Losing seniority over casualties...

[ajarnlance]

Correct me if I'm wrong but do generals lose seniority even if they win a battle if their casualties are more than their opponent? This doesn't seem to be historically accurate. During the battles of the Seven Pines Lee pushed McClellan off the Peninsula and was a hero to the South. However, if you examine each of the battles you will see that the Confederate casualties were higher than the Union in most cases. However, the southern government were more influenced by who retreated and which side was left in possession of the field i.e. it was Lee's success in winning the strategic goals that was more important. What do people think?? Maybe loss/ gain of seniority should be linked more to strategic objectives??[B][/B]

[loki100]

Not a comment on whether or not its historical in the context of the ACW, but its a common mechanic in other AGE games. I tend to think of it as sort of being in disgrace and losing prestige for having led an army so badly that you lost so many men (despite 'winning')

[James D Burns]

It’s not as cut and dry as you might think. In my current game Grant lost 2 out of his last three battles yet became promotable to his third star after his last loss. So whatever controls loss or gain of seniority isn’t as simple as winning and losing fights. I think win/loss, number of men lost, etc. are simply another weight added to whatever the finally calculation is.

Jim

[ajarnlance]

Thanks for the feedback. Sounds like the final calculations are more complicated than I first thought. Would be nice to hear from AGEOD what the various factors are.

[Pocus]

it mostly comes from the worth of each troop also, as expressed in VPs.