CSA Divisions

[Brochgale]

I have a request to incresae the number of divisions the CSA can create! Is there some reason for restriction of 24. I have a stack of generals with no way to promote any of them till another general gets killed or wounded! Also some of my stacks are starting to get a bit messy and unweildy due to having so many generals also inactive for resons that I dont entirely fathom?
Why wont yanks kill my useless generals!

[caranorn]

Well the Yanks have even more useless generals. I rather think there are too many generic generals in the game right now. But that's just my opinion.

[McNaughton]

Generals don't necessarily belong in the front lines. Historically, a lot of generals were moved out of frontline service to serve at in garrison duties, etc. Stick a general or two in some locked garrison stacks (say the Richmond Garrison) and they will actually help things out (by removing the stack penalty).

Also, every extra general in a stack improves the combat capability of every unit (by around 3% I believe).

So, they are far from useless (even the lowly 3-1-1).

[Guru80]

I use to think the same thing but have put a general with every unit no matter where stationed, starting with the more important locations first, and there isn't enough generals to go around.

I use to leave a stack of like 20 Generals stuck in Washington with nothing to do but once I started getting raiders all over my territory I found having a General out there with all those garrisons make defense a lot more effective since you aren't having a penatly and you can combine say 3-4 militia/cav/whatever and not end up with 15-35% percent penalty which can be the difference between repulsing the invader or running for the nearest town with your tail between your legs.

As for the limitation of 24 divisions if for historical purposes

[caranorn]

Heh, in my current game (late November 1863) I have 58 (fifty-eight) generals sitting in Washington. One of them is a former corps commander on semi active duty (he was good enough to use in combat if needed). One is a former army commander just sent to Washington (he made a good corps commander until the day he outranked (seniority) his army commander... and lost myself an important battle). A few of the remaining are of good enough quality to be given command of a division, the problem is sifting through that lot of 56 generals and finding the decent ones. Despite this general's retirement home at Washington I have no shortage of front line commanders (I have a few spare capable ones with any major force) or garrison commanders (not all my garrisons have commanders, but all those holding important locations do). Even if I were to sort through that stack of officers and send the few so far overlooked capable ones out to the field and send some more of the rabble to likely raided garrisons (I'm mostly seeing raids in Kansas and Missouri, very rarely anywhere further east now that I've secured Kentucky and northern Tennessee) I'd still have a large surplus.

Though maybe leader casualty rates are the bigger issue here rather then too few divisions or too many leaders. I only had a single fatality in this game so far, and that was probably due to that leader's inability to rebase when Fort Pickens fell to the AI. With slightly more then 210 000 Union casualties so far that's a rather low rate of mortality for general officers.

P.S.: So there's no misunderstanding, I don't think this is a major issue, just slightly annoying to either have to send out the rabble to posts throughout the safe North, or to have to collect the lot at Washington. Though it was fun to see the lot scramble for safety when Washington fell for half a turn (an AI flank march taking me momentarily by surprise (Jackson would have been proud of his AI version, though the following battle settled the fate of Virginia in my favour)).

[richfed]

Never too many Generals for me ...