User avatar
Stauffenberg
Brigadier General
Posts: 475
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Montreal
Contact: Website

Foreign Intervention & Promotions

Wed Aug 08, 2012 11:15 pm

It was certainly an irritant that the CSA, having managed to pull of Foreign Entry in a recent pbem, had to pay -3 NM & -142 VPs to put Longstreet (seniority: 10) in command of a new army, because British General Sir William F. Williams (seniority: 7) "expects to receive command of the next army." In Real Life™ an absurdity of course.
Just a thought, but a quick fix might be to simply give all foreign generals very low seniority ratings in the next patch: rate them all 90 - 99 for example.
Image

"General, have you ever head of Mosby?"
"Yes have you caught him?"
"He has caught you."

User avatar
Stauffenberg
Brigadier General
Posts: 475
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Montreal
Contact: Website

Stonewall Jackson promoted a French army commander !

Sat Aug 11, 2012 7:21 pm

Further to the above, it is possible to decommission a foreign army command, send the HQ to a CSA 3* general, and have the general command a new army formation, in foreign national colours.

In my current game some obvious house rules to prevent unlikely situations have come about to avoid situations like the above.
For example: no Corps can be commanded by any other army other than their own nationality. Divisions, however, can be commanded by another nationalty's Corps or Army commands. Currently limiting it to ONE foreign division per Corps or Army command.

In the current game I have going these issues have become important as the CSA in '63 has launched an offensive up through W. Virginia to capture Wheeling and threaten Pittsburgh from the south. Meanwhile, Foreign entry was triggered and the British stormed through Buffalo and reached the outskirts of Pittsburgh from the north themselves before being driven back slightly.

I think it's conceivable a single division or so could be commanded by a foreign Corps or Army command, but certainly not an entire Corps.
Image

"General, have you ever head of Mosby?"
"Yes have you caught him?"
"He has caught you."

wsatterwhite
Lieutenant
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 2:52 pm

Thu Aug 23, 2012 12:48 pm

As the Union opponent in this game I would like to add that the same issue affects the Union side with the Mexican generals and is exacerbated by the fact that there is no way to actually give the offended Mexican general an army command (I tried to use a US hq and it didn't take and the one Mexican hq available is occupied by a general with a seniority of 1- with the two most recent Army creations I made in this particular game I still have what amounts to an extra hq just sitting in Washington) . As a Union player who triggers FI is likely in dire straits already, giving up NM points in such a manner seem like an unnecessary hindrance, especially when the Union player (at least) can afford to "loan" the Mexicans an army hq.

User avatar
Stauffenberg
Brigadier General
Posts: 475
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Montreal
Contact: Website

Thu Aug 23, 2012 5:19 pm

Yes--at least one can console oneself with the fact that the other side has the same problems at times. :bonk:

Once again I would suggest to Lodi that all foreign generals be given very high (as in low) priority settings, changing them to 90+ which would remove most if not all of these NM penalties caused by foreign generals once FI occurs. A small adjustment for a major gain, as unnecessary NM losses in the end game (1864 - 65) are most unpleasant: e.g. it has cost me minus 8 NM in the current war which really bites. :mad:
Image

"General, have you ever head of Mosby?"
"Yes have you caught him?"
"He has caught you."

Return to “Help to improve AACW!”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests