Leader ratings and the Gettysburg game

[Alex Krolikowsk]

What I don’t like in Gettysburg game are leaders command ratings. I think they are too low, especially while considering large scope of this game (maps). My experience is that unless you keep all comanders within their superiors command ranges, you have a problems with undisrupting units.

Majority of Union brigade commanders have standard ratings set at (E,C), their Confederate counterparts have the same or bit higher; division commanders ratings also aren’t too high.

Point is that maps are huge and leader command ranges short (especially on Union side) and it’s difficult to keep everybody ‘in range’. Even if you manage to do this, your generals still must pass command tests.

It other titles situation is far better. For example Corinth – general Bowen was na excellent combat officer and in game he has (A,A) ratings. I can freely detach his brigade for any kind of mission knowing that these men will fight. On the other hand, his uninspiring division commander – Mansfield Lovell has ratings set at logicial level (D,D).

Another good example is Peninsula – there are many leaders with low ratings (afterall it’s a beginning of the real war in the east) but these which distinguised itself it this campaign or were know as good officers have a good ones - Hancock (B,B), Reynolds (B,B), Meade (B,C), Winder (B,B), Rodes (B,B) etc.

In Gettysburg game it really doesn’t look good. I wish you good luck when you’ll send Kilpatrick cavalry division (all leaders, Custer including, have ratings set at (E,B)) for a ride and regiments become disrupted. Or when you’ll detach a division to guard some mountain pass or river ford and it will be attacked.

I think that level (C,C) is quite good as a standard one. Better leader can have higher ratings, any know imbeciles and drunkars a lesser ones. At this level, commander perform well while under eyes of his superiors and still have a chance to control his men when you send him for independent mission.

What do you think about leader ratings in Gettysburg game? Do you have any problems or all is working fine in your games?

[KG_RangerBooBoo]

I think the leadership range is just fine. These were men on foot or horseback and in battle they were limited in just how far they could move and control their regiments. I do believe that brigade commanders are probably a little underrated but I expect that is done purposefully to keep units from rallying so fast and making the battles a even more of a bloodbath then they are already. I've also always thought that Union units were underrated quality wise but I'd bet that was a design decision also to help the Confederates.

[Gary McClellan]

I tend to think that the Gettys level ratings are about "right". Overall, troops tend to come back into good order far too quickly and easily in games, and this tends to slow it down.

Of course, I also tend to feel that in all the games, troops are a bit overrated.

[Alex Krolikowsk]

I think the leadership range is just fine. These were men on foot or horseback and in battle they were limited in just how far they could move and control their regiments.

Yes, the are good but even ratings for both armies looks better. In Getty, federal bde commanders with their range of 2 and div. commanders with range of 4 must constantly move to and there to keep the men in the ranks.

I do believe that brigade commanders are probably a little underrated but I expect that is done purposefully to keep units from rallying so fast and making the battles a even more of a bloodbath then they are already.

Well, in pbem game an inablility to quick undisrupting often mean death, especially in open ground. For example to conduct a fighting retreat is a dangerous thing in this game. Many times I was forced to leave disrupted units behind and to save the rest of the command. And they were of course gobbled up by resolute enemy. Whatever the purpose of low ratings was, I don't think that 'Autie' Custer would need much time to regroup his Wolverines.

I've also always thought that Union units were underrated quality wise but I'd bet that was a design decision also to help the Confederates.

Some decisions with units qualities are suspicious indeed, on both sides. US Regulars are worse than rebel Brockenbrough brigade??? And pround soldiers of 1st Maryland Bn (CSA) are probably turning in their graves knowing that they receive D-quality in this game.

I'm a logtime ACW buff, love this games, have all oob's printed and I must say that unit/leader ratings in Drew W. games are simply perfect. And all is also working very well in his titles - units are routing, become disrupted, undisrupting more or less quickly, I can send good leaders for an independient missions without fear that after first contact with enemy their regiments will be in state of continuous disruption and easy for being destroyed.

Gettysburg is a very good game too, but low leader ratings makes a limited use of brigade/division for detached missions what would be natural with such a huge maps. During this campaig many divisions marched on their own, especially these of Reb II Corps. If Early would meet any Yanks, his veterans would probably put up a good fight as he was quite capable for directing independent battle. In game it may not be so.

Now I don't have a time, but I plan to correct Getty oobs. Mostly leader ratings and very few units as I don't want to disturb a ballance of play. If there would be an interest in such a project we can do it together on this board. If not, I will do it anyway and will be using it for a battles on home front. In this way I become a modder :clown:

[KG_RangerBooBoo]

I think one key point that everyone misses is the need to maintain reserves. I think it was something that the "real life" commanders did to a greater extent then us electronic commanders. I know I can be just as guilty as the next guy on this one but it is something I strive to do more and more while playing Gettysburg as it is the only way to maintain a line or to maintain momentum on an attack.

[arckon]

I think one key point that everyone misses is the need to maintain reserves. I think it was something that the "real life" commanders did to a greater extent then us electronic commanders. I know I can be just as guilty as the next guy on this one but it is something I strive to do more and more while playing Gettysburg as it is the only way to maintain a line or to maintain momentum on an attack.

That is something that is always in the back of my mind however:

1/ I never seem to have enough troops for the line I want.
2/ How far back do you tend to maintain your reserve? The few times I have done so (notice I said few) I have lost them to disruption as the front line routes.

Would be interested in any hints you are willing to divulge on this.

[Hannibal]

Do not place your reserves in a hex next to your front line so that they don't have to undergo a morale check when your front line routs but they are close enough to immediately plug your line. Also keep your reserves stacked with enough men and artillery in a hex so that any units routing from your front line will not be able to pass through them and disrupt them. If you have 700 man units on your front line, then your reserve stacks only have to be 400 or 500 strong; but if you have a 100 man unit stacked in your front line then your reserve stacks have to be maxed out to keep that 100 man unit (minus any casualties that it took) from routing through your stack.

[KG_RangerBooBoo]

Hannibal made some good comments. To determine how far back to keep them, just figure out how many movement points it would take for them to assume a position in your line from where you are considering putting them. If you can move into place easily then move them back a little. If it is a forest and will take a lot of points then move them closer. And don't be afraid to use those reserves for a counterattack. It is not as relevant in the HPS series with the weak ZoC but in the Talonsoft series it could be devastating. One of my favorite tricks was to put a weak unit in the middle of two strong ones in my line knowing that a lot of Rebs couldn't resist meleeing that spot and avoiding the strong units. Then I'd counterattack with my reserves and kill that unit(s) with a ZoC kill that the Reb had put himself into. Of course with the HPS games you won't get the ZoC kill but you can lay some serious volleys into an already disrupted unit and have a decent chance of getting it to rout. As to the question of enough units that is a tough one. Don't be afraid to give up ground if necessary to maintain the integrity of your line. It's got to be something pretty important to stand fast with no reserves in place. Remember that any time you make the attacker move to shoot at you then he only fires at half strength also.