Army Shenanigans

[FightingBuckeye]

Can someone please explain the below picture for me?

[ATTACH]33896[/ATTACH]

I could post a couple more 3*s I have, but they're all like this. None of them seem to want the next army command. Promoting Gen Lyon over Fremont would cost me 4 NM. Promoting anyone else (Banks, Butler, Fremont, or Buell) over Lyon would cost me 1 NM. My other three 3*s already have an army command.

[veji1]

I could post a couple more 3*s I have, but they're all like this. None of them seem to want the next army command. Promoting Gen Lyon over Fremont would cost me 4 NM. Promoting anyone else (Banks, Butler, Fremont, or Buell) over Lyon would cost me 1 NM. My other three 3*s already have an army command.

might be a bug where the seniority of 2* and 1* generals is taken into account so the game sees that you have this 2* general with more (or rather less, say 1 or something) seniority and thinks "he should be promoting this one not the one he is trying to promote" except that of course you can't ?

[FightingBuckeye]

There does seem to be some sort of bug. I should've mentioned that all the starting 3*s listed haven't earned any seniority and Lyon was recently promoted and hasn't moved up from the bottom yet. All those 3*s sitting at weird positions in the ranking system. For example; Fremont is 5/5 in seniority, Buell is 11/11, Lyon is 15/15. So could that be part of it?

[Captain_Orso]

In the x/y notation, x = the current seniority, and y = the seniority the leader started with at that rank. This is what you use to determine how close a leader is to being offered a promotion.

The bug is that when checking Fremont and Buell to give them an army command the game wrongly thinks that Lyon has higher seniority, which he does not.

When checking Lyon, the tool-tip is correct.

[FightingBuckeye]

In the x/y notation, x = the current seniority, and y = the seniority the leader started with at that rank. This is what you use to determine how close a leader is to being offered a promotion.

The bug is that when checking Fremont and Buell to give them an army command the game wrongly thinks that Lyon has higher seniority, which he does not.

When checking Lyon, the tool-tip is correct.

Short of getting the desired leader to a higher seniority, is there any way of combating this bug?

[Rod Smart]

Did you just promote one of them?

I've gotten funky messages like this (regarding promotions, not army command, so not exactly like this), and it is usually when I've promoted one general, but the other one is still reacting like he's not yet promoted. Its fixed by waiting a turn.

If Lyons had a seniority of #1 as a two star, and you just promoted him to a three star, is it possible that his seniority won't reset to 7 until a turn has passed?

[Rod Smart]

Short of getting the desired leader to a higher seniority, is there any way of combating this bug?

put them in the same region, promote one to army command, and then flip the command.

Not sure if that will actually work, but its something that's worth a test.

[Captain_Orso]

Short of getting the desired leader to a higher seniority, is there any way of combating this bug?

Since I've never seen this bug before, I know of no workaround for it.

Did you just promote one of them?

I've gotten funky messages like this (regarding promotions, not army command, so not exactly like this), and it is usually when I've promoted one general, but the other one is still reacting like he's not yet promoted. Its fixed by waiting a turn.

If Lyons had a seniority of #1 as a two star, and you just promoted him to a three star, is it possible that his seniority won't reset to 7 until a turn has passed?

The same mechanism is being used in promoting leaders as in creating an army command. You'll see it more often for promotions because promotions are made far more often and the mechanism also takes affect when promoting lower ranked leaders.

put them in the same region, promote one to army command, and then flip the command.

Not sure if that will actually work, but its something that's worth a test.

This will do nothing advantageous. What you are inputting between turn executions are orders, which are then executed in a logical order during turn execution. The orders remaining when you execute a turn are what count for political penalties.

The only case where temporarily disbanding an army command can be useful is if you have two army commands who's command radii contain one or more corps and you wish to attach a corps to a specific of those army commands, but the other army command is closer to the corps.

In this case you temporarily disband army command A --the one to which you do NOT want to attach the corps--, attach the corps to army command B, and then reinstate army command A. Since army command A ended the last turn execution in existence and starts the next turn execution in existence there is no actual change and penalties for removing a leader from army command or creating an army command with leader A if there are other leaders with higher rank, do not take affect.

[Rod Smart]

The only case where temporarily disbanding an army command can be useful is if you have two army commands who's command radii contain one or more corps and you wish to attach a corps to a specific of those army commands, but the other army command is closer to the corps.

In this case you temporarily disband army command A --the one to which you do NOT want to attach the corps--, attach the corps to army command B, and then reinstate army command A. Since army command A ended the last turn execution in existence and starts the next turn execution in existence there is no actual change and penalties for removing a leader from army command or creating an army command with leader A if there are other leaders with higher rank, do not take affect.

That's really useful. I have Halleck in DC training, I tend to leave Banks in Baltimore to recruit, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

thanks

[Cardinal Ape]

I have seen this before. It seems to happen when 3* leaders are assigned corps commands. For some reason the game thinks they have more seniority than they really do. It is just a display issue though, if you promote you will get the results you would expect.

[Captain_Orso]

If you mean, it occurs when you give a ***Gen a corps command, I do that all the time and have never seen this bug.

[DrPostman]

It's happened to me on occasion. I think it's when you remove their corps command
that the engine gets a bit confused.

[FightingBuckeye]

I had just removed Lyon from a corps command in the above example. He was attached to Grant who was sitting at #1 on the seniority rankings, so perhaps a 3* as a corps commander somehow gets tied in with whatever ranking the army commander has?

[kbar]

I have run into this more than once and can confirm no penalty if you follow seniority. However I have been unable to determine the cause of the mixed messages.

[minipol]

Personally, I don't give a * what the penalty is. I promote who I want and just take the hit
It is however, a strange result you had.