General Tech

[battlevonwar]

Leadership/Logistics...

I can have level 5 or 6 Generals as the Union early. The South can compete if she is willing to sacrifice techs at her own peril. She can't really afford these two techs early...

Therefore I think that it's a little lopsided you will probably get Grant at Level 7 in 1861, and probably level 8 in 1862. Meanwhile you will get Lee and Stonewall at Level 8 only. If you choose the Garibaldi Event you will get a Level 9 General possibly or Level 8 immediately of course with the consequences. Now on the all you got about +1 point on all CSA Generals even into 1862 except Grant/Garibaldi or the Far West. It doesn't bring home the feel to me of the Civil War to have such weak Confederate Generals when they were better initially.

Be nice to see the Union Generals get an Event and to see some better leadership as they fire and replace incompetent Generals over time as they start to win and they don't have to rely on politics for instance... for 1862 in the South for flavor be nice to have a couple of really decent Generals a bit higher rated.

Anyone Agree or Disagree?

[devoncop]

The Confederate Generals are much better than their Union opposite numbers and by a big amount early on. Heck, as the Rebs it makes sense to sack/ replace Polk (4 ) when he arrives by event with Lee (8) if you havent done it earlier.

The Union simply don't have that option earlier in the war. The biggest jump they can make is to replace Mcdowell (an abysmyl 2) with someone like Hooker or Curtis who is only a 4 so the gains are much less and the latter Generals are still badly outrated even by Beauregard.

The Union have many advantages over the Rebs but even into 1862/3 Generals are the least of the problems for the Confederates in my view.

[battlevonwar]

You're talking about the beginning but by 1862:

Garibaldi about 80% of the time I think, 8 Rating with 1 Ribbon and possibly 9 Rating best General in the Game... Lee will be 8 cause the CSA has other techs aside leadership it needs to invest in. Grant will be Rating 8 comes fairly early in 1861.
Yes, aside that the rest of the Union Leadership is mostly 5s or 6s after Tech. It's just the beginning that they're garbage. On the defense they basically work okay. . .

You get 2 8 Stars with the CSA, Lee you will get by event in Mid 62. LongStreet in 1861. But really is the CSA Leadership as 1862 hits really that wonderous?

The Confederate Generals are much better than their Union opposite numbers and by a big amount early on. Heck, as the Rebs it makes sense to sack/ replace Polk (4 ) when he arrives by event with Lee (8) if you havent done it earlier.

The Union simply don't have that option earlier in the war. The biggest jump they can make is to replace Mcdowell (an abysmyl 2) with someone like Hooker or Curtis who is only a 4 so the gains are much less and the latter Generals are still badly outrated even by Beauregard.

The Union have many advantages over the Rebs but even into 1862/3 Generals are the least of the problems for the Confederates in my view.

[BiteNibbleChomp]

Until Sept 1862, the Union gets:
Grant (6)
Halleck (4)
McClellan (3)
Banks (3)
Butler (3)
McDowell (2)
+
Canby (3) can be purchased via DE for near-full price
Garibaldi (7) via DE
Carleton (5) in New Mexico in July 62 or later

At the same time, the Confederacy gets:
Lee RE (7)
Longstreet (6)
Johnston AS (5)
Johnston J (5)
Beauregard (5)
Van Dorn (3)
Polk (3)
+
Price (3) and Bragg (3) can be purchased via DE for near-full price
Watie (4) is very likely given the Cherokee usually join the Confederates

Counting just the generals above the divider, the Union average is 3.5, while the Confederate average is 4.85 (then add +1 because they begin with Leadership 1). The Confederates can also recruit Jackson (7) and several 5s immediately, while the Union is limited to 4s at best. IOW, the Union needs to get at least 2 levels of Leadership, and the Confederates can't get any, to break even before the good Union generals start coming through from the end of 1862.

I'm not seeing the problem here?

- BNC

[devoncop]

Unsurprisingly the dev put the above much better than I managed

[Platoonist]

One advantage Southern leadership does have long term in this game is that it isn't as easily killed off or hurt. Historically, by 1863 the South had lost the services of generals A.S. Johnston, E. Van Dorn, and T. Jackson. Plus, the loss of J. Longstreet to a wound in 1864 probably had a big impact on the Overland Campaign.

Unless you are placing them on the front line it's hard to lose HQs and therefore generals in the game. You'll likely have the services of all your generals good or bad a lot longer than the actual Confederacy did.

