User avatar
paw1776
Captain
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 5:29 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact: Website

Army Ranks

Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:41 am

[color="Blue"]USA [/color]- [color="SlateGray"]CSA [/color]Army Ranks

2nd Lt.
1st Lt.
Captain
Major
Lt. Col.
Colonel
Brig. Gen.
Maj. Gen.
Lt. Gen.
General


If the game is going to only have Generals, it would be nice if the actual rank were used, and upon promotions they climb the ladder.

By putting everyone as General, you lose the flare of the different ranks and who is really senior to who.

Plus it gives a more historical feel.

Yes, I can look at the Senority, but having the Actual rank is more realistic.

User avatar
Rafiki
Posts: 5811
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Oslo, Norway

Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:46 am

The trouble is that there are many cases where the rank a person had didn't correspond to the kind of organization that the person commanded, and the number of stars in AACW is guided by the latter. If rank is to be assigned based on stars, you would then risk having generals listed with a rank that doesn't correspond to what they had (in name, at least) historically, which I think is not good from a "historical immersion" point of view.

My 2 cents :)
[CENTER]Latest patches: AACW :: NCP :: WIA :: ROP :: RUS :: PON :: AJE
Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
[/CENTER]

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:50 am

In the game, different ranked generals historically command specific formations. Since the game uses the number of stars (ranked) to determine which level of command they are capable of (instead of a formal title), we're rather stuck with the current general name of "General" (Oops, a pun), and generally refer to them in-game as a 1-star, 2-star, 3-star, or in rare cases a 4-star general.

This is one of the game design peculiarities that you will just have to get used to since the number of stars determines their in-game capabilities and not a title.

rats... beat out by an aloof monkey. :D (correction... an aloof Lion)... hehe

User avatar
paw1776
Captain
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 5:29 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact: Website

Tue Apr 14, 2009 12:11 pm

Okay, that makes sense now.

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Tue Apr 14, 2009 12:20 pm

To expand the earlier post...

In the game:

1-stars can command divisions
2-stars can command divsions, or corps
3-stars can command divisions, corps, or armies
4-stars = glorified 3 star... i.e. same capabilities

When correcting the OOBs, I read up on the formation the particular general might have commanded then assign the "star" rank accordingly.

There are some "Easter Egg" Unit Detail Box names also for those leaders that we just could not find actual data for... example: Col. M. Twain

Return to “Help to improve AACW!”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests