Matrix Games Forums

One of the most important elements of "Forge of Freedom" is the ratings system for generals, which dictates the effect each one has in combat and in leading his army across the strategic map. As I've noted elsewhere, we have 1000 historical generals in our database, and players will have the option of having those generals appear with random ratings or historically-based ratings. We thought we would give all of you a chance to have input into the historical ratings of the most important generals, who will appear in every game. (Less famous generals have a 9% chance of appearing in a game; obviously, we can't have 1000 generals with a 100% chance of appearing.) If this system of voting works, your collective ratings will be used in the appropriate data file.

Each of these generals will require separate poll threads. Below are the standards by which they are to be rated.

First, these are the ratings for generals along with the numerical values:
Terrible = 0
Bad = 1
Poor = 2
Normal = 3
Fair = 4
Good = 5
Great = 6
Excellent = 7
Superb = 8

And these are the five areas for which each general is rated according to that system:

Initiative: Adds to the movement of brigades in detailed combat; affects the movement initiative of the division/corps/army on the main map

Leadership: helps disorganized units regain order; gives morale boost for rallying; has chance of negating effects of fatigue from forced march

Tactics: Increases damage done by brigades in combat

Command: Determines the chance of bringing out-of-command units back into command; helps brigades change formation; helps units resist charges; enables units to enter dangerous zones (i.e., certain hexes where they ordinarily would be at a penalty because of terrain type and/or proximity to enemy units)

Cavalry: Increases damage done by charging cavalry in combat

IMPORTANT NOTE: Only generals who have cavalry experience will be given a Cavalry rating, so for most generals there will be only four poll-threads rather than five. If there is a general for whom there is no cavalry poll-thread even though there should be (perhaps because of cavalry experience in the war with Mexico), please let me know and I'll add the poll.

Right now, I have two polls up, for Lee and Grant, but will be putting up several more over the next few days. Be sure to come back...

I voted and I think the ratings are seemingly looking reasonable and fair as I did not notice too much "extreme" variance! However, I would enjoy knowing the overall rating. Is there any way we can know this without doing the math on each of the five polls following every vote?

I did not see polls for Grant, but did for Lee.  Am I missing something?
 
AS

Oops. For those wondering, I accidentally created not poll threads for Grant but regular threads. I'll repost a bit later.


Okay, Grant's polls are up. I'll have a few more generals later today.

ORIGINAL: dh76513

I voted and I think the ratings are seemingly looking reasonable and fair as I did not notice too much "extreme" variance! However, I would enjoy knowing the overall rating. Is there any way we can know this without doing the math on each of the five polls following every vote?

I've been wondering the same thing. At some point soon I'll definitely look into it. Right now, we don't have enough votes for it to be all that meaningful.

Thanks Gill.

Where's Reynolds? Oh, how about Sheridan? Lyons? Albert Sidney Johnson? Boy a lot are missing!

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff

Where's Reynolds? Oh, how about Sheridan? Lyons? Albert Sidney Johnson? Boy a lot are missing!

It would be overwhelming to put them all out there on the same day, especially since each general requires 4-5 separate threads. I'll post several more tomorrow, and more after that.

By the way, if you would like to begin a discussion of any of these generals (or one of their ratings in particular), please start a NEW thread. Otherwise, if you add a reply to one of the poll-threads, it will bump it to the top, separating it from the general's other poll-threads.

Perhaps we can just keep the dicussion on this thread? As I closely follow the polls it becomes evident that the cavalry rating may be skewing the results. I am impressed with the historical knowledge of those who have voted illustrating some familiarity with the cavalry backgrounds of those general officers polled. However, this rating seems to be unfair in that it increases or decreases the officers according to their cavalry command and experience.

While I can understand any general officer having a bonus for the presence of cavalry units on the battlefield as this would afford any command greater speed, more flexible flanking movements, and increased tactical diversity, I cannot understand rating a general officer on any branch specialty. Furthermore, why is this specific branch [cavalry] elevated above the others [i.e., infantry, artillery, engineering] or for that matter even included in the overall rating system for general officers?

ORIGINAL: dh76513
Perhaps we can just keep the dicussion on this thread? As I closely follow the polls it becomes evident that the cavalry rating may be skewing the results. I am impressed with the historical knowledge of those who have voted illustrating some familiarity with the cavalry backgrounds of those general officers polled. However, this rating seems to be unfair in that it increases or decreases the officers according to their cavalry command and experience.

While I can understand any general officer having a bonus for the presence of cavalry units on the battlefield as this would afford any command greater speed, more flexible flanking movements, and increased tactical diversity, I cannot understand rating a general officer on any branch specialty. Furthermore, why is this specific branch [cavalry] elevated above the others [i.e., infantry, artillery, engineering] or for that matter even included in the overall rating system for general officers?

