A Proposal to Improve the Historical Flavor: Please Comment

[Q-Ball]

I posted on this before, but I would like to formally propose to the community here some changes relative to who are the early 2* leaders in the game. The fortunes of war will sort out leaders post-early 1862, so I am most concerned with those who are "Automatic", without any battles at all.

IRL, several leaders of course were given Corps or important commands with no battle experience at all. Someone had to command the early armies. The game offers "free" 2* and 3* leaders to simulate this.

However, I find that several of the choices are puzzling. Some leaders in-game as early, important commanders had virtually no importance to the Civil war at all. Others who attained early command, without ANY combat experience, have to somehow fight their way to the top.

Therefore, I propose some changes to each side in terms of who and when are appointed early command.

I WANT YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS, as my opinion is only 1, and if there is a chorus, I think a change will get made, at least in a mod. PLEASE COMMENT.

Objectives:

1. To include more early commanders that were historically early commanders.
2. To remove commanders who figure prominently in early GAME, but didn't in real life
3. To not materially impact play balance with these choices
4. Overall, to enhance historical flavor

Note on Ranks:

Before getting started, a note on CSA and USA ranks.

I think a number of Union choices that don't make historicaly sense are driven by actual promotion of some leaders to the grade of Maj Gen of Volunteers, or "MGV" as I will call it. Understandible, but I think rank of promotion does not necessarily correlate to the level of responsibility entrusted in a leader.

In game, IMO, 1* really means "Division Commander", and 2* means "Corps" or "Department" commander. I think this should be the primary criterea, rather than actual rank.

Samuel Curtis, for example, was given the important independent command of the Army of the West in early 1862. He was not promoted to MGV until after Pea Ridge, effective March 1862. At Pea Ridge, he commanded a force of 3 divisions, and was senior to Franz Sigel, Asboth, Dodge, among others. I think, for example, that this billet is deserving of an in-game 2*, even if he wore only 1 star on the shoulder.

For the CSA, actual rank pretty much has to go out the window, as the CSA used more ranks than the USA, and tended to promote into them. Most division commanders were Major Generals. Clearly, you can't have every CSA divsion leader be an in-game 2*.

So, I look at FUNCTIONAL responsibility rather than actual rank.

[Q-Ball]

Leader Changes: CSA

The Conferates are not as puzzling as the Union. However, I think some changes have to happen. Here are my proposed changes:

SUBTRACTS:
Edward Johnson: Remove event promoting him to 2* in early 1862. Edward Johnson was not appointed to a DIVISION command until 1863. He never commanded a Corps.
John Forney: Should enter as 1*, not 2*. Forney was a division commander at Vicksburg; that’s it. Never commanded a Corps.
Neither Forney or Johnson really make any sense as 2*; there are multiple better candidates

ADDS:
Bragg: Should enter as 2*, or be promoted to 2* in early 1862 by event. Bragg was a Corps commander at Shiloh, his first battle. He was a prominent commander in the war, and well-known prior to the start of the war.
Hardee: Should enter as a 2*, or be promoted to 2* in early 1862 by event. DITTO everything for Bragg.
Van Dorn: Should enter as a 2*. He was sent west at the end of 1861 to command the District of Trans-Mississippi. Commanded a 13,000 man army in his first battle (Pea Ridge).

ADDITIONAL CHANGE: (You can debate this one)
John Pemberton: Should enter in late 1862 as a 3*, not 1*. Pemberton was appointed commander of the Army of Mississippi with no prior battle experience.

[Q-Ball]

The Union Army

Union Army 2* in game are a bit of a mess early. I am listing several commanders in the order in which I think they should be kicked off the 2* list. Some may need to be retained for play balance reasons:

SUBTRACTS:
All of these should enter as 1*, instead of 2*. In Dix’s case, I would remove him from game

Amiel Whipple: He never commanded a Corps. He was never promoted to MGV. He really shouldn’t be in the game as a division commander until late 1862.
Robert Milroy: Never attained the rank of MGV. Never commanded a force larger than 6500.
Hiram Berry: Brigade commander until November, 1862. Promoted MGV in Nov, 1862. Never commanded more than a division.
Charles Gilbert: Until October 1862, his rank was Captain, USA. Temporary corps commander at Perryville. His appointment as BGV was never confirmed by Congress. Never a MGV.
Charles Hamilton: Division commander under McClellan, who had him removed. Promoted MGV in Sept 1862, but never held a field command at that rank. Left army in early 1863.
John Dix: Rank of MGV is legitimate, but he was considered too old for field command, and had none in the Civil War

ADDS:
For play balance purposes, I realize losing 6 2* leaders is a lot for the Union. So, some of my adds may be technically “On the fence” types, but I still think they are more deserving, all of them, than the list above

Samuel Heintzelman: Should enter as 2*. He was an early Corps commander in Army of the Potomac.
Joseph Mansfield: Should enter as 2*. Mansfield was a Brigadier General in the Regular Army. He was promoted MGV in July 1862. Commanded Washington Defenses (important), commanded Corps at Antietam.
Samuel Curtis: Should enter as 2*, or receive early promotion to 2*. See notes in first post.
Ambrose Burnside: Should enter as 2*. First command was an important one, the NC Expedition. He was promoted MGV in late 1861 after capturing Roanoke. Granted, this is battle experience, but I would rather give Burnside a free pass than Milroy, etc.
Alexander McCook: Should enter as 2*. Yes, technically he was promoted to MGV in July 1862 after success at Shiloh, Corinth. I would rather give McCook a free pass, though, than a couple of these other guys. He was an important Corps commander under Rosecrans.

