Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

CSCs

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States >> CSCs Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
CSCs - 10/8/2008 4:20:28 AM   
wargamer123

 

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline
I have found this subject to be little covered in the manual or on-line here on the boards.

Generally you get a great deal of lower end Generals with low command ratings, the deal here is that it can clutter your choices......Can some people give me an idea of a good command structure

for instance if I have a leader with a command rating of 12, do I want to stick 3 subordinates with aprox. command rating of 4 each.... What is ideal?

Obviously a great deal of lower end leaders have much to be desired, usually I find they are lower in the combat ratings... Does anyone here follow a rule as far as who they will or won't attach? You find it better to not attach a poorer subordinate? Or does the modifier outweigh waiting so you should just group them up as soon as possible and regroup them later when or if you can?

Post #: 1
RE: CSCs - 10/8/2008 4:51:11 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32031
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: online
There is no disadvantage to having a poor sub commander, so always attach a leader if you have one to attach. CPs of a sub commander do not matter. What matters is the rank of the leader (and type), as they determine the number of units the leader can help and what kind of units.

(in reply to wargamer123)
Post #: 2
RE: CSCs - 10/8/2008 6:09:17 PM   
silber

 

Posts: 47
Joined: 7/22/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

There is no disadvantage to having a poor sub commander, so always attach a leader if you have one to attach. CPs of a sub commander do not matter. What matters is the rank of the leader (and type), as they determine the number of units the leader can help and what kind of units.

Don't use too many sub-commanders though. I think that the only number of their which matters is their troop type modifier.
However, the way that units are assigned is apparently as follows:
Each commander (in alphabetical order) is assigned a unit of his appropriate troop type.
Each general (in alphabetical order) is assigned a unit of his appropriate troop type.
Each 2-star general (in alphabetical order) is assigned a unit of his appropriate troop type.
I'm not sure in which order the units themselves are assigned. Probably in the same order they are displayed. (It can matter whether your veteran unit is given to a lousy or a good general.)

So, given a corps with three one star generals (general A, B, and C), and four infantry units, general A will get two units, and generals B and C will each get one. If one of the generals is worse than the others, you may want to detach him, dividing the units among the better generals.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 3
RE: CSCs - 10/8/2008 8:26:47 PM   
wargamer123

 

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline
I see, a little better understanding "I think!"

Although, say for instance I get  4 subs for LongStreet, approximately. a 1/1/2, a 2/2/2, 3/3/2.....you're saying the Infantry modifier is all that matters? Their Rank counts despite their alphabetization? In which order who'll fight? It makes no sense to be the subordinates say 3 attack rating would not be used! Then I would only group crappy attack/defense/with decent infantry ratings? Because you need every decent attack/defense general in isolated garrisons!



(in reply to wargamer123)
Post #: 4
RE: CSCs - 10/8/2008 9:04:41 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37145
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: online
Basically, the Corps Commander and Army Commanders are the ones who get to use the more "strategic" Attack and Defense ratings. The Sub-Commanders are only there to help with the "tactical" ratings like infantry, artillery, cavalry, naval.

The rank of the officer determines how many units he can help as a Sub-Commander (rank + 1). His specialty rating and leader type determines what kind of unit he can help and how much of a bonus he can give to it.

So for example, a Corps with 10 Infantry + 2 Artilery units, you'd want 5 CSCs that are 1 Star Infantry Generals (thus commanding 2 units each) and 1 CSC that's a 1 Star Artillery General in order to have no units lacking sub-commanders.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC




For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to wargamer123)
Post #: 5
RE: CSCs - 10/9/2008 6:41:10 PM   
Treefrog


Posts: 702
Joined: 4/7/2004
Status: offline
Bottom line IMHO better to have enough CSC to command every unit in the corps, even if they are turkeys. You chances of commitment to battle (which must take place before anybody's modifiers apply) are increased if you have enough CSC to include that specific unit.

_____________________________

"L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace."

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 6
RE: CSCs - 10/10/2008 2:58:00 AM   
wargamer123

 

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline
I see, this must've cost me a few battles, I won't leave my men unattended by leadership again. Too used to no CSCs

(in reply to Treefrog)
Post #: 7
RE: CSCs - 10/10/2008 8:59:33 AM   
spruce

 

Posts: 404
Joined: 9/23/2006
Status: offline
Question about CSC =

- is the bonus of the CSC added to the bonus of the corp commander ?
- how are succes, promotion points, skill improvement handled ? Do any "access" generals also get succes and promotion points. F.e. you put a truckload of low end generals to Jacksons Corps (which is a crack corps commander), each time Jacksons wins his battles - verybody gets succes points, promotion points, skill improvement ?

(in reply to wargamer123)
Post #: 8
RE: CSCs - 10/11/2008 3:17:24 AM   
Doc o War


Posts: 345
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Northern California
Status: offline
I am not sure what the book answer is - someone will put that outhere for you.