I'm not sure what you mean by "skewing" the results? What results are being skewed and how are they being skewed? There is no game rating that uses the aggregate of the ratings. You can give no-rating to a general officer in the cavalry rating -- that is in fact what a zero rating signifies.

Cavalry ratings are given to officers because it makes sense within our game interface system to include them with the other ratings. We included cavalry ratings but not ratings for such things as infantry, artillery, engineering, signalling, or pioneering because we thought these areas of the game had sufficient detail already whereas cavalry needed a bit more, and also because including too many statistics for a general (or for anything, for that matter) tends to dilute the game-play value of any of the particular statistics.

As a general comment: I urge people to reserve criticism of the game system until it is released. As a game designer I've learned that a lot of rules that look good on paper don't work out very well in-play, and that the best way to form a judgment about a set of rules is to play them. Also, permit me to note that with our last game, Crown of Glory, the great majority of negative feedback it received on the forums were posts people wrote *before* the game was released; comments after release were much more positive. Unfortunately one of our important reviews was written based on much of the negative feedback that appeared before release (the reviewer copied several of the pre-release "complaints" almost verbatim in his review.) Based on that experience, I'm trying to avoid debating the nuances of the rules with people who haven't yet played the game as I did last time around.

I would also add to Eric's note that our play-testers have issued no complaints at all about some generals having a cavalry rating. The overwhelming majority won't, but when one does, it enhances his value -- but then, other generals have enhanced values in other areas. What might appear to be skewing things is that we're voting on premier cavalry leaders right now, who understandably are getting high ratings. Most generals with a cavalry rating will not be "excellent" or "superb."

On a related note, someone on one of the forum threads mentioned that there weren't really cavalry charges in the Civil War. That's true, if one thinks of saber charges (which happened just once or twice, as I recall), but cavalry DID charge toward a spot, dismount, and then start firing.

It occurs to me that there is some need to clarify which levels of generals are affected by the different ratings. Eric already responded to this, but it was in a thread in the main forum. So, cutting and pasting and slightly rewriting what he had to say...

Initiative:
At the strategic level, initiative is almost entirely a matter of the commanding general of whatever military group is trying to move. During detailed battles, the bonus is from both the brigade's general (if there's one assigned) and the general commanding the military group to which the brigade is attached (usually a division.)

Leadership:
Similarly, brigade commander has most of the effect, but generals can also periodically try to rally any unit under their command.

Tactics:
Just for brigade commanders

Command:
The restoring of out-of-command units function is more a function of generals commanding higher military groups (armies/corps), but the other functions of the Command rating are solely for brigadier generals.

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
Initiative:
At the strategic level, initiative is almost entirely a matter of the commanding general of whatever military group is trying to move. During detailed battles, the bonus is from both the brigade's general (if there's one assigned) and the general commanding the military group to which the brigade is attached (usually a division.)

Before a battle the "Initiative Check" is heavily weighted toward using the score of the highest ranking officer on each side.

Command:
The restoring of out-of-command units function is more a function of generals commanding higher military groups (armies/corps), but the other functions of the Command rating are solely for brigadier generals.

Some of the other functions use average between bde. general's rating and the rating of the group's general (typically a division commander).

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.

The ratings for General Thomas is far too low. From the books I've read and the later historians Thomas was one the best generals from either side. Giving him a zero for cavalry is ignorance. He served in the 2nd US cavalry and became its colonel as the war came. He was also an instructor in cavalry tactics and artillary at West Point in 1852. He taught JEB Stuart and Phil Sheridan.
In the two battles that he fought independently, he destroyed. The battle of Nashvilleusing castoffs and injured veturns and cilivians, he destroyed Hood. The battle stands as the most complete and perfect battle in american history. The rebels were behind fortify lines and he took them with alot fewer casualties than Grant. He is said to be the one general not ever to make a mistake.
He would have risen far higher if he was from the north. Civil war generals were given commands because of political influence. When asked by Lincoln who should be the next commander of the army of the potomac after Gettysburg, the future president General Garfield told Lincoln only one man could doit and that man was Thomas. There wouldn't have been the hugh casualties. For a commander from a southern state, the army of the cumberland loved him and would go anywhere with him. With him as commander the army of the cumberland was the best army the north had.
He was the one who broke the signal codes of the rebel army after Chattanooga. He developed Portable pontoon bridges and pioneered using railroad cars as hospitals. He had the best spies on the federal side and gave freely the info to other commanders.