Leadership System

[Guardsman]

Hey all, been playing off and on for quite a while, mostly as the Union. What I'm wondering is if anyone has figured out the leadership system in the game. To me, the system is excessively complicated and confusing. There doesn't seem to be anything logical or consistent about it.

For example, there seems to be a hidden hard-coded attribute that determines what level of command a leader can obtain (regardles off how many stars he has). Even though 2-star generals are supposed to be able to form divisions (some can even forms Corps, even though they are not supposed to), some are not able to at any time in the game. Some 1-star generals can form diviisions while others are restricted to only being in command of a brigade. What is the attribute that controls this, and can it be seen by the player? Similarly, 3-star generals are supposed to be able to form Armies, but some (usually the better ones for the Union) cannot form Armies at any time.

Is there any way to know in advance whether a 2-star General can form a division, or a 3-star general can form a Corps? It's very frustrating to move a decent general to where you want, only to find out that he can't form a division or Corps.

Also, as the Union, every year you get two sets of generals "Division Generals" and a 'general's pool" . What is the difference? Most of the "Division Generals" are 1-star and cannot actually form Divisions. Similarly, in the 'general's pool', there are 1-star generals that can form Divisons.

I have played with the General's settings as everything from 'normal' to highly randomized and it does not appear to make a difference.

Am I completely missing something vital to understand the system?

Thought I'd add some examples from my current game:

Game date is Early Nov '62, playing as Union.

D. Tyler * sen: 132 Form Div: Yes

D. Miles * Sen: 133 Form Div : No

D. Hunter * sen: 67 Form Div: Yes

G. Morrell * sen sen: 93 Form Div: No

C. Hamilton ** sen: 62 Form Div: No

R. Millroy ** sen: 71 Formd Div: No


What ????

[DrPostman]

All 1 star generals can form divisions, if they are ACTIVE. If the little envelope is brown
they are not active. Activation depends on their command rating. Only 2 stars can
form a Corps. Only 3 star can form an army. In options you can turn activation off,
but you lose the realism of how temperamental, and/or drunk, generals can be when
it comes to following orders.

Keep in mind too that you can't form divisions until Oct of the first year and no Corps
until early the next.

[Guardsman]

The date is now Early Jan, '62, and I've just gotten the "62 Generals Pool" and the "'62 Division General" stacks. In the "62 Generals Pool" are Thomas L Crittenden and Benjamin M Prentiss, both 1-star generals. The stack itself has a tooltip that says all units inside it are always active. Prentiss can form a Division while Crittenden cannot.

My question is why? What am I missing?

Edit: It appears that despite what the tooltip says, not all generals inside it are active. I'm still investigating if something else is going.

[Guardsman]

Talk about a huge penalty. A general dropped from 5-3-3 rating to a 3-1-2 rating when Division command was enabled. Is that because he is only 1-star and should not be a Division commander? Does the same happen to 2-star generals?

[Mickey3D]

Talk about a huge penalty. A general dropped from 5-3-3 rating to a 3-1-2 rating when Division command was enabled. Is that because he is only 1-star and should not be a Division commander? Does the same happen to 2-star generals?

The turn a general is promoted he suffers from a penalty to his stats. Next turn he will be back to his original rating.

Edit : As mentioned by Capt Orso below, the word "promoted" is misleading. The penalty happens when the leader is put in command of a division.

[Captain_Orso]

You mean, the turn he is given division command.

[Rod Smart]

The only time a leader can never form a division is if you are playing with randomized generals and someone has a '0' strategic rating.


If you are having trouble forming a corps or army with a general, move him out of the stack so he is all alone. If a unit in the stack is permanently fixed, the general won't be able to form a corps. This often happens to me, as I like having all those fixed units in Alexandria and Washington as corps, but you have to form a corps and then merge with the fixed units.

[Jim-NC]

You are also only allowed to form a limited number of armies. If you create armies with all the 3 stars you get at the beginning of the game, then no, you won't have any extra armies for those new better commanders.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

The above info is good. Seniority is just to determine what kind of penalty you'll face for promoting a lower seniority general over a higher seniority general.

