General Casualties

[RB]

One problem with the game I've noticed is the casaulty level for commanders is most inaccurate. Many of commanders from 1861 were not around two years later. Union commanders really bit it and so did Confederate. Can something be done to make it a little more realistic in terms of replacing leaders due to casualties?

[Gil R.]

Yes, you're absolutely right, and this is being adjusted in the beta patch. Generals have died at the right frequency in detailed battle, but in quick combat they haven't been dying and getting injured nearly enough, so we've bumped up the chances.

[General Quarters]

I play only QB and have not been aware of ever having lost any general. Where -- on which screen (the one that comes right after battle noting unit by unit casualties and quality increases, the Army Report, or the Battle report -- does that information appear?

I don't know if I am the only one but I find it irritating to have to look at two places (Army and Battle reports) to find out the outcome of a battle. The battles are the payoff in the game and you want complete info right up front. It would be nice if the Battle report contained a repeat of the info on the immediate after action report so you could review unit casualties, quality increases, rallies, etc.

[RB]

Gil R., I'm assuming also that the generals will be available at their historic time frame. That would be a very good feature and insure historic playability. That is, the Union Generals of 1863 shouldn't be available in 1861 like Hancock, Meade for instance. If the game could feature an option (for playability of course) to allow the historic entry of generals or an optional entry meaning Grant or Meade could be available in 1861. That would make the game very playable. But the option of having generals only appear in their historic timeframes would be truly great (if cascualties were resolved more accurately).

[Drex]

But Hancock and Meade and Grant were brigadiers in 1961 and so they are available.

[RB]

Yes, that is true and they could be available but NOT with the rating they later acquire. If somehow the ratings of good generals evolves with victory and experience. Grant for example would evolve greatly with each victory in the west. His potential would be there but wouldn't be reflective in early years. His greatness would evolve with experience. Could this be done. Probably not very easily but it would sure make the game much more historically accurate. Perhaps a solution would be (as in the case of Meade). Meade would be rated very high as a corps commander but not an army commander until 1863. He was a great corps commander but putting him command of the AOP prior to 1863 could be catastrophic. If possible, this would make the game very historically accurate and particularly if generals were rated historically as brigage commanders, division commanders, etc. Using a good brigade or division commander as an army leader would be very inaccurate.

[Drex]

I've always got the generals at brigadier level although I supposed they could come in higher due to random selection, but I wouldn't want to prevent a chance to promote earlier if possible. What has been suggested previously is to promote only one level at a time and only if a slot were available. thus Grant would start as a brigadier and could only go to 2 then 3 and so on but only if an appropriate container was available.

[RB]

I never saw that post. You mean the container would be generated at the appropriate timeframe to allow Grant to be commander such as Army of Ohio or Tennesse in 1862? That would work.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

I play only QB and have not been aware of ever having lost any general. Where -- on which screen (the one that comes right after battle noting unit by unit casualties and quality increases, the Army Report, or the Battle report -- does that information appear?

I don't know if I am the only one but I find it irritating to have to look at two places (Army and Battle reports) to find out the outcome of a battle. The battles are the payoff in the game and you want complete info right up front. It would be nice if the Battle report contained a repeat of the info on the immediate after action report so you could review unit casualties, quality increases, rallies, etc.

Put this on the wish list. Eric might move around some of the information in those reports. (Personally, it doesn't bother me much -- the only thing I really care about in the Battle Report is loss/gain of weapons, and that sort of info would clutter up the main Event Report. The Event Report does give casualty figures and info on units that surrender, which for me are the main things.)

As for where one reads about generals being hurt/killed, I can't remember, but do know that it's reported. (Just the other day I had Braxton Bragg injured in quick combat, and then he recovered.)

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: RB

Gil R., I'm assuming also that the generals will be available at their historic time frame. That would be a very good feature and insure historic playability. That is, the Union Generals of 1863 shouldn't be available in 1861 like Hancock, Meade for instance. If the game could feature an option (for playability of course) to allow the historic entry of generals or an optional entry meaning Grant or Meade could be available in 1861. That would make the game very playable. But the option of having generals only appear in their historic timeframes would be truly great (if cascualties were resolved more accurately).

Yes, the database reflects historical dates of promotion to brigadier general. The original release of the game only had this for the more important generals (and was riddled with errors), but I have been painstakingly working on this (and got some very welcome help from Rook749), and this is reflected in the patch.

