One feature a day serie: #1 Relegating generals

[Director]

Generals were re-assigned to posts of supposed importance; Burnside wound up commanding the district that included Ohio. Other lesser lights were eased off to Minnesota, California and the like. Beauregard wound up all-but-unemployed at Charleston. After the West Virginia fiasco Lee was no more than Davis' military advisor.

Whether you charge a flat cost per general or use a number that reflects their seniority and political connectionns seem to me to be a small point. If the game plays easily and well, and does a reasonable job of showing me the costs of doing what I think needs to be done, then I will be pleased.

[Wilhammer]

Lets not forget that McClellan was given orders to slow down early in the war...

[Director]

I'm aware of many times McClellan was urged to move faster but never do I recall anyone asking him to slow down.

[Heldenkaiser]

I'm aware of many times McClellan was urged to move faster but never do I recall anyone asking him to slow down.

Maybe on an occasion where he was in full speed reverse?

[marecone]

Maybe on an occasion where he was in full speed reverse?

Good one

[Generalisimo]

[quote="Jonathan Palfrey"]You think that the political support factor is more important]
But you know the abilities from the beggining.
And like Pocus said, if you hide them, you can even guess them after the first 2 or 3 turns. Then you will be in a position that no Union/CSA leader was ever. You can select your best generals and put them in command of your best armies without a cost.
That couldn't happened and it was because of something... what'?... well, what Pocus is saying, seniority and political support.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

But you know the abilities from the beggining.
And like Pocus said, if you hide them, you can even guess them after the first 2 or 3 turns. Then you will be in a position that no Union/CSA leader was ever. You can select your best generals and put them in command of your best armies without a cost.
That couldn't happened and it was because of something... what'?... well, what Pocus is saying, seniority and political support.

It didn't happen in reality because a few weeks of the war were not enough for Lincoln or Davis to make any reliable judgment of a general's ability.

If you can make such a judgment after playing the game for a few turns, there's something wrong with the game. Specifically, it means that the game is translating a general's ratings into results too directly, without enough random variation. Even good generals had periods of disappointing performance, and that should happen in the game too.

[Pocus]

This is why it will takes some time (understand a patch/update) to do the things right. We do want to make an Hidden Generals option, but we want to randomize and hid abilities too, so that you can't guess anything.

As for disappointing performance, hidden generals or not, I think we can say this is simulated by the dices which are rolled during battles, forced march, attrition, etc. As Einstein said, there is no randomness (or was it luck), just unexplained phenomenas! (=> so the dices in the game are here to factor everything which can't be explained or quantified easily, like a bad day for a general)

[Frank E]

As Einstein said, there is no randomness (or was it luck), just unexplained phenomenas! (=> so the dices in the game are here to factor everything which can't be explained or quantified easily, like a bad day for a general)

But Einstein was wrong on that one!

[Jonathan Palfrey]

As for disappointing performance, hidden generals or not, I think we can say this is simulated by the dices which are rolled during battles, forced march, attrition, etc.

Indeed, I completely agree. And if you have such random variation in the game already, it shouldn't be possible for players to estimate any general's ratings accurately over a short period of time.

A small linguistic oddity for you: the word 'dice' is a plural word, like 'mice'. The singular form is 'die'. One die, two dice. One mouse, two mice.

[Pocus]

like in: 'no dice, you die'?

[Jonathan Palfrey]

[quote="Pocus"]like in: 'no dice, you die'? ]

Right. It looks a bit funny, but that's the way it is (check in any dictionary). English is a funny language; you may have noticed already.

[Pocus]

so much more logical that our latin tongue. Many wording are elegant and crystal clear like 'spring' (the season), 'spring' (the source), 'spring forward', all sustained by the same semantic.
Not that I disparage our latin heritage!

[Jonathan Palfrey]

I see that the manual (now available) says on page 8:

"You can also play with Unknown Leader (hidden statistics): in this case, leader names and attributes are only revealed after their first battle."

And on page 27:

"You can choose to play the game with Leaders attributes randomly generated, see the Options Window and check the level of randomness desired."

If all these options are in the game, it looks rather good to me.

[Pocus]

Page 8 is a mistake, for release there is the Random Leaders stats only. We will correct that.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

Oh, drat. leure:

However, in principle Random Leaders are the best way to play, if you really want to face the same kind of challenges as in the real war.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

By the way, the manual says very little about the Random Leaders option. I hope the leader's characteristics are hidden from the player; if not, the option seems rather pointless.

Assuming that characteristics are hidden, do they gradually become visible, or does the player just make his own estimate of them?

[DennyWright]

I think this approach is absolutely right.

Is there a simple way to learn which generals are showing great promise as the game progresses?

[Pocus]

no the stats are not hidden, if they were we would have the Hidden generals option

For now the option proposed is to have the main stats randomized. We will see in the near future if we can propose you the random&hidden (hidden alone don't make sense, guesses are too easy)

[Jonathan Palfrey]

no the stats are not hidden

Oh. I'm sorry, but in that case I don't understand what is the point of the Random Generals option.

