Using bad Union Generals

[Tharmas]

Judging from other posts I have read, players seem to avoid using the worst generals, ie Fremont , Butler, etc. I hate the penalties and try to use them for the most part. What sorts of things do players do to deal with this? I sometimes give Fremont and Butler armies which just sit there, McClellan can replace McDowell, or get an army in the mountains. Grant gets an army ASAP, Lyon comes east at some point. What to do with Banks?

[csiemers]

For "my" generals I typically keep the trainers in big cities and then I just assign all the rest to various units. I don't exclude them just because they are poor. I don't have much choice until better generals start to show up.
Also, I'm not big on forming the "perfect" divisions/corps. I will toss various units that are nearby together. I'm just not one to over analyze all the statistical data. I vaguely remember the better/worse generals by reputation from reading of history so that's why I go by more than their rating in the game.

[DrPostman]

I prefer to play with non-historical stats. That way you never know how they might turn out

[Durk]

In solo play (playing both sides) or in play against AI it is simple fun to use the historical commanders in their historical appointments.

I tend to use the generals in a mostly historical manner. For instance, I send Butler on the naval expedition to New Orleans. Otherwise I pretty much do as csiemers suggests. Use them, but judiciously. Using Butler to lead the New Orleans invasion is a bit of a lesson in how to use poorly rated leaders. When he does his initial attack using distant unload, the fleet actually uses Farragut's rating, so no issue. On subsequent turns if the CSA has prepared a defense, he is promoted as an army commander and at least one accompanying general is a two star, to benefit from corps command.

If you are in pbem and have an opponent who enjoys historical play, both side can, to the extent possible, keep to historical commanders, this is a fun alternative as the South has some stinkers too.

Dr Postman does provide a nice alternative. Who is to say the game designers have the correct statistics for each general. With variable ratings, you have a nicely dynamic alternative. Most players resist doing this, but very worth considering. It provides a path for my favorite Union General, Rosecrans, to reach his actual potential.

[DrPostman]

Dr Postman does provide a nice alternative. Who is to say the game designers have the correct statistics for each general. With variable ratings, you have a nicely dynamic alternative. Most players resist doing this, but very worth considering. It provides a path for my favorite Union General, Rosecrans, to reach his actual potential.

When I used to play the old Victory Games "Civil War" I'd refer to him as Rosencruddy That was
a board game that I loved, and CW2 is very similar to that game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29upLleLijs

[Durk]

Where Rosecrans really gets overlooked, he pushed the CSA out of Kentucky and most of Tennessee without a fight.
For this, game designers rate him as very much less than competent. Not fair to the commander. Even Victory Games which designed great games got it wrong.

[DrPostman]

Where Rosecrans really gets overlooked, he pushed the CSA out of Kentucky and most of Tennessee without a fight.
For this, game designers rate him as very much less than competent. Not fair to the commander. Even Victory Games which designed great games got it wrong.

From what I've read I'd have to agree with you.

[Captain_Orso]

Where Rosecrans really gets overlooked, he pushed the CSA out of Kentucky and most of Tennessee without a fight.
For this, game designers rate him as very much less than competent. Not fair to the commander. Even Victory Games which designed great games got it wrong.

The opening line of the Wikipedia Tullahoma Campaign entry is "The Tullahoma Campaign (or Middle Tennessee Campaign) was a military operation conducted from June 24 to July 3, 1863, by the Union Army of the Cumberland under Maj. Gen. William Rosecrans, and regarded as one of the most brilliant maneuvers of the American Civil War".

I think the quality of Rosecrans' march to Chattanooga is unquestionable. What happened at Chickamauga is another question. IIRC in the days before the battle, there were several tactical mistakes and some very dangerous situations avoided only by chance in which part of his army could have been attacked piecemeal in the narrow valleys of northern Georgia/southern Tennessee.

Regardless of how well the Tullahoma was planned and executed, once the Army of the Cumberland and the Army of Tennessee were standing face to face Rosecrans lost control of his army. By this I don't mean that command and control had completely dissolved, but he allowed things to happen which could have been prevented with a little more attention to detail. The removal of a an entire division (Thomas Wood) from the line of battle to send it to another section of the line while standing face-to-face with the enemy and in the midst of the battle, is a dangerous maneuver and should require the utmost caution and attention. But Rosecrans paid no greater attention to this. Thomas Wood's division pulled out of the battle-line, leaving a division sized gap, and about 30-60 minutes later Longstreet's column-assault hit the Union's right flank centered directly on the gap left by Wood's withdrawal from the line.

