AGEOD Forums

In AACW you can't promote everybody as you wish. First the leader must have shown some capability in his current rank (unless he is one of the most seniors officers, they are always eligible to a new rank!), so don't expect a loser or simply an unknown officer to be the next commander in chief. Also you will find that in some cases the newly promoted commander is not as good in the new rank as he was in his previous one (John Bell Hood for an historical example). Our database has a profile for each general and each rank he can attains, and often the abilities of the officer will vary from one rank to another.

I think that Sandra has done an exceptionally fine job in portraying the generals. I think that I can even identify the generals displayed based on her portraits:

My guesses:

1st row: Sherman, Howard, Grant, Scott and Halleck
2nd row: Jackson, J. Johnston, Watie, Longstreet and Winder.

Does anyone have a better guess?

I think you nailed all the Rebs, but i think the US generals are Sherman, McDowell, Grant, Halleck, and Scott

IronBrigadeYankee wrote:I think you nailed all the Rebs, but i think the US generals are Sherman, McDowell, Grant, Halleck, and Scott

You are correct about Halleck and Scott. I mistakenly put them in the wrong order.




Oliver Otis Howard



Irvin McDowell

I think that you are probably correct on the second porttrait as well.

Thanks


Hehe let's see...


USA : Sherman - McDowell - Grant - ... - Scott

CSA : Jackson - J. Johnston - Watie - Longstreet - ...


Two unknown generals left !

Admiral David G. Farragut USN

USA: Sherman, McDowell, Grant, Farragut, Scott.

CSA: Jackson, J. Johnston, Stand Watie, Hood, ?

This looks great, I must say that I am dying for a good strategic civil war game, Forge of Freedom looks dissapointing and it has been ovverun in the fourms by the micromanaging types that are willing to kill overall vision for endless quibbling over details.

Thanks for this..

Is that Hardee at the end?

Union: Sherman, McDowell, Grant, Farragut, Scott
Confederate: Jackson, J. Johnston, Watie, Longstreet, Sterling Price?

Farragut threw me as I was thinking generals not admirals.

Farragut : yes !

Hardee, Sterling Price : no !

Is the last CSA general actually General Lee without his beard perhaps he didn't have it in 1861 ?

Sandra,

Is this the missing general?

Hmm... I'd say yes.. .

One idea for generals. Maybe you already did implement this but just in case.
I belive that placing generals right where they did have their first battle would be a very good call.
Lee in Mississippi looks so bad that I am transfered from 1861 to today in a second leure: .
If they will all come from capital that would not be too bad as they have to get their ranks in capital but if they would appear in state they did fought you would get much more on historical level.
If you like the idea I could help with states and stuff.

Hmmm... I have one more idea for generals. Maybe it would be easier to give some kind of bonus for all general that fight in states they fought historically.
Just throwing ideas here.

So who IS that last Confederate General.

Damn, this is gonna be so much fun.

General Samuel Cooper.

Sandra wrote:General Samuel Cooper.

yes, the highest ranked general in the Confederate army.

Hmmm... What about idea for generals? It is posted here and I am intrested what you all think about it.
Thanks

marecone wrote:Hmmm... What about idea for generals? It is posted here and I am intrested what you all think about it.
Thanks

It's a bad idea. Someone shouldn't be penalized if he wants to send a general to a state he didn't fight in during the real war. It makes no sense.

Maybe some other model but that would keep genrals in states where they did fight historically. We could let say make Lee fight in eastern theatre only and if a player would move him west then he would get some penalty.
AGEOD team said that this will be historical simulation and if Forrest fights in Louisiana then it won't be

marecone wrote:Maybe some other model but that would keep genrals in states where they did fight historically. We could let say make Lee fight in eastern theatre only and if a player would move him west then he would get some penalty.
AGEOD team said that this will be historical simulation and if Forrest fights in Louisiana then it won't be

So if Forrest gets on a boat and crosses the mississippi he's not as good a general? It's a historical simulation not a historical straitjacket.

No, no. Ok. They could divide states in eastern and western theatre. So if Forrest historically fought in west then he should be there. If you move him to Virginia he could fight less efective. Like, he doesn't know the terrain or something like it.
And chris this is only my suggestion, no need to jump at me. I see it as good one and you see it as bad one. Only thing that matters is AGEOD team.
I played every sigle ACW game there is on market from the first coputer games and Commodore's 64.
I hated when generals fought in theaters in wich they didn't fight historicaly. That is all. If AGEOD doesn't like it I will live with it.

Right, but we have some features that makes generals leaving their 'favorite' theater of operation a bit less effective (the 'lose' some % of their characteristics and/or abilities)... this might be implemented...

PhilThib wrote:Right, but we have some features that makes generals leaving their 'favorite' theater of operation a bit less effective (the 'lose' some % of their characteristics and/or abilities)... this might be implemented...

The problem with that is most generals fought in multiple theatres. How do you decide which is their favorite? What is considered a theatre? How many do you have? East, West, and Transmississippi are the main ones. I'd ask that if you include that you make it an optional feature. I want a very historically accurate game but I'd rather have the freedom to assign my generals to where I want them to be.

It is my guess that Grant will be able to fight both in west and east. Forrest on the other hand should fight better in western theatre.

And BTW if you want very historically accurate game then generals should fight where they historically did.
Thne again I agree that this could be optional so that AGEOD team could attract both historical grognards and other, more casual, players.

Personnaly I find too much constraints in your idea. And you will ask for historical death dates also?

Pocus wrote:Personnaly I find too much constraints in your idea. And you will ask for historical death dates also?

Argh... I am talking as expirienced ACW player. If you are saying that this will be historically accurate game then do what ever you can to make it so. Forthe third time, if Lee will fight in Mississippi then it will not be historical no metter what you do with map, units and regiments. And, no I would not ask for generals to die.
I just wanted to help. I didn't want to go into any such unfriendly debate. Just forget it.

marecone wrote:It is my guess that Grant will be able to fight both in west and east. Forrest on the other hand should fight better in western theatre.

And BTW if you want very historically accurate game then generals should fight where they historically did.
Thne again I agree that this could be optional so that AGEOD team could attract both historical grognards and other, more casual, players.

A historically accurate game doesn't force the players to recreate history. A historically accurate game gives the player what the commanders in the war had and lets them go from there. It doesn't try to force the player to make the same decisions his historical counterpart did.

Chris0827 wrote:A historically accurate game doesn't force the players to recreate history. A historically accurate game gives the player what the commanders in the war had and lets them go from there. It doesn't try to force the player to make the same decisions his historical counterpart did.

leure: Ok, ok. I give up. Forget about whole thing.