AGEOD Forums

I have been working on wrapping up my mod, now focussing on the generals, and have come to a few questions and realizations, which result in more questions...

First, the ranking system seems to be sort of akward.

The CSA followed the following ranking system...

General (Lee, Johnston, etc.)
- Commanded Armies
- Commanded Theatres

Lieutenant General (Longstreet, Jackson, etc.)
- Commanded Corps

Major General (E.K. Smith, D.H. Hill, Magruder, etc.)
- Commanded Divisions
- Commanded Corps/Departments/Armies (armies only in name, division-corps sized)

Brigadier General (Floyd, Loring, etc.)
- Commanded Brigades
- Commanded Corps/Departments/Armies (armies only in name, division-corps sized)

Now, my problem is, historically there were many CSA generals promoted to Major General rank in October 1861 (E.K. Smith, Jackson, Longstreet, Magruder, Holmes, Huger, Bragg, Hardee) and a few others promoted in very early 1862 (Ewell, D. H. Hill, A. P. Hill, Cheatham, Hindman). Some served as division commanders (Ewell, Hill), while others were a mix of Division, Wing, and Department. The problem is, rank was interchangable. Major Generals didn't necessarily command Divisions, but could command higher formations. Same with Brigadiers. It only becomes stricter later on after Lee's reform, where rank was (Brigadier = Brigade, Major General = Division, Lieutenant General = Corps) and out West the definition was not quite as strictly enforced.

The Union situation is also very different.

The ranks are very different than those of the CSA.

Lieutenant General (highest rank in the Union)
- Commanded Theatres of War

Major General
- Commanded Armies
- Commanded Corps/Departments

Brigadier General
- Commanded Divisions
- Commanded Brigades

The major problem arises with the Major General being the primary command rank for larger formations. A 2-star general theoretically had the ability to command Armies or Corps, based primarily on their seniority (as well as favour with the government).

I figure that the 3-star rank in game is basically a Major General with higher official seniority, given Presidential order to command an army. There are fewer problems, as the USA tends to follow the design more appropriately (1-star to command divisions, 2/3-star to command higher formations). Brigadier Generals were rarely allowed larger command (which fits in the system), while Major Generals (for the Union, both 2 and 3 star are major generals) commanded larger forces.

I am working on some promotion events, and can do so very easily for the USA (either they commanded a division, or a higher force).

However, as I stated earlier, if I give the CSA the historic amount of promotions in late 1861, they will have loads of Corps-capable commanders out there.

However, maybe this is good? Since the CSA lacks quantity, it must rely on quality. Also, only a few of the promoted are top-quality (Huger, Holmes, Magruder are all sub-par).

In all cases, I think the thing to do is to ignore the differences in the USA/CSA generals ranks, and to make decisions based only on the maximum size of the formations they commanded historically, or that you want them to be able to command.

* - division
** - corps
*** - army

It's that simple. Don't get caught up in the apparent paradox that both John Magruder and George McClellan were both Major Generals. It's meaningless in game terms.

runyan99 wrote:In all cases, I think the thing to do is to ignore the differences in the USA/CSA generals ranks, and to make decisions based only on the maximum size of the formations they commanded historically, or that you want them to be able to command.

* - division
** - corps
*** - army

It's that simple. Don't get caught up in the apparent paradox that both John Magruder and George McClellan were both Major Generals. It's meaningless in game terms.

The difficulty I have is not comparing the USA to the CSA (the USA tends to fit very well in the AGEOD system, the CSA is a tad bit less organized).

I wonder if ranks were given, and commands assumed more by necessity rather than rank?

Were the ranks of 'Major General' in the Confederacy (out East) matching the rank of 'Major General' in AGEOD's AACW? Technically, the generals commanded division and/or corps sized formations at the same rank. In October 1861 many brigadier generals were promoted to major general. They initially commanded individual divisions, yet were subsequently given command of groups of divisions or other independent commands (without any further promotion).

However, there were some brigadiers promoted to major general in early 1862. These, however, were almost strictly in command of divisions (Ewell, AP Hill, DH Hill, etc.) until a command role was opened up (due to death, movement, or retirement).

While the first batch of Brigadiers promoted to Major Generals do seem to fit the role (commanded groups if divisions as well as their own), what about the second batch? Just because they weren't given 'corps' command is possibly due to a limitation of force (not enough corps to go around), rather than inability via rank.

So, should these later Major Generals (later as in early 1862) be Major Generals, or Brigadier Generals (since they did only command divisions, but, had rank to command larger formations)?

Jackson, promoted to Major General in October 1861
Ewell, promoted to Major General in January 1862

Ewell was a divisional commander in Jackson's command. Both were the same rank, just one had greater seniority. In late 1862 Jackson was promoted to Lieutenant General, but for that entire year he was superior in seniority, but not rank, to those he commanded.

Lee moved the vast majority of those promoted in October 1861 out West (Holmes, Huger, Magruder, EK Smith moved out earlier) leaving only Longstreet and Jackson out east who were Major Generals before 1862 (thereby highest seniority). AP Hill, DH Hill, Ewell etc. were all Major Generals, yet, because of seniority, and that there were only two wings of the army, were kept as divisional commanders (yet, even here, with the larger Confederate Divisions equating individually almost as much as a Union Corps).

--THINKING--

I am thinking, though, in order to add command points to the CSA formations (MG give more CP than BG), that it would be viable to have these later Major Generals as such in the CSA. The 'problem' is, that players would have the ability to create more corps as the CSA (due to having Ewell, DH and AP Hill avaliable). Yet, maybe the two corps designation was more policy than anything else with Lee.

McNaughton wrote:
I wonder if ranks were given, and commands assumed more by necessity rather than rank?

Of course they were. Either I don't understand what you are struggling with, or you are making this way more complicated than it has to be.

Who do you want to be able to command a corps in AACW? That's who you give ** rank to. I really don't care if historically their rank was colonel or Lt. General. It is irrelevant.

Was Jackson's army of the Valley a division, a corps, or an army? That's the important question. Do you want him to be a corps commander in early 1862, or a senior division commander who can cobble together the 'army of the valley' with the help of some other division commanders.

Was Grant in command of a three division army at Ft. Donelson, or was that really a three division corps under Halleck's army command?

Looking at historical ranks in the wrong approach. Look at the size of the forces the general in question commanded, and then give him the appropriate rank in AACW terms. That's the issue at question in reality.

For example, Edward Johnson was a Major General for the CSA. Did he command a corps? No, he commanded a division. So, he is an * in AACW. (Or should be).

If a general had a higher historical rank than his level of responsibility, wouldn't you want to go with the rank? Otherwise, you lose out on a bunch of interesting what-ifs. My preference would be to make promotion opportunities as liberal as is feasible. If you had a Brigadier General of volunteers (who ranked as a Captain in the regular army) and he only ever commanded a brigade, getting killed in early 1862; I would still like to see a ** option for him. That said, I'd like to see more generals getting killed as well.