AGEOD Forums

Each side should have an Eastern and Western theater commanders who are above generals similar to GHQ’s in To End All Wars.

Papa Thomas wrote:Each side should have an Eastern and Western theater commanders who are above generals similar to GHQ’s in To End All Wars.

While that did happen, Armies operated mostly independent of any theater command
during the Civil War. It wasn't nearly as important a post as during WW1, because
Army commanders more often than not had the ear of Davis, or, the ire of Lincoln.
E Kirby Smith was the only one who I could consider an effective theater commander.
When they were isolated after losing control of the Mississippi the Trans-Mississippi
theater was often referred to as "Kirby Smithdom".

The command structure of the Union forces evolved throughout the war.

At the beginning there was only the General in Chief (Scott) and Department commands, which comprised areas large and important enough to implement an army and later several armies so that Departments were divided up into Districts.

Some examples early in the war:

- McDowell was commander of the Northeastern Virgina Department. He also commanded the army.
- Butler commanded the Virginia Department, which comprised all of eastern Virginia not belonging to the Northeastern Virginia Department.
- Fremont commanded the Mississippi Department which was Missouri, and probably Kansas, but definitely both sides of the Mississippi River far enough for operations. Halleck took this Department over after Fremont was removed.

- Buell got the Department of the Ohio and lead that army in the field, while Grant although outranking Buell lead one of the field armies of the Mississippi Department on the eastern side of the Mississippi as the Army of the Tennessee in the District of West Tennessee.

I'm don't know the iterations of change between Donelson and Shiloh, but after Shiloh there were in the field east of the Mississippi River the Army of the Tennessee (Grant), the Army of the Ohio (Buell) and the Army of the Mississippi (Pope), where by the Army of the Ohio was only temporarily under Halleck/Grant's command. After Corinth Halleck released Buell and scattered the rest of the remaining forces. Grant protested this because a united force could do far more that a force spread out all over the Mississippi Department.

After Vicksburg, with support from Lincoln, Grant finally got his way and was given command of most of the forces west of the Appalachians and south of Kentucky.

Anyway, I don't think there ever was a unified command of Departments in the East as there was in the West until Grant was given the command of all of it at once.

DrPostman wrote:While that did happen, Armies operated mostly independent of any theater command
during the Civil War. It wasn't nearly as important a post as during WW1, because
Army commanders more often than not had the ear of Davis, or, the ire of Lincoln.
E Kirby Smith was the only one who I could consider an effective theater commander.
When they were isolated after losing control of the Mississippi the Trans-Mississippi
theater was often referred to as "Kirby Smithdom".

The benefit to the game would be armies being able to march to the sound of guns similar to the way corps can assist each other. Some examples of this is for the union side at the battle of Shilo, or Confederate’s at the battle of 1st Bull Run. If two armies are adjacent to one another but in separate regions and are in the same theater they will march to the sound of guns.
Both sides defined the theater boundary as the application mountain range. And a costal, or south eastern theater could also be used by both sides.

Captain_Orso wrote:The command structure of the Union forces evolved throughout the war.

Anyway, I don't think there ever was a unified command of Departments in the East as there was in the West until Grant was given the command of all of it at once.

McClellan was given general in chief command in 1861, and did direct efforts beyond the Army of the Potomac. However when he was relieved of that command it is true that there was not a theater commander in the East until Grants arrival. I would surmise that Lincoln and Stanton wanted to implement their own campaign agendas and thus left the position unfilled. But this is the only example of a vacancy. Both sides had clearly defined theater commanders which did direct army operations, and allowed armies to fight in unison.

If the main goal were to allow MTSG between army and corps stacks of different armies, that could probably be done without having to implement any other rules and without a huge change to the game engine.

To implement Departments and Districts properly, which would be interesting, but it would require a lot of new rules and programming.

I totally understand that my idea is most likely a ton of work, and would not be worth the programing. I just thought it was a good idea for game play, and it would be more historically accurate.
Just keep the idea in mind if you are working on something similar I think it would be a fun addition to the game.
Orso thank you for the response.

Captain_Orso wrote:If the main goal were to allow MTSG between army and corps stacks of different armies, that could probably be done without having to implement any other rules and without a huge change to the game engine.

To implement Departments and Districts properly, which would be interesting, but it would require a lot of new rules and programming.

What is the difference between Departments and Districts? Are they just levels of command, District is always under Department?

Both where used as names for commands and very different sizes of geographical areas/cities.

The full breakdown would actually be:

General-in-Chief of the Army
[INDENT]Military Division (created during the war)
[INDENT]Department (generally authorizing an army command, but could also contain several other Departments and Armies)
[INDENT]District (smaller than an army command and generally operating independent of an army command structure, but not necessarily)[/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT]

During the war there were no hard structures to be followed. It had more to do with necessity and the advantages of consolidating commands for operations and politics played a large role too.

Early in '62 Halleck as commander of Department of Missouri was given command over the Departments of the Ohio, Cumberland, Tennessee and Missouri as the highest ranking general in the theater. The all those Departments --more or less-- became the Military Division of the Mississippi. When Halleck was called east to become General-in-Chief he basically dropped that command post so that it could not be given to Grant, who would have then been the highest ranking general in the theater, and that there could be no concerted efforts between the several armies.

Only after Vicksburg was the Military Division of the Mississippi created so that Grant could have command over all the forces between the Appalachians and Rockies.

There were lots of exceptions to the above. A rather simple overview can be found in Wikipedia: Union Army.