AGEOD Forums

I am playing my first game as Union vs. AI, for practice before taking on a human....and I am wondering if more experienced players have hints around Leader Promotion.

As the Union, getting good leaders (or even average ones!) promoted is a very high priority. Grant, Sherman, Thomas, Meade, even Howard, Hancock, etc.....the sooner we get these guys to 2** and 3***, the better. What are some tricks of the trade to do that, because it's mid-'63 and Sherman is still 1*.

Another question: Is it a valid tactic as Union to create extra armies, simply to avoid paying Morale Points? For example, McClellan commands army of NE Va. Rosecrans is available. Create NEW army under Rosecrans in Washington, disband all the Corps, transfer everybody to new Army, and make NE VA army basically a shell.

Finally, not quite understanding Field Forts. How do I tell if a city has Field Forts, is it the hard-to-see graphic in lower-left corner of city? Is there another way to see fort level other than that? Is it worth the expenditure to build? (I can see reasons for key cities on both sides, for Union to garrison a major supply center like Nashville, for CSA to hold a point like Vicksburg.)

KillCalvalry wrote:I am playing my first game as Union vs. AI, for practice before taking on a human....and I am wondering if more experienced players have hints around Leader Promotion.

As the Union, getting good leaders (or even average ones!) promoted is a very high priority. Grant, Sherman, Thomas, Meade, even Howard, Hancock, etc.....the sooner we get these guys to 2** and 3***, the better. What are some tricks of the trade to do that, because it's mid-'63 and Sherman is still 1*.

Another question: Is it a valid tactic as Union to create extra armies, simply to avoid paying Morale Points? For example, McClellan commands army of NE Va. Rosecrans is available. Create NEW army under Rosecrans in Washington, disband all the Corps, transfer everybody to new Army, and make NE VA army basically a shell.

Finally, not quite understanding Field Forts. How do I tell if a city has Field Forts, is it the hard-to-see graphic in lower-left corner of city? Is there another way to see fort level other than that? Is it worth the expenditure to build? (I can see reasons for key cities on both sides, for Union to garrison a major supply center like Nashville, for CSA to hold a point like Vicksburg.)

Seniority can be peculiar. You can never bet on who will get promoted as there always is a bit of randomness to it all. Best thing you can do is ensure that your commander is constantly in battle, but also with a quality force, and put them in tough engagements (constantly squashing 1 element foes with a corps will not gain you any seniority).

Personally, I give power to those with seniority. Just 'feels' like I am playing the game correctly. The US can 'afford' to create dummy armies (you only REALLY need 3 armies), but I feel I would be 'cheating' if I put a high senority general in command of a shell-army and put someone else in command of the real force. It is realistically defeating the entire purpose of senoirity in my opinion.

Hover over a city, and it will tell you its fortification level along with other info (supply depot, etc.) in the black box with white type.

Thank you! On Leader Promotion, promotion happens fast if you are winning. But can it also happen if you are LOSING battles?

I think it makes sense that "winners" should move up faster than "losers", just like in real life. But, even when the Army of the Potomac was getting beaten, good leaders would come to the fore (as bad ones were being weeded out).

Does this happen in the game?

I might get slammed for this one. *smirk*

But I wish I could promote whomever I choose. I wouldn't mind a high price to make it a seldom/ rarely used option. But the game certainly makes it difficult to promote quality officers. Im not advocating being able to mass promote the best and brightest to positions of authority. But being able to promote one or two key officers during the course of a 4 year war is not too far out of the realm of reality. In fact the only ahistoric element I can think of is that we already know who the best and brightest are. There were many promotions given to less than deserving officers. And as Lincoln said when his advisers recommended sacking Grant. " I like him. He fights" So against his advisors advice and at some political cost. He kept Grant and the rest as they say is history. In the game. Unless an officer meets certain conditions? I, as the C-n-C cannot promote whom I wish. I feel that at times, I as the C-n-C should be able to promote whom I choose, and damn the consequences.
Of course the cost should be prohibitive. But in certain instances I would say damn the cost. I need (insert favorite generals name) in command. JMHO

Nial

Nial wrote:I might get slammed for this one. *smirk*

But I wish I could promote whomever I choose. I wouldn't mind a high price to make it a seldom/ rarely used option. But the game certainly makes it difficult to promote quality officers. Im not advocating being able to mass promote the best and brightest to positions of authority. But being able to promote one or two key officers during the course of a 4 year war is not too far out of the realm of reality. In fact the only ahistoric element I can think of is that we already know who the best and brightest are. There were many promotions given to less than deserving officers. And as Lincoln said when his advisers recommended sacking Grant. " I like him. He fights" So against his advisors advice and at some political cost. He kept Grant and the rest as they say is history. In the game. Unless an officer meets certain conditions? I, as the C-n-C cannot promote whom I wish. I feel that at times, I as the C-n-C should be able to promote whom I choose, and damn the consequences.
Of course the cost should be prohibitive. But in certain instances I would say damn the cost. I need (insert favorite generals name) in command. JMHO

Nial

Welcome to the frustration of commanding an army! I am sure everyone would love this in the heat of the moment when all you have is McClellan and Buell to hold back the Confederates, but what effect would it have on the game if you could get Grant and Meade exceptionally early? I can just see this being abused, losing the original feel of the proposal (where the exception becomes the rule).

