Replacing Army Commanders

[BigDuke66]

As the tooltip is rather unclear for my intentions I would like to know exactly when I have to pay the penalties.
It's obviously that NM & VP have to be paid if the Army CO is just dismissed.
But currently I have to many Armies and would like to shrink their numbers. I thought about using an existing Army CO to replace another Army CO, but would that also cost me NM & VP?
For example, it looks like I could easily use Grant to replace Banks as Grant has a higher seniority but for that I would have to dismiss Grant & Banks from Army Command and recreate Banks Army with Grant as CO and would leave Banks without command, so by doing it this way what penalties would occur if any?

[Citizen X]

The cost is paid during turn resolution, afaik. The cost for dismissing Banks needs to be paid. The cost for dismissing Grant wont be paid, as he gets a new command. But there may be a cost for putting him in command when there is another three-star with more seniority.
That's my understanding of the mechanism.

[Captain_Orso]

1. There is no reason to dismiss an army, from a game aspect. If you don't want to use the army, simply move the army commander to some remote location and let him stand around.

2. When you change army commanders, the penalty for removing army command from the original commander is only assessed if the new army commander has a lower seniority, or if there is another Lt.Gen. with a higher seniority than the new army commander's seniority. If these previous 2 conditions do not apply, there is no penalty.

3. The way you are describing dismissing Banks, dismissing Grant, reinstating Grant is... weird. If you are simply trying to get Grant to get a new army name, do the following, which should not have any penalties at all, because in the end, both Grant and Banks will have an army command:

1) Move Grant to where you want him to operate, for example, if his current army command is in the West and you want him to command an army in the East, move him to the East first. It's a good idea to put him in the middle of the corps he will be commanding. Move Banks further away from the corps than Grant is/will be.

2) Dismiss Banks from army command (all Corps from Banks' army will be dismissed from their corps-status).

3) Dismiss Grant from his army command (all Corps from Grant's army will be dismissed from their corps-status).

4) Reinstate Grant's army command. This will give him an new army command name, probably the name of the army command Banks had previously.

5) Reinstate Banks' army command. He will get a new army name.

6) Reinstate corps status to all the corps within Grant's command radius. Remember, if Banks is closer, his army will be chosen as the army command. This is why you should move Banks out of the way first.

[BigDuke66]

Well the reason for relieving an Army CO is that I'm already at the max number of Armies, and I would like to free some up for better 3 Star generals.
It seems to me it would be worse to replace Banks right away with a lower seniority guy if I could instead relief him by Grant who has a higher seniority what would not lead to me having to pay any costs(at least I hope so).
If I now by-pass Banks for a new army command I think the cost won't be as high as they would be if I had relieved him right away by a 3 Star with lower seniority.

[Captain_Orso]

Well the reason for relieving an Army CO is that I'm already at the max number of Armies, and I would like to free some up for better 3 Star generals.

There is no point to 'freeing up' an army command. When you have a better Lt.Gen. you should give the army command to the new Lt.Gen., but not until then.

It seems to me it would be worse to replace Banks right away with a lower seniority guy if I could instead relief him by Grant who has a higher seniority what would not lead to me having to pay any costs(at least I hope so).

No, you are trying to trick the game engine, and that won't work. You have to look at the situation before issuing orders and after. You think you are giving Banks' army to Grant, but in end affect all you are doing is taking Banks' army command away, for which you will pay penalties.

If I now by-pass Banks for a new army command I think the cost won't be as high as they would be if I had relieved him right away by a 3 Star with lower seniority.

There is no reason to replace Banks until you have a better army commander, nor to take his command from him. Leave him be and wait for a better commander.

In fact, Banks with a army command, even if he doesn't have a single corps, is better than Banks without an army command. He has more CP's and can therefore command more troops in his stack without penalty. Also, the penalties for being inactive are dependent on friendly MC in the region, which makes using Banks in a static defensive position, where he will enjoy 100% MC, a viable solution for him.

[GraniteStater]

In an 1862 save I'm playing (Union), I'm in early '63 and must have nine Armies. Dunno what the limit is, but the game hasn't objected.

[Captain_Orso]

IIRC it's the 1st of March each year.

In '61 you have 3 armies.

In '62 it's 6.

And in '63 it's 9.

It's the same for both sides.

[BigDuke66]

I just tested my theory and it works.
I replaced Banks(seniority 11) with McClellan(seniority 3) and had to pay nothing.
I'm not sure if one has to do it in a specific order but I relieved them both of Army command, put Banks into Mc's stack and reformed the army. There was no drop in moral nor VP.

I see a problem in keeping such worthless army COs because it's simple not done to wait for a better CO, I'm still waiting to get Sherman to 2 stars but all the time had no luck of getting him into action so he could gain enough seniority. That is why it would be useful to not only raise the seniority of certain generals but also to try lowering the seniority of those 3 stars that you want to pass by.
I guess in reality a general that would get moved to a remote area of the war would naturally looses political influence and by that would sooner or later be cheap to pass by. As 3 stars can't loose seniority from someone getting promoted before them the only way to lower seniority is to make them suffer defeats. But doing that while the one is still army CO is bad because I think it yields a lot VPs if such an army would be destroyed.