So, when he had time to plan, Rosecrans could put an excellent plan together and execute it successfully. But once the situation became fluid, he seems to have not had quite the command over his army as he should have. this might be represented in the game with some special rules, but we don't have these, nor do I expect to get them. Simply giving Rosecrans' reduced ratings in general is also not the solution. It requires a dynamic and not random characteristic. This might be one solution as an ability:

Excellent Strategist- If commanding a stack, if this leader remains stationary, on the completion of every 2nd turn, this leader's offensive and strategic values are both raised by 1 up to a maximum of +2.

Of course the time-period for Excellent Strategist could be higher or even lower. I'm not saying that 2 turns is in anyway absolutely correct, just demonstrative.

Also, on a side note, AFAIK George Thomas' holding the line at Chickamauga could nor really occur in the game. Basically, after taking hits in a round of battle, a unit makes a morale-check dr. The higher the number of hits, the greater chance of the unit going into retreat. The more units in retreat, the greater the chance the next uniting making a morale-check will also fail. Once enough units are in retreat, every morale-check will result in retreat, or all units are automatically put into retreat.

It would require some major changes to the battle engine but another ability might represent Thomas better than simply a huge defensive rating.

Tenacious Defender- If defending, the stack this leader commands does not retreat with other stacks, which fail their morale check. The Tenacious Defender's stack will remain and continue defending, after an automatic retreat has occurred.Stacks retreating, while the Tenacious Defender's stack defends are not subject to pursuit damage.

I'm not going to start in about supply movement etc, which played a huge role in Bragg's army retreating from Tennessee: that would be too much off-topic blah-blah.

[Rod Smart]

The bad generals can still be useful:

- Fremont is the only three star in the west in '61. That's helped me more than once hold the line in Cairo against a Confederate push. He also has one of those attributes that can increase loyalty.
- Butler stinks, but he has one of those attributes that can increase loyalty.
- Banks stinks, but he has an attribute that can increase recruitment. Leave him in Baltimore as an army commander.
- McClellan and Halleck stink, but they are EXTREMELY valuable as trainers. I'd rather have Little Mac train two volunteer elements every turn, than have Little Mac as a 4-2-2.
- McDowell stinks, but he's good enough to sit there in Virginia through '61. He also gets the automatic activation a couple times, which can be useful.
- Buell stinks, but he comes along late enough that you shouldn't be hurting for three stars. Turn him into a corps commander for some Kentucky garrison, and keep him out of the way.
- Pope, Hooker and Burnsides stink if you promote them to three stars. So don't promote them to three stars.

With enough battles, you can get those bad generals a few more stars. In one particularly bloody Cairo to Memphis campaign, I got Freemont up to 8 out of 10 experience stars.

I prefer to play with non-historical stats. That way you never know how they might turn out

I've found that poo generals, with non-historical stats, tend to still be poo. They might be a different kind of poo, like a 0-5-1 instead of a 2-1-1, but that's still poo.

[Captain_Orso]

If you use those poor leaders to lead troops offensively, they will gain experience and seniority, which will either force you to promote them, give them an army, or take NM and VP loses when promoting other leaders you really want to lead corps and armies.

The advantage of a crappy 3* is that on the defensive, it doesn't matter if he's activated or not, and his rank increases your frontage in battle.

[veji1]

I like to role play the use of generals to some extent.. It would be nice if there was a system where the game could lock bad generals into command of armies a bit more... role play is part of the fun.

[Rod Smart]

I like to role play the use of generals to some extent.. It would be nice if there was a system where the game could lock bad generals into command of armies a bit more... role play is part of the fun.

You get heavily penalized if you demote your generals.

Much like real life, and actual history, you can "promote" your generals out of the way. Take away their army command, and make them the commander of a department. Departments have multiple armies! What an honor!

[BattleVonWar]

In most my games against Elite Union opponents by 1862 I am facing at least a 2 Star Grant and soon after a 3 Star... When you start to add in several Corp Commanders beneath Grant(Rose/Kearny/Sherman later) you really don't need to worry too much about anything. In this game you need at least 1 great Leader as a 3 Star and a bunch of mediocre 2 Star will do. The Union will gain success this way every time.

Check your Seniority and lead out with the leaders with the lowest Seniority and highest stats. By June '62 there is no Leader gap in the West or East depending on where the Union wants it's sledgehammer.

Really the Confederate Army is not unstoppable! There is a brief moment in '61 where she is way way ahead but that doesn't last long. D.C. is very difficult to take and McDowell on the Defense is quite perfect for that job initially.

Just look for the soft targets are all. That's the key to leadership which is not quite historical. Soft targets shouldn't earn you so much as they do here. Hard targets should earn you a lot more! Though the game has a flaw easily exploitable on both sides for that!