Blood and Thunder Brigade
Lieutenant
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Tasmania, Australia

Re: Civil War 3 suggestion that I like so much I'm posting it again ;)

Fri Oct 25, 2019 6:06 am

lightbrave wrote:I would like to be able to have lesser generals be appointed to Army Commander.


While I was somewhat initially opposed to this idea, the more I think about it now the more I like it. I'd like to be able to handpick/designate the army or corps commander that I want from any one of the generals available to me, and I don't want rank or seniority getting in the way of that choice. While I still believe that leapfrogging a far more junior general over the heads of those more senior commanders should have repercussions (I'm not currently sure what those repercussions should be), I don't believe that it should be any great obstacle either. Just think of Lincoln choosing Meade ;)

User avatar
DrPostman
Posts: 3001
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube

Re: Civil War 3 suggestion that I like so much I'm posting it again ;)

Sat Oct 26, 2019 7:51 pm

Blood and Thunder Brigade wrote:
lightbrave wrote:While I still believe that leapfrogging a far more junior general over the heads of those more senior commanders should have repercussions (I'm not currently sure what those repercussions should be), I don't believe that it should be any great obstacle either. Just think of Lincoln choosing Meade ;)


Political consequences were much bigger back then then they are today. We didn't
much of a professional army nor it's traditions like we do today. Back then it was all
about state militias and appointments to command those units usually involved political
influence over anything else. That would have to continue to be a factor in the game.

Blood and Thunder Brigade
Lieutenant
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Tasmania, Australia

Re: Civil War 3 suggestion that I like so much I'm posting it again ;)

Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:24 am

DrPostman wrote:
Blood and Thunder Brigade wrote:
lightbrave wrote:While I still believe that leapfrogging a far more junior general over the heads of those more senior commanders should have repercussions (I'm not currently sure what those repercussions should be), I don't believe that it should be any great obstacle either. Just think of Lincoln choosing Meade ;)


Political consequences were much bigger back then then they are today. We didn't
much of a professional army nor it's traditions like we do today. Back then it was all
about state militias and appointments to command those units usually involved political
influence over anything else. That would have to continue to be a factor in the game.


A factor, yes, but I don't think that should preclude the player from choosing essentially whoever they want to command an army or corps. After all, it is just a game, and the player the Commander in Chief, so to speak. Besides, a player selecting completely the wrong person for high command would seem positively Lincolnesque, and as such, absolutely historical ;)

User avatar
DrPostman
Posts: 3001
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube

Re: Civil War 3 suggestion that I like so much I'm posting it again ;)

Mon Oct 28, 2019 6:04 pm

Most players want a historical feel to the game, and politics played an enormous role
during the war. There were just too many incompetent generals active in leadership to
simply avoid that fact by appointing those we know are going to perform better. Without
consequences to those choices I wouldn't find it as interesting a game, personally.

Blood and Thunder Brigade
Lieutenant
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Tasmania, Australia

Re: Civil War 3 suggestion that I like so much I'm posting it again ;)

Tue Oct 29, 2019 7:21 am

DrPostman wrote:Most players want a historical feel to the game, and politics played an enormous role
during the war. There were just too many incompetent generals active in leadership to
simply avoid that fact by appointing those we know are going to perform better. Without
consequences to those choices I wouldn't find it as interesting a game, personally.


I'd agree that maintaining that historical feel to the game is very important. I, too, enjoy that a great deal. I'd also agree that seniority, incompetence, politics, etc, should also be a factor. While I think that the parameters for army command should be different, I feel that any general who has experience commanding at division level should be eligible to command a corps at the discretion of the player. I think that to maintain that historical 'feel', perhaps a general that has been passed over could offer his resignation, or request a transfer to a different department or his statistics, morale, etc, could be temporarily affected by being snubbed? I'd consider any or all of those possibilities much more realistic and historical than losing national morale or seniority points.

I dunno mate... I'm just throwing ideas out there and hoping some will stick :)

Return to “Civil War II”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: chocko101 and 3 guests