[donagel]

I am curious as to what others do with Fremont, McClellan and Halleck. DO they use them as generals, pay the price for promoting others, or wait untilthe better generals get seniority over them? I wish they could be happy as the heads of their respective departments..

[Durk]

I am curious as to what others do with Fremont, McClellan and Halleck. DO they use them as generals, pay the price for promoting others, or wait untilthe better generals get seniority over them? I wish they could be happy as the heads of their respective departments..

It depends. Early on Fremont leads his West Virginian's to support the Valley campaign. He is early retired to a distant post. McClellan I hang onto until a better general comes East. For me it is often Rosecrans. But other leaders work very well. Then I send him to Baltimore to help expand the amphibious attacks and train. As to Halleck, he defends Missouri. For the early part of the game, St Louis and Jefferson City are under threat, I use him to make the militia penalty free of leadership penalties.

I do pay the penalties to promote others. While I do not demote these leaders, I simply use them on the margins. The Union has enough capacity to not worry too much even if you need to take army command from one or more of these leaders, but usually it is not necessary to do so.

[DrPostman]

Halleck is real good for use training up militias!

[Captain_Orso]

There are only two reasons for giving one of the Three Stooges™--Fremont, Halleck and McClellan--an army command:

1. To form corps; only possible starting March '62.

2. To benefit from the increased CP of an army commander.

If you take an army command away from an army commander, there is always a penalty (generally around 4NM and some VP's).

If you give command of an army to a leader who is not the highest in seniority, you will suffer an NM and VP loss penalty depending on the Political Level of the leader being passed-over and the difference between the new army commander's seniority level and and that of the general being passed over. The greater these two values are, the greater the penalty.

If you do both in the same turn--for example, you take the Army of the West away from Fremont and give it to Grant--you only pay one penalty, the greater one.

If, however, Grant has more seniority than Fremont, then taking Fremont's army command and giving it to Grant will cost neither NM nor VP.

If you want to know what such penalties are, plan them during the planning phase and check the tool-tips of the SO buttons before activating them.

[donagel]

For me I have two competeing thoughts, one I want to simulate Lincoln's dilemma with finding good commanders, but at the same time I want to win. I wish there was a mode that not only randomized the stats, but also hid the values from you until a few battles.

The penalties can be quite severe, IIRC I once saw a 297 point swing for denying McClellan. On my list of enahncements I would love if this type of notification was a pop up or IN BIG BOLD LETTERS as it would be easy to miss.

[Rod Smart]

For me I have two competeing thoughts, one I want to simulate Lincoln's dilemma with finding good commanders, but at the same time I want to win. I wish there was a mode that not only randomized the stats, but also hid the values from you until a few battles.

Try randomized generals. It can be fun seeing old names with new ratings.

For example, in my current game, Fremont and Halleck are both 4-0-4, McClellan is a 2-2-6, and McDowell is a 2-1-2.

[donagel]

Yeah, but all that does it make you look closely for the best stats. It be great if one stat got revealed each battle or something like that or some ability manifest itself over time.

[Guardsman]

I usually play with at least moderately randomized generals and one thing that never changes are the general's special abilities. Here are some things that I'd like to see in the game:

- Special abilities randomized as well so they are not always the same for every general every time.

- Special abilities being added or subtracted according to how a general performs and his experience. For example, if a general performs outstandingly well while defending a fort, he could gain a related special ability (or lose one if he does poorly).

- General's ratings fluctuating over time due to illness, exhaustion, mental breakdown or whatever. Throughout history, not every general was at his peak at all times. Perhaps a general that has just won a battle and performed well could get a temporary boost to some of his ratings, and vice versa. This would simulate how winning or losing decisive battles affects leaders. Generally, better leaders would have less fluctuation than poorer leaders.

[enf91]

The question that never got addressed:

The only difference between the generals in "'YR Division Generals" and "'YR Generals Pool" is that the generals in the first group historically got promoted to higher commands (I think some of them get promoted by event, too) and the ones in the second group never amounted to much. They are identical in every other way.