R.E Lee mortality in western theatre

[chris51]

In a pbem game my opponent has had RE Lee as an AC in the west for 3 turns now and yet he still lives. Isn't the new rule of raising his mortality rating to 9 supposed to slay him if he moves out of the eastern theatre?

[Joel Billings]

It substantially increases his chance of getting ill, and getting hurt in combat. No guarantees though.

[chris51]

I thought AC's were immune to death or wounding in combat? In that case just have to hope his horse throws him or he catches cholera or cuts himself shaving and devolps septecimia.

[Erik Rutins]

ACs are much less likely to die in combat than CCs. Lee's mortality increase also affects illness though. It means that if your opponent decides that Lee will spend most of the war in the West, the chance is much higher now that something will happen to him. Probability-wise, it's still likely he'll survive the game, but it may make some players think twice about sending him far afield.

[Tempest_slith]

Erik,

Your response raises a question.

The posted 1.030 rule change on Lee says:
"5. Addition to section 6.7 (Leader Mortality and Capture) - Whenever Lee is located outside of the Eastern Theater (see section 6.5), for purposes of leader illness (section 6.7); Lee will be treated as if he has a mortality rating of 9 (instead of 1). "

I read this as his chances of being affected by combat is unchanged.

Does the Lee rule change increase his chance of dying (mortality rating) from both illness and combat?

[Capt Cliff]

Bleh!! Lee would only fight for his country ... Virginia!! He should never and I mean never be allowed to move west. West Virginnia maybe but technically that's still part of Ole Virginny.

[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

[Doc o War]

Well Actually Lee served all over the Southern Atlantic seaboard in 61 that is why he doesnt show up until spring 62.- building defenses and preparing for invasions. So he really didnt only fight in Ole Virginy- once he had the Army Command in Virginia he stayed. I do not think he would not have gone West if Davis had sent him, though they were extra sensitive about state loyalty up at the capital in Richmond- I just think the President of the Confederacy saw Virginia as the only place for his best commander. Do not be so bold as to think Virginia is a useless place to fight- It has its moments. There is not much wiggle room between DC and Richmond- loose ground there and it could quickly become fatal. Loose Richmond and you are history.
   
Also It sucks to loose someone important to illness- I just lost Grant to Illness for many months in late 62 in a game I am playing-he was my leading Army Commander.  It really took the wind out my Union Offensive. I replaced him with Sherman- but it hurt. Winfield Scott often dies-  but loosing Lee to Illness or death in the west would be terrible- so I just wouldnt want to risk the added chance. If you wanted to you could make a house rule with your opponent- Grant in the West til 64 and Lee in the East- or something- as the Confed I just would rather not risk Lee that way. But not all feel as I do.
 
I just would respect that the Old Grey Fox would rather have been in Virginny/ The East and leave it so.

[Capt Cliff]

Ok at the get go it was Joe Johnston, a Virginian, in the east and Albert Sidney Johnson, a Texican via Kentucky, in the west. Now ole Beuaregard was in the east too but I think that was due to Fort Sumter more than anything else. After Bull Run Beuaregard was sent west to help out Albert Sidney, most likely cause Davis didn't like him. When Johnston was wounded during 7 days Lee replaced him. When Johnston recovered he was sent west to try and fix Bragg's cock-ups. Davis would have never allowed Lee, after what he did to McCellan during 7 Days and Antietam, to go west on a whim. No way Jose!! To risk losing Richmond to the Yankee's was unthinkable. Lee should be always in the East trying to thwart any Union advance and /or trying to take Washington.

[Jutland13]

Lee should always be in the East, but Grant should stay West until his command rating goes above 21. There were significant political implications and issue with both Generals. There is a reason they did not meet until 64. 

[Capt Cliff]

ORIGINAL: Jutland13

Lee should always be in the East, but Grant should stay West until his command rating goes above 21. There were significant political implications and issue with both Generals. There is a reason they did not meet until 64. 

An excellant idea!! [&o]

[Mike Parker]

Unless the suggestion is that Bobby Lee would have found himself innundated with allergies to strange western vegetation this change seems ham-fisted.
 
To strictly restrict either Lee in the West or Grant in the East is problematical.  if you play a friendly game you could make a gentleman's agreement.
 
For the game itself I am suprised the penalty was not something like "When Lee is an AC or TC and not located in the Eastern Theatre his political rating is considered negative instead of positive for purposes of the per minth gain or loss"  or if that cannot be done, just have a -8 political point penalty every turn Lee is not in the eastern Theatre much like the Union penalty for not attacking manassas and the bonus for attacking towards Richmond.
 
