Generals' Teachable Special Abilities

[christof139]

He had the Brevet Rank of Major General. That's an honorary rank which entitled him to be addressed as Major General but nothing else. He had the pay and responsibilities of a Brigadier General. Brevet ranks were the Civil War equivalent of the medals soldiers receive today.

I know. I knew a long time ago. Thanx anyway. What's a medal, I thought they were decorations, I have to look at the measley few I have, they do look decorative. Chris

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: christof139

He had the Brevet Rank of Major General. That's an honorary rank which entitled him to be addressed as Major General but nothing else. He had the pay and responsibilities of a Brigadier General. Brevet ranks were the Civil War equivalent of the medals soldiers receive today.

I know. I knew a long time ago. Thanx anyway. What's a medal, I thought they were decorations, I have to look at the measley few I have, they do look decorative. Chris

My post was not a reply to you

And how am I supposed to know what you or anyone else already knows?

[Mike13z50]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

units now can earn special abilities through combat.

YES, YES, YES!

IMHO, a truly great strategy game requires four things, resource management, R&D, tactical combat, and character development. (Think X-COM) FOF has the first three in spades, but only marginally executes character development through experience gain, the ability to learn traits and upgrade weapons. I can't think of a single unit or leader or army that I have become "attached" to.

Adding special traits that only are learned in combat will help..you might also consider allowing leaders to get better through experience for a future patch (not this one!)

[christof139]

My post was not a reply to you

And how am I supposed to know what you or anyone else already knows?

Ha ha ha!!! I don't know!!! I don't either!!! Beats me!!![&:]

Sorry.

I liked your info. you presented on the Union replacemnts. Some people seem to forget that the Union had more units to send replacements to, and many new units were formed by returning Vets, thus depleting the Replacement Pool somewhat, not to mention all the 6 and 9 month and 12 month units that were formed and saw combat.

At the Siege of Port Hudson many of the Union forces were I believe 9-month troops, and these short term troops were also used in large numbers during the 1862 maryland Campaign etc.

Sometimes it's not even worth it to supply any info., and you just end-up wasting time digging it up. A real pain and waste of time for etheral results, if any.

Chris

[Gil R.]

Okay, I've just given "Dreaded" to Custer. He's a 25-percenter who doesn't come in until Turn 59, so he can't throw the game out of whack. I'm still hesitating over giving "Heroes" or "Dreaded" to guys like Stuart, Cleburne, Grant, etc., since their ratings are so high that they're usually going to by promoted to four stars and given entire armies to command, which will make for far too many brigades with those abilities.

I did hit on a potential solution, though, and am curious what you think about it. What about inserting a bit of code that prevents a 4-star general from teaching those abilities? I view Heroes/Dreaded as abilities for division commanders and corps commanders. If we artificially limit those abilities to 2-stars and 3-stars, it would solve the imbalance problem, while letting generals like Stuart and Cleburne have it. Players would then have to decide whether they promote guys like that to army command because of their outstanding ratings, or keep them at a lower level in order to take advantage of those abilities. Is this a good idea or a bad one?

[Gil R.]

Speaking of teachable abilities, I just got this Event Report while playtesting. It's pretty nice to see two brigades gain "Heroes" as a result of combat. Also, note that garrisons that survive a siege now can gain in quality AND get some new special abilities. No longer will garrisons be stuck at 2.0 quality for the entire game, if they've seen combat.

[Walloc]

did hit on a potential solution, though, and am curious what you think about it. What about inserting a bit of code that prevents a 4-star general from teaching those abilities? I view Heroes/Dreaded as abilities for division commanders and corps commanders. If we artificially limit those abilities to 2-stars and 3-stars, it would solve the imbalance problem, while letting generals like Stuart and Cleburne have it. Players would then have to decide whether they promote guys like that to army command because of their outstanding ratings, or keep them at a lower level in order to take advantage of those abilities. Is this a good idea or a bad one?


Sounds good to me.


Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Walloc]

Hi Gil,

I assume u mean excluding 5 star too, right?. Just stating the obvius, i guess. Then again that has to be programmed too [:)]


Kind regards,

Rasmus

[General Quarters]

I like Gil's suggestion. The current system gives high ratings to hard-fighting division, corps, and cavalry commanders. It thereby encourages their promotion to command armies. This assumes in effect that they also have the strategic, administrative, personnel, and logistical skills to direct and manage a large force. Guys like Lee, Grant, and Sherman had these skills. We do not really know whether guys like Cleburne, Stuart, and Custer had them. Hood is the textbook case on the difference between the two levels of command.

I would prefer that some of these guys' overall ratings be a bit lower, but it would be a very suitable compensation if they had great abilities to train their troops into real fighters -- but only so long as they stayed at division or corps level of command.

