"Black Powder command traits for historical Generals" Topic
14 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the ACW Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestAmerican Civil War
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench ArticleThe G Dog couldn't say 'no' to this opportunity!
Featured Profile Article
|
Albino Squirrel | 18 Sep 2014 2:33 p.m. PST |
The game Black Powder has some optional command traits that your generals can have. The can be rated low, average, or high in the following three areas: Aggression, Decisiveness, and Independence. Instead of rolling on the tables to determine the traits for each commander in the army, I think it would be cool to randomly select a specific general, say from a deck of cards, who would have certain traits associated with them, in similar proportions to rolling on the table. Basically, what was done here: link (which is where I got the idea). Only I want to use real pictures of actual generals. In order to do this, I need to decide on some plausible traits for a lot of real civil war brigadier generals. For that, I thought the collective expertise here might prove useful. If you'd like to assist, here is what I'm looking for. I thinking of doing one deck each for Union and Confederate generals, which will include jokers, so a total of 54 in each deck. These could be anyone who was a brigadier general at any time, even if they attained a higher rank later. In terms of proportions of the various ratings, each deck will contain: 16 average in all areas 4 of each possible way to have ONE trait EITHER high or low, for a total of 24 1 of each combination of TWO traits that are EITHER high or low, total of 12 1 with all traits high 1 with all traits low I want about one in four (of at least the first two categories) to be cavalry, the rest infantry. If you have opinions to share, I suppose there are two ways to go about it. Either list out every general you know something about, and what combination of traits you think they should have (ie John Bell Hood – Aggression: high, Decisiveness: average, Independence: low, etc.) OR you could try to fill out the different categories with generals you think fit (ie Aggression: average, Decisiveness: high, Independence: average – General W, General X, General Y, and General Z). Keep in mind that there will be separate sets for union and confederate, though obviously you don't have to have suggestions for everything in order to participate. So, a pretty huge topic. Anyone want to weigh in? |
Extra Crispy | 18 Sep 2014 5:20 p.m. PST |
I'l have to think about this. I would not want any cavalry generals, I only have 2 regiments of cavalry a side… |
colgar6 | 19 Sep 2014 2:24 a.m. PST |
Surely it's not a coincidence that I've just published (independently) an article about using cards for commanders' characteristics in Black Powder? It's not quite what Albino Squirrel is looking for, but might give some useful ideas anyway: link Hugh |
John the Greater | 19 Sep 2014 5:37 a.m. PST |
Interesting concept. However, some generals changed over time. For example I would rate Burnside high on independence and decisiveness if I was doing the New Bern campaign, but all-around at the bottom for Fredericksburg. Custer definitely scores high on aggression and decisiveness, but he should never be allowed to be independent (he's kind of an unguided missile). It should be interesting to see what other folks come up with. |
Albino Squirrel | 19 Sep 2014 6:56 a.m. PST |
Extra Crispy – Well, how many infantry brigades do you have? I'm aiming for about a division of three brigades per side, plus some cavalry. So I'd have 3 infantry commanders, and 1 cavalry (plus the C-in-C). So I thought the 1/4 ratio was about right. Plus, there are four each of the one trait high or low cards, so 1/4 is one card. colgar6 – clearly not a coincidence, since I put that exact same link in my post, and explicitly said that it is where I got the idea. And since you kindly uploaded your files, I may use them for my cards. I tried out an online Magic the Gathering card generator, which was okay, but yours look really nice. Though I would have to add a spot for the name. |
colgar6 | 19 Sep 2014 7:08 a.m. PST |
@Albino Squirrel: ah, my apologies. I skimmed your original post and missed that detail. More haste, less speed… |
donlowry | 19 Sep 2014 9:20 a.m. PST |
Ah, but at Fredericksburg Burnside was no longer a brigadier, he was an army commander. I suggest that you should pick a time frame -- at least a specific year, maybe even a specific campaign, so that you don't wind up with such anachronisms as the Grant of Belmont commanding a brigade in 1863. |
Albino Squirrel | 19 Sep 2014 10:17 a.m. PST |
No worries, colgar6. It's a great idea, and your results are excellent, and will probably inspire many others to do something similar. I'm not too worried about changes over time. This does require some, you could say, generalizing (if you'll pardon the pun). If they were only aggressive in one battle and average the rest of the time, then they should be considered average. Also, if I'm not too concerned with changing the outcomes of battles, or which officers command which brigades, then certainly I'm not going to worry about changes in who is promoted to what rank. A few twists of fate may very well have left Grant or Burnside commanding brigades in 1863. On the other hand, I do want to only really consider performance when commanding a brigade, not at other levels of command. This does make things difficult, because for many officers, such as Burnside, we have a very small sample size to judge them on. But it doesn't have to be perfect. I just figured if I could get some of them to roughly line up with historical performance, I might as well. |
Albino Squirrel | 19 Sep 2014 11:07 a.m. PST |
Also, this might help further describe the traits. low aggression – Timid Penalty to charge orders, bonus to retreat orders. high aggression – Aggressive Bonus to charge orders. low decisiveness – Hesitant If 3 moves are rolled (the maximum number), must re-roll, so much less likely to score three moves. high decisiveness – Decisive Can re-roll failed command rolls, but if the re-roll fails it is a blunder (and a random order is carried out) low independence – Irresponsible Penalty to command roll if he goes before the commander in chief, but if he blunders he can roll twice and choose which to apply. high independence – Headstrong Bonus to command roll if he goes first in a turn, but more likely to blunder and do a random order. |
