Nathaniel Lyon didn't make the cut

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

1) Nathaniel Lyon had a very short stint in US Civil War. Death will do that. Dude was an excellent leader, and primary reason Mizzo (that's Missouri for the Euros) became a Union state. Don't think I see him in the game.

2) Phillip Sheridan is an Army leader yet was more Calvary leader.

3) Where is Jeb Stuart

4) Do all Calvary Units fight the same regardless of their name? (Forrest, Custer, etc.)

[Bo Rearguard]

I seem to remember seeing Lyon's name mentioned when I got some free Union units to invade Missouri with. They were volunteers flocking to his colors or some such thing. But no Lyon.

Jeb Stuart and Nathan Forrest are just the names given to two Confederate calvary divisions in the game. No special attributes I can see.

[BiteNibbleChomp]

Nathaniel Lyon is assumed to die in the game when he did historically, and therefore isn't represented outside of a couple of popups in the first few turns. As you said, he was a pretty good leader, and if he was available for purchase or deployed on the map, players would naturally choose him over Pope and Hooker and McClellan, which would negate one of the Confederacy's biggest advantages historically and take that key aspect of the war out of the game (because expecting a Confederate player to kill a hypothetical Lyons HQ in 1861 just isn't a likely prospect in the game).

Sheridan was given command of the Army of the Shenandoah in 1864, which had three corps (the VI, XIX and VIII) under its control. That's worthy of an HQ counter IMO.

All cavalry (and for that matter infantry too) units with named commanders fight the same regardless of the name chosen, this is purely historical flavour with no gameplay effects . That said, be sure to choose your favourite commanders to lead your troops!
Stuart is one of the names for CS cavalry divisions, and will appear as a map counter in early July 1861

- BNC

[battlevonwar]

"Banks," "Custer," "DoubleDay," the Wonderous "Hancock!" and many others probably will not be in Lead? Read Doubleday's book and to be quite frank the Union's leadership was far superior to the Confederates IMHO. Though Jackson was quite good and fast(probably the Blitzkrieg General of the Civil War) and Longstreet a bit hesitant but fair... Forrest was great but didn't lead a large army at a point where it mattered much.

As far as the Western and Central Theatres a lot of Politically appointed CSA Leaders were poor vs Grant/Sherman. Bragg/Johnston That or their situation was bad.

In the East again Politically appointed Generals weren't all that great. Johnston's of the East was so bloody hesitant and when he was assigned elsewhere he was too meek. . .

The early Leadership of the Union in the Potomac was just bad but they had the time to find their Guy. Grant had to write a memoir or leave his family penniless? A lot of these facts I forget it's been years since I cracked the books open.

I believe it was Grant that cried after the battle of the Wilderness ... So he was not Butcher


((All this said these men were a different style of Commander who often lead from the Front more so why so many Civil War Generals were killed or Wounded. e.g. Jackson, Johnston, Hooker, Lee wouldn't of got command if his contemporary wasn't wounded which doomed the CSA later when he lost 2 battles in the North! (maybe why he was so bad) etc... They saw the hell that their men were put through and the blood and guts. Later era Generals lived in the lap of luxury and watched the front through glasses and later through reports of Phone Calls)

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

Great conversation, some solid thoughts.

Glad that Lyon got some script visibility. True, he'd tilt the early days towards Yankees.
Sheridan, is 50/50 on Army Leader or Calvary. So I'm indifferent.
I probably didn't pay attention to Jeb's appearance, was looking for a cooler counter. Will keep my eyes out.

*** would be nice to make the Cavalry divisions with Leaders or maybe *1-star experience or something.

Gotta have Forrest, Jeb, Wheeler getting some work done,

[Platoonist]

I believe this is Nathaniel Lyon's one fleeting moment of glory in the game.