[Captain_Orso]

I just tested my theory and it works.
I replaced Banks(seniority 11) with McClellan(seniority 3) and had to pay nothing.
I'm not sure if one has to do it in a specific order but I relieved them both of Army command, put Banks into Mc's stack and reformed the army. There was no drop in moral nor VP.

Of course not, because you removed the army command from a leader with lower seniority(11) and gave army command to a leader with a higher seniority(3), which will never cause a penalty. But you were talking about removing army command to "free up" that army command for use at a future point in time when you would have a Lt.Gen. you would rather have in command of an army.

BTW even if you could do that, when you then gave an army command to a better leader with seniority lower than the retired commander, you would still suffer penalties.

There is also no need to put both the retiring and new commander in the same region or stack to 'transfer' command, although it might preserve the name of the army. Back in AACW it was necessary, because to form an army command you needed an actual Army HQ unit which was combined with the army commander much like the combine command used to combine a leader with a brigade. When transferring an army command, put the army commander--which was combined with the Army HQ unit--into the same stack as the new commander, and clicked the SO button, and voila your orders were issued to give the army command to the other commander.

Since there are no Army HQ units in CW2, there is no need to put the leaders into the same stack, since the only requirement to allocate an army command, is having an army command currently available. If you currently have allocated all available army commands, you simply retire an army commander first and then allocate that freed-up army command to the new commander. This is all within the confines of issuing orders for a single turn. The order of doing things is simply to satisfy the mechanics of the game engine.

I see a problem in keeping such worthless army COs because it's simple not done to wait for a better CO, I'm still waiting to get Sherman to 2 stars but all the time had no luck of getting him into action so he could gain enough seniority. That is why it would be useful to not only raise the seniority of certain generals but also to try lowering the seniority of those 3 stars that you want to pass by.

It gives you basically nothing to remove an army command to simply put it on the shelf for some future commander. Removing the command will always cost NM and VP at that point in time. But if you can get for example Sherman anywhere near Banks' seniority, you will reduce the penalty, if not avoid it altogether.

I guess in reality a general that would get moved to a remote area of the war would naturally looses political influence and by that would sooner or later be cheap to pass by. As 3 stars can't loose seniority from someone getting promoted before them the only way to lower seniority is to make them suffer defeats. But doing that while the one is still army CO is bad because I think it yields a lot VPs if such an army would be destroyed.

I don't know if losses incurred by an army commander are any more costly in NM and VP than those incurred by any other commander. An army commander simply in general has a far larger force under his command from which to take losses.

I wrote extensively in another thread not too long ago about my thoughts on how command and control might be more realistically organized. I included the concept of relegating unfavorable commanders to remote areas, but you've given be a more refined idea. Seniority really shouldn't be moved around at all except in very extreme circumstances, and I think those might actually allow for such a commander's complete removal. For example, if McClellan had suffered a defeat as bad as Burnside's defeat at Fredericksburg, McClellan might have lost so much political backing that Lincoln could have removed him from command outright without suffering any political loses.

So maybe the game should do a couple of things differently,
1. bad defeats cause the lose of political values
2. if a leader's political value is low enough, complete removal of command would have no penalty
3. successes give political value first and only very great successes allocate seniority, maybe dependent on current seniority; ie if the leader has very low seniority it should be easy to raise it, but if his seniority is already fairly high it should be more difficult.

I don't believe the player should be able to raise nor lower seniority arbitrarily, ever. Seniority and political values should be allocated on merit as in real life. Political values would be set at the introduction of a leader to the game based on history, but after that the game should play out the changes, dependent on actions in the game.

[Gray Fox]

It seems to me that the CSA has enough army slots and good commanders to fill them The Union has the same number of slots, but poor commanders to fill them. The problem is getting Grant in command of an army without a penalty, not something with the game mechanics. As I have made known, I focus on VA as the Union player. To prevent CSA ironclads from sneaking up the coast and interfering with any amphibious operations there, I like to take Fort Clark ASAP. It's a coastal fort on an island that the CSA player would have difficulty reinforcing or retaking. So right after Grant is unlocked, I send him to the east. I put a good commander, like Lyons, in charge of one strong Division with a Marine element. I then make Grant stack commander of this Division and do an amphibious assault of Ft. Clark. Taking the fort gets Grant enough experience to get promoted to 3-star. As soon as the 3 new army slots open up in '62, Grant also has enough seniority to take the 6th slot before a bunch of the poor 3-stars arrive and crowd him out.

[BigDuke66]

I wrote extensively in another thread not too long ago about my thoughts on how command and control might be more realistically organized. I included the concept of relegating unfavorable commanders to remote areas, but you've given be a more refined idea. Seniority really shouldn't be moved around at all except in very extreme circumstances, and I think those might actually allow for such a commander's complete removal. For example, if McClellan had suffered a defeat as bad as Burnside's defeat at Fredericksburg, McClellan might have lost so much political backing that Lincoln could have removed him from command outright without suffering any political loses.

