American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Why can't we choose which battlefield leader to promote when a leader is a casualty? Why can't their be a pop up box that gives us the option to choose their replacement rather than having one chosen at random for us?

_________________
Maj. Gen. Mitch Johnson
ARMY OF THE TENNESSEE COMMANDER

I assume it has everything to do with computer coding and nothing to do with anything else.

Don't get me wrong, I am in full agreement that that would be a very cool thing. If Early is wounded at Gettysburg, I want Gordon taking over the division and not Isaac Avery.

Add it to your Christmas list for WDS

_________________
Gen. Blake Strickler
Confederate General-in-Chief
El Presidente 2010 - 2012

Standard procedure in the ACW was the senior officer in the command moved up when an officer went down during a battle.
Afterwards he may retain the position or be returned to his previous command depending upon the availability of a replacement, seniority and the wishes of the direct commander.
Allowing the player to choose who takes over because they have better ratings in the game would be contrary to historical actions.

The exceptions on the CSA side I'm aware of were Stuart being appointed by Lee to replace Jackson after his wound at Chancellorsville and using Trimble to command Pender's division after his wound at Gettysburg.
Lee was given a lot of control of the ANV appointments by Davis, so much that there was a bit of rancor in the ANV about the deference given Virginia officers for division commands there.
However during a battle it was normal for the senior officer in the command to move up.

There was a lot of controversy mostly from Howard's staff over Hancock taking command on his arrival at Gettysburg after the death of Reynolds.
Prior to Meade's appointment as Howard was the senior commander on the scene he would normally have been in charge until the arrival of a more senior commander.
However Halleck granted Meade the ability “to remove from command, and to send from your army, any officer or other person you may deem proper, and to appoint to command as you may deem expedient."
Upon receiving news of Reynolds death Meade had ordered Hancock, the man he trusted most after Reynolds, to go to Gettysburg assess the situation and take command there.
Hancock's assessment of Gettysburg being good ground had a lot to do with Meade cancelling the Pike Creek plan and ordering everyone to Gettysburg.
Upon his arrival at Gettysburg Meade continued use of his ability to appoint commanders when he moved Newton to command the remainder of the I Corps.
Not sure if he was senior to Doubleday but Meade had the power to do it, something that had not been available to previous AotP commander without prior approval of the CinC and/or President Lincoln.

_________________
Gen. Ken Miller



The McKeesport Union Guard

3/1/II
AotP

General Miller <salute>

Excellent response and very much in line with traditional military etiquette and indeed not just for the ACW, and at least in the first instance, until politics, friends of friends so on and so forth came into play..........it was then as it is now, not what you know, but who you know !

_________________
Karl McEntegart
Brigadier General
Officer Commanding
Army of Tennessee





Make my enemy brave and strong, so that if defeated, I will not be ashamed.

The games do not understand seniority though. In the example of Early's Division from previously, I did a test with Gettysburg and found that Gordon was chosen to replace Early (presumably as the highest rated subordinate). I did the test three times using different variables and each time it was Gordon. But Harry Hays was senior to Gordon as general. So using Ken's argument the default general should be Hays. But the games have no way to know who is senior to whom. They merely look at the ratings (again this is just my impression) and promote based on that alone. It is probably why, sometimes, a random Colonel or Brigadier will be promoted far too high. Because it just so happens they have the highest rating in the unit when their commander is killed. So they are promoted by default above those with even higher ranks and/or seniority (neither of which the game understands nor considers).

There is probably no "fix" for this since it would require some pretty interesting coding and research to determine seniority for each unit. Using the highest rated option (regardless of their seniority or actual rank) is likely the simplest solution and was chosen because of that by WDS.

_________________
Gen. Blake Strickler
Confederate General-in-Chief
El Presidente 2010 - 2012

With a "Seniority" value at the end of the leader string in the OB files it could be done. Just a number would suffice. Also if someone like Newton is available for Corps command his "replacement value" (I am calling it) would have a "flag" saying that any corps commander that is wounded, killed or captured would be replaced by him.

Just change the OB version number so that the older ones are still valid until they are replaced for updates.

Example: Doubleday's Division
1st Brig. L 2 2 13 1 BG T A Rowley
2nd Brig. L 2 4 14 3 Col Roy Stone
3rd Brig. L 2 4 101 2 BG G J Stannard

I am guessing here at the seniority value which would follow the graphic number for the leader's pic.

_________________


Optional Rules I Use in WDS ACW Games:
(by column from left to right)
Column 1: All ON except for Man. Def. Fire; Column 2: All ON except for Alt Fixed Unit Rel.; Column 3: All ON except for Art.Capt. & Prop.Op.Fire

I like that the computer does it. On a real battlefield the next senior man would take over. You cant stop battle and say, hey now your in command. Its not football, cant just put a new QB in on the fly. Sometimes I believe we have too much control over the battle field in these games. I know another post has been talking about command and control variants. Interested in some of the ideas.

_________________
Lt. Colonel JJ Jansen
3rd Calvary Brigade, 4th Calvary Division
Army of Tennessee
CSA

Agreed, it should be a pre-determined thing. If not, then I think you will find that people sacrifice a poor leader if they know he will be replaced by one who has better ratings. They may stack a bad Corps or Army Commander with regiments in fire-prone situations or leading risky charges.

From Campaign Antietam:
Leader Loss Values
Fire Wound: 2% Fire Kill: 3%
Melee Wound: 3% Melee Kill: 4% Melee Capture: 5%

So, in that title (different in others), there's a 5% of becoming a casualty due to fire and a 12% chance in a melee. Any poorly rated Army or Corps Commander (served by highly-rated subordinates) will be leading every charge into the enemy. I'll get a 10% bonus for having him in the melee and 12% chance that he'll become a casualty and be replaced by a better commander.

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia

To Paul's Note:

Yes, Uriah the Hittite comes to mind (albeit for a different reason than command ability)

_________________
J.L. Boling
General, USA
General-in-Chief
United States Army