Question regarding MG's in command of Corps, BG's in command of Divisions

[rickd79]

This is a question for the AGEOD folks:

Historically, by 1863 we often see Major Generals in command of Corps, and Brigadier Generals in command of Divisions. How is this going to work out in the game? In other words, what if we're pretty far along in the "Grand Campaign," and we've suffered a number of leader casualties? Are we ever going to run into a situation where we've run out of commanders to promote? In that case, would we just have a division without a commander, or would we just see the generic leader artwork?

(I understand there are time constraints with the development and the artwork...I'm just curious )

Thanks

[Chris0827]

I'd like too know more about how leaders are handled as well. Any chance we can see the leader rules? In 1864 Meade was the AotP commander and Burnside was a corps commander. The problem was that Burnside outranked Meade and didn't want to serve under him. Burnside ended up reporting directly to Grant somewhat confusing the chain of command. In 1862 Fremont outranked Pope and resigned instead of serving under him. Is anything like that covered?

[marecone]

I think that there is no such game engine that could simulate the command mess in ACW .Maybe AGOED boys did it but then I woulčd be totaly suprised.

[Pocus]

We classify leaders with 3 ranks (well 4, but the 4 stars general are used as 3 ones, the title granting just a different 4-stars icon, also 4-stars general have always the best seniority).

One star general can command only a division. Two stars can command either a division or a corps. Three stars can command anything.

You can have divisions without leaders.

You can name freely division and corps commanders, but if you name an army commander and there is another 3 stars general on the map without command, you lose political points, depending of the POL rating of the leader. POL points are then converted into a loss of National Morale and Victory Points. You also lose POL points when an army general is removed from command, even if you don't replace him.

Some simplifications were needed, true. But take McClellan for example. We gave him a 100 POL value. It means that you won't be able to demote him, realistically, in the first period of the war (unless you want to lose 20 Morale, it can kill you though!). So you will keep him. As the man was over over cautious, it will impacts negatively how you can move corps, so even with the power at hand, it means you won't be able to blitz with the Union.

There is some added subtleties to that, but this is the main line.

[marecone]

So you even managed to simulate command-politics mess in ACW! Great stuff

[Chris0827]

Does a general's political value change? Does winning battles make it harder to replace a leader and losing battles make it easier?

[marecone]

Does a general's political value change? Does winning battles make it harder to replace a leader and losing battles make it easier?

If it doesn't, this is an excellent idea.

[Pocus]

Does a general's political value change? Does winning battles make it harder to replace a leader and losing battles make it easier?

yes, when you win battle, the leader gains political points and seniority ranks. The reverse if you lose (so if you have a big loser, it is far more demotable). Seniority count very much, because if you have rank 1-2 in seniority, or if you gained 4 points compared to your initial value, you can be promoted to a new rank (if the database allows you that).

But there is choice to do here too If you promote a general to a new rank, and some others generals with more seniority are not promoted, then they will get angry against you (translated to a loss of morale/Victory). And they will be angry even if they could not have been promoted anyway (for them, being senior, they MUST be promoted before the youngling, even if they never performed well into battle! Generals are so vain !). If you promote the young general, then all others more senior take a little 'slap on the face' though, and lose seniority and political value. (bypassing several time the promotion of an old fart is the sole way to relegate him in fact)

But wait, because there is yet another cascading problem! If you don't promote the promotable general, he loses one seniority point (thus disabling the possibility to promote him the next turn, unless he win another battle). Hard choice hey, promote the young competent general, or keeping the old ones happy?

That's a bag of problems as you see.