Generals and commanders

[syco]

Im just wondering if theres some hidden perks for different generals, like the ones you can buy with rep. Right now i have Meade and Burnside up for grabs and when Meade is 6 points Burnside is 4. I know some yanks would give him to south for free, but why the difference? They have same exp.
At one battle I thought that one general had much bigger aura range than the other but that might have been just zooming thing. So is there something different between em and if not there should be.

[Operation Iraqi Freikorps]

You get to pick the perks generals have. Aura differences have been noted. To my knowledge there is no hidden perk. Be sure to check the rank of officers.

[pandakraut]

There is no hidden bonus to the rep buy officers. I'd like to mod one in if I can manage it, but it's proven pretty complex.

[syco]

So why is Burnside cheaper?

[pandakraut]

The rep costs are not necessarily consistent between battles even for very similar items. There is no mechanical advantage to buying Burnside over Meade if their xp is the same. If you only care about mechanical advantage there isn't really a point to buying any officer. You can farm your own up just as well.

[PaloAlto]

It would of been cool if the generals had personality traits, but unfortunately they do not. As far as aura size, there is a known bug with the aura size of the 1st corps general being considerably smaller than the other corps. As a result, some players utilize a corps other than the first corps as their main fighting corps.

[Kristoph42]

Good question about the rep cost. I was under the impression that more rep cost meant the general had more starting XP. I remember when you can get J. Reynolds for 6 rep and W. Hancock for 4 rep. They are both BGs, but I beleive that Reynolds had more xp than Hancock. I think the same holds true for G. Meade and A. Burnside. Save your game. Buy them both with Rep and put them on a unit to check how much xp they each have. I would be willing to bet that Meade has more xp then Burnshide.

[oswaldo]

It is well known that the historic Generals come with different experiences. In contrast to the random barracks Officers, their experience is hidden before hiring. But it is always the same. With pen and paper, you know what you get from your 2nd playthrough.

The thing is: the experience does NOT explain the higher costs for Meade.

Burnside: BG, Experience 13/100, 4 Rep
Meade: BG, Experience 12/100, 6 Rep
Both available after 2nd Bull Run

If there is no hidden factor, then Burnside is just and simple the better pick.
Against historic evidence.


Two similar things on the Confederade side:

D.H. Hill: MG, Experience 66/100, 6 Rep
Beauregard: MG, Experience 0/100, 6 Rep
Both available after Shiloh

Hood: BG, Experience 66/100, 4 Rep
Pickett: BG, Experience 0/100, 4 Rep
Both available after Malvern Hill


But I doubt that success in this game is a question of stats and only stats and nothing else.

Player´s aren´t machines.

So, another factor that might be relevant for the composition of an Army, at least for some Players, is how good or bad the Player feels with a historic General.

My personal experience is that things have worked better, sometimes much better with Officers I like. That 'and now Jackson crushes into their flank' effect...

From that point of view, hiring Burnside is at least a questionable thing. This s not about stats, but about psychology. What do you associate with Burnside?

The deeper the impression the higher the probability that this brings Tilt and misclicks to your army.

If you have to choose between Burnside and Meade - consider hiring George Meade. Seriously. That 1 Exp and 2 Rep is a good investment in the overall Karma of your Campaign.

[D-Dub]

This is a really helpful thread. And, oswaldo, what you've brought up explains a lot of my own playing and enjoyment. Hidden factors, intangibles of a sort, but really significant. In a sense, I don't care a whit about Reputation Points because I simply MUST have Pickett or Gibbon BY NAME at the head of a bde or div or whatever. And, honestly, I hate using Bragg and McClellan. Those NAMES (and the history behind them, etc.) make a huge difference.

Equally, losing one of the historical figures makes a difference. For instance, lost JEB Stuart a few weeks back, and it hurt just because it was Stuart. I didn't re-load this time, however, and that has been interesting, to say the least: I actually think about Stuart -- and miss his presence -- when, e.g., yet another bumbling CAV commander gets into trouble on the battlefield, unlike Stuart ever would. (Could it be that I intentionally pay less attention to CAV stuff, now that Stuart is gone? What if Hampton would show up at some point later...?)