[General Quarters]

The following comments on Ben McCullough appear in Horn's Army of Tennessee: He "insisted that all his men be crack shots" and he was an "excellent horseman and an experienced and able leader of rangers or irregular cavalry." These should indicate what some of his traits might be.

[GenGrunt]

ORIGINAL: Walloc

Hi Gil,

I assume u mean excluding 5 star too, right?. Just stating the obvius, i guess. Then again that has to be programmed too [:)]

Actually there were no 5 star generals in the civil war, The Union Army's highest rank was Lieutenant General (3 stars) and the Union Armies were commanded by senior Major Generals. The Confederate Army the highest rank was Full General (4 stars) and they also created a 3 Star rank for Corp Commanders (Jackson and Longstreet were both 3 stars)

http://www.militaryfactory.com/5_star_generals.asp

[Walloc]

Hi,

No, but i was refering to in game. Its both possible and fairly doable to get one in game.

That said, i think the rank of generals in game is more symbolic than should be taken at face value.
Grant as 3 star general was GiC of all US armies. McClellan was that at 2 star. To make a difference in game at the different powers generals got during the war, 5 level of star's has been included. That doesnt necesarrily means 5 star's in real life, but what a 5 star general means is powers a general could have. Like Grant did as GiC.
Gil/Eric feel free to correct me if im way off base.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[christof139]

Idea, not necessary, but just an idea. Have the general ranking as such:

1) Silver eagle or Oak leaf denoting Colonels. Can command Bdes. only.

2) Gold One-Star denoting Brigadier Generals, can command Bde. or Div.

3) Gold Two-Star denoting Major Generals, can command Bde., Div., or Corps.

4) Gold-Three Star denoting Lieutenant Generals, can command Bde., Div., Corps, or Army.

5) Gold Four-Star denoting Full Generals (none for the Union and only a couple for the South, although Grant could be placed here for convenience and playability), can command Bde., Div., Corps, or Army and will take command over allother Genrals in a Container.

Chris

[Gil R.]

Walloc, you're right -- the 5-star is essentially an abstraction, and not a misguided claim that there were 5-star generals back then.

cristof139, it's an interesting idea, but not something we can implement anytime soon. If you add it to the Wish List thread (so it doesn't get buried) we'll consider it for FOF down the road.

[jkBluesman]

McClellan never was in command of all Union armies. He commanded more than just the AoP but was strapped of his in the eve of the Peninsular Campaign given rights as Lincoln installed Pope. Halleck directed the armies more or less together with Lincoln until Grant became commander of all Union forces.

[christof139]

Idea, not necessary, but just an idea. Have the general ranking as such:

Doesn't matter IOTW. Chris

[Walloc]

Hi,

Well according to my sources. Officially, McClellan was GiC of US army from 1st Nov 61 to 11 March 62. Taking over from W. Scott and Halleck taking over after on 23 July 62. Like u say that doesnt that mean that he had the same freedom as Grant later did, why in the context of 5 star I only mention Grant. Non the less he was GiC of the US army in that brief perioide as a 2 star general. My point being that the rank/title a general had didnt necesarrily carry over in the powers he had. Why I saw, as Gil confirms rank in the game is an abstraction.

If that wasnt clear my bad.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[General Quarters]

Horn's Army of Tennessee reports that, while Ky was still neutral, Buckner trained the Home Guad into the most disciplined, cohensive fighting force outside the US army regulars. That should suggest Disciplined and perhaps some othe traits.

[christof139]

Horn's Army of Tennessee reports that, while Ky was still neutral, Buckner trained the Home Guad into the most disciplined, cohensive fighting force outside the US army regulars. That should suggest Disciplined and perhaps some othe traits.

Thanx for that tidbit!!! I just recieved Horn's book and another about the AoT Arty. today in the mail. Wanted to buy them when they were new, but the $$ stopped me and etc., so I have them now fro much less $$.

Now, I can use that Kentucky info. for my TalonSoft mods of Murfreesboro.

Buckner was a pretty good leader.

Chris

[Gil R.]

Getting back to an earlier discussion, Eric has programmed the patch now so that 1) 4-star and 5-star generals do not teach Heroes or Dreaded and 2) special abilities are only taught to units with a quality of 4.0+. These are excellent changes, since there's no longer a chance of poor units having excellent abilities. It also allows Heroes and Dreaded to be assigned to generals a bit more liberally. Already, I've given it to Forrest. Any more suggestions for which generals should get these two?

I should add that generals now spend more time early in the game raising units' quality than teaching them abilities, which is another great improvement. So essentially, we have units that start off pretty bad gaining in quality through combat and training, and after a while they're good enough to learn special abilities from generals (or to gain them through combat, which I believe can happen to a unit of any quality). This new, improved system more realistically models the way both sides' armies became more effective over time.