But indeed Historically, a lot of very poor generals have served in Crack units and actually done well later- carried on the coat tails of his commander's overall success.  So why not allow that in our systems? Heck, who wouldnt want to serve under a Black Jack Logan, or a Fighting Joe Hooker, Ride with Stuart, or Sheridan, Be a subordinant to ole Blue Lightning Jackson.. and if ones' reputation and further skills improved- well that would just be fine. 
 Naturally a lot of middling generals also got to later proudly say at some place or other they served with Old General somebody or other. Both sides in the Civ war cycled Generals like water. Many failed and were replaced, but the overall quality overtime did improve through combat experience.

< Message edited by Doc o War -- 10/11/2008 3:18:03 AM >


_____________________________

Tell me the story of the common foot soldier, and I will tell you the story of all wars.
... Heroditus.

(in reply to spruce)
Post #: 9
RE: CSCs - 10/11/2008 9:26:15 PM   
wargamer123

 

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline
Doc, I think that pre Civil War you only had the Mexican American War for reference and experience so this hurt discovering good Generals. Plus a split in the Officer corp some being from the South and some form the North. There you go, a difficult situation altogether. Why the Yanks couldn't come up with some better men early shocks me.

Even though in WBS, the CSA really doesn't have that great a leadership to begin with... Grant Sherman are in full use in the West by 62, in the East the Union just posts Mediocre leadership to hold the line or tie up the CSA's forces

< Message edited by wargamer123 -- 10/11/2008 9:28:08 PM >

(in reply to Doc o War)
Post #: 10
RE: CSCs - 10/11/2008 9:45:28 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37145
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce
- is the bonus of the CSC added to the bonus of the corp commander ?


Yes, the CSC, the Corps Commander and the Army Commander can each add from 1 to their Specialty rating (i.e. Infantry) to the unit's die roll. The Army Commander does not necessarily "help" all units, but the CSC helps his units and the Corps Commander helps all units under his command.

quote:

- how are succes, promotion points, skill improvement handled ? Do any "access" generals also get succes and promotion points. F.e. you put a truckload of low end generals to Jacksons Corps (which is a crack corps commander), each time Jacksons wins his battles - verybody gets succes points, promotion points, skill improvement ?


No, each general gets rewarded for things his units do. For example, if a unit being helped by a CSC and a Corps Commander scores a "hit" on an enemy unit, then both the CSC and the Corps Commander get a Success. After any battle, there's also a chance that a general will increase his Command Points (or lose one, in the case of an Army Commander who lost a battle).

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC




For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to spruce)
Post #: 11
RE: CSCs - 10/12/2008 4:07:43 AM   
Doc o War


Posts: 345
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Northern California
Status: offline
Wargamer123- indeed the American people of 1860 and 1861 really didnt know what a good general should actually do?- and had only a vauge idea of what one should even look like? The only artistic vision peole generally had was either of the Napoleonic Wars, all dashing and colorful- or our own Short military history. Focusing of heros of the Revolution mostly. There wasn't much military history since 1812,  Other than one short war with Mexico, we had fought Indians for almost 50 years.

 There were many ambitious men in America at that time- it was a very active time, economically- The 1850s had spawned the Railroads and steam power and industrialization was begining to effect manufacturing. Great leaders in business often seemed to the people of the early civil war as potentially good picks for Commands. Also many politicians saw this as a golden opportunity to gain local votes. Strings could get pulled by local politicians at the state capitals. There was little national army, that came later. Plus there was an established state militia system that generated whole divisions of local militia with all sorts of officers. Some were rather old.  Plus if you were rich enough you could raise your own militia regiment, outfit and arm it out of your own pocket and take command of the unit.

You could , as was often the case- be a graduate of West Point or some local military school( no matter how poorly you did or what little military experience as may have been had) but you were a military school graduate and so could be given a command.  Just have the desire to lead men into battle and the command of a regiment would be thrust upon you. A few months in a miserable army training camp usually weeded out the old and incompetant- though not always.

One other bad General pool was the few actual Generals still around after the Mexican War- Scott was ancient, though his Acconda Plan was brilliant- he never lived to see it carried out - the USA second in command Genl Wool was so bad they just gave him command of Ft Monroe and that was all he was allowed. He eventually quit.
    Many of the Good Generals from the 46/48 Mex War were dead by the Civ war-  Quitman, Worth, Riley ( Ft Worth Tex and FT Riley Kans named after them). The South got old General Pillow- one of the worst Mex War Generals - still around in the Civ War- he surrendered Ft Donelson- bad leader. Genl Floyd- another relic.
   
Oddly General James Shields was still alive- a hero and Brigade commander under Scott to Mexico City, wounded twice in action leading bayonett charges.- one of the 10 or so brigade commanders to see combat in the MEx War, he lead a Union Force against Stonewall JAckson in the Early Shenandoah fighting and won a small but Bloody Battle against Stonewall at Kernstown in spring of  62, then retired to training command forgoing further damage to his rep by not getting whipped with the rest in the later Valley Campaign. As the war progressed he had bragging rights as "The Only Union General to ever whip old Stonewall Jqckson." That was actually quiet impresive when looked back on. So not to say all the Mex War Generals were bad- But the Mex War Officers in general- if they lead anything in the Mex War, down to a company- tended to be given regimental and higher commands- some were good- some were terrible.