It's all make-believe. But it's real make-believe. And, for me, all of this puts a lot more life into this game -- and enjoyment. Especially because [I'm] that type of general who focuses more on army & personnel management than on the battles & campaigns themselves...

To stay more exactly on track with the thread: I also have always thought that more Rep Pts means more experience. Apparently not. Could it be that the Rep cost is tied to historical significance?

[oswaldo]

Originally posted by D-Dub:

Could it be that the Rep cost is tied to historical significance?

I´d say No.

Look at the Union Commanders at Gettysburg:

(you can hire them all, except Howard, during the Campaign)

Meade: BG 12/100, 6 Rep
Reynolds: BG 77/100, 6 Rep
Hancock: BG 0/100, 4 Rep
Sickles: MG 0/100, 10 Rep (!)
Sykes: BG 0/100, 4 Rep
Sedgwick: BG 0/100, 4 Rep
Slocum: BG 0/100, 4 Rep

It is Sickles who comes as MG and is most expensive...

But Sickles is the only really questionable, perhaps even bad Officer in this list, a political General with no military background who did strange things at Chancellorsville (Hazel Grove) and Gettysburg (Peach Orchard). His 10 Rep can´t be about historic significance.

The timing, experience and cost of the historic officers is far from perfect.

e.g.: After Antietam you get Patrick Kelly (who still was a Colonel commanding a Regiment later at Fredericksburg) as a BG with 66/100 Experience. This is absurd. Same with Gibbon. A good Officer, yes. But getting him very early in the Campaign as a BG with 66/100 destinates him as a Corps Commander he never was. Or you have a MG Division Commander Gibbon serving under a BG Corps Commander. Here the game still requires same 'history polish'.

***

It seems to me that Generals of the Western theatre are more expensive Don´t know why.

Polk and Hardee: both MG 0/100 both 15 Rep
Rosecrans: MG 0/100 and 10 Rep
Cleburne: MG 0/100 and 8 RP.
Sheridan: BG 0/100 and 5 Rep (not 4 as most eastern only Generals in the list above)

Not sure about George Thomas' stats and costs right now, but think it is same as Rosecrans.


***

(off topic)

Originally posted by D-Dub:

I don't care a whit about Reputation Points because I simply MUST have Pickett or Gibbon BY NAME at the head of a bde or div or whatever.

Yes!

Originally posted by D-Dub:

And, honestly, I hate using Bragg and McClellan. Those NAMES (and the history behind them, etc.) make a huge difference.

Yes! But the tastes (or aversions) are different, of course. Same with Bragg. McClellan is sufferable to me although having him in Command doesn´t make me smile. I dislike Lee instead (only Division Command for him. Johnston (Western Theatre Battles), D.H. Hill, myself and Jackson are my Corps Commanders when playing the Confederacy).

Dreaming of a promoting/demoting option to keep the ranking in line.

Originally posted by D-Dub:

I actually think about Stuart -- and miss his presence -- when, e.g., yet another bumbling CAV commander gets into trouble on the battlefield, unlike Stuart ever would. (Could it be that I intentionally pay less attention to CAV stuff, now that Stuart is gone? What if Hampton would show up at some point later...?)

This is a very good example of what I mean.

Originally posted by D-Dub:

And, for me, all of this puts a lot more life into this game -- and enjoyment. Especially because [I'm] that type of general who focuses more on army & personnel management than on the battles & campaigns themselves...

Same here. Sometimes I feel like that model railroad guy. It is mainly the army management that fascinates me.

And you can even increase that feeling.

Consider this:

(1) Before hiring an random Officer at the barracks, google him: 'Name union/confederate "order of battle" '. The combo of 1st and 2nd name is randomized, but all surnames are historic and appear in an order of battle of the CIvil war.

Try to hire only officers that fought for your side.

Many names appeared on both sides.

(2) Give the Officer you hire a Unit that resembles his historic command. If his name is Dilger and you play as Union, give him an Artillery and name it Ohio Artillery. If his name is Curtin, give him a Infantry Brigade an name it (x-th) PV Infantry.