Yep. I mean, let's face it - we would promote leaders we KNOW to have been effective. That right there destroys any type of historical value.

No one had that kind of knowledge, and it is impossible for us to forget who was effective and who was not. So I see this as a way of keeping things within the realms of historical validity in the scope of a game.

*laugh*

Of course it could be abused. Anything can be abused. I could go in and just mod seniority to 1 if I wanted to. Basicly Im just venting after watching T. Jackson stay a 1-star for 3 years. But that does not change the validity of the statement. *looks up to his original post*
And I did mention the cost should be prohibitive.

Nial

McNaughton wrote:Welcome to the frustration of commanding an army! I am sure everyone would love this in the heat of the moment when all you have is McClellan and Buell to hold back the Confederates, but what effect would it have on the game if you could get Grant and Meade exceptionally early? I can just see this being abused, losing the original feel of the proposal (where the exception becomes the rule).

What about the ability to dismiss leaders such as happen historically? How is that done?

For example, after Mac get beat, can you dismiss him so he is no longer in the game and next in the chain?

It would seem that a great addition would be the ability to dismiss a leader or "demote" a leader. Both would carry a significant penalty (same penalty as if you promote over them), but that would be cut in half after they loss a battle in which the other side gained NM.

AndrewKurtz wrote:What about the ability to dismiss leaders such as happen historically? How is that done?

For example, after Mac get beat, can you dismiss him so he is no longer in the game and next in the chain?

It would seem that a great addition would be the ability to dismiss a leader or "demote" a leader. Both would carry a significant penalty (same penalty as if you promote over them), but that would be cut in half after they loss a battle in which the other side gained NM.

I "think" that when you lose a large battle, you lose seniority. The way it works is a general gets defeated and then another one actually has greater seniority (wins battles, or had high enough senoirity to begin with that they now outrank this current commander). Also, it could be that another commander wins so many battles that their seniority raises even greater (although this might be where politics comes in?).

AndrewKurtz wrote:What about the ability to dismiss leaders such as happen historically? How is that done?

For example, after Mac get beat, can you dismiss him so he is no longer in the game and next in the chain?

It would seem that a great addition would be the ability to dismiss a leader or "demote" a leader. Both would carry a significant penalty (same penalty as if you promote over them), but that would be cut in half after they loss a battle in which the other side gained NM.

Actually you can dismiss a leader.

If you fight with a poor leader, he should lose battles. Losing battles badly enough results in loss of seniority. As your bad general loses seniority, other generals advance in seniority above your bad general. Then you can replace your bad leader at no cost--except for the lost battles.

Nial wrote:*laugh*

Of course it could be abused. Anything can be abused. I could go in and just mod seniority to 1 if I wanted to. Basicly Im just venting after watching T. Jackson stay a 1-star for 3 years. But that does not change the validity of the statement. *looks up to his original post*
And I did mention the cost should be prohibitive.

Nial

I think that what you want is actually the way the system works. A general does well, and is seen to do well, and increases in seniority. I guess what you want is greater say in how much seniority is given in the battle? Or, as Lincoln or Davis, you should be able to promote whomever you want?

McNaughton wrote:I "think" that when you lose a large battle, you lose seniority. The way it works is a general gets defeated and then another one actually has greater seniority (wins battles, or had high enough senoirity to begin with that they now outrank this current commander). Also, it could be that another commander wins so many battles that their seniority raises even greater (although this might be where politics comes in?).

Question for you then Mac? Have you ever had a general that was say seniority 100ish move up higher than a few points? I mean for him to climb even 20 points. I've never seen it. (doesn't mean it can't happen. Only that I've never seen it) A couple points? Yeah. But to move up the chain a hundred points? Maybe if I moved generals from command to command specificly to get them exp? But kinda gamey if you ask me. Im in mid 63 in current game as CSA. I will win in a few turns as I now control all of KY, half of OH, most of MO. Have cut the Union in half by taking Toledo. Shermans march in reverse. Yet have only gotten about 5 available promotions in that time. With 3 that I could care less about. Like I said. I can change that with one key stroke in the models folder. But Id rather not. Im funny that way.

Nial

McNaughton wrote:I think that what you want is actually the way the system works. A general does well, and is seen to do well, and increases in seniority. I guess what you want is greater say in how much seniority is given in the battle? Or, as Lincoln or Davis, you should be able to promote whomever you want?

*nod* More say, or the ability at a COST Either or.

I guess back to my question: Can you get leaders promoted if they participate in a LOSS?

