Seniority attention

[put413]

Question: As the Union, if I assign a General to a Division that has a seniority of, lets' say 98, before I assign another General with a seniority of 16
{for example}, will I be penalized in some way? Must I really pay attention to seniority of Generals at all times?.......Because in the past, I assigned Generals to divisions either randomly (and definitely out of seniority order), or I just assigned them by looking for the best Strategic/Offense/Defense numbers.......
And if I should really assign them by seniority, I noticed that the game placed a General Shulz with a Cavalry brigade in NY on it's own... This General has lower seniority than a few others sitting in Wash , DC....

[pepe4158]

usually with armies...aka if the first union army you put in the field doesnt have old Mac to lead it you take a hit....hence this thread:

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=8708

[W.Barksdale]

Question: As the Union, if I assign a General to a Division that has a seniority of, lets' say 98, before I assign another General with a seniority of 16
{for example}, will I be penalized in some way? Must I really pay attention to seniority of Generals at all times?.......Because in the past, I assigned Generals to divisions either randomly (and definitely out of seniority order), or I just assigned them by looking for the best Strategic/Offense/Defense numbers.......
And if I should really assign them by seniority, I noticed that the game placed a General Shulz with a Cavalry brigade in NY on it's own... This General has lower seniority than a few others sitting in Wash , DC....

No. There is no need to worry about seniority while forming divisions or corps.
It's only an issue for promotions and army commands.

I do, however, believe it should have a greater role for corps and division leaders. But it ain't my game so I live with it

[GShock]

Considering Corps are an entity in the game and that many ** would rush to have an opportunity to make a career, i would gladly approve the insertion of seniority system in the corps leadership too.

Perhaps you can avoid McClellan and send him to Alaska but surely there have to be incompetent ** which u must assign anyway or have no corps at all.

Besides this would add extra historical flavor to the game and make the players assess every single general they have [i.e. to have a corps u need ** so it means u ll select your best * to fight and have them promoted (but might be killed!) because you need them to be ** to form the corps).

[soloswolf]

The thing is though, there are no teeth to this proposal. There is no cost to forming a Corps, so you can form the Corps with your senior general to avoid any VP/NM penalties, then still just not use him.

The risk is there with the armies because there are so few HQ's (and they cost so much) that you have pressure to get your best men into command.