A similar thing could be done with Grant.
 
This game is WONDERFUL in its depth with the PP system, to me this seems the perfect solution to this issue, make it politically unadvisable to do these things. 

[Capt Cliff]

ORIGINAL: Mike Parker

Unless the suggestion is that Bobby Lee would have found himself innundated with allergies to strange western vegetation this change seems ham-fisted.

To strictly restrict either Lee in the West or Grant in the East is problematical.  if you play a friendly game you could make a gentleman's agreement.

For the game itself I am suprised the penalty was not something like "When Lee is an AC or TC and not located in the Eastern Theatre his political rating is considered negative instead of positive for purposes of the per minth gain or loss"  or if that cannot be done, just have a -8 political point penalty every turn Lee is not in the eastern Theatre much like the Union penalty for not attacking manassas and the bonus for attacking towards Richmond.

A similar thing could be done with Grant.

This game is WONDERFUL in its depth with the PP system, to me this seems the perfect solution to this issue, make it politically unadvisable to do these things. 

Make it an optional rule then, check it at the beginning of the game or uncheck it. An sport it isn't ham-fisted ... ummmm your ham-fisted for commenting on things you know little or nothing about.

[Doc o War]

No, I think Mike Parker here has the right Idea- it would make more sense to make the punishment Political Points-Lee should stay in Virginia- the Noble Virginian General- defending his home state- that rang true to southerners. It was part of their Internal Propaganda Machine at the time- The South capitalized on that- It effected things- morale and public support linked on this issue.
  
And Grant was a Westerner- And Washington was run at least for the first two years of the war- by the Eastern Political and Military establishment. Western Generals were not welcome in the East.  Not bythe Military establishment or the Political machine.
    But Victory and acomplishment - and a bunch of Luck- put Grant in the top spot in 64- also by 64 the Military had been taken over by pragmatists who just wanted to win- and Lincoln liked winners. Grant was allowed to go wherever he wanted - and so the restriction should lift in 64- for Grant- this will lead- if Lee is in Virginia in 64- to the ultimate battle- for Richmond in the later part of the war.
 
  As for being Ham Fisted-I dont think so at all.  As Napoleon said- I like generals who can waltz their troops in open battle- not prance about the dance floor with the ladies- Mike Parker is showing his ability to see a problem and resolve it- out in the open-and has suggested a fix- lets give it a look before we cast stones. 

[Mike Parker]

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff

ORIGINAL: Mike Parker

Unless the suggestion is that Bobby Lee would have found himself innundated with allergies to strange western vegetation this change seems ham-fisted.

To strictly restrict either Lee in the West or Grant in the East is problematical.  if you play a friendly game you could make a gentleman's agreement.

For the game itself I am suprised the penalty was not something like "When Lee is an AC or TC and not located in the Eastern Theatre his political rating is considered negative instead of positive for purposes of the per minth gain or loss"  or if that cannot be done, just have a -8 political point penalty every turn Lee is not in the eastern Theatre much like the Union penalty for not attacking manassas and the bonus for attacking towards Richmond.

A similar thing could be done with Grant.

This game is WONDERFUL in its depth with the PP system, to me this seems the perfect solution to this issue, make it politically unadvisable to do these things. 

Make it an optional rule then, check it at the beginning of the game or uncheck it. An sport it isn't ham-fisted ... ummmm your ham-fisted for commenting on things you know little or nothing about.

I think I actually know quite alot about it.

And just about the perfect term is ham-fisted. Upping Lee's mortality by sending him West is a VERY artificial penalty. While I would equally dislike it, in some ways just making it impossible to move Lee to the western theatre would seem more natural than how the penalty is currently implimented. it just doesn't make logical sense. I suppose it could be true the Bobby Lee did have allergies to the flora and fauna local to the western part of the US at that time. I do admit to ignorance on that issue, but I VERY strongly doubt that to be true.

I play the current patch because it has lots of good things, I play the game for the same reason, I wish the penalty to move Lee West were done differently because the current one is just silly (better than ham-fisted?) especially considering imho the perfect vehicle is the PP system.

