More detail in unit ranking system?

[DU5KF1RE]

I feel like the ranking system should have a few more levels of stars. After all, following the current system, the legendary Iron Brigade shares a 3 star ranking with quite a number of brigades, despite their reputation as one of the best brigades of the war. As such, giving brigades like the Stonewall and Iron brigades more stars than others would afford them the recognition they deserve, as well as help those who don't know much about the various brigades. 

[MikeK]

More gradations also raises more issues about ranking, and as of what date? Some units built, enhanced (e.g. the Iron Brigade of the West (Black Hats) you refer to, most of whom were casualties) or recovered reputations at Gettysburg (e.g., the troops who had earlier been surrendered at Harper's Ferry), while others gained from favorable or unfavorable circumstances.

 

The most common classification schemes for troop quality (aside from equipment) tend to fall into three categories.

- raw, green, unseasoned, recruits - not having "seen the elephant" was the expression then

- seasoned, experienced

- veterans (usually fight better, but mostly fight smarter - likelier to be wary and sometimes shy of dangerous situations but less liable to panic) 

 

There should not be much disagreement over classifying brigades under a tripartite scheme.

 

 

Elite status or elan and the effects of being worn or demoralized by adverse experiences are another dimension of classification (such as very well trained units or unseasoned but elite formations determined to fight well, or shaky veterans - or troops freshly reorganized into a new brigade).  These affect the dynamics of morale on the battlefield. 

 

So a 3 level quality system and dynamic representation of morale and condition seems sufficient to capture what needs to be represented here. There are other things that benefit more from improvements. 

 

I think the number of men and number of stars provides enough information for new players. The unit card could provide identification of division commanders as well as division numbers to relate to historical maps and accounts.

 

Otherwise, for more historical information about the unit (together with performance information from the battle itself? - if they routed or routed their opponents, repulsed assaults, etc. beyond mere casualties) an info window could be added later. 

[Husserl]

Every unit has its personal starting stats according the historical data. Two elite units (3 stars) do not necessarily have the same stats while both remain superior than the 2 and 1 stars level units.

[R.E.B.Blunt]

The thing I do not like is that the Unit ranking system is not based on what the units actual degree of skill was, but is based on how that unit preformed at the Battle of Gettysburg. Everybody has a bad day (Or 3) they shouldn't be judged on that but on over-all skill through out the entire war. Point in fact basically Robertson's Brigade is every bit as good as a Brigade as Archer (My opinion better than Archer) or Iron Brigade. In this game they are only given 2 stars. Very disappointing in my opinion.

['Card]

The problem with more 'precise' unit ranking is that so much of a unit's perceived skill and effectiveness was based on reputation, and reputation was often a product of good marketing and PR, just as much as it was combat performance.

 

And if we start looking at comparing combat performance from battle to battle, then we also have to mix in dozens of other factors. Were they outnumbered? Was the sun in their eyes? Did they have a good breakfast that morning? How does good performance in an open field compare to good performance when knee deep in a swamp? Or climbing a rocky hillside? Do we count it against a unit less if they got routed at night, as compared to one that got routed in broad daylight?

[RichardMcCor]

Despite some of the misgivings it does seem unnecessarily coarse to have just 3 stars (at 33% per star) vs say a 10 star system allowing 10% per star and the ability to fit in Robinson vs Archer vs Iron Brigade at a more granular level as needed.

[Husserl]

The thing I do not like is that the Unit ranking system is not based on what the units actual degree of skill was, but is based on how that unit preformed at the Battle of Gettysburg. Everybody has a bad day (Or 3) they shouldn't be judged on that but on over-all skill through out the entire war. Point in fact basically Robertson's Brigade is every bit as good as a Brigade as Archer (My opinion better than Archer) or Iron Brigade. In this game they are only given 2 stars. Very disappointing in my opinion.

 

The unit ranking system is based on the skills they had before the battle of Gettysburg. You can see that, for example, with Archer (as you noted, it had not the best performance on the morning of the first day...). Indeed, however, we had some units adjusted according their performance during the battle of Gettysburg, like Barlow's devision (which withdraw almost on the first sight of Early's men), but we have already corrected those cases in previous patches. We'll check the case about Texas Brigade you've also noted.   

 

Edit: Texas Brigade will be a 3 star unit in next update.