COMMENTS ON PLAY BALANCE:
The last couple are a bit thin, but I strongly feel that the 6 Union guys listed should go.
With this list, the Union loses a bit with quantity, but gains a bit with quality, as Sam Curtis in particular is better than the average 3-1-1. And in the end, I feel McCook and Burnside deserve a free pass more than Dix or Berry or whomever, and would add to the historical flavor

Please comment, so the powers that be may change all this!

[cmdrsam]

I will post more on this later. Would add Sherman earlier. He was at bull run.

[Jim D Burns]

First thing that jumps out at me is a major balance issue. You remove a full Corp command from the Union by reducing the overall number of 2 star Generals available by one and add a Corp command to the south, thus shifting the balance by two Corps (3 if Pemberton is promoted too). The Union is already far too weak in game, a shift like this is too severe. Later in game (1863 on) it possibly wouldn’t be as severe an issue, but in the first year or two I think it could potentially cripple the Union.

Jim

[TulliusDetritus]

I know basically *nothing* about the Civil War so I hardly can give my opinion. I am here to learn from those who know.

Said this, when possible give me history as opposed to alternate universes.

[Toro12]

I'm seeing your argument, but I think we also need to consider that attaining rank w/in game (ie, battle experience, and successful battles at that) may limit the number of 2* we could have available when corps become functional. I'm wondering if this is the reasoning for auto-promotes? (Would like to hear perspective of designers??)

[2ndACR]

Don't have her yet, but I always preferred the Forge way of doing it, you get so many promotions each turn, could only have so many at a rank and could demote (with the chance they leave and lose morale etc for that action) and you the player gets to decide who gets promoted/demoted and when. Was always a challenge when playing with the random and hidden stats. You wanted to fight a few battles with the commander before jumping.

1 star was a brigade commander
2 star division
3 Corps
4 Army
5 everyone

[cmdrsam]

I still feel Sherman should be added sooner. Not just for the bull run thing I mentioned. And I know you are talking about two star generals. But Corps cant be used till 62, think with some better 1 stars for the union, it may add to more options for them. The better starting generals, the faster they get used and the faster they get to corp level command.

While I'm thinking of bull run. Maybe some other generals who may not be great but still could be of uses.

George Sykes
Burnside, yes he comes in early, but maybe earlier
Grant I would move up as well to an earlier arrival. Grant I believed secured Paducah at about the same time as Polk moved in to Columbus KY. Might be another way to make the "Cairo Gambit" alittle harder to achieve.
John Reynolds
Oliver Howard. Yes I said Oliver Howard. He is the same rank as Franklin and Burnside at Bull Run, Col. But I think He did all right as brigade commander. He is another one of the generals that the higher he got, the worse he got.
McCook could be brought in earlier as well.

Just some ideas to add the conversation.

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

First thing that jumps out at me is a major balance issue. You remove a full Corp command from the Union by reducing the overall number of 2 star Generals available by one and add a Corp command to the south, thus shifting the balance by two Corps (3 if Pemberton is promoted too). The Union is already far too weak in game, a shift like this is too severe. Later in game (1863 on) it possibly wouldn’t be as severe an issue, but in the first year or two I think it could potentially cripple the Union.

Jim

Fair points, at a minimum only cut the Union by 5, add the 5 I mentioned. That is a net gain for the Union.

For the South, Ed Johnson and Hardee are roughly a wash. Bragg is a slight improvement on Forney. Van Dorn isn't particularly good.

The real problem is the Union/Reb balance, that should also be addressed

[Ace1_slith]

I agree with most from your posts.
Some remarks:

Sherman was not division commander at Bull run. Brigade commanders are not represented in the game.
Balance issue is being looked in. In the next patch everything will cost more ws (increase in cost from 25% for infantry to 100% for heavy ships). This will hurt CSA a lot, while US will be untouched by the change since they have large surplus of WS.

[Q-Ball]

At a minimum, I would like to see some replacements that don't impact play balance. For example, Heintzelman for Berry, and Mansfield for Gilbert.

For the CSA, maybe forget Hardee, and just promote Van Dorn, Bragg (still demoting Forney and Johnson)

I hope for at least a couple tweaks here

If I was somehow advocating for Hiram Berry to be given 2* status, and in return demote Heintzelman, anyone with historical knowledge would look at me like I was nuts (or think my name is Hiram Berry IV) So, let's fix this

[2ndACR]

Hardee was a very good commander during the Civil War. I could probably find others that could be substituted for Hardee.

[veji1]

Key issue here is that one wants to ensure that leaders play the proper central role in game play, means that players need to have enough leaders to use, but suffer constraints that help emulate the sort of historical situation : poorish C&C at the beginning of the war, you also want the leaders to reflect each side's issues.

So the Union should have poorish leaders at the beginning, more so than the CSA, and generally both players need to be stuck with the 2* they have in 62, only during 62 and later in 63 onwards should they have enough leaders to get to choose the best.

Now I also things there should be more random events and things touching leaders : they are the very center of the game. I would like to see them getting killed and injured more often, have stats changes based on events : ie developped alcoholism, post injury becomes extremely hotheaded or the opposite, retreat happy, etc...