros. However, I would like to point out that of 1008 general officers of the Civil War, I only rated seven at the zero level. As for my reasoning to include these two on my list, look at their record of “blunders” and these certainly outweigh their greatest successes. For McClellan, I will quote historian Brian C. Pohanka:

With Sherman’s overestimations of the South’s abilities and McClellan’s reluctance to confront the enemy, the Civil War would continue with a far greater cost of men, economic devastation, and social havoc.

Sherman’s successes greatly outweighed his mistakes. And as for McClellan, I stated in another post:

ORIGINAL: dh76513
George Brinton McClellan (USA) – The master of over-estimation and slow movement, he constantly proclaimed himself the Savior of the Union, yet seemed unwilling to fight. At Antietam, he had the opponent's game plan and still could not win. Tommy Franks [speaking to U.S. soldiers], “I will avoid the McClellan strategy of sit and wait here and will employ those tactics of Cleburne repulsing the enemy from the heart of Iraq [Baghdad].

And for Burnside the blunders were far more serious costing sending many of his soldiers to a foolish death:

ORIGINAL: dh76513
Ambrose Burnside (USA) – Named for the "Burnside's Bridge" fiasco at Antietam; chief architect of the futile, murderous assaults at Fredericksburg; leader of Mud March; arrested for "seditious sentiments" and let’s not forget about his obvious failure at Petersburg.

Given a scale of 0-8, 4 is right in the middle. Four ratings are higher and four ratings are lower. Given that, I would establish a 4 as a point where the failures equal the successes or maybe for the run of the mill general. Burnside's failures were at the corps and army level, making them bigger than mistakes made at the brigade and division level. Burnside led a successful campaign against Roanoke Island and New Bern in North Carolina and also successfully defended Knoxville against Longstreet until a relief force arrived. I know Burnside's higher commands were unmitigated disasters and big ones. Because of that, it's easy to forget he did have some success during the war. My point is a 1 or 2 rating might be in order.

McClellan falls in the same category. Forget the fact should have destroyed Lee's army in Maryland with the information he had. He fought to a tactical draw and a strategic victory. During Seven Days, he also had some successes, although he did lose the Peninsula campaign. McClellan was also successful in the early campaign in western Virginia. Finally, to top it off, the men loved him. Somewhere, somehow, he did something right by them. If I were to rate McClellan, I would be thinking a 2 or 3 average with most of that coming from a leadership rating.

Now if you want someone who I feel deserve a rating of 0, US Brig. Gen. Charles Stone, commander of the union forces during the battle of Ball's Bluff. Another qualification he has was serving as Banks chief of staff during the Red River campaign. While these don't have the magnitude of Burnside's fiascos, that's only because he didn't get the chance. Keep in mind, I only questioned a couple generals that were listed and am not lobbying that McClellan and Burnside deserve ratings that I classified as run of the mill (4). I just believe they are good enough to not be listed with the worst of the worst.

Gil - you mentioned rating values were fixed, but used in random calculations. Can a general with a rating of 0 possibly beat one with a rating of 8? Basically, I don't believe Burnside on his best day could defeat Lee on his worst, but is it statistically possible with the calculations performed in the code?

[Hard Sarge]

Gil - you mentioned rating values were fixed, but used in random calculations. Can a general with a rating of 0 possibly beat one with a rating of 8? Basically, I don't believe Burnside on his best day could defeat Lee on his worst, but is it statistically possible with the calculations performed in the code?

I still say it is the men that count, wars and battles are won or lost, based on the men, not the leaders

now plans and details are good and importent, but it still comes down to how the men fight and react

if my troops are good enough and I had good weapons, and placement, I will beat Lee with any Union General, but that is the Trick

(besides, Robert E is normally on my side)

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: ezz

That and you have some diehard copperheads in the forum . Grant and Sherman zero for all their ratings ? Someone's from Atlanta and may be a tad blinkered ?

Are the ratings for the main politicians being examined also?

I've personally done the ratings for politicians -- these guys aren't well known enough to be put up for a vote, though when the game comes out I'll certainly listen to any thoughts about whether individual governors' numbers should be changed.