AGEOD Forums

How does giving US Grant command of an Army benefit me? I am still very inexperienced but since his Siege Expert, Master Logician and Good Sub Commanders traits only help units in his stack wouldn't he be more beneficial as a Corps commander where he will have many more combat units in his stack. I know he gives help to his subordinate Corps commanders, but is it really that much?

Another related question. In my current Union PBEM game Admiral Foote is eligible for promotion. Is there any benefit to promoting Admirals outside of scripted new traits or attribute increases at the new rank?

Army commanders give a bonus of Strat, Attack, & Def to his corps commanders each turn. The higher his stats, the higher the bonus. Grant has the best attributes for the Union, ergo he will tend to give the biggest bonuses. Often, with the bonus, many of Grant's corps commanders have attributes as good as him. Making Grant an army commander spreads his Grant-ness around to your normally wimpy Union generals. Plus, you can still use him for seiges etc.

Ok thanks. I knew that was the accepted idea, I was just having a hard time believing it was true.

Believe me, when you have 3 1 1 general with stats close to Stonewall Jacksons´ because of Grant bonuses, you ll start to appreciate it.

He even Grantizes McClellan! Yes - McClellan, 442! Woohoo!

The Grantness is just awesome.

Of course, you still get effects of Mac's Poor Spy Network, so it's still better to keep him safely protected out of harm's way.

Thanks again all, Grant is 3 stars I just need to get a new Corps commander to replace him. Unfortunately I seem to have missed a temporary promotion opportunity for Hooker.

So currently Fremont (seniority 5) is leading the Western Command, Grant (seniority 3, which is the highest of any Union general) is a Corps Commander in that Army. I can remove Fremont and replace him with Grant at no cost at all as long as it all happens in one turn. Is that correct?

Also no one has answered my second question from the OP:

Another related question. In my current Union PBEM game Admiral Foote is eligible for promotion. Is there any benefit to promoting Admirals outside of scripted new traits or attribute increases at the new rank?

sbr wrote:Thanks again all, Grant is 3 stars I just need to get a new Corps commander to replace him. Unfortunately I seem to have missed a temporary promotion opportunity for Hooker.

So currently Fremont (seniority 5) is leading the Western Command, Grant (seniority 3, which is the highest of any Union general) is a Corps Commander in that Army. I can remove Fremont and replace him with Grant at no cost at all as long as it all happens in one turn. Is that correct?

Also no one has answered my second question from the OP:

Another related question. In my current Union PBEM game Admiral Foote is eligible for promotion. Is there any benefit to promoting Admirals outside of scripted new traits or attribute increases at the new rank?

AFAIK, the short answer is not really. Maybe able to command larger flleet?

sbr wrote:Thanks again all, Grant is 3 stars I just need to get a new Corps commander to replace him. Unfortunately I seem to have missed a temporary promotion opportunity for Hooker.

So currently Fremont (seniority 5) is leading the Western Command, Grant (seniority 3, which is the highest of any Union general) is a Corps Commander in that Army. I can remove Fremont and replace him with Grant at no cost at all as long as it all happens in one turn. Is that correct?

Also no one has answered my second question from the OP:

Another related question. In my current Union PBEM game Admiral Foote is eligible for promotion. Is there any benefit to promoting Admirals outside of scripted new traits or attribute increases at the new rank?

Yes, take that HQ from Fremont and give it to Grant. It'll make better general out of the Pathfinder. As for Foote, naval rank only seems to matter when you want to make sure that a certain guy is in charge. Sometimes a leader's ratings will be different, but you don't know until you try

Because he's the anti-McClellan.

GraniteStater wrote:He even Grantizes McClellan! Yes - McClellan, 442! Woohoo!

The Grantness is just awesome.

Yes it is.

E Keyes - 554
G Thomas - 467

"Grant as Military Commander" was not written by Fuller, unless he was using a pseudonym for some reason. The cited author is James Marshall-Cornwall, a former UK military officer. At least that is the case with my copy and what shows up on Amazon when I type in the title.

Fuller did write about Grant, however. He wrote "Grant and Lee" and also wrote "The Generalship of Ulysses S. Grant." So I assume thats where the confusion is.

As for "Grant as Military Command," I do recommend it. One thing I liked was that the author does recognize some things about the tactical realities of the war that tended to favor the defender and thus made Lee look better then he would have had he been on the other side (i.e. forced to attack most of the time) and made Grant look worse. It's a pretty even handed look at Grant, which is important since American authors tend to have biases (though these are declining as time goes on.)

Grant is the Unions Lee its that simple. Give it a try and see how he brings everyone along for the ride.