I should add that, since I thought it would be a bit predictable to know what turn you get your generals, Eric added the "Randomized Start Dates" option to the patch, according to which generals first appear within a 2-3 month period of when they historically appeared.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: RB

Yes, that is true and they could be available but NOT with the rating they later acquire. If somehow the ratings of good generals evolves with victory and experience. Grant for example would evolve greatly with each victory in the west. His potential would be there but wouldn't be reflective in early years. His greatness would evolve with experience. Could this be done. Probably not very easily but it would sure make the game much more historically accurate. Perhaps a solution would be (as in the case of Meade). Meade would be rated very high as a corps commander but not an army commander until 1863. He was a great corps commander but putting him command of the AOP prior to 1863 could be catastrophic. If possible, this would make the game very historically accurate and particularly if generals were rated historically as brigage commanders, division commanders, etc. Using a good brigade or division commander as an army leader would be very inaccurate.

Our game doesn't have such a system, though we recognize the points in its favor. When playing with historical ratings there are reasons for and against doing this. I do know that it would be a very major change, and not something easily done through a patch. However, as I've written elsewhere, we're hoping to augment the generals system later in the year, and would consider ways of doing this. For now, though, if you're playing with historical ratings for generals they will remain fixed.

[Drex]

You would generate the container any time you had the money,etc. to do so. So you could promote Grant up through the ranks if you could had the commodities within a short period of time. Others have suggested promotion being tied to victories which would be more realistic. thus if Grant was a loser, he would never rise above Brigadier and go back to drinking.

[RB]

Yes, the database reflects historical dates of promotion to brigadier general. The original release of the game only had this for the more important generals (and was riddled with errors), but I have been painstakingly working on this (and got some very welcome help from Rook749), and this is reflected in the patch.

I should add that, since I thought it would be a bit predictable to know what turn you get your generals, Eric added the "Randomized Start Dates" option to the patch, according to which generals first appear within a 2-3 month period of when they historically appeared.



This is good. But still I don't recall ever seeing a general injured or KIA on either side when I play (at the advanced level too).

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: RB

This is good. But still I don't recall ever seeing a general injured or KIA on either side when I play (at the advanced level too).

You will. In our most recent version of the beta patch (still being tested before made available for public testing) the frequency has been increased. So the change has been made... you just can't see it (yet).

[mikeejay2]

IN A SINGLE PULSE, ON ELEVEN CONSECUTIVE SHOTS BY THE UNION (WHICH WAS ATTACKING MY DUG- IN ON TOP OF A HILL REBELS IN FEB 1862) I HAD NINE CONFENDERATE GENERALS KILLED. I DO BELIEVE LOSING 81 PERCENT OF YOUR GENERALS IN A 2O MINUTE TIME FRAME IS JUST  LITTLE TOO HARD TO BELIEVE. THIS RATIO WAS NOT SEEN AT MALVERN HILL, FREDRICKSBURG, GETTYSBURG OR EVEN COLD HARBOR IN THE EAST (NOR NASHVILLE FOR YOU WESTERN REBELS). MAYBE JUST MAYBE WE NEED TO TURN THE KILL RATIO DOWN JUST A LITTLE BIT. HOW ABOUT WE SPLIT THE DIFFERNCE BETWEEN WHAT WE FIRST HAVE AND WHAT WE GOT NOW. IF IT WAS 15 PERCENT BEFORE AND 25 PERCENT NOW CAN WE TRY 20 WITH THE NEXT PATCH? JUST THINKING OUT LOUD

[Gil R.]

I'm not sure if any changes were made to the frequency of generals getting killed in detailed combat, just quick combat. Any idea what guns the enemy had?


This thread needs to be moved to the beta sub-forum, so that more people can see it.

[General Quarters]

After playing many a QB in many a game with no general killed or wounded, the first fatality finally appeared (in the Army Report in the Events Report) on the enemy side.

[mikeejay2]

ON 9 OUT OF 11

NO ARTILLARY SHOT AT ME

3 IMPROVISED
4 MUSKETS
3 SPRINGFIELDS
AND THAT "DAMN" HENRY

TALK ABOUT DESTROYING MY MORALE LET ALONE MY TROOPS

[Erik Rutins]

Hi Mike,

I can't even figure out the odds against that. I'm afraid you had extremely bad luck as I've never seen the like after many detailed battles. Sorry it had to happen to you!

Regards,

- Erik

[ericbabe]

If I remember right, about 141 generals died in the Civil War either on the field or from wounds sustained.  That's about a 14% casualty rate for CW generals.  The mathematics of a detailed combat percentage should give about a 16% chance of killing or wounding a general who is involved in an exchange of 10 volleys at average damage; this was my attempt to make general mortality in detailed combat reflect the historical numbers.  Now units that are in the crosshairs of enemy artillery, or that are flanked or attacked from the rear by sharpshooters carrying Henry Rifles....their generals will have a much higher chance of dying.