AGEOD Forums

After gloriously defeating a big stack in Florida (and completely eliminating it muahahahahahahaaa), I can promote 2 1-star generals to 2-star guys, who I had form a corps and attach them to R.E. Lee's Southern Army ('of the West').

Now I am getting complaints from van Dorn and another guy that they were passed over, however they weren't an option to promote. What gives?

When you promote some general, even if no one else is available for promotion, if someone has a higher seniority than the one you are promoting, the higher seniority one will get displeased and you will get some penalty, in NM/VP

I believe the question is -- how can a general with a lower seniority be available for promotion before a general with a higher seniority?

Heldenkaiser wrote:I believe the question is -- how can a general with a lower seniority be available for promotion before a general with a higher seniority?

Because the general with higher seniority hasn't done anything to deserve a promotion

I belive seniority is not only showing where does general stands compared with other generals of same rank but it also shows how influential his political friends are.
Back then, you could be incompetent and terrible commander but if you had influential friends you would get your command.

General with lower seniority can be promoted if his seniority did rise 4 points. If he started with very low sen. and then gained for 4 points he will be ready for promotion.

On the other hand, you could have a general with high sen. but if he didn't get those 4 points or he didn't fight he will not get a chance to be promoted.

Hope this helps

Rafiki wrote:Because the general with higher seniority hasn't done anything to deserve a promotion

I thought doing something to deserve a promotion would also increase seniority? At least I am getting messages like "NN has been commended for his actions ... New seniority <some figure>". So this rise in seniority does not in itself make leaders eligible for promotion (at some point)? Guess I had the concept wrong then.

Yes it does. Rising to a senoirity of 1 or 2 qualifies for promotion, as does rising 4 levels in seniority. Both are provided the general can be promoted in the first place.

"Starting" seniority is just a measure of the "current" pecking order among the generals

Rafiki wrote:Yes it does. Rising to a senoirity of 1 or 2 qualifies for promotion, as does rising 4 levels in seniority. Both are provided the general can be promoted in the first place.

"Starting" seniority is just a measure of the "current" pecking order among the generals

..and thus, a general who starts at 20, does well so he gets to 16, can be promoted over a general who 'sits on' 4. [Huger and Van Dorn seem to be the biggest whiners]

The system rewards successful generals, and irritates the political or less capable ones. Very nice modeling of the history [a lesson in civics: exposes the terrible flaws of any seniority system, not just military!!!]

Now I get it ... thanks for the explanation.

Yes, it definitely has a historically accurate feel. Though I do doubt that seniority played quite the same role for the French army under Nappy as for the civil war armies or the French's opponents.

Alright, that clears that up, makes it very clear and at least I am not doing anything wrong.

I'm still going to leave useless high seniority whiners either guarding some godforsaken town in Arkansas or high up in the Appalachians doing nothing. The 19th century equivalent to 'manning a radar tower in Alaska'.

Rafiki, you still need to pick up your banana I left for you in the other thread.

Heldenkaiser wrote:Now I get it ... thanks for the explanation.

Yes, it definitely has a historically accurate feel. Though I do doubt that seniority played quite the same role for the French army under Nappy as for the civil war armies or the French's opponents.

What war/conflict is your quote from?

Heldenkaiser wrote:I thought doing something to deserve a promotion would also increase seniority? At least I am getting messages like "NN has been commended for his actions ... New seniority <some figure>". So this rise in seniority does not in itself make leaders eligible for promotion (at some point)? Guess I had the concept wrong then.

This is a good point. Doing something to deserve promotion should increase seniority. I'm definitely not saying the general in question should vault to the top of the list, but let me give an example:

Longstreet does something extraordinary making him eligible. I want to promote him, but the guy currently at the top of the list has a high political rating and I think the cost is too high (I know ... that would never happen, but for the sake of example). I let Longstreet's promotion slide. Now he has gotten no benefit for doing something extraordinary. He should at least get a regular seniority boost in recognition. Whether he should get a boost before or after the promotion decision I leave to wiser grognards and developers to ponder.

MarkCSA wrote:What war/conflict is your quote from?

