McClellan/McDowell

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[arsan]

The idea sounds interesting but IMHO, maybe that "whole lot of work" time could be better used on other issues.
Of course all the time and work is yours so...

[soundoff]

As in general terms leader stats are not significantly effected by how well or poorly they perform 'in game' against how they performed in RL....I'd say whats the point.

As Arsan says though...you are the one doing the work...so whatever

[biggp07]

Since I play this game soley on the premise that it mostly represents actual history I voted to allow McDowells Bull Run results determine McClellens status in future. I personally would play this but it might not be for everybody, therefore I have not asked for it up to now. I'm just havin fun at the game!

[Jim-NC]

McClellan was only promoted due to McDowell's disaster at Bull Run. He (little Mac) had shown some promise in pacifying WV. Lincoln was grasping for a winning General (his strategy for most of the war in East). I think the change would represent that.

However, I agree with Arsan, in that I think that there are better uses of time in improving the game.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Clovis]

The idea sounds interesting but IMHO, maybe that "whole lot of work" time could be better used on other issues.
Of course all the time and work is yours so...

Not difficult. I made it some weeks ago..and just for the AI...Working good in the ...you know...Because player just have to have the choice...After all, they are Lincoln ...but sshh...

[W.Barksdale]

This just complicates the game. I'm sure there are cooler things to work on.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jarkko]

While one might say it is fantasy to stop McClellan from rising to leadership in 1861, I want to claim it would be even more fantasy to see McClellan replace a succesfull McDowell. I for one would very dearly want to see MD stay in charge if he is succesfull, as it would give the player a real impetus to attempt the attack in summer 1861 (while MD is not a stellar commander, he is still not quite as bad as MC ).

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[dragoon47]

I always thought it was quite entertaining to have to use McClellan, I don't see why pople would place him elsewhere ! All you have to do is put him in a position in which the South has no choice but to attack him and you no longer have to worry about attacking .

What would this effect? The Bull Run scenario, or the 1861 campaign? If it's the campaign, then I'd leave it as is, but since I'm not sure what it's for I won't vote yet .

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Eugene Carr]

McNaughton had something like this in his Brigade Mod you could even end up keeping Patterson!

S! EC

[dragoon47]

You'd have to have loaded the various v1.13e Public Beta updates to understand exactly what I meant by suggesting this be added to the 1861 Campaigns w/KY scenarios and not the original 1861 scenarios. These are separate variant scenarios with a different handling of Kentucky neutrality of the main campaign scenarios. In other words they're not the main campaign scenarios.

Oh, this is the one that involves a unit that you send in just for the invasion of Kentucky, I'll check it out when I find the time. Thanks for explaining again Gray.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[dragoon47]

The idea just became that much more appealing .

[Chertio]

I'm quite happy promoting McLellan when Mr. Lincoln orders it and giving McDowell something else to do.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Spharv2]

I like the idea, would Mac remain a two star general if McDowell succeeds? I think it's the same "Takes command" event that promotes him to 3 stars isn't it? He may not be a great army commander, but as a corps commander, he could be quite useful. Without that auto-promotion and seniority jump, using him as a corps commander becomes a viable strategy.

Also, would you change the event removing him from play for his presidential candidacy? Without his time as commander of the AoP, I'm not sure he gains the political cache to be nominated by the Democrats...unless he's a raging success in whichever theater he ends up in.

[Franciscus]

No big deal to me. But as Gray so well knows, I like anything that improves general's historicity in the game

[WhoCares]

Just out of couriosity, a successful McD somewhat implies a bad Jackson/ANV performance for the south. Would this accelerate Granny Lee taking command?! Talking about dimishing benefits for the Union

Edit: Another questions would be how the AI might handle this. Though I think the scenarion in question might be PBEM only - I'd imagine the AI can't resist to build those cheap Kentucky units - or not if they have no fighting ability; but it would be predictable for the player anyway...

[Spharv2]

Edit: Another questions would be how the AI might handle this. Though I think the scenarion in question might be PBEM only - I'd imagine the AI can't resist to build those cheap Kentucky units - or not if they have no fighting ability; but it would be predictable for the player anyway...

I assume you're talking about the Kentucky event. If so, I've seen the AI (Union) wait till it naturally fired (There's a time limit on neutrality), and I've seen it do it the first turn, so there's plenty of variability.

[Chertio]

it would actually be more realistic to tie McDowell's demise to the failure to satisfy the "1861 Threaten Richmond" events.

If McDowell had won at Bull Run, no doubt the politicians would have demanded Bigger and Better Victories, and he would have been pushed until his inexperienced army came unstuck. So this does sound more realistic.

What of McDowell, removed from the game like Patterson? That would leave the Union with Hamilton and Milroy at 2* and the usual suspects at 3*, would the Union be getting a bit short of Corps Commanders come '62? [Edit - as Spharv2 points out, McDowell was demoted not removed. Dumb mistake on my part ].

Would Patterson be removed only if/when McDowell got demoted, or removed at all if there had been some victories?

It sounds like an interesting scenario, I enjoy playing the Union and having to make the best of ineffective officers.

[Spharv2]

What of McDowell, removed from the game like Patterson? That would leave the Union with Hamilton and Milroy at 2* and the usual suspects at 3*, would the Union be getting a bit short of Corps Commanders come '62?

I can't imagine he would be removed. Gray is dedicated to maintaining the historical nature of the game. in real life, McDowell was demoted to a lower command, so I imagine he will be reduced in rank (Replaced by a 2 star model) or simply placed at a lower seniority among 3 star generals, and would thus be usable as a corps commander.

[Chertio]

McDowell was demoted to a lower command

True - dumb mistake on my part!

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Brochgale]

I voted no but then I see it from this perspective - the more you have to change then inevitably the more you have to fix. The more of a headache you are giving yourself when there are other projects on going that might add more to the game more immediately.

[Pdubya64]

I voted no but then I see it from this perspective - the more you have to change then inevitably the more you have to fix. The more of a headache you are giving yourself when there are other projects on going that might add more to the game more immediately.

I think they call that "the law of unintended consequences", don't they? Back on subject; I do like the idea, maybe it would be best to confine it to a scenario. If the complications of campaign use were to change it might make a good implementation for the early game.

[tagwyn]

Havely must really like you!!! All your patches? What influence have you? t