Brigadier General placement?

[LAVA]

Hi!

I've been taking my 1 star generals, assigning them to a division and making them an element of that division. The division is then assigned to a corps or an army commander. So for example, if you look at the 1st corps, it will have a two star general, then the division and then whatever... usually a supply.

Is this the correct use of 1 star generals? Will they get the experience they need by being "inside" the division container?

Thanks for any help.

Ray (aka LAVA)

[Chris0827]

It's correct.

1 star = Division commander.

[Spharv2]

And, yes, they will receive experience there. Just remember that when they become promotable, you'll have to remove them from the corps to do it.

[Paul Roberts]

This strikes me as a little odd. It seems to me that the use of stars ought to correspond to historical ranks. Historically, one star would be a Brigadier, who would command, well, a brigade. Two stars (Major General) would command a division, three stars (Lieutenant General) a corps, and four stars (General) an Army.

I guess we can just see it as the practice of some officers commanding forces above their grade. But that was the exception, not the standard.

[frank7350]

but brigade level command isnt simulated in the game...so the options are to go with 1-4 stars, or start at 2.

i think overall, its less complicated to go 1-4

[AP514]

Hey

Long time no see..let me know how is this game ?? Im really looking clse at this one.


AP514

The Greatest Waterloo player ever..and a not so bad ANV player too

[Chris0827]

The north and the south had different command structures. The North had two general ranks and the south four. The game has to take that into account. Ranking the generals according to the size of the forces they commanded is the best way to handle it.

[LAVA]

It's correct.

1 star = Division commander.

Well...

Actually that is not the question.

The question is... where do you place him? Should he appear in the unit panel or in the element panel?

Ray (aka LAVA)

[Chris0827]

You are correct to place the 1 star leader in the division if I understand your question correctly.

[LAVA]

You are correct to place the 1 star leader in the division if I understand your question correctly.

Cheers!

So, the picture of the 1 star disappears from the unit panel and his name reappears at the top of all the elements of the division in the element panel.

Thanks,

Ray (aka LAVA)

[Chris0827]

You should see the picture of the general as part of the division also. Some of the generals do not yet have portraits.

[Mr Dimbleby]

This strikes me as a little odd. It seems to me that the use of stars ought to correspond to historical ranks. Historically, one star would be a Brigadier, who would command, well, a brigade. Two stars (Major General) would command a division, three stars (Lieutenant General) a corps, and four stars (General) an Army.

I guess we can just see it as the practice of some officers commanding forces above their grade. But that was the exception, not the standard.

Historically a 1 star could've commanded a brigade or division, 2 star could've commanded a division, corp, or Army. Grant was the only 3 star. 4 stars didn't show up until WWI when the U.S. needed a rank equivalent to a Field Marshall.


[note: Winfield Scott was promoted to a 3 star at the beginning of the war, but he never commanded in the field. Otherwise until Grant was promoted the only other 3 star in US history was George Washington.]