I thought the whole point of randomizing the generals was to prevent the player from knowing which are good and which are bad (until he's seen them in action for a while). But if you randomize the stats and leave them visible, the player can immediately see which ones are good and which are bad, and you seem to have achieved nothing. In this case, I would never choose the Random Generals option.

hidden alone don't make sense, guesses are too easy

The stats were hidden in the real war, but guesses weren't easy. If guesses are easy in the game, that indicates something wrong with the game. Specifically, it indicates that movement, combat results, etc., are too closely related to the leader's stats and are not being sufficiently randomized.

Could anyone have guessed the ratings of Lee or Jackson, for instance, from their performances near the beginning of the war?

[Spharv2]

I don't understand why you can't see the point of randomization, even without hidden stats. As of now, you have two choices:

1 - You know the stats, and all the generals are the same every game
2 - You know the stats, and every game you'll have different ratings for the generals.

Seems pretty basic to me. It's not perfect, but it does add to the game, certainly more than having the same generals every game, but not seeing their numbers for a while.

To put it in game terms, in one of my games with random generals, I get a general who's got very good ratings, something along the lines of 4-5-5. Unfortunately, he's also a general with the Dispirited Leader and Slow Mover traits. He turned out to be a decent general, but the Dispirited Leader limited his effectiveness with large forces, so he was sent to Arkansas to lead the smaller forces out there. I've had games where Jackson comes in and is simply pitiful, and others where he's almost godlike (Like the modified 7-10-7 Jackson). You never know, and every game is different because you can't tell who is going to be good and who will stink.

It's definitely not perfect, hidden and random, once it's available, will be a much better option, but to say it doesn't add anything is wrong. Remember, it's not like you can just look and see who your best generals are and assign them to your biggest armies, you still have to figure out how to get that lowly 1 star guy who's so good up to a 2 star before he can get corps command, and 3 star before he can command an army. And if you get him promotable and just promote him while ignoring generals with higher seniority, you're going to be costing yourself Morale and VPs. Then when he is a 3 star, putting him into an army command can also cost you unless you don't have any higher ranked 3 stars without armies. Then you add in the fact that ratings can change when guys are promoted...there's no telling how things will turn out.

Like I said, not perfect, but definitely better than nothing, and they've said they'll be working on hidden and random generals, so what you want is coming, just give it a bit of time.

[Pocus]

But if you randomize the stats and leave them visible, the player can immediately see which ones are good and which are bad, and you seem to have achieved nothing.

You forget the influence of the politic and seniority ratings here. You just can't do what you want. A very good, but unknown, poor seniority, one-star general won't be the new commander of the AoP any time soon!

[Jonathan Palfrey]

I don't understand why you can't see the point of randomization, even without hidden stats. As of now, you have two choices:

1 - You know the stats, and all the generals are the same every game
2 - You know the stats, and every game you'll have different ratings for the generals.

OK, in principle it adds something to the game, but it's not something I find interesting. I don't think it's an option I'd use.

Having the historical leaders with their historical abilities is attractive. Option 2 throws that away without adding enough value in return.

It's definitely not perfect, hidden and random, once it's available, will be a much better option ...

I agree with you there, and I'm willing to wait for it, if necessary. Though in fact my preferred option would probably be historical leaders with hidden names and stats. Random leaders with hidden stats is a second-best option.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

You forget the influence of the politic and seniority ratings here. You just can't do what you want. A very good, but unknown, poor seniority, one-star general won't be the new commander of the AoP any time soon!

That constraint is worth remembering (and I hadn't forgotten it): it means that the game should be reasonably playable despite the visible leader stats. But it presumably applies to all AACW games, whether the player chooses Random Leaders or not.

[frank7350]

I disagree. Option 2 does add alot to the game. With the risk of leaders abilities changing with promotion, and the coordination required to promote leaders while not disrupting the more senior leaders, the player has a completely new problem to deal with, in addition to the military and economic problems the player must face.

Personally, I don't see the benefit in just a hidden/historical option...to me, it creates... a false sense of complexity. The player will quickly determine which leader is which by date/location of appearance, etc. There are only so many generals in a database, and some level of historical accuracy has to be maintained to stick to the pre-war path. (Otherwise, AGEOD may as well creating a 19th century game, and allow the player the ability to prevent secession in the first place!....oh....aren't they working on something along those lines???) Anyway, inevitably, the options are limited, and a smart player will determine who is who.

Also...I'm not sure as to your last sentence...are you requesting that the seniority feature be optional???

[Jonathan Palfrey]

I disagree. Option 2 does add a lot to the game.

Well, if you take any game option, it's likely that some players will find it useful and some won't. This one doesn't strike me as useful (until hidden stats are added), but if some players find it useful, then it justifies its existence. Fair enough. The good thing about game options is that anyone who doesn't like them can turn them off.

Personally, I don't see the benefit in just a hidden/historical option...to me, it creates... a false sense of complexity. The player will quickly determine which leader is which by date/location of appearance, etc.

Leaders should 'appear' in a central pool. The player should be able to assign them to command any unit in any location. And their dates of appearance could be mildly randomized. All these leaders were born long before 1861 and they were all walking and talking when the war started; they didn't flick into existence on one particular day during the war.

Also...I'm not sure as to your last sentence...are you requesting that the seniority feature be optional???

No, I was just pointing out that the seniority feature gives equal benefits to the game whether you use the Random Leaders option or not, so it doesn't make the Random Leaders option more attractive.