Sun Dec 02, 2007 4:22 am
I have been focussing on 2-star generals, since they are the ones who really affect combat (moreso than 1 or 3 star generals, since stack leaders have a greater effect on combat).
There are four 'types' of generals.
#1. Aggressive and Competent
These generals have high Strategic ratings as well as one or two good (2+) combat stats. (i.e., 4-2-2, 4-4-0, 4-0-4)
Hooker, Grant, Sherman, Hancock, etc.
#2. Aggressive and Incompetent
These generals have high Strategic ratings but poor combat stats. (i.e., 4-0-0, 4-1-0, 4-0-1)
Sumner, Mansfield, etc.
#3. Unaggressive and Competent
These generals have average to low strategic ratings but one or two good combat stats. (i.e., 3-1-1, 3-0-2, 3-2-0, 2-0-3, 2-3-0)
Porter, Burnside, etc.
#4. Unaggressive and Incompetent
These are the bottom of the barrel, however, I wonder if anyone will ever use them? (i.e., 3-0-0, 2-1-0, 2-0-1)
Banks, Patterson, McClernand, etc.
The thing about the Union Army which is not really represented in the game at present, is the relatively small size of their Corps in comparison to the Confederate Army. A typical Union Corps (until late in the war) consisted of 2-3 Divisions (in most cases 2 divisions). However, most corps can easily get up to 16 CP (more due to signal and balloon units which the USA can easily afford to build). This results in the Union fully capable of packing in their best divisions into corps commanded by their best commanders, meaning that once Hooker or Sherman get to be Corps commanders, under Grant (persay) that is pretty much all that you need to field 8 top-notch divisions (historically it would take 3-4 corps to field as many troops).
I am beginning to feel that the Union command chain should have very few bonus' for CP throughout, and in fact should have abilities which have CP penalties to a greater extent.
So far I have developed a few abilities to represent poor command chains. Previously all that existed were Overcautious (to me does not translate well into CP ratings, as it would better be reflected by a combination of low initative and low strategic ratings) and Quick Angered.
#1. Stack/Army Commander
This is based on abilities like Quick Angered, where the commander experiences CP penalties for their own stack, and subordinate stacks. I have added "Unqualified" (they don't have what it takes to command an army/stack), "Dispirited Commander" (causes conflict between themselves and divisional commanders in their stack/army), "Vague Commander" (issues orders that are unclear or assume initiative by their subordinates). These abilities affect formations if the particular leader is in command of the stack or army.
#3. Stack Participants
New thinking in regards to CP penalties, where the stack experiences CP penalties not based upon the leader of the stack, but, if the general is in the stack at all. I have added "Uncooperative" to represent generals who argue with their superiors, don't get along with their peers, are full of themselves. They don't have to lead the stack, but just be present to reduce the efficiency of command. I am toying with the idea of including something to represent a general's mismanagement of their division (not necessarily being incompetent) but that they are simply unable to be an efficient part of the command chain.
I figure with these abilities in greater numbers, and eliminating (for the most part) positive CP bonus' (at least for the 'early' leaders of Stacks/Armies), as well as generally low strategic ratings, then the Union player will be encouraged to have more corps with fewer divisions (representing the historic situation) and many 'top' generals (like Hooker) will have CP penalties to the point where you want to use them, but cannot overload their force with units (meaning that you still have to use sub-par commanders).
So, I am planning on eliminating all CP benefits via Commanders except for those of Sherman and Grant for their 4-star variations (meaning it will be late in the game before they will get command bonus' for their corps). Also, I am going to add some more CP penalties to generals (especially variations of high-stat generals that players would be encouraged to use based on historic justification though).
Yep, it's me all right. I am a wargamer from waaaay back (mid 70's) and really love this game.
