U.S. Grant

[runyan99]

Starting Grant as a 3-star army commander in Feb '62 makes him over-ranked by quite a margin. What does the Union player need Halleck for, if Grant can start with an army?

Grant was a brigadier when he fought the battle at Belmont in Nov '61. He was a brigadier when he took Henry and Donelson.

He was promoted to major general in Feb '62, when he appears in AACW.

Either make him available earlier, like October '61 as a brigadier, so the player can use him for some Belmont like actions, or wait and make him available in Feb '62 as a 2-star general, so he can become a corps commander under Halleck, which was exactly what he was.

[PhilThib]

OK, for next patch then

[pasternakski]

I concur with Runyan99's suggestion that Grant appear, as he did historically, as a brigadier in Oct. '61.

I remember the scene in that fairly good but fairly silly film, "Sink the Bismarck," where Capt. Shepard's superior remarks that Shepard is probably glad that his son, serving as a Swordfish gunner in the Ark Royal, would not be involved in the Bismarck chase.

Said Shepard, "Why should I be glad? He must take his chance like everyone else."

So must Grant. If we are stupid (or unlucky) enough to get him killed before he becomes a leader of significant consequence in the Union war effort, we deserve what we get.

Same for many other leaders on both sides. Sink or swim, boys, this is war.

[jimwinsor]

In general, I'd like to see most other generals who come in higher ranking come in early at their * rank...and then have to "earn their spurs" as it were.

Beside Grant, Rosecrans comes to mind here (start him as a * in late '61 in West Virginia). Buell could start the game as a * locked in California until Oct '61. Etc. Find out where these guys were as lowly *'s, start 'em there, and let fate determine their courses!

[pasternakski]

Absolutely, Jim, and that leaves us free to make choices that, while within the bounds of what Lincoln and Davis (and their advisors) made, might turn out either better or worse.

Of course, we are working with hindsight and advance knowledge of leader ratings, but, c'est la vie. I still can't bring myself to try randomized leader ratings ... the thought of Ben Butler being a 6-5-4 just haunts me.

Maybe there's a middle ground somewhere...

[Spharv2]

I still can't bring myself to try randomized leader ratings ... the thought of Ben Butler being a 6-5-4 just haunts me.

Maybe there's a middle ground somewhere...

Sure there is, use the small randomization, then you won't have to worry about seeing anything that drastic.

[pasternakski]

Sure there is, use the small randomization, then you won't have to worry about seeing anything that drastic.

That tends to make everybody nearly identically boring, sort of like the collected wit and wisdom of lemmings...

[Chris0827]

In general, I'd like to see most other generals who come in higher ranking come in early at their * rank...and then have to "earn their spurs" as it were.

Beside Grant, Rosecrans comes to mind here (start him as a * in late '61 in West Virginia). Buell could start the game as a * locked in California until Oct '61. Etc. Find out where these guys were as lowly *'s, start 'em there, and let fate determine their courses!

Rosecrans should start in June 1861 as he was McClellan's second in command in WV and took over when McClellan went east.

[LMUBill]

Thomas should probably be available a few months earlier as well. He had a hand in the battle at Camp Wildcat (even though he wasn't personally there, he was on the way) and led the Union forces at Mill Springs in mid-January, 1862. (against Zollicoffer, who also should start earlier and in Tennessee since he led troops into Kentucky in the fall of 1861)

[runyan99]

(against Zollicoffer, who also should start earlier and in Tennessee since he led troops into Kentucky in the fall of 1861)

It's called a train. The Confederate player has access to them.

I like how most generals start in the capitol, and the player gets to decide where to send them.

That's good game design. Force the player to make decisions. Starting generals like Zolli in Tennessee just locks the players into a historical reenactment. That's boring.

[LMUBill]

It's called a train. The Confederate player has access to them.

I like how most generals start in the capitol, and the player gets to decide where to send them.

That's good game design. Force the player to make decisions. Starting generals like Zolli in Tennessee just locks the players into a historical reenactment. That's boring.

OK then... let's start Robert E. Lee in Texas in Fall of 1864 then. Or Grant in Boston in Jan. 1863. They have an ocean they can use to move them over.

Besides, with this AI a historical reenactment won't happen. It actually is able to plan strategy, unlike most civil war leaders.

[runyan99]

OK, for next patch then

Did this make it into 1.02a? I'd like to know for my current PBEM campaign.

If not yet done, which option are you leaning towards for Grant?