I haven't seen it, but there are historical precedents, most notably Chickamauga; the Union got killed, but Thomas became a 3* because of his individual performance there.

KillCalvalry wrote:I guess back to my question: Can you get leaders promoted if they participate in a LOSS?

I haven't seen it, but there are historical precedents, most notably Chickamauga; the Union got killed, but Thomas became a 3* because of his individual performance there.

I believe so, a defeat isn't always seen as a 'bad' thing in regards to seniority, especially if the force actually fights well (I cannot confirm this, but I think that this is how it works out). A general won't get seniority simply for winning battles (i.e., a division vs a militia regiment), but based upon other factors (furocity of battle, odds, casualties inflicted, etc.). Even here, you aren't guaranteed promotion or VP gains.

KillCalvalry wrote:I guess back to my question: Can you get leaders promoted if they participate in a LOSS?

I haven't seen it, but there are historical precedents, most notably Chickamauga; the Union got killed, but Thomas became a 3* because of his individual performance there.

Yes, the commanding general I believe can only gain experience, not seniority from a loss, but his subordinates if they perform well in the battle can gain seniority even from a loss. So the Thomas situation is, or can be, replicated in the game.

I've played 4 complete games as Union, 2 as CSA.

I've never been able to promote all of the historical Army or Corps commanders to the rank they achieved. I figure I get about 50-60% of the Union generals to their historical rank. A little % higher w/ the CSA. The later Union generals (Ord, Schofield, Blair, Logan, Sheridan) are especially hard to promote. Not much of a sample to obtain statistical results from, but it does seem like promotions are slow.

good lord...didnt you put him someplace he could fight? I parked him at manassas and he is still there since the date of release from the valley(its april 63 now) he has also been in 3 of 4 big battles in that area and with the aid of other corps on his flanks he beat the stuffing out of the union. right now he is a 3 star and I suspect he will be in a position for promotion soon. what is ironic however is polk is now a army commander, he gained promotions by catching and killing a union force determined to hold corinth :}

Nial wrote:*laugh*

Of course it could be abused. Anything can be abused. I could go in and just mod seniority to 1 if I wanted to. Basicly Im just venting after watching T. Jackson stay a 1-star for 3 years. But that does not change the validity of the statement. *looks up to his original post*
And I did mention the cost should be prohibitive.

Nial

After my first action with Jackson - in which he took a few brigades and beat the stuffing out of a poorly devised Union foray into NVa, he was ready for promotion to **.

Although I have to say I was using the Leader Mod and that might have affected things. Either way...

I had expected that winning generals would move up to the 1 or 2 spot in seniority and be promotable without a penalty. But it has seemed to me that, even when a general becomes promotable, he is often fairly far down in seniority and I suffer a big penalty. Is that your experience, or am I doing something wrong?

well with my above stated example, jackson is now a three star(recently promoted) but of course hes a NEW three star, so his senority is low, but all I need to do is what I have been, keep him where the fighting is, and he will give senority bumps to overtake his peers and allow me to promote him in the future with no penality. at any rate I like the system in place, it rewards generals that win irrespective of ability...for example I was compelled to promote polk to a army command because even though he "stinks" in my humble opinion compared to other leaders he was winning battles...and truth be told how could I refuse to promote a sucessful general? :} I did debate sending Johnson into enemy territory to get killed but what would that have really gained me? loss of a corps level leader? (polk gained more senority in the battles he fought so instead of johnson I had to promote him to army command). and really in my opinion I dont care how bad the leader is they still have some utility. well most do :}.

General Quarters wrote:I had expected that winning generals would move up to the 1 or 2 spot in seniority and be promotable without a penalty. But it has seemed to me that, even when a general becomes promotable, he is often fairly far down in seniority and I suffer a big penalty. Is that your experience, or am I doing something wrong?

Sheytan wrote:good lord...didnt you put him someplace he could fight? I parked him at manassas and he is still there since the date of release from the valley(its april 63 now) he has also been in 3 of 4 big battles in that area and with the aid of other corps on his flanks he beat the stuffing out of the union. right now he is a 3 star and I suspect he will be in a position for promotion soon. what is ironic however is polk is now a army commander, he gained promotions by catching and killing a union force determined to hold corinth :}

*chuckle* Well he sat in Manassas for awhile, then I took Alexandria. Then he sat there. Then I got itchy and used him on a deep flanking experiment. Captured a few towns and such. Then when he was several provinces away McDopwell attacks Manassas. *shrugs* It was 4 turns before I could get him back to my lines. Then with R&R of a couple turns. By then the fireworks in Alexandria were over.

But why I really stopped playing in the wee hours of Sat. morning? Was to amend my experience. Since in the last four months game time. I have had close to 10 officers come up for promotion. 5 in one turn after a series of 3 battles during the siege of Washington DC. I was flabergasted to say the least. And pleasently suprised. Since I have had many large battles before without such amazing results. Probably only coincidence. But do battles at high VP locations give a better chance for promotion?

Nial