[battlevonwar]

I read in the manual that until Rating 8 a General doesn't get a bonus, is this correct? 10% Morale I believe it is or is this incremental from +1 vs it's opponent so for example

rating 5 vs rating 7 would be +20%?

[metabagel]

The Confederate Generals are much better than their Union opposite numbers and by a big amount early on. Heck, as the Rebs it makes sense to sack/ replace Polk (4 ) when he arrives by event with Lee (8) if you havent done it earlier.

I pretty much sack Polk right away.

[BillRunacre]

I read in the manual that until Rating 8 a General doesn't get a bonus, is this correct? 10% Morale I believe it is or is this incremental from +1 vs it's opponent so for example

rating 5 vs rating 7 would be +20%?

This is when the special bonus for an elite general kicks in, so prepared attacks launched by units under their command will have a 10% bonus.

[stormbringer3]

If you replace Polk with Lee does another general replace Lee in the build que? If not, then aren't you missing a general? I always replace Polk with a better general but not Lee.

[BiteNibbleChomp]

Lee shouldn't show up in the list of generals that Polk can be replaced with. Though Jackson will, he's of equal talent to Lee.

- BNC

[*Lava*]

This is when the special bonus for an elite general kicks in, so prepared attacks launched by units under their command will have a 10% bonus.

Do units with an elite general also get a special bonus for defending against attacks?

[Bo Rearguard]

Do units with an elite general also get a special bonus for defending against attacks?

Nope. Attack only.

[battlevonwar]

Thank you for elaborating, it does appear this is just 1 Perk? There seems to be no other advantage then? So until Level 8 all these people saying they sack a level 3 or 4 really if it's up against a level 6 there is not difference anyway? (what about the ribbons do they count as a Point toward say level 7 and Ribbon making a bonus General?)

I read in the manual that until Rating 8 a General doesn't get a bonus, is this correct? 10% Morale I believe it is or is this incremental from +1 vs it's opponent so for example

rating 5 vs rating 7 would be +20%?

This is when the special bonus for an elite general kicks in, so prepared attacks launched by units under their command will have a 10% bonus.

[devoncop]

Lee shouldn't show up in the list of generals that Polk can be replaced with. Though Jackson will, he's of equal talent to Lee.

- BNC

You are quite right of course... I meant Jackson.

[BillRunacre]

Thank you for elaborating, it does appear this is just 1 Perk? There seems to be no other advantage then? So until Level 8 all these people saying they sack a level 3 or 4 really if it's up against a level 6 there is not difference anyway? (what about the ribbons do they count as a Point toward say level 7 and Ribbon making a bonus General?)

The rating of a HQ is important in combat, as it influences the Readiness of units their command, and the better the rating, the higher the Readiness, all other things being equal.

So players can be right to sack and replace with higher rated generals.

If the HQ has an experience point then that will also raise their units' Readiness.

The formula for this is shown in section 7.29.3. Unit Readiness and Its Effect on Combat on pages 168-169 of the Manual.

The thing about elite generals is that they have an extra perk, in addition to the benefit that comes from having a higher rating.

I hope that helps explain it.

Bill

[*Lava*]

Do units with an elite general also get a special bonus for defending against attacks?

Nope. Attack only.

That seems strange.

Grant rallies his troops after being surprised at Shiloh. His presence obviously makes a huge difference on the defense.

Lee moves his army to Fredericksburg and slaughters the Yanks attacking him in force at Marye's Heights.

Yet Lee's presence at Gettysburg confers no advantage to attacking well defended ground by troops armed with rifles.

Seems to me the bonus should be for defense, not for attack.

Perhaps that is why the Yanks seem to be able to roll the Rebs so early in the war.

[Yogol]

Do units with an elite general also get a special bonus for defending against attacks?

Nope. Attack only.

That seems strange.

Grant rallies his troops after being surprised at Shiloh. His presence obviously makes a huge difference on the defense.

Lee moves his army to Fredericksburg and slaughters the Yanks attacking him in force at Marye's Heights.

Yet Lee's presence at Gettysburg confers no advantage to attacking well defended ground by troops armed with rifles.

Seems to me the bonus should be for defense, not for attack.

Perhaps that is why the Yanks seem to be able to roll the Rebs so early in the war.

