Blake wrote:
Quaama wrote:
As I said above, "the ratings in the game are related to very specific things". In terms of those specific things Lee's ability and application never wavered. Consequently, he should have very high ratings for 'Leadership' and 'Command'.
But, Paul, in another thread you wrote, "The 'real' ratings must try to take account of what actually happened during the battle and not solely rely upon a unit's, or a leader's, previous reputation. The reasons why are too variable to list but a couple are illness or the leader simply 'having a bad day'. One example may be Lee at Gettysburg; believed to be suffering from a heart condition at the time and also didn't really seem to be operating at his usual high ability. I always thought that he was not 'at his best' due the absence of Stuart and was therefore tentative in his general approach."
Now, wait a cotton-picking minute here 
Just for fun and (literally) arguments sake - your idea of "having a bad day" for R E Lee equals a rating of "B" and "A".
Hell, he was rated lower on the Peninsula ("B" and "C") where he actually walked away with a strategic victory.
Was his performance then at Gettysburg equal to, worse, or better, than during the Seven Days? Remember Malvern Hill.
I love these silly debates of ours. What else would I spend 10 minutes a day doing?In the other thread the ratings were predominantly to do with those for units and was an attempt to simulate 'surprise'. A difficult thing to do in a wargame where you have a bird's eye view and know, exactly, the numbers involved and generally where they are and when they arrive.
Lee's performance at Gettysburg: my reasons are similar to yours, being heart condition and the absence of Stuart. I'd also add 'being on unfamiliar ground' which is enhanced by the absence of Stuart but also because the maps available would be far from ideal (unlike those Jackson and Lee had in Virginia thanks to Hotchkiss [CSA maps in the west were also rudimentary, or non-existent]).
I'd contend that the ratings for Lee at Peninsula are also wrong.
Two ratings for each leader:
Command Rating - This rating is essentially used to determine if Disrupted units become un-Disrupted that turn; and
Leadership Rating - It is used to determine 'recovery from rout' and can include influence on subordinate leaders for the same thing.
In those two areas of ability and effect Lee is top of the class, at all times.
In the games we are Lee or Meade. We sometimes perform well and sometimes perform badly, and that
should (all other things being equal) determine the outcome. [As you and I saw in a recent test game, once the first couple of moves have been made, we have departed from history - the outcome is in our hands.]
So, how to simulate that a leader is not at his best (or is performing better that he normally does) for whatever reason? I think the only thing that exists in these games to do that is 'Command Range'. Unfortunately, that a generic thing in the Parameter Data that applies to
all leaders of that level of command rather than to individual leaders. A change to that aspect so it applied to individual leaders could effect how that particular counter (representing a real person) was performing at that time by inhibiting their overall control of the situation.
It's not an ideal thing but that's the only thing I can think of that exists in these games. Other games can simulate it better with one or more mechanics including: command range; number of orders that can be issued to units under their command; types of orders that can be issued; and presence of the enemy (e.g. threat zones). Those mechanics often include a chance element as well that can be dependent upon other variables.
ACWGC 
ACWGC Memorial
CSA HQ
VMI
Join CSA
Union HQ
Join Union 
Login
FAQ
Search
Members
