Matrix Games Forums

Is there any way to know (apart from learning from experience) how promotion will affect leader stats.

I can promote T Jackson from 2 to 3 stars general but I don't know what impact will it have.

Remember, the mystery of promotion is intended. Some generals did well as divisional commanders but horrible as corps (or army). If you knew in advance, you would only promote those you knew would be good, which removes part of that fog concept.

All this being said, you'll learn in your first game and avoid some generals.

In some ways, promoting regardless of what you know (ie, you know promoting so-n-so will be a bad idea) helps off-set the human vs. AI advantage.

It would be good to know in advance...I can tell you you may not want to promote Longstreet. His strat rating goes from 5 to 3, and he loses his special abilities.

Again, that's the point. It becomes gamey knowing who to promote. Did Davis and/or Lincoln know that in advance? Just saying...

popular subject:

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.p ... ted-leader

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

It would be good to know in advance...I can tell you you may not want to promote Longstreet. His strat rating goes from 5 to 3, and he loses his special abilities.

Uhhhh.... Whaaat?

Is that a random thing or does it always happen? Please tell me its a random thing because if it isn't someone knows squat about Longstreet and his abilities or I'm not understanding the ratings.

ORIGINAL: Werewolf1326

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

It would be good to know in advance...I can tell you you may not want to promote Longstreet. His strat rating goes from 5 to 3, and he loses his special abilities.

Uhhhh.... Whaaat?

Is that a random thing or does it always happen? Please tell me its a random thing because if it isn't someone knows squat about Longstreet and his abilities or I'm not understanding the ratings.

Not random.

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: Werewolf1326

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

It would be good to know in advance...I can tell you you may not want to promote Longstreet. His strat rating goes from 5 to 3, and he loses his special abilities.

Uhhhh.... Whaaat?

Is that a random thing or does it always happen? Please tell me its a random thing because if it isn't someone knows squat about Longstreet and his abilities or I'm not understanding the ratings.

Not random.

That - is - uhmmmm.

...extremely disappointing to learn.

ORIGINAL: Werewolf1326

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: Werewolf1326




Uhhhh.... Whaaat?

Is that a random thing or does it always happen? Please tell me its a random thing because if it isn't someone knows squat about Longstreet and his abilities or I'm not understanding the ratings.

Not random.

That - is - uhmmmm.

...extremely disappointing to learn.

On the other hand, you may be forced to promote him anyway due to seniority. Unless you want to pay the NM/VP cost.

Do not misunderstand, he does not loose his ratings for being promoted to 2 star general - or Corps commander. He looses some of his abilities (still the best defender in the game) if he is promoted to 3 star general - or an Army commander.
So the game honors his historical record in AoNV completely.
His performance if he would soley command an Army is hipothetical, and there is pro and contra (Knoxville campaign for example) Longstreet being a great Army commander. He was great when he arrived at battlefield, but he was sometimes slow to arrive at battlefield - hence a drop in strategic rating if he would command the whole thing.
3/2/6 ratings gives a very good army commander, and may be appropriate.

I have to confess, that I am surprised, that Grant has higher attack rating than Forrest, who have as well appalling 2 defence.

The way I interpret his pre-war success as a businessmen and performance during conflict, he strikes me as one guy who knew how to plan, organise and execute all sort of enterprises. Moreover he was fast to adapt to new circumstances what can not be said about most, including such figures as for example R.Lee.

My bad, I looked at Grant in my game with Aurelian - his starting attack is 6, nevertheless I think Forrest is not given enough credit by game authors.

I played a game vs. AI, and while I can't remember all the stats completely, a number of CSA commanders in particular lose abilities and rating as they are promoted.

AP Hill, IIRC, goes from a 5-3-3 to a 3-2-2.
Ewell goes from 4-4-2 to a 2-3-1.

I am certain JB Hood and Jubal Early must also take a dive on promotion; beware with them. I haven't seen Hood's army command rating, but based on history, it has to be a 5-1-0 or similar.

Richard Anderson must also lose a bit.

Joe Hooker must nosedive from 2* to 3*, I just haven't seen it. Same with Burnside.

This is just based on historical reading, but all these guys hit a wall when promoted

I found values for each rank in files *.mdl in folder Models.

I am impressed. According to the .mdl file 3 star JB Hood is 5-0-1.[;)]

"In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to their level of incompetence"

"Sooner or later they are promoted to a position at which they are no longer competent (their 'level of incompetence'), and there they remain, being unable to earn further promotions"

The hilarious Peter Principle. It explains many things [:D]

Forrest ratings are 6/6/2 with 4 others positive special abilities.

I do not see how this is underrated.

Regarding other generals, there is a beta version with a list of generals with the list of their stats for various rankings. It still has some imprecisions in it, so I do not know if I am allowed to post it. In the mean time you could use generals list from AACW1. The most generals have the same stats - with some exceptions.

I do not have any issues with commanders ratings and abilities - game is a game, but I genuinely feel that (in my opinion) most brilliant commander of Civil War deserved higher stats and a bit different abilities (changing as well after promotion)

If I was to associate him with one leaders from the past name Charles XII of Sweden comes to my mind, but Forrest financial success makes me think he would be better strategist than Swedish king.

I am pretty sure he would be great not only as cavalry commander and would lead proper mixed arms formations really well. Shame for readers and good for all of us that southern establishment was too short-sighted to fully utilise potential of this natural born warlord.

Feel free to give your suggestions. Nothing is set in stone.

Rough ideas


It is good, that he can't be promoted beyond 2 stars

1 star: 664 and I would add screener (charismatic would be perfectly reasonable too, but considering other traits it would be too much)

2 star: 665 and revamp traits completely: surpriser, very fast mover, charismatic and skirmisher, plus something that affect his command points negatively, but not massively so quickly angered + gifted commander would be ok (-2 CP)

665 would mean he is the best commander of all times. Given the fact those stats are speculative since he never commanded more than division sized force, do you really think he was as good military genius as Napoleon. Can you give example where he excelled at holding defensive positions as well as he did in raiding enemy and surprising him on offense.