You mean my signature? Braddock was a British general who marched off into the wilderness during the French & Indian War in comparative ignorance of the theater of war, the tactics of his opposition, and above all the need to screen his column with Indian allies and/or American rangers. He was ambushed by French troops and Indians on the Monongahela on July 9, 1755, and decisively defeated, losing near a thousand of his fifteen hundred men. As a disaster of warfare against Indians, Braddock's defeat surpasses the Little Big Horn and even the horrible blunder of American general St. Clair on the Wabash 1791.

IMHO seniority stuff is one of the best parts of this game. I wouldn't change it or touch it.

MarkCSA wrote:I'm still going to leave useless high seniority whiners either guarding some godforsaken town in Arkansas or high up in the Appalachians doing nothing. The 19th century equivalent to 'manning a radar tower in Alaska'.

Almost everybody near the top of the list is promotable. The historical way of handling it would be to give those guys the best commands (in low risk/high reward areas) first, and try to get them promotions, clearing the way for lower seniority guys.

The gamey way to handle it is to give those guys 2-4 militia, and send them on suicide missions, hopefully getting them killed, at least lowering their seniority.

Banishment gets them out of the way, preserving your troops, but you end up paying for it in NM and VP.

Jabberwock wrote:The gamey way to handle it is to give those guys 2-4 militia, and send them on suicide missions, lowering their seniority.

Strikes me as quite historical. Didn't Pope, after having shone at 2BR, end up chasing Injuns on the Planes?

Seniority is an interesting side of the game. Personally it doesnt matter to me if i lose some points for passing over a less skilled leader. I use my highest skilled leaders, and give them the best commands I can(which usally end up at the front, and winning battles), I wont have any Prima Donnas in my Army!

stars&bars wrote:I wont have any Prima Donnas in my Army!

I suppose that means A.P. Hill and J.E.B. Stuart aren't main figures in your armies.

Old Peter

stars&bars wrote:Seniority is an interesting side of the game. [color="Red"]Personally it doesnt matter to me if i lose some points for passing over a less skilled leader. [/color]I use my highest skilled leaders, and give them the best commands I can(which usally end up at the front, and winning battles), I wont have any Prima Donnas in my Army!

Wait 'till you promote someone over 'lil Mac's head, or give a less senior man an Army....

Old Peter wrote:I suppose that means A.P. Hill and J.E.B. Stuart aren't main figures in your armies.

Old Peter

No, I like Stuart as my Cavalry Division General, and A.P Hill I use too


Finished a good campaign earlier against the AI. I Just managed to bring the Union morale crashing down after purely holding my ground and winning some big battles(on hard difficulty). Had my biggest battle(s) yet since i had the game, highest casulties in 1 battle were CSA 44,000 USA 66,000(and that was me being outnumbered too).

Heldenkaiser wrote:Strikes me as quite historical. Didn't Pope, after having shone at 2BR, end up chasing Injuns on the Planes?

Is that like chasing "Snakes on a Plane"?

chainsaw wrote:Is that like chasing "Snakes on a Plane"?

Yeah, he was as 'useful as snake mittens' [Dilbert]

lodilefty wrote:Wait 'till you promote someone over 'lil Mac's head, or give a less senior man an Army....

Yeah, I did that in one campaign. The 900+ VP swing was dramatic, to put it politely....

I am going to expiriment with 3* seniority on the Union side in my upcoming campaign. As I see it, the Union spends much of the game searching for decent army commanders. And they're saddled with Banks, Fremont, Halleck, McClellan, McDowell, Buell, and Butler during the 1st two years. But by 1863, many of these generals were "awaiting orders" or shuffled into backwater commands that didn't amount to anything. In the game unless you give all of these leaders army commands, you take political hits each time you pass one of them over.


As I see it, the good Union 3* leaders don't show up until late '62 or early '63 anyway. So in my opinion it doesn't really matter that the early 3* generals have super high seniority ratings, since the Union player is unlikely to get any generals promoted to 3* rank before the 2nd half of 1862 (US Grant being the chief exception).

My plan is to tweak the seniority ratings of several 3* Union generals. I will be forced to keep using them through the 1st part of the war, but by the start of 1863, it should be possible to bypass them in favor of commanders who have earned the 3* rank on the battlefield. If I like the results, I will post a follow up to let you know how it turned out.

The next best solution would be to introduce a scripted event that removes the commanders from the game or drops their seniority automatically after a certain point.