KimRYoung | 19 Sep 2014 11:15 a.m. PST |
The traits Aggressive, Decisive and Independent are mutually exclusive from a commander being Competent, Organized and Inspirational. There where plenty of Aggressive commanders who where total failures (Pope, Burnside at Fredericksburg, Braxton Bragg, Hood as Army Commander). Being Decisive can also be a negative such as Hooker at Chancellorsville being "decisive" in his commitment to a tactical defensive battle, or Lee making Pickett's Charge. Independent is also not a very good qualifier. Ben Butler was Independent as were Sigel, Beauregard, Early and even Prince John Magruder. Yet none of these translate into any successful commander. Good commanders tend to make GOOD decisions. Being aggressive can often just gets lots of men killed for no reason. The real question is…Who's Good? Always a great debate depending on what your criteria is. Lee won battles for the CSA where other CSA Commanders rarely succeeded, yet made some poor decisions. Grant never let a tactical setback stop him from seeing the big picture strategically and winning in the end. Hancock, Reynolds and Sedgwick were great subordinate commanders. Jackson certainly had many successes both under Lee and in the Valley, yet performed poor during the Seven Days. Arguments can be made either way as to how good Longstreet was. Finally, there is a huge difference in commanding a Brigade, a Division, a Corp and finely an Army. Hooker was a solid Division and Corp commander, not so much at the Army level. The same can be said of Thomas. Hood got worse the further up the command chain he went, same with A.P. Hill. Men like Gordon and Warren may have performed better then they did at lower command. The one commander who I personally feel got much better as the war progressed and had great success at every level…..Phil Sheridan. Good luck whichever way you go. Kim |
Albino Squirrel | 19 Sep 2014 2:48 p.m. PST |
Okay, I'll put up a straw man to start for Union generals. I apologize for the huge post, but I'm not sure how else to convey the information clearly. I put in here all the generals I could think of that I know anything about. Keep in mind that having these traits is not a reflection of how good or bad an officer is, as they generally have up and down sides, though Hesitant is flat out bad, and Aggressive flat out good. Let me know what you think of these, and who could fill out the empty spots. I could just pick random generals, though I would like to find some deserving characters for some of the ones on the bottom that are far from average. Aggression, Decisiveness, Independence average, average, average – Winfield Scott Hancock average, average, average – Rutherford Birchard Hayes average, average, average – George Meade average, average, average – Abner Doubleday average, average, average – Thomas Francis Meagher average, average, average – John Fulton Reynolds average, average, average – William Rosecrans average, average, average – Thomas Kilby Smith average, average, average average, average, average average, average, average average, average, average average, average, average (cav) average, average, average (cav) average, average, average (cav) average, average, average (cav) low, average, average – Don Carlos Buell low, average, average – Solomon Meredith low, average, average low, average, average (cav) average, low, average – Ambrose Burnside average, low, average – Franz Sigel average, low, average – George Thomas average, low, average (cav) average, average, low – Samuel Zook average, average, low average, average, low average, average, low – Alfred Pleasonton (cav) high, average, average high, average, average high, average, average high, average, average – George Armstrong Custer (cav) average, high, average – Philip Sheridan average, high, average – Strong Vincent average, high, average average, high, average – John Buford (cav) average, average, high – Lew Wallace average, average, high average, average, high average, average, high (cav) low, low, average – Henry Slocum low, average, low – William Tecumseh Sherman low, average, high – John Schofield low, high, average average, low, low average, low, high – John Pope average, high, low average, high, high – Daniel Sickles high, low, average high, average, low high, average, high high, high, average low, low, low high, high, high |
Dobber | 19 Sep 2014 3:24 p.m. PST |
Don't forget the Low and High Inspiration in the "Albion Triumphant" supplements!!! High Inspiration: "The Boys in the ranks love him. He can urge his men on to great feats of valor" add +1 to the Break Test roll to any units in his command that are within 12" of him Medium Inspiration: A commander that knows his duty to his men and does what is expected of him" No change. Low Inspiration: "Loathed by his men for a callous disregard for their lives. A pompous oaf and dullard" -1 to the break checks for units in his command and within 12" Not that I meant to mess up your maths or anything… but i hates maths ~Joe |
donlowry | 20 Sep 2014 10:33 a.m. PST |
I agree with KimRYoung. My point was that some generals, at least, learned as they gained experience, and thus got better, but by then were often at a higher level. I suggest you only use generals who stayed at the brigade level for most of the war, not ones, like Grant and Burnside, who soon rose to higher levels of command. Also, no bonuses or penalties are going to turn a mediocre gamer into a great commander! You'll never know whether you could have defeated Lee or Grant, or even Pope or Bragg, because you can only play against other gamers, not long-dead generals. |
49mountain | 26 Sep 2014 9:07 a.m. PST |
I have to agree that a general at one time period and at one battle was generally different at other times and places. Lew Wallace at Shiloh was not the same General as Lew Wallace at Monocacy. I would go with the General X, etc. Judging Brigade commanders (or any other commanders) is very difficult. Circumstance figured greatly in performance. What ever you decide as the values will alwys be subject to disageement and change. I think this is why the rolling for a General's qualities makes more sense. |
|