What is with all these generals in 1861 Grand Campaign?

[Daniel_Morgan]

Ok first of all I am new here and new to the game. I kind of borked up the 1862 in the West scenario, so I figured, I would go ahead and try the Grand Campaign with Kentucky starting in 1861.

Im the Union.

In 1861, I get all these generals in Washington am barely able to "division" most of them out by the end of the year, early next year (1862), using mainly militia early in the game to flush out divisions. And using a lot of adhoc screwy command mish mash units to do stuff until I can take a breath over the first winter.

Then in 1862 sometime early in the year I get a slew more generals.

Am I missing something?

Am I ever going to find a division for all these generals?

Is that generally what its going to take to win?

[Jim-NC]

You are supposed to get all those generals. You also get a few extra by event (like Sherman shows up with Grant, etc.). A lone division (not in a corps) requires 2 * generals (or 1 ** general) to avoid the command penalty.

As the union, you can raise up to 60 divisions. With a few corps commanders, and armies, you could be looking at 70-80 generals needed. That does not include non divisional forces (raiders, garrisons, etc.) that you could place a general in.

If you want to see force lists needed for the game, look at the AAR section. You can see what some people have done and what forces they have needed to win.

[GraniteStater]

I'm still remiss on the generals. In general (hah, hah), be glad, you'll need them.

Here's where I'm at nowadays:

* April of July 61 - not really enough, and not enough **'s. I look forward to 62, where I get more (actually, I'm in a July61 start right now, so that one might be hurtin' - IIRC, you do get quite a few in June 61). Anyhow, you need them for Div commanders, obviously; even before Mar62 & Corps commands, the **'s are good to have because they essentially let you have larger, more powerful formations.

* Then there's garrisons - I almost always have leaders for garrison duty in important frontline cities and towns - this becomes more acute as you start to push further south. It is my belief that it's better to have a Leader for a garrison subject to potential attack, than not.

* Particularly past Mar62 & Corps, you will be looking for **'s all the time - Corps commanders and for command of Independent stacks, especially if you want to have a powerful Cavalry stack.

* As mentioned, 2 *'s in a small to medium stack alleviates CP penalties; in larger stacks, I almost always have an Asst Commander (** and a *). Corps usually don't have to have an Asst Commander, but it's not a bad idea if you have a decent one, 'cuz I believe you do benefit from the Leader, even if he's not commanding anything directly.

* You need a few for way out West as the Union against the AI, 'cuz Athena likes to Quantrill and Watie (did I just invent some verbs?) and annoy you, in general, and she usually has a Leader doing this.

I usually segregate all the "faceless" Leaders. I also set aside any Leader who has anything going for him besides 3-1-1. I set aside and group the **'s, also, for obvious reasons.

Then, later in the game, in 63, you get much better Leaders. Now, you need to have them take over Divisions, particularly in the East. I am still much remiss at this and have been trying to be not so lazy and put the better ones in there; it's most definitely worth it, Reynolds and Hancock and Gibbon start showing the Rebs who's boss, a marked improvement over the varsity you started with.

BTW, I don't know if there's "hidden" code that secretly gives a boost to people like Runyon ( a 3-1-1) or Hunter (same), who, IRL, weren't that bad, perhaps not outstanding like Hancock, but decent, competent commanders. I always take Tyler and Miles away from anything important (RL record); Mansfield's not too bad, if you don't expect miracles from him; Lew Wallace goes to the head of the class. McClernand goes to recruiting, so does Burnside, although Burnside can be used later; Banks stays on recruiting duty.

Maybe I'm completely wrong, but I assign some of those I know from history based on history, even though the game gives them these numbers (Lew Wallace should be a 4-2-2 from the start, IMHO; oh, well).

[Cromagnonman]

Don't think you have to give all your generals a division. As the Union, I build divisions and then look for someone to command them. If there's someine really good I'll wait for them to activate. Otherwise they go the most senior *guy currently activated. Other guys go off to various garrisons, most importantly Ft Pickens.

Before you can make corps, and especially before divisions, you'll need everyone you can get your hands on. I usually end up with a * commanding every single brigade in my combat units through 1861. Once you start getting better generals and more efficient command structures, you can send your less-effective guys back to garrison duty. I don't think Banks, Burnside, or McClernand have ever left the big Northern cities in one of my games.

[hgilmer]

I've played 2 GCs so far and always have a whole bunch I haven't used. Seems like there is never enough time to get them all commands. But, they are all historical, so they were used for something historically.

[Cromagnonman]

Not nearly as many die as did historically; they don't tend to leave service at all, in fact.

[Wallace]

But it makes sense you'll need them, It's interesting to see how long its going to take me to comphrend the magnitude of a full campaign. My first attempt today Jumped in pretty blind.

[Jorje Vidrio]

Before you can make corps, and especially before divisions, you'll need everyone you can get your hands on. I usually end up with a * commanding every single brigade in my combat units through 1861. Once you start getting better generals and more efficient command structures, you can send your less-effective guys back to garrison duty.

So early on in 1861, you would recommend stacking a *general with each brigade, then stacking as many as you can with the ***general to make the biggest stack possible? Before you can make corps, it seems you would have to do this.

[Cromagnonman]

So early on in 1861, you would recommend stacking a *general with each brigade, then stacking as many as you can with the ***general to make the biggest stack possible? Before you can make corps, it seems you would have to do this.

I usually do whatever gets me the lowest CP penalty. Even an army HQ can't command many independent brigades effectively. Usually I turn McDowell's army into several stacksled by 2-stars, etc, then spread around my brigadiers wherever (like Patterson's army) and Missourah.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

I usually do whatever gets me the lowest CP penalty. Even an army HQ can't command many independent brigades effectively. Usually I turn McDowell's army into several stacksled by 2-stars, etc, then spread around my brigadiers wherever (like Patterson's army) and Missourah.

I allow McDowell to command a super stack, even with the 35% penalty. If the enemy doesn't do the same then you can run him over. The various stack method often means they won't fight together when you want them to.

[Jorje Vidrio]

I'm playing the Union in 1861 and was surprised to see all those Union one star generals.

But now I'm finding that not only have I used every single one of them, but I don't have nearly enough to command all these Union generals.

Besides McDowell commanding the Army of the Potomac, there are a lot of small groups operating independently. There's no coordination at all with my offensives.

I'm looking forward to whenever Corps appear. It sure will help offensives!