AGEOD Forums

I was conflicted in raising this issue, as it's nothing huge...but sort of a logistical thing...

Noticing that the number of 1 star generals I possess as the Union (or CSA) player throughout the course of a game becomes astronomical by about 1863....I was wondering if it would be practical to allow for divisions to include brigaded leaders.....which to my knowledge, aren't allowed to right now.

It forces my corps stacks' CP demand to go up considerably having several "Independent" brigades along with my formed divisions. Plus I think brigading generals is a good way of earning them some combat experience anyway.

I didn't know if this could be incorporated in some way....

An historical example:
Jackson's Wing in 1862 that included divisions made up of brigades commanded by several notable generals like Armistead, Gregg, G.W. Smith, Hood etc....

Banks6060 wrote:I was conflicted in raising this issue, as it's nothing huge...but sort of a logistical thing...

Noticing that the number of 1 star generals I possess as the Union (or CSA) player throughout the course of a game becomes astronomical by about 1863....I was wondering if it would be practical to allow for divisions to include brigaded leaders.....which to my knowledge, aren't allowed to right now.

It forces my corps stacks' CP demand to go up considerably having several "Independent" brigades along with my formed divisions. Plus I think brigading generals is a good way of earning them some combat experience anyway.

I didn't know if this could be incorporated in some way....

An historical example:
Jackson's Wing in 1862 that included divisions made up of brigades commanded by several notable generals like Armistead, Gregg, G.W. Smith, Hood etc....

I am not quite sure about this. The way I look at the number of 1* generals is these are the guys who have risen above their brigade commands for possible assignement for higher positions. If I am not using them I assume that they are still with their brigades, but represented as units in the capital. The combat experience that they need to earn is not the brigade level, but divisional and staff experience, which the game does quite well. Even independent brigade experience outside of the divisional structure would be good for higher postions.

as a point of fact...

typically, at least in the CSA's armies....a 1 star general (Brigadier General) was in command of a brigade while 2 star generals commanded divisions, and 3 stars commanded corps and armies. That's kind of where this issue was brought up in my mind.

The Union Army saw FAR more Colonel's in command of brigades so for the Union you would probably be correct. I see the game very accurately reflecting the historical Union command progression.

Confederate Brigades and divisions were also typically much larger (which the game covers well.)

Anyway, I suppose as the Union I should just recruit more troops to fill up more divisions . Having a lot of cav divisions is what has hampered my ability to form additional infantry divisions.

Banks6060 wrote:as a point of fact...

typically, at least in the CSA's armies....a 1 star general (Brigadier General) was in command of a brigade while 2 star generals commanded divisions, and 3 stars commanded corps and armies. That's kind of where this issue was brought up in my mind.

The Union Army saw FAR more Colonel's in command of brigades so for the Union you would probably be correct. I see the game very accurately reflecting the historical Union command progression.

Confederate Brigades and divisions were also typically much larger (which the game covers well.)

Anyway, I suppose as the Union I should just recruit more troops to fill up more divisions . Having a lot of cav divisions is what has hampered my ability to form additional infantry divisions.

I think that the limits placed on the toal number of available divisions is part of the problem. We receive so many commanders compared to available divisions to place them. It can be frustrating.