General McClellan was only a second Lt in Mexico- and rose higher than any other man in the Army except Scott- who he replaced, and Grant- who succeeded him later. Halleck missed combat in the Mex War. How does one begin to assess McClellan? was he a success or a failure- probably both.

What I am getting at here is that people gave commands to all sorts of men in 1861 that later in the war they would not have. Later in the war they began to understand what was needed to command troops in combat.The Army grew so big that you had more mediocer men than heroic Leaders. But in an amazing co-incidence the big pool of leaders provided some gems. - the war produced dozens and dozens of really competant leaders. And that is why it is often seen as the first Nationalistic war of the industrial period. (Though I would argue it was the big war in Italy between France and Austria in the late 1850s.) A war that harnessed the entire national state and its economy and Industries- Much as had the whole of Europe been caught up in the 20 year Napoleonic Cycle 60 years earlier- so the entire populations of two vibrant nation states poured forth to do war with each other. And the men who were to lead the war arose form the masses to command and the rest- as we say- was History. 


< Message edited by Doc o War -- 10/12/2008 4:09:11 AM >


_____________________________

Tell me the story of the common foot soldier, and I will tell you the story of all wars.
... Heroditus.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 12
RE: CSCs - 10/12/2008 12:42:04 PM   
spruce

 

Posts: 404
Joined: 9/23/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins


quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce
- is the bonus of the CSC added to the bonus of the corp commander ?


Yes, the CSC, the Corps Commander and the Army Commander can each add from 1 to their Specialty rating (i.e. Infantry) to the unit's die roll. The Army Commander does not necessarily "help" all units, but the CSC helps his units and the Corps Commander helps all units under his command.




Thanks Eric for the feedback. I would like to ask for more detial about your answer. Do you mean the AC, CC and CSC give each "one" point of infantry to the unit in battle. So 3 bonus points?

Or do you mean that "one" of the attributes is used from AC, CC and CSC - so f.e. infantry with f.e. AC (infantry of 3), CC (infantry of 3) and CSC (infantry of 2) to a total bonus of 8?

And what about infantry on the attack - those are 2 attributes - are they both used for enhancments ?


(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 13
RE: CSCs - 10/12/2008 1:24:45 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37145
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: online
Spruce,

quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce
Thanks Eric for the feedback. I would like to ask for more detial about your answer. Do you mean the AC, CC and CSC give each "one" point of infantry to the unit in battle. So 3 bonus points?

Or do you mean that "one" of the attributes is used from AC, CC and CSC - so f.e. infantry with f.e. AC (infantry of 3), CC (infantry of 3) and CSC (infantry of 2) to a total bonus of 8?


Don't take this the wrong way, but have you read the manual yet? This is all covered in there.

With that said, each general has two "strategy" ratings. Those are his Attack and Defense. During a battle, those ratings affect the strategic outcome by determining how many units under his command are committed, whether they have entrenched on defense and most importantly how much they each count for in the calculation of who won the battle and who lost.

Each general also has several specialty ratings, which are the "tactical" ratings. These are Infantry, Cavalry, Artillery, Naval. During a battle, these ratings affect how much of a combat bonus he gives to units he is helping or commanding. For example, if he has an Infantry rating of 4 and is helping an Infantry brigade, he will add d4 to its roll to hit another unit and subtract d4 from any unit targeting his own. A general with an Infantry rating of 3 would add or subtract d3, etc.

So if an Army Commander, a Corps Commander, and a Corps Sub-Commander are all helping an infantry brigade, they all add d(Infantry Rating) to the infantry brigade's rolls to fire and to avoid being hit. For example, if they all have Infantry ratings of 3, then the Infantry Brigade gets +d3+d3+d3 whenever it fires at an enemy unit.

Note that units that are damaged will only contribute half their combat value to the strategic calculations and units that are destroyed will contribute zero to the strategic calculations. So the tactical rolls affect the battle outcome, but the Attack/Defense ratings of the leaders affect it more than any single "hit". Hence you can end up with the situation where the side that takes more losses still wins the battle.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC




For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to spruce)
Post #: 14
RE: CSCs - 10/12/2008 7:43:04 PM   
spruce

 

Posts: 404
Joined: 9/23/2006
Status: offline
Eric, I've read the manual about 2 times now - I must say it's pretty hard to read if you are not an English native speaker.

Please take this into account. Many of us - non English native speakers have to cope with a big book with many details, nuances and yet there are also the grand lines of a grand strategy game.

Your answer has been very clear and I totally understand it now. Thank you very much,

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 15
RE: CSCs - 10/12/2008 8:02:51 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37145
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: online
Hi Spruce,

No problem, I just wanted to make sure you had read it. We do get a lot of questions on our games from folks that haven't even tried. I can tell you that I would have a lot of trouble reading a detailed game manual in any language other than English, so I can appreciate the difficulty.

Glad my explanation helped.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC




For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to spruce)
Post #: 16
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States >> CSCs Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.359