(3) If that Officer is wounded, replace him with another Pennsylvania Officer. If that is impossible, don´t use the Brigade until the Officer is back.

(4) Before every battle, consult the 'Order of battle' of you side (Wikipedia). Try to build the historic Divisions with your Brigades. Of course, the historic Regiments did not come from one and the same state historically. But you can easily see that if there was a 5 Brigade Division with (e.g.) lots of New York Regiments, some from Massachussetts and some from Pennsylvania and some New York Artillery, then you pick 2 NY, 1 MA and 1 PV Infantry Brigade and one NY Artillery for that Division.

That works for Infantry and Artillery since Names for the States you need tend to appear... Lots of Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio names on the Union Side. And lots of Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia on the Confederate Side. Try to use "wrong side" names only for the Cav or as Deputy Commanders in multi days battles.

(5) Try to use Brigades either in the east or in the west. That won´t work in every single case, but it is a nice thing if you manage to fight a Confederate Chickamauga without Virginia troops or a Union Chickamauga without troops from New England.

(6) Try to use the same Brigades in battles that belong together. Such as Jacksons Valley Campaign. And try to avoid using troops in battles that are impossible to be fought by the same troops. The Union troops at Nansemond River and Siege of Suffolk (battles that belong together) should not appear at Chancellorsville. How could they have got there in that shortness of time? Giving up southeastern Virginia?

(6) Renaming Brigades is 'allowed', but try to match it with the Officers nonetheless. In the best case you find Officers who´s names appeared in several rare states. E.g. I have a Hubbard in my current Union Army. His Infantry Brigade is either from Minnesota or from West Virginia if such a Brigade is required/was on the field (both States had historically a Union Infantry Commander named Hubbard).

Many historic names have different options. WIth names like Smith, Jackson or Moore you can do nearly everything. Avoid only one-sides names which really are No-Go´s for your cause: If you play as Confederacy, you don´t wan´t a Birney in you Army (strong Abolitionist), if you play the Union, you don´t need a Barksdale (Fire Eater).


This could be a lot of fun for a player like you.

Playing this the ultra version means you instantly grow your army to several corps, just to have enough storage room for some Brigades from Maryland or from Arkansas. Lacking core troops you will often fight with quite unexperienced troops and, the next step, sometimes with fewer troops than possible (if the Order of battle says 12 Brigades and the Game allows 14 it should be 12). So BG is a good difficulty for this in my experience. BG provides troops and money, you can grow and sustain your army. But nonetheless the historic detail will bring enough odds. It needs some time, but it is lots of fun!

[D-Dub]

Posts (and threads) like this are one of the reasons that I find this game irresistible.

Many thanks, oswaldo. Special thanks for the "number-crunching". The higher rep-cost for western theatre generals is odd. If there's a logic to this slice of UGCW, I'm not seeing it yet. I am now thinking that, should there ever be another development stage for this game, some sharper distinction between West and East Theatres, with some mechanic for unit-transfers (with consequences) and perhaps restrictions on commanders, might be a good way to bring in more big-picture campaign dynamics to the whole shebang. It'd be a parallel structure of some sort, though, sure, there'd have to be connections that matter. E.g., sending Longstreet west before CHICKAMAUGA would in fact do something back at the ranch on the Eastern Front.

Well, it's fun to think about, anyway.

I'd be interested to see some kind of promotion/demotion option, although this would have to tie in (I think) with making rank even more significant than it already is. And PaloAlto's note about "personality traits" would surely be a big factor, too. Still, I'd settle first for being able to lower unit-sizes and also merge units in CAMP.

Your "in-depth regional-sensitive role-playing set-up" ("ultra version", indeed!) is... as awesome as it is intimidating. I've taken little steps in this direction. What you're doing is simply amazing. One thing that jumps out is how this approach helps us to see/feel how state-oriented the Civil War was. I mean, America was driven by a states-mentality back then much more than now, eh? During the CW, to put it mildly, each side had powerful state-centric loyalties, and these had impact in more ways than one. So, your approach here? Wow.

