Promoting Leaders

[kentul01]

Whats the fastest way to get your leaders to be promotable? Would it be combat? If so, I'm having a very hard time getting any Reb leaders west of the mississippi to get promotable.

[el_Gato]

Yah, tell me about it.

I've had Braxton Bragg in the Far West for most of the game (it's now Winter 1863), and he's still only a one-star. Kind of odd, in that IRL his date of rank for Major General is Sept 1861 (so why does he start as a Brigadier?), and he made 3-star by Apr '62.

[caranorn]

I think some of those 1-stars start out with too low a seniority. As far as I can tell there are only two ways to advance, battle or events (and any leader who doesn't have promotion by event/date won't notice the later).

[pasternakski]

I agree, gentlemen (not that my agreeing with anything means spit).

Seems to me that the rigid numerical linearity for seniority of one-star generals ought to be broken down into "steps." After all, how much of a national-level penalty should you have to pay when making promotion decisions at that level?

Promotion opportunities ought to be easier to "earn," although one needs to be careful not to wind up with 25 three-star generals running all over the map ... maybe some who wound up at high levels of command historically ought to have an easier time being "noticed."

Howzabout adding the possibility of promoting those poor ole colonels when they do something wonderful?

Just thinkin' out loud here.

[pasternakski]

On second thought, the "promoting colonels" thingie is a bad idea.

[Pocus]

the political value are so low at this ranks, that it amounts to nearly nothing in VP and is 0 for the morale, so you can promote most if not all one star to 2 star without an afterthought.

[veji1]

They have to be promotable though ( reach low enoug seniority...) no ?

About promotion, I think generals should gain seniority from capturing objectives almost as much as for battles : in one of my games Edward Johnson and Bragg captured Lexington in late 1862 : They should get congratulated just as much as for a battle victory...

I don't know if Pol value is dynamic as well, but it could be to some extent as well depending on capture of cities or victories that earn a general more politic clout...

[Adam the VIth]

This is an interesting discussion -- I never realized the impact/importance of the seniority and the rivalry between generals for these ranks during the civil war. Then I read Shelby Foote's seres (still in book one) --- wow. What a headache this seniority creates.

Bottom line is that promotions were very frequent in coming --- especially for winning battles, but even just for taking objectives (even undefended ones). This does deserve some sort of weighting. Perhaps "points" for taking towns --- could be open to abuse though....take town, lose town, take town, etc.

Would be great if poor generals who lost lots of battles could get sent to the rear or worse too!

[Pocus]

no we won't gives seniority to generals when they take an objective. I can see how I could exploit that with Sherman, by cleaning the CSA before he enter unchecked into any town

The POL value is dynamic, in both direction. Win battles, have POL and seniority improve. Lose battles, have them degraded.

[Wilhammer]

I have noticed that I had leaders conduct a siege, and eventually force a surrender, and they earned no kudos for it.

I wish they did.

[Hohenlohe]

In my Union campaign I got Lyon promoted from one-star to three-star after some battles.Now I want to give him an army command because I think he earned that.