Both attack and defenc eis impacted by the general: a 8-general will give your troops more readiness (the most important stat in combat, together with strength) than a 4-general.

But ON TOP OF THAT readiness, a 8-general will give a 10% bonus for attackers.

[*Lava*]

Both attack and defenc eis impacted by the general: a 8-general will give your troops more readiness (the most important stat in combat, together with strength) than a 4-general.

But ON TOP OF THAT readiness, a 8-general will give a 10% bonus for attackers.

Yet when 2 Elite generals are face to face (Grant vs Lee), it is a battle of attrition in which the Yanks take more losses than the Rebs. Any bonus given to generals should be for defense.

This war is a prelude to WWI and the carnage taken by the attacker. Weapons technology was simply too devastating and heavily favored the defender.

The Yanks should win, because they have 3 times the manpower as the Rebs. Yet even they had to draft folks into the army to face the meatgrinder they faced attacking the south.

[battlevonwar]

I quote/paraphraze famous authors' "If you were a betting man, you would bet on the South before the war got going."

Why... They are the defense and we know that you need a large ratio on the offense. In this game in cases you do but the map isn't accurate to scale either. The South was larger Geographically than the North and it's terrain was dreadful to fight in. There wasn't all these supply towns you see everywhere for the North to draw on. There also wasn't a unified Northern Sentiment to go South and fight Johnny Reb, neither was there that in the South to go fight Billy Yank but I think more so cause you mostly have an invading force vs at the time which means carnage on the soil. Which always creates peaceloving men into fighting warriors?

As for Generals there were issues due to political appointments and luck. That's all... Lee could of fought for the North if Virginia would of went South and was offered command of the Army of the Potomac(North). He was a great general but he had health issues and at times this would play against him. He also was unlike the North overly aggressive and perhaps he had to be and knew this. It cost men the South couldn't afford. The South never should of invaded the North and should of sat back and held it's real estate until War Weariness wore down the North. And then it would of been a lost war cause we can see what they couldn't. Though perhaps Little Napoleon would of been elected President in 1864. The South knew it was losing so would there have been another compromise? I don't know... In WW1 weren't their peactalks after the Fall of Russia? (not saying there was much reality in any of it) I do know The Central Powers were offered or tried something it just never amounted to anything(they were WAY outnumbered too but mostly on the defense at a on certain fronts and look at ITALY? Look at the Somme)

As for Ratios. . . I see a series of bloody battles where the North can afford to lose 20,000, 30,000 and the South can't. With this is mind Johnston's Strategy of giving land for time may have been highly effective and perhaps he should be rated level 9. There is a lot of theory about why a General is rated here or there... Though ultimately winning battles in the civil war didn't win the war. Certainly it didn't help losing them.

We also have to face the Evolution of Technology and Entrenchment become bigger and more elaborate pointing toward a more WW1 Technology. As the Civil War was the first modern war. As for Generals getting a readiness bonus I think it fair. Though were all Union Generals dirt I don't think so and well you do get some great options. Almost better than the South in time... I think the game is trying to balance things to make the game entertaining and you know that's really what it's about. An Expert Union Player seems to win most if not all the time. A terrible Confederate or average player will lose to them seen it several times. I am playing a Union right now where a guy has me on the ropes cause I have well misused my resources and been too hesitant with my strategies and tactics. My fault not the games.

The South never would of left the Union Ultimately IMHO even if it could of, I think unification was inevitable with the Industrial Revolution and Automation of the oncoming 19th and 20th century and seeing what's afoot in Europe would of brought them together. I do not think both sides so unique or different. Though Union Industry well that is the Key aye? Population as well. Not that More Men and Guns won every war. Certainly not where you don't utilize them correctly.

Both attack and defenc eis impacted by the general: a 8-general will give your troops more readiness (the most important stat in combat, together with strength) than a 4-general.

But ON TOP OF THAT readiness, a 8-general will give a 10% bonus for attackers.

Yet when 2 Elite generals are face to face (Grant vs Lee), it is a battle of attrition in which the Yanks take more losses than the Rebs. Any bonus given to generals should be for defense.

This war is a prelude to WWI and the carnage taken by the attacker. Weapons technology was simply too devastating and heavily favored the defender.

The Yanks should win, because they have 3 times the manpower as the Rebs. Yet even they had to draft folks into the army to face the meatgrinder they faced attacking the south.