Who's Worth Promoting?

[BentonGrey]

Howdy guys, I'm starting to get my sea-legs with this game, and now I'm trying to make smart strategic choices. I was looking for some advice about CSA generals. I've discovered that some lose stats when promoted (poor Longstreet!), becoming worse the higher they climb. Who is worth it/safe to promote? Specifically, I could really use one more three start general, but everyone I've prompted became mediocre at best. I'm in 1864, so I've got a lot of guys to choose from. So, who should I fast track?

[Cardinal Ape]

It is a tough choice. There are not really any great candidates for another 3 star in the CS. Stonewall and Longstreet are the easiest to get to 3 stars, but as you found they are best used as corp commanders.

Ideally, you would want someone with a high strategic rating for a large operating area, but those candidates lack other stats, like Hood (5-0-1) or Polk (4-0-0). Perhaps if you favored Polk from the start he might be able to improve he stats with exp. E.K. Smith would be decent, (3-2-2) with a couple of good traits.

[Durk]

To me it matters who is still in the game in 1864. You may not need other army commanders. If you do, Taylor is one I like to promote. But a consideration to think about, fewer army commanders is better than many army commanders.

[BentonGrey]

Thanks guys! Well, that's a bit disappointing. Basically, you can't field another decent (and barely so) three star general without sacrificing an excellent lower ranker. Darn. I suppose Kirby Smith will have to do.

Durk, I'm not sure I follow. Why is it better to have fewer army commanders?

[Captain_Orso]

Well, from the perspective of promoting Longstreet or Jackson to Lt.Gen., which ruins their strategic ratings IMHO, the bigger question is, why would you promote them. Unless you have a real need for a new army command, and you are willing to breakup the Lee-Longstreet-Jackson combination, you will only be getting a lesser leader, who also losses some of his XP (eXperience Points); promoting a leader takes away from XP.

The only issue you might have with not promoting a really good corps commander might be with the fact that they will likely raise to the top of their ranks in seniority, in which case, if you then need to promote a different leader to an army command, you will have to pass-over Longstreet and Jackson to do so, which could cost you some NM and VP's.

[Rod Smart]

Forrest is promotable to three star. I believe Cleburn as well.

Good point about regarding why you need to promote. I find that I only need three armies, and with Lee, the Johnstons, and PGT, any additional three stars end up as corp commanders or in charge of mismatched stacks in the far flung corners of the map (I like promoting Hood to three star and sending him to Texas)

[Captain_Orso]

8<
I like promoting Hood to three star and sending him to Texas)

Why? WHY? why? Why throw a **5-4-1 away, one of your hardest hitting corps commanders, for a ***5-0-1? .....

This is exactly what Napoleon stated were the worst people to have around, a highly ambitious (5 strategic rating) fool (0 offensive rating).

BTW if you think Napoleon thought the best people to have around are the ambitious geniuses, you'd be wrong. He wanted the lazy geniuses, because they would devise ways to get things done with the least amount of effort