Sorting Generals by Seniority

[Philippe]

I've always assumed that this wasn't possible, but is there a way to do this?

My understanding is that you can only sort generals by stats, but not by rank or seniority.

[Nikel]

AFAIK it was possible in AACW but not in CW2.

[Jerzul]

AFAIK it was possible in AACW but not in CW2.

Which, if I may point out, is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Why they got rid of the leader roster in a game that is focused on leaders, is something I will never understand.

[Durk]

Oh give me a break. The leader interface works fine.

[Captain_Orso]

The 'Unit List' works as designed. That being said, it has been know since before this thread, that the option to sort leaders by their current rank and seniority is missing. IIUC, it's on Pocus' Things-To-Do list

[Jerzul]

Oh give me a break. The leader interface works fine.

What leader interface are you referring to? Because when I play the game, I do not have a way to sort by leaders, only by units (as Orso mentions above). Whereas in AACW I could actually just sort by leaders, so I could compare seniority and stats. Considering that CW2 is not a game built from the "ground up," in that it borrowed heavily from its predecessor the fact that the leader roster was removed is baffling to me. It was a useful feature that I used routinely in AACW.

If you would like to provide insight on how the current system is better and why the decision was made to remove that feature, please do so.

[Gray Fox]

This sequence of settings gets you a list of your commanders:

[ATTACH]39564[/ATTACH]

It is not further broken down into groups of all 3-stars, etc. and does not list seniority at all, but it is by General's stats.

If you try to promote someone, the game gives you a warning if this conflicts with seniority. This is how the game deals with seniority. If you have a personal rule to assign units to the most senior General, well, that isn't a game requirement. It's not really the game's fault that this individual desire is not easily accessed.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Usually what I am looking for with respect to seniority is someone with low seniority who will not outrank a high-quality, medium seniority general when placed into the stack for CP purposes.

It would also be nice to be able to sort this list by rank, since when Corps form I want to ba able to find my 2*s easily and quickly.

Neither of these issues is a gamebreaker though, especially since I have played the game so much that I pretty much know who and where everyone is.

I find these pages of the ledger to be klunky and not intuitive. It is just downright confusing that there are two sets of options that use the same icons, for example, and getting a leader list should be a top-level button rather than requiring a non-obvious combination of buttons.

Just my 2 cents.

Fox's post above should probably be added to the Things to Know thread, this question comes up a lot.

[Philippe]

I don't think it's a question of an individual's desire. Seniority lists were basic administrative information that anyone in an army would have access to and be aware of, and the game system should do a better job of reflecting that. The game is supposed to be modeling reality, not a game system.

[Gray Fox]

If I want a unit list by experience stars, broken down by type, that probably sounds like a good administrative request. How can a game about units, not give you a really useful unit's list? However, most players would never need that, or even think to want it. The game isn't CW2 Excel. Seniority is actually the game mechanic for the influence of politics on the conduct of unit leadership. That's all. If you want someone promoted or in command of an army, you get a prompt if seniority will affect your decision. The program checks seniority for you. We can each think of things that can be organized with information, but that doesn't mean that the game is somehow deficient for not allowing this.

[Jerzul]

This sequence of settings gets you a list of your commanders:

It is not further broken down into groups of all 3-stars, etc. and does not list seniority at all, but it is by General's stats.

If you try to promote someone, the game gives you a warning if this conflicts with seniority. This is how the game deals with seniority. If you have a personal rule to assign units to the most senior General, well, that isn't a game requirement. It's not really the game's fault that this individual desire is not easily accessed.

Except that it doesn't. If you have a large stack of leaders you'll only see information on the most senior leader.

Also, I appreciate you reducing my legitimate complaint by calling it a "individual desire" as if I was the only one on the thread who had this off-the-wall idea that a game focusing on leaders should have an in-game way to look at them. You know, like they did in the first one...

If I want a unit list by experience stars, broken down by type, that probably sounds like a good administrative request. How can a game about units, not give you a really useful unit's list? However, most players would never need that, or even think to want it. The game isn't CW2 Excel. Seniority is actually the game mechanic for the influence of politics on the conduct of unit leadership. That's all. If you want someone promoted or in command of an army, you get a prompt if seniority will affect your decision. The program checks seniority for you. We can each think of things that can be organized with information, but that doesn't mean that the game is somehow deficient for not allowing this.

How would having a leader roster (which was in AACW) turn the game into CW2 Excel? As you said, Seniority is a game mechanic that has real game effects, so why wouldn't I want to be able to find a way to get information on it? Or sort through my 2*s or 3*s?

IMHO the game is deficient for not having a feature that was in a previous incarnation of the game and was removed. Especially considering that CW2 is an update of AACW. (Not stated to somehow imply that CW2 is bad, I really enjoy it, but AGEOD clearly imported a ton of game elements directly from AACW then modified/upgraded form there).

Having a leader roster would be a simple thing that would make organizing the armies much easier. It would be very useful for all types of players, not just the ones who want to give out commands by seniority, but by those who want to organize their far-flung leaders by other stats, and to quickly jump to where a leader is without having to go through all of the stacks (this is especially true if the leader is not in-charge of the stack, which means they won't show up on the unit screen).

Fox, you don't have to defend the game like I'm impugning its honor. I'm not. If I didn't like CW2 I wouldn't care to point out it's flaws.

I don't think it's a question of an individual's desire. Seniority lists were basic administrative information that anyone in an army would have access to and be aware of, and the game system should do a better job of reflecting that. The game is supposed to be modeling reality, not a game system.

Exactly!

[Gray Fox]

The point of a discussion forum is to talk about things. My honest counterpoint isn't intended to denegrate anyone. AACW had the feature, which many players may have never used (me included) so it is no longer a feature. The list of Generals in the CW2 dBase doesn't have a seniority filter either. I checked for you because I would like to help you out.

[Captain_Orso]

Honestly, I've only ever heard---until now---of players using the sort-by-seniority function in AACW.

As I already stated, it has been confirmed by the devs as being an important feature and has been promised to be recreated, when Pocus gets to it.

Why does it have importance?

1. It is a very useful tool, in determining, which leaders to promote if they are not at the head of their rank in seniority. It gives me a quick overview of information I would have to otherwise gather through a click-fest.
2. It is necessary to determine which leaders you may wish to use over others so that they do not block other promotions by being left behind from not being successfully used themselves, or force you to pay NM and VP unnecessarily.

Yes, I could do all this myself, running lists in a spread sheet and updating it every turn... I could also furnish my house by going into the forest and cutting, down a tree, etc., etc., to build my own furniture, etc., etc. I'm sure that's lots of fun for some people---more power to them ---but I'd rather not do either. I'd rather have the game provide the statistical information necessary for me to make the decision I need to make.

Call me a lazy bastard ... but I've clearly stated why I would like the sort by rank/seniority recreated, and why it is useful, and to not just myself.

I don't know why anybody else should have an issue with this, especially if they don't wish to use this function.

[Wraith]

Having some sort of in-game ability to view who my commanders are, where they are and what their abilities might be (even though most of the South's general attributes don't actually function) would be helpful. Moving generals around who might have abilities I could exploit would be helpful. Otherwise, as everyone else stated before that I'm either having to keep another laptop up with the overview loaded or I'm Alt-Tabbing which leads to wonkiness because the game doesn't like it.

[Captain_Orso]

Seniority is not static. It can change with battle experience/battle-success, negative-experience/battle-failure, and if another leader is promoted over the leader in question.

[DrPostman]

Sure would make promotions and Army assignments easier.