Lyon.jpg (63.83 KiB) Viewed 771 times

[pascalc]

Nathaniel Lyon is assumed to die in the game when he did historically, and therefore isn't represented outside of a couple of popups in the first few turns. As you said, he was a pretty good leader, and if he was available for purchase or deployed on the map, players would naturally choose him over Pope and Hooker and McClellan, which would negate one of the Confederacy's biggest advantages historically and take that key aspect of the war out of the game (because expecting a Confederate player to kill a hypothetical Lyons HQ in 1861 just isn't a likely prospect in the game).

If Nathaniel Lyon has to die because (1) it happened historically and (2) his survival would be a key leadership advantage for one side, does Stonewall Jackson automatically die in May of 1863 because (1) it happened historically and (2) his survival would be a key leadership advantage for one side ?
Both deaths were important, but not inevitable. I'd suggest an electronic roll of the die for such events, with the possibility of being wounded and out of action for some time.

[BiteNibbleChomp]

If Nathaniel Lyon has to die because (1) it happened historically and (2) his survival would be a key leadership advantage for one side, does Stonewall Jackson automatically die in May of 1863 because (1) it happened historically and (2) his survival would be a key leadership advantage for one side ?
Both deaths were important, but not inevitable. I'd suggest an electronic roll of the die for such events, with the possibility of being wounded and out of action for some time.

Jackson doesn't die automatically, so if you keep him safe he can enjoy a comfortable retirement after the war

Lyon's death is automatic primarily because it happened in 1861, when killing HQs is very difficult in the game (brigades simply don't have the striking power). Killing an HQ with an upgraded corps in 1863 is a much more possible prospect, so there is a reasonable chance that the game will recreate Jackson's death under the usual rules.

- BNC

[pascalc]

If Nathaniel Lyon has to die because (1) it happened historically and (2) his survival would be a key leadership advantage for one side, does Stonewall Jackson automatically die in May of 1863 because (1) it happened historically and (2) his survival would be a key leadership advantage for one side ?
Both deaths were important, but not inevitable. I'd suggest an electronic roll of the die for such events, with the possibility of being wounded and out of action for some time.

Jackson doesn't die automatically, so if you keep him safe he can enjoy a comfortable retirement after the war

Lyon's death is automatic primarily because it happened in 1861, when killing HQs is very difficult in the game (brigades simply don't have the striking power). Killing an HQ with an upgraded corps in 1863 is a much more possible prospect, so there is a reasonable chance that the game will recreate Jackson's death under the usual rules.

- BNC

Thanks for the reply. Of course, Jackson's death had nothing to do with brigade or corps structure, but you can't include friendly fire in a game of this scope. There's some good suggestions in the "Leaders should have chance to die/wounded easier" topic.

[battlevonwar]

Jackson got murdered by 40,000 angry Union Soldiers in my last PBEM that or his own men crucified him for driving them like Mules Sorry if you give Nathaniel to the Union got to give Cleburne to the CSA that or let's kill Sidney early as well (how good was he actually, as we'll never know really) ... I think they just don't want Arkansas falling in 1861.

If Nathaniel Lyon has to die because (1) it happened historically and (2) his survival would be a key leadership advantage for one side, does Stonewall Jackson automatically die in May of 1863 because (1) it happened historically and (2) his survival would be a key leadership advantage for one side ?
Both deaths were important, but not inevitable. I'd suggest an electronic roll of the die for such events, with the possibility of being wounded and out of action for some time.

Jackson doesn't die automatically, so if you keep him safe he can enjoy a comfortable retirement after the war

Lyon's death is automatic primarily because it happened in 1861, when killing HQs is very difficult in the game (brigades simply don't have the striking power). Killing an HQ with an upgraded corps in 1863 is a much more possible prospect, so there is a reasonable chance that the game will recreate Jackson's death under the usual rules.

- BNC

Thanks for the reply. Of course, Jackson's death had nothing to do with brigade or corps structure, but you can't include friendly fire in a game of this scope. There's some good suggestions in the "Leaders should have chance to die/wounded easier" topic.