I think I might start trying to use one corps for East Theater only and another for only West Theater -- where possible. Gotta focus more on Army Org, yes.

Now, trying to tie this all back to syco's concern: there may not be any hidden perks TECHNICALLY, but when player-generals are giving preferred treatment to some newly available COs, whatever the rep-cost might be, that right there would be a kind of hidden perk. But of course this all depends on the psychology and playing-style and such. Again, the best example from my side is that, for some reason (I truly can't explain it), Pickett is ALWAYS given special commands and duties. That's CSA side. On the USA side, Sherman and Thomas (oh, yes, THE ROCK) get the same. ALWAYS. I even look forward to having these and other commanders come available. It's another satisfying game within the game for me.

[oswaldo]

Originally posted by D-Dub:

PaloAlto's note about "personality traits" would surely be a big factor, too. Still, I'd settle first for being able to lower unit-sizes and also merge units in CAMP.

Personality is very nicely done in Civil War II. Completely different game, no real time tactics and even unplayable without weeks of preparational studies - but with a wonderful depth.

Jackson ist 'Fast Mover,', 'Charismatic', 'Surpriser' and 'Sharpshooter', Joseph Johnston 'Skirmisher' and 'Army Organisator', Banks 'Recruiter' and 'Slow Mover', Grant 'Siege Expert', 'Master Logistician' and (able to pick) 'Good Subordinates'...

Originally posted by D-Dub:

Your "in-depth regional-sensitive role-playing set-up" ("ultra version", indeed!) is... as awesome as it is intimidating. I've taken little steps in this direction. What you're doing is simply amazing. One thing that jumps out is how this approach helps us to see/feel how state-oriented the Civil War was. I mean, America was driven by a states-mentality back then much more than now, eh? During the CW, to put it mildly, each side had powerful state-centric loyalties, and these had impact in more ways than one. So, your approach here? Wow.

Today I was seeking a Division Commander for Reynolds Corps when preparing for Gettysburg. It is the most complicated battle to prepare as historic as possible in this game because you have to change the Corps Structure twice during the overnight camps, due to Reynolds death and Sickles leg and the possibilty to field five Corps on Day 3 instead of three on Day 1 and 2). Having the aim of a all time consistent army in mind, one has to think about how this is possible.

I picked Luis Wagner, that initial Union Side Colonel (who was a Pennsylvania man, too). During the first Day, Wagner will be in Command of what was Doubledays Division (with two Pennsylvania Brigades...) in Reynolds Corps. Pennsylvania Connection Simulation. :)

But - although Reynolds (and Meade) were clearly Pennsylvania men while Sickles' had the backing of New York, the Union knew that it had strictly to avoid 'military tribalism'. It is obvious that the larger States' Regiments were actively spread over all Corps.

(Pennsylvania Regiments at Gettysburg: Reynolds: 11, Hancock: 10, Sickles: 10, Sykes: 11, Sedgwick: 10, Howard: 4, Slocum:6.

New York Regiments: Reynolds: 9. Hancock: 16 (some only with Companies), Sickles: 9, Sykes: 3, Sedgwick: 7, Howard: 10, Slocum: 9.)

I think that the Union was more succesful in fighting 'tribalism' than the Confederacy.

Originally posted by D-Dub:

Now, trying to tie this all back to syco's concern: there may not be any hidden perks TECHNICALLY, but when player-generals are giving preferred treatment to some newly available COs, whatever the rep-cost might be, that right there would be a kind of hidden perk. But of course this all depends on the psychology and playing-style and such. Again, the best example from my side is that, for some reason (I truly can't explain it), Pickett is ALWAYS given special commands and duties. That's CSA side. On the USA side, Sherman and Thomas (oh, yes, THE ROCK) get the same. ALWAYS. I even look forward to having these and other commanders come available. It's another satisfying game within the game for me.

This is interesting. I tend to do the same with Pickett. It started during my first playthrough. He was the man to command the Snipers... :)

[D-Dub]

Right on. More great tips, oswaldo. Many thanks.

I'll check out Civil War II...