AP514
Private
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 9:37 pm

Increase Leaders Attributes

Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:15 pm

Hey

I have been in several battles with my PBEM partner. His (REB)Generals all have gotten much better after the Battles....All of my generals still have the same old 3-1-1 skills ect. ect. I had won most of the battles yet his generals all have gotten bettter.

WHY ?? have my Generals not gotten better Leaders attributes like his ???


AP514

User avatar
Rafiki
Posts: 5811
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Oslo, Norway

Mon Sep 03, 2007 9:10 pm

Are they corps commanders? If so, they may be benefitting from a switch for a better army commander.
[CENTER]Latest patches: AACW :: NCP :: WIA :: ROP :: RUS :: PON :: AJE
Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
[/CENTER]

AP514
Private
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 9:37 pm

Corps commanders ?

Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:56 pm

Well, I have to say some of his guys were Corps commanders but alot are just Div.Commanders. Several have gone up in Stats..But None of my guys have corp or Div.( I take that back Milroy went up a very small amount)

All comanders should go up no matter what if in battle?? Correct

AP514

PBBoeye
General
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 12:59 am
Location: Richmond, VA

Tue Sep 04, 2007 11:16 pm

AP514 wrote:All comanders should go up no matter what if in battle?? Correct


No, failure in battle can produce sagging values, I believe.

anarchyintheuk
Lieutenant
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 6:27 pm

Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:28 pm

The initial Union leaders are normally 3-1-1s and, even if promoted, don't advance much, if any, in stats. Hooker and Lyon are the best promotable generals for the Union in the early game. An early '62 reinforcement includes generals such as Grant, Sherman, etc. that have excellant stats and improve through promotion.

Jagger
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 949
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:31 pm

Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:51 pm

anarchyintheuk wrote:The initial Union leaders are normally 3-1-1s and, even if promoted, don't advance much, if any, in stats. Hooker and Lyon are the best promotable generals for the Union in the early game. An early '62 reinforcement includes generals such as Grant, Sherman, etc. that have excellant stats and improve through promotion.


I find leaders more interesting to play with slight randomization of leader skills. Instead of all minor leaders being 3-1-1, you will see 3-2-2s, 2-1-2s, 4-2-1s, etc. Now you have a new game in deciding how to best utilize your minor leaders.

There is a slight problem in that seniority also appears randomized. Normally that wouldn't be a problem except that the engine appears to use the non-randomized seniority values to give raises or drops in seniority which produces odd results when a leader receives a raise in seniority. Ultimately I don't think it is a significant problem because a leader becomes elgible for promotion primarily based on numbers of promotions rather than actual seniority.

Ignoring that one problem, slight randomization definitely produces a more interesting game for me.

User avatar
Nial
Colonel
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 6:21 pm
Location: Hotel California

Wed Sep 05, 2007 7:54 pm

Jagger wrote:Ignoring that one problem, slight randomization definitely produces a more interesting game for me.



Totaly agree, I almost always use slight randomization.

Even when some of my leaders win a long series of battles. They rarely get their attributes raised. And then only slightly, sometimes a single point of either off. or def. For a long time I didn't think it raised at all. Good Army/ corp. leaders is the best way to get the best bang for your attribute buck. :)

Nial

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 25673
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Thu Sep 06, 2007 6:53 am

Jagger wrote:I find leaders more interesting to play with slight randomization of leader skills. Instead of all minor leaders being 3-1-1, you will see 3-2-2s, 2-1-2s, 4-2-1s, etc. Now you have a new game in deciding how to best utilize your minor leaders.

There is a slight problem in that seniority also appears randomized. Normally that wouldn't be a problem except that the engine appears to use the non-randomized seniority values to give raises or drops in seniority which produces odd results when a leader receives a raise in seniority. Ultimately I don't think it is a significant problem because a leader becomes elgible for promotion primarily based on numbers of promotions rather than actual seniority.

Ignoring that one problem, slight randomization definitely produces a more interesting game for me.


Indeed, this is not the base seniority (or politic) which is changed by randomization, but the seniority change, ie the amount of points either gained or lost during play is modified initially by the randomization.

For example, if a leader has in the database a seniority of 10, with randomization it can appears on map with 9. This means it is as if he already gained (from battle prowess and such) 1 pt, so he only need 3 to be promoted. The base value of 10 is still used to do the checks.
Image


Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests