grimjaw
Colonel
Posts: 397
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 5:38 am
Location: Arkansas

Possible solution for weak generals

Sat Feb 12, 2011 4:43 am

I haven't tried it yet because I just got the idea at the end of one of my games. Since I lose so many VPs for bypassing McDowell, Butler, and Fremont, I figured that before that early on I can load them all on a pleasure cruise to the coast of Mexico, and let them starve to death.

Seriously, at least a leader like Halleck, Banks, and McClellan have other attributes in the game.

I don't know how many VP/NM I'll lose for dumping a few three stars overboard simultaneously, but I'll let you know.

jm

User avatar
Mickey3D
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland

Sat Feb 12, 2011 8:49 am

Try to promote your best generals (Grant, Lyon, Thomas, ...) as soon as possible. For this give them easy victory by taking second class objectives.

von Sachsen
Captain
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:52 pm

Sat Feb 12, 2011 8:54 am

You can always take the historical route. "Why yes Gen. Butler, garrison duty on the James Pennisula is essential to the war."

User avatar
Mickey3D
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland

Sat Feb 12, 2011 9:25 am

You can give them dummy command : produce HQ and create armies with your weak generals. Then send them in a remote place without any troops where they will end the war. :D

Disadvantage : you have to pay for the HQ.

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3498
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:38 am

And you dont have that much HQs to start with. Some of that general can actually be useful. For example, Halleck despite low stats, has a nice set of abilities which can be put to good use.

User avatar
tyler11
Conscript
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 1:14 am
Location: Northwest GA, or Central Missouri...depends if school is in session

Sun Feb 13, 2011 4:03 pm

I almost always play as the south and have the same problems with Generals such as Polk and Johnson who both have terrible to decent stats. I usaully just wait for Bragg or Jackson to get high enough where i can replace them. It is really frustrating though because in the case of those two generals they are the top guys i have over in the west
My chief concern is to try to be an humble, earnest Christian. Robert E. Lee
"Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of
subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave
men, my sword in this right hand."Robert E. Lee

grimjaw
Colonel
Posts: 397
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 5:38 am
Location: Arkansas

Mon Feb 14, 2011 9:18 am

Some of that general can actually be useful. For example, Halleck despite low stats, has a nice set of abilities which can be put to good use.

Ace, I agree. Halleck, McClellan, Banks, et al have uses outside of field commanders. Fremont and McDowell, bleh, especially Fremont. You might get away with McDowell being a division commander since his offensive and defensive numbers aren't terrible, or a corps commander if you had an army commander whose strategy rating offset McDowell's awfulness.

I usually end up leaving Halleck in St. Louis and putting McClellan in Pittsburgh. During the winters I sent as many conscripts to them by rail as they can train and then redeploy them back to the main lines when things thaw out. Banks goes to Philadelphia with Burnside to recruit for the war effort.

I have been leaving Fremont in Missouri to chase off the occasional raid. I'd give him an HQ but it was pointless to give him corps as well, since he was a weight around any other commander's neck. Butler I've found to be useful for only one thing. Once Athena tries to assault Ft Monroe and assuming she fails, I pull all the resources from there and send them to Ft Pickens. The AI will keep a 3-star general in Florida for months building up a force to siege Pickens, wasting resources that could be used against me elsewhere. After the siege of Pickens starts to hurt, I pull the resources back to Ft Jefferson and Butler spends the rest of the war sweating it in the Keys. But he still hurts me when it comes time to give other 3-stars an HQ.

jm

User avatar
Cromagnonman
Brigadier General
Posts: 460
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 6:46 pm
Location: Kansas City, MO

Tue Feb 15, 2011 1:51 am

I usually give Halleck a corps under Grant, since Grant makes him useful, and he has a couple useful traits. Fremont I park somewhere west of the Mississippi. Banks is too valuable raising conscripts to leave the cities; same goes for Mclernand and Burnside. McDowell I usually leave in command in the East until I train up Hooker. Butler makes a decent corps commander under someone able, or as a defensive independent command. Buell can also go under Grant.

User avatar
George McClellan
Captain
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:38 pm
Location: " If you can make it here, you can make it anywhere!"

Tue Feb 15, 2011 4:50 am

I leave them in Washington, the Pwr.: eventually exceeding 1000.
George McClellan is locked in Cincinati until Lincoln admits he's a baboon.Image

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3498
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:48 pm

tyler11 wrote:I almost always play as the south and have the same problems with Generals such as Polk and Johnson who both have terrible to decent stats. I usaully just wait for Bragg or Jackson to get high enough where i can replace them. It is really frustrating though because in the case of those two generals they are the top guys i have over in the west


I know everyone wants to use Lee, Jackson and Longstreet in the same army. But if you can put Polk or Johnson under Lee, you ll find them to be very able commanders, while sending Longstreet or Jackson to handle the West.

