Seniority Question

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

Playing 1.11d as USA against AI, no mods. What I'm trying to do: replace McClellan as AotP commander without paying a VP or NM penalty.

This screen implies that Banks has more seniority than McClellan:



These screens make me not so sure:









Is seniority "2[7]" higher than seniority "4[4]"? I guess it's the bracketed number that is confusing me. Is this a distinction between "where he is now" (the unbracketed number) vs. "where he started" (the bracketed number)?

I won't upload any saved game files yet on the presumption that this is my own confusion rather than a bug.

Also, why does one tooltip say that Little Mac is "unassigned," while the other tooltip says he is "in command of" the AotP?

[Rafiki]

Is seniority "2[7]" higher than seniority "4[4]"? I guess it's the bracketed number that is confusing me. Is this a distinction between "where he is now" (the unbracketed number) vs. "where he started" (the bracketed number)?

Yes, on both questions. One of the paths to promotions is to get a seniority that is 4 higher than what you started with; to keep track of that, you need to know where they started.

Dunno about the tooltips; what part of the screen is the mouse over for each tooltip?

[ohms_law]

One thing to note about the second tooltip: If you remove McClellan then you're set to take a penalty no matter what. However, if you assign someone else of higher seniority before the end of the turn then you won't take it.

The first tooltip, about "most senior unasigned commander", it always says "unassigned". What it says has no bering on what's actually occuring, though. That tooltip should probably simply omit the word "unassigned".

[Pocus]

I'll fix the tooltip. thanks.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[ohms_law]

Since every time that I've seen it the text is the same regardless of whether or not the general has a command already, I don't think that the game checks...
(note as well that the screeshot posted shows McClellan in command of the Army of the Potomac, yet it still says "unassigned". That's my experience with it as well.)

[Heldenkaiser]

In my experience, the text ("has the most seniority among unassigned generals") is correct, as you only get that if you are checking to assign someone to an army command, and in for that he has to be unassigned. The only confusion in my opinion is the word "generals" which should probably be clarified to refer only to potential army commanders, i.e. three-stars.

However. I have noticed that when you have two three-stars in one location, the tooltip occasionally confuses the names of both. Sometimes it's even constantly flashing between the one name and the other while you hover over the icon. So I suppose your first could actually refer to Banks rather than McClellan, and then the text would in fact be correct.

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

I got the flashing back and forth when I had Rosecrans in the stack with both McClellan and Banks. The flashing stopped when I pulled Rosecrans out.

[Daxil]

One thing that's a little bit frustrating and runs along these lines, is when you promote a general of lesser seniority and take a VP hit despite the fact the more senior leader isn't promotoble. I'd promote him if I could! It's just sort of a nonsensical result IMO.

[ohms_law]

It's up to you to actually promote, though. If you're worried about the penalty, don't promote the junior guy. If you're more worried about getting the new 2 or 3 star general, then you'll be willing to pay the penalty.

For the Military (and "real" jobs as well, for that matter), promotions are a big deal. In my view the penalty is a pretty good game mechanic. If I were designing the game I might have gone with something more specific to the army such as an overall cohesiveness modifier instead, but that's just a detail.