So maybe the game should do a couple of things differently,
1. bad defeats cause the lose of political values
2. if a leader's political value is low enough, complete removal of command would have no penalty
3. successes give political value first and only very great successes allocate seniority, maybe dependent on current seniority; ie if the leader has very low seniority it should be easy to raise it, but if his seniority is already fairly high it should be more difficult.

I don't believe the player should be able to raise nor lower seniority arbitrarily, ever. Seniority and political values should be allocated on merit as in real life. Political values would be set at the introduction of a leader to the game based on history, but after that the game should play out the changes, dependent on actions in the game.

Another set of very fine ideas, just wonder if they can be implemented.
Especially if there is a way to alter the political value of the current general, I'm not sure if the engine is able to do so because afaik some generals get replaced overtime by models with different political values, McClellan for example. I guess that is done because it can't be done by an event.

[Durk]

Reading these posts with much interest.
The 'problem' to me with many of the suggested 'fixes' is that the political generals were not Lincoln's generals, but those of the Radical Republicans. To keep the game 'historical' it is important that victory or loss in battle would not impact the 'purity' of the faithful fanatics.
These generals were in command despite their merits as commanders. So using a win/loss calculus misses why they are appointed to high command. They were deep in the radical 'truth' embraced by Radical Republicans.

[Citizen X]

Reading these posts with much interest.
The 'problem' to me with many of the suggested 'fixes' is that the political generals were not Lincoln's generals, but those of the Radical Republicans. To keep the game 'historical' it is important that victory or loss in battle would not impact the 'purity' of the faithful fanatics.
These generals were in command despite their merits as commanders. So using a win/loss calculus misses why they are appointed to high command. They were deep in the radical 'truth' embraced by Radical Republicans.

True
Also, a reliable game mechanic here would be too much of a possible exploit.

[Captain_Orso]

Reading these posts with much interest.
The 'problem' to me with many of the suggested 'fixes' is that the political generals were not Lincoln's generals, but those of the Radical Republicans. To keep the game 'historical' it is important that victory or loss in battle would not impact the 'purity' of the faithful fanatics.
These generals were in command despite their merits as commanders. So using a win/loss calculus misses why they are appointed to high command. They were deep in the radical 'truth' embraced by Radical Republicans.

I would have to respectfully disagree. Political influences end when facts replace them. The histories in the Civil War of McDowell, Fremont, McClernand, McClellan, Hooker, and Porter speak for this.

Also, Charles P. Stone, is an example of politics over facts. Actually an excellent leader, he was arrested and persecuted on trumped up charges, because he followed civil and military law and not the politics of radical Republicans. Because the facts were ignored, politics prevailed.

[Rod Smart]

Put the army commanders into the same stack. Two armies cannot occupy the same stack, so one is removed from command- without a penalty.



I do this as the south when Lee takes command, and when I send a better three star to Missouri.

I do this as the north when sending someone east, and in the west when it gets crowded with Buell and Rosecrans and Sherman and Fremont and .....

[BigDuke66]

That really works without penalties?
Looks like some oversight, I guess this merging could/should be denied just like the splitting of a transport fleet is denied because it would lead to the destruction of some of the loaded forces.

[Rod Smart]

That really works without penalties?
Looks like some oversight, I guess this merging could/should be denied just like the splitting of a transport fleet is denied because it would lead to the destruction of some of the loaded forces.

It may be broken.

Or it may be working as designed.
We're all familiar with US Grant taking over the Eastern Campaign, even though Meade was technically still in charge of the Army of the Potomac.
I also recently learned that during the Chattanooga campaign, Grant was in charge of three armies, plus another corp. He was overall commander in the theater, commanding the armies of the Cumberland (Thomas), Tennessee (Sherman), Ohio (Burnsides, in Knoxville), plus a corp under Hooker from the army of the Potomac. Thomas, Sherman and Burnsides didn't take a hit because Grant was put into operational control of the theater.

[BigDuke66]

This concept of commanding army groups makes me think that the 4-Star level should be used to allow for such to happen.
Not sure how the game engine handles a 4-star, I think we have Winfield Scott depicting this as CO of all Union forces but I can't remember what impact he had in the game.

Not sure what to make of it, but we could have:
- multiple 4-stars, one for each theater
- 2x 4-Star, one for the East and one for the West
- single 4-Star as overall CO of all the forces of that side.

[Captain_Orso]

4-star generals play no actual role in the game other than an extra level of rank. It's really just symbolic, other than the fact that only a couple of leaders can attain this rank.

It is also not attainable in the grand campaigns IIRC. It can only be give in scenario setup, but I may be wrong here.

Much could be done to make command structures more realistic and historic, but it would require extensive programming.

[DrPostman]

I'm hoping a CW3 is germinating in the back of the devs minds

[Durk]

The challenge for design, the CSA and USA had totally different command structures and, also, number of maximum stars for generals. The game could impose late war command for the CSA or mid-war USA model. But the current game gets the command and subordination about right given the differing ideas about theater command and supreme command and army command.
But interesting discussion.

[GraniteStater]

I don't think they'll ever do it, but the old Victory Games board game had a provision for Grant or Sherman commanding more than one Army. I think the rules restricted it to 1864 or after.

Pity.