User avatar
Cromagnonman
Brigadier General
Posts: 460
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 6:46 pm
Location: Kansas City, MO

Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:13 am

Ace wrote:I know everyone wants to use Lee, Jackson and Longstreet in the same army. But if you can put Polk or Johnson under Lee, you ll find them to be very able commanders, while sending Longstreet or Jackson to handle the West.


It's largely a question of having one superb army or several good ones.

User avatar
Daniel_Morgan
Corporal
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:18 am
Location: Army of Tenessee

Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:24 pm

grimjaw wrote: Banks goes to Philadelphia with Burnside to recruit for the war effort.


How exactly does this work, do they needs troops under them? Do they have to be activated as division or corps commanders?

And why both in Philadelphia? Would it be better to split them up and send another one to another major population center?

Sorry about all the questions, I am trying to learn the game, I just downloaded it last weekend :w00t:

grimjaw
Colonel
Posts: 397
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 5:38 am
Location: Arkansas

Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:17 pm

Daniel_Morgan, these are just my tactics. Others may have different opinions.

Their recruiting traits are enabled if they are in a city of level five or above and if they are inside the city. It doesn't matter if they are in different cities or the same city. Since they aren't that great as combat commanders and since Maryland tends to be a hot zone for awhile, I pull them back to Philadelphia since there is little chance of me losing it. Also, if I end up having to give Banks an army command, at least he'll have Burnside nearby to quickly whip up a division in the event of a raid. If the front moves forward, I usually have enough generals that I don't have to bother moving them. Lucky them, they get to sit out the war eating cheesesteak sandwiches!

You can go to the Economics screen and hover the mouse pointer above each state to see how many conscripts are being produced by that state. As an experiment, you can see how Banks et al affect the number on the fly by checking the number before you put him in a qualifying city and going back to the Economics screen afterward to check again. The number should immediately reflect the changes.

No need to apologize. I wouldn't have known the answer if it hadn't been posted elsewhere in this forum. :)

jm

User avatar
Jim-NC
Posts: 2981
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:21 pm
Location: Near Region 209, North Carolina

Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:54 pm

A faster way to see the effect is to mouse over the region. The top bar shows how much production the area has. So, hover over the region, then Place Banks in the city, then hover again.

The bonus CS points for Banks (and all others) is effected by NM and area loyalty. So try to keep your generals in cities that have high loyalty (not most of Maryland in the beginning of the game). They will give you more points that way.
Remember - The beatings will continue until morale improves.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

User avatar
Cromagnonman
Brigadier General
Posts: 460
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 6:46 pm
Location: Kansas City, MO

Thu Feb 24, 2011 11:14 pm

Jim-NC wrote:A faster way to see the effect is to mouse over the region. The top bar shows how much production the area has. So, hover over the region, then Place Banks in the city, then hover again.

The bonus CS points for Banks (and all others) is effected by NM and area loyalty. So try to keep your generals in cities that have high loyalty (not most of Maryland in the beginning of the game). They will give you more points that way.


Indeed. In a level 5+ city with 100 loyalty & NM, they make 7.5 CS each per turn. Since I like to be somewhat historical, I put them in NY, PA, & OH.

User avatar
Daniel_Morgan
Corporal
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:18 am
Location: Army of Tenessee

Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:20 pm

Interesting, Ill make some tests tonight and what I come up with.

Does there divisional command have to be activated? if so do they need troops? Is there any benefit to putting them in command of the locked garrison troops or doesn;t it matter?

Thanks :)

User avatar
Cromagnonman
Brigadier General
Posts: 460
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 6:46 pm
Location: Kansas City, MO

Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:30 pm

No division needed, nor activation. They don't need to command troops, though they may need to command their stack; it can be a stack of just them. As for tests, the numbers I gave above are from a test I did a couple weeks ago; more detailed findings are on the forum, posted by me in (I think) a thread on the main AACW forum regarding leader abilities or recruitment ability. I should go back and retry it with a NM in the 200 range.
"firstest with the mostest"

"I fights mit Sigel"

User avatar
Jim-NC
Posts: 2981
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:21 pm
Location: Near Region 209, North Carolina

Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:37 pm

I posted some findings from the CSA perspective. I tested at different cities and different NM and loyalties. I could not determine the factors at the time, and was told later that it was due to the rounding effect (the CS are always rounded to a whole number).

Here is the link:http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=13347&highlight=recruiter
Remember - The beatings will continue until morale improves.