[Capt Cliff]

The American Civil War was fought over states rights, and slavery. The CSA was all for the states. The Govenor of Alabama horded uniforms that were only for "his" boys, per Ken Burns Civil War. Confederate generals fought in and around their states, except during the final year and a half when the had to defend their "Union" of confederated states. So allowing Lee to move west on a whim to defend say Memphis is unacceptable, but moving Joe Johnston to Atlanta to prevent the South from being cut in two makes sense, but that was in 1864. The Union command structure was a bit more versitile so tieing Grant to the west is unacceptable. Now maybe the rule should be for the Union is 61 & say June/Sept of 62 there's a restriction, while the south must be restricted to April 64 to 65. Fun when you get to activate leaders they are by east and western theater. Thye just don't appear in the captial

An optional rule or switch that ties CSA leaders to a theater from 61 to 64 and for the union 61 to 62.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Mike Parker
And just about the perfect term is ham-fisted. Upping Lee's mortality by sending him West is a VERY artificial penalty. While I would equally dislike it, in some ways just making it impossible to move Lee to the western theatre would seem more natural than how the penalty is currently implimented. it just doesn't make logical sense. I suppose it could be true the Bobby Lee did have allergies to the flora and fauna local to the western part of the US at that time. I do admit to ignorance on that issue, but I VERY strongly doubt that to be true.

Actually, it's pretty subtle. While it represents a significant increase over the prior mortality rating, if used as an AC (as intended) his chance of falling ill or dying is still very small. Since playing with the new update, have you lost him to death due to illness?

Robert E. Lee had some very significant health issues that lead to his death shortly after the war ended. They caused him some issues several times while on campaign, but he overcame them. There's also plenty of evidence that campaigning in the West and South was more difficult in terms of climate, diseases and distances. One can easily conjecture that Lee would have had a harder time in a hotter climate, or one where he would have been on longer more frequent field marches or had a good chance to come down with malaria, etc. He was not a young man in good health.

With all that said, I can see the case for a political cost as an alternate way of doing it. I see both as good solutions that reach the same result though. I don't think either solution would be ham-fisted. I get the impression you think we made it so that if Lee goes West, he drops dead. Far from it, it's just a little bit more realistic risk for the player to consider before moving him around. Even with the latest version, Lee could likely spend the whole war in the West without a problem. If he spends it in the East though he's at even less risk and most players want as little risk to Lee as possible.

Regards,

- Erik

[Mike Parker]

Let me clarify.
 
I am not upset that it makes it harder to send Lee West.  I also think something should be done to prevent it.  But likely it should be harder for almost everyone to change geographical areas but that is another point.
 
I think the manner it is done is quite unrealistic.  Ham-fisted in this sense to mean a method was chosen that is completly beyond any sensible explanation.  To suggest that he would be subject to increased mortality is just an undefinsible position.  It works as a gamey way to restrict him, it doesn't work from a sense of making sense in the sceme of how things work in the real world.
 
What adds to it is that to me the solution is so patently obvious it should be political.  If this game didn't have the wonderful PP system that underpins just about everything one does, I wouldn't be so turned off by a gamey way to do it.
 
Its seems pretty clear to me several things would have happened had Lee been sent West.
 
1.  It would have cost Jefferson Davis political clout
2.  It would likely have angered several if not most of the Western Theatre commanders
3.  It would likely have angered Lee
 
All these things and perhaps a bunch i do not mention and do not know about is why Lee stayed In VA.  I do not however believe a hidden
 
4.  Ill-health caused by the change in region would have prevent Lee going West.
 
I suggested using 1, cost the Confederacy some Political Points to shift Lee West.  It makes sense, Davis would have had to spend considerable political clout smoothing over things, consoling Lee himself (Lee would probably have threatened to resign his commission).  This is a much better penalty to me.  My suggestion of treating his POL rating as -4 if deployed in the Western Theatre would be a swing of -8 PP a month.  That would be a HUGE deterrent to moving Bobby Lee west.
 
Perhaps other solutions would work better or in tandem.  You could have a reduction of Lee's Command Rating as western officers resist the eastern officer.  I envisioned such things being handled by Jefferson Davis expending political clout to make it happen smoothly, but you could lessen the political penalty and institute a command rating penalty also.
 
So I am not saying Ham-Fisted as in out of whack, or that I think it means Bobby Lee will keep over from consumption within 3 months, I mean that it just makes no sense realistically that his mortality would go up.

[Capt Cliff]

Mike's assessments are spot on!!

I misunderstood his intial comment or read it badly ... sorry ole Bean!

To leave Richmond uncovered without Marse Robert there to protect it is unthinkable. The cost would be prohibative, to just save Memphis as example. Better to change the capital from Richmond to Podunk Alabama, then move Lee.

[Pford]

ORIGINAL: Mike Parker
So I am not saying Ham-Fisted as in out of whack, or that I think it means Bobby Lee will keep over from consumption within 3 months, I mean that it just makes no sense realistically that his mortality would go up.

What about a broken heart?

Your proposed changes, though arguably an improvement in realism, would add (IMO)a clunky level of rules on top of an economically programmed game. I prefer it as is.