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

User avatar
Daniel_Morgan
Corporal
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:18 am
Location: Army of Tenessee

Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:28 pm

Cromagnonman wrote:No division needed, nor activation. They don't need to command troops, though they may need to command their stack; it can be a stack of just them. As for tests, the numbers I gave above are from a test I did a couple weeks ago; more detailed findings are on the forum, posted by me in (I think) a thread on the main AACW forum regarding leader abilities or recruitment ability. I should go back and retry it with a NM in the 200 range.


Thanks for the clarification.

And yep I read your and Jim-NC's write ups, I just want to make sure I am getting it "right"

User avatar
GraniteStater
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1778
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:16 am
Location: Annapolis, MD - What?

Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:46 pm

Well, that's basically it. I put Burnside in NYC; Banks in Philly, so I can get an HQ to him in one Turn if I want to give him a plaything; McClernand to Chicago.

The 'whip up a Div' idea isn't bad, though. Burnside can be an OK Corps commander or Indy ** if you need a pinch hitter; IRL, he was exactly that, a capable subordinate, unimaginative, but reliable, and not afraid to fight.

IIRC, that's about it for Recruiters - all the others are Trainers, are they not?
[color="#AFEEEE"]"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!"[/color]
-Daniel Webster

[color="#FFA07A"]"C'mon, boys, we got the damn Yankees on the run!"[/color]
-General Joseph Wheeler, US Army, serving at Santiago in 1898

RULES
(A) When in doubt, agree with Ace.
(B) Pull my reins up sharply when needed, for I am a spirited thoroughbred and forget to turn at the post sometimes.


Image

User avatar
Cromagnonman
Brigadier General
Posts: 460
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 6:46 pm
Location: Kansas City, MO

Fri Feb 25, 2011 10:09 pm

Those are all the Union recruiters I'm aware of.

Is Burnside better than 3-1-1? I've honestly never used him to fight, since he's so good for filling the ranks.
"firstest with the mostest"



"I fights mit Sigel"

User avatar
Daniel_Morgan
Corporal
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:18 am
Location: Army of Tenessee

Fri Feb 25, 2011 10:12 pm

GraniteStater wrote:Well, that's basically it. I put Burnside in NYC; Banks in Philly, so I can get an HQ to him in one Turn if I want to give him a plaything; McClernand to Chicago.

The 'whip up a Div' idea isn't bad, though. Burnside can be an OK Corps commander or Indy ** if you need a pinch hitter; IRL, he was exactly that, a capable subordinate, unimaginative, but reliable, and not afraid to fight.

IIRC, that's about it for Recruiters - all the others are Trainers, are they not?


I believe its only those three.

The trainers train a lot for me especially during that first winter. I moved the trainers to the concentrations of troops vice the other way around.

I think I have converted close to 50 % of my miltia over during a winter playing cat and mouse with a West Virginia infiltration I didn't expect.

I am currently in March of 62 and McClleland is sitting with a decent 1 star in a southern Ohio city training while I seige it. (I got hit hard by the AI running stacks rampant in my rear area, Ive pretty much contained and eliminated that threat thus far, but thats another story) :D

Halleck is out west training conscripts in Mo, and the other guy I can't remember, I just peel him off the stack when I need to attack ;)

grimjaw
Colonel
Posts: 397
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 5:38 am
Location: Arkansas

Fri Feb 25, 2011 10:24 pm

IIRC, that's about it for Recruiters - all the others are Trainers, are they not?

I think so, except for a select few like Buell who have other traits. IMO, as long as the slow movers are in a strong rail network you can still use them as corps commanders if you have a strong army commander. There's also a very few that have such awful traits such as negative CP or wandering army. They get put on a slow overland route to the Arizona territory as penance for the Indian Removal Act. ;D

User avatar
Cromagnonman
Brigadier General
Posts: 460
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 6:46 pm
Location: Kansas City, MO

Fri Feb 25, 2011 10:33 pm

The great thing about McClellan, Halleck, and Sigel is that they can train conscripts while they're still red. I usually put Little Mac in New England where he can supply a steady stream of regulars and not of misinformation.
"firstest with the mostest"



"I fights mit Sigel"

User avatar
GraniteStater
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1778
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:16 am
Location: Annapolis, MD - What?

Sat Feb 26, 2011 10:12 am

Cromagnonman wrote:Those are all the Union recruiters I'm aware of.

Is Burnside better than 3-1-1? I've honestly never used him to fight, since he's so good for filling the ranks.


In a 62 start, he's in coastal SC; give him a HQ, reinforce the beachhead, put a coupla proper Corps in there and take Charleston - he's not bad, if used well; he's not a liability, like McClernand, Halleck, Fremont.

I never get to it, but the ideal Armies for the Union would be historical, with Grant, Sherman, Thomas, Meade, Sheridan as HQed Leaders - but it takes so long. I usually end up with Rosecrans, Buell, Grant, out west, I'll give McDowell a HQ and kick McClellan to, oh, Guam, if possible, if I'm stuck with him as a HQ, but even McClellan can be decent if under a good HQ Leader.

There are good Leaders for the Union, the trick is to get the right mix going. Also, when I play P. Cleburne again, I'm going to tone down my natural aggressiveness a little bit; the Union has to be always proactive, always try to be doing something, but I was too aggressive in my PBEM against him - against a good CSA player, don't try to win the war in the first twenty months, it ain't gonna happen; be steady, don't lose, make it a point that when you gain something, it's yours from then on and wait for the better Leaders in 63, when you can start to smack the CSA armies around in head to head matchups.
[color="#AFEEEE"]"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!"[/color]

-Daniel Webster



[color="#FFA07A"]"C'mon, boys, we got the damn Yankees on the run!"[/color]

-General Joseph Wheeler, US Army, serving at Santiago in 1898



RULES

(A) When in doubt, agree with Ace.

(B) Pull my reins up sharply when needed, for I am a spirited thoroughbred and forget to turn at the post sometimes.





Image

Gen. Monkey-Bear
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 262
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:35 am
Location: The San Francisco Bay Area

Wed Jun 15, 2011 6:23 am

I don't know whether or not this is the best place to ask this, but how would Rosecrans do as Army of The Potomac commander? It seems like I tend to treat the Eastern theatre as secondary, and Rosy seems fine on defensive, so this should suit my playing style I think. Just thinking aloud . . . what do you guys think?

User avatar
Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne
General of the Army
Posts: 639
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:46 pm
Location: Kentucky

Wed Jun 15, 2011 6:36 am

Gen. Monkey-Bear wrote:I don't know whether or not this is the best place to ask this, but how would Rosecrans do as Army of The Potomac commander? It seems like I tend to treat the Eastern theatre as secondary, and Rosy seems fine on defensive, so this should suit my playing style I think. Just thinking aloud . . . what do you guys think?


Anyone is better than McCllelan. I just finished a PBEM with Kearny as the AOTP commander. You should probably aim for someone with 4+ strategic rating for army command though.

User avatar
GraniteStater
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1778
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:16 am
Location: Annapolis, MD - What?

Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:43 pm

Gen. Monkey-Bear wrote:I don't know whether or not this is the best place to ask this, but how would Rosecrans do as Army of The Potomac commander? It seems like I tend to treat the Eastern theatre as secondary, and Rosy seems fine on defensive, so this should suit my playing style I think. Just thinking aloud . . . what do you guys think?


Not a bad choice. I would recommend Meade by 63, there aren't too many that are really that outstandingly better.

Time, time - Thomas and Meade have the advantage of 'instant **' to start with. It's one step easier to get them to *** and an Army, if desired, then Hancock, for instance, although, IMO, given the chance IRL, Hancock would've been nearly Grant or Sherman's equal as an Army commander.

The Union starts to get some really, really good *s by mid-63. The trouble is, HQ'd Leaders tend to fossilize and the player is reluctant to pay the NM to change the Army commanders, for which he can't be blamed. It depends - if you're doing really well in NM, maybe take the hit(s) and put the First Team in there - could be a quicker Victory, actually.
[color="#AFEEEE"]"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!"[/color]

-Daniel Webster



[color="#FFA07A"]"C'mon, boys, we got the damn Yankees on the run!"[/color]

-General Joseph Wheeler, US Army, serving at Santiago in 1898



RULES

(A) When in doubt, agree with Ace.

(B) Pull my reins up sharply when needed, for I am a spirited thoroughbred and forget to turn at the post sometimes.





Image

User avatar
Longshanks
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:48 pm
Location: Fairfax Virginia

Wed Jun 15, 2011 1:09 pm

Gen. Monkey-Bear wrote:I don't know whether or not this is the best place to ask this, but how would Rosecrans do as Army of The Potomac commander? It seems like I tend to treat the Eastern theatre as secondary, and Rosy seems fine on defensive, so this should suit my playing style I think. Just thinking aloud . . . what do you guys think?


Welcome to the forums, General!

User avatar
Ethan
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1923
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Location: Gádir

Wed Jun 15, 2011 6:37 pm

I join what was said by Longshanks... Welcome to the Ageod Forums and to the fellowship, Gen. Monkey-Bear! :thumbsup:

If you have any doubt don't hesitate to ask help. ;)

Have fun here and enjoy playing! :)
[color="Navy"][font="Georgia"]"Mi grandeza no reside en no haber caído nunca, sino en haberme levantado siempre". Napoleón Bonaparte.[/font][/color]

[color="Blue"]Same Land. Different Dreams. - Photobook[/color]

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Return to “AACW Strategy discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest