On generals

[Njordr]

I'm playing an USA April 1861 Two Teathers with Kentucky campaign.

With the new year I got a good bunch of new (one and two stars) generals and this event made me wonder: where did the two star ones have been until now?

It's strange. I don't think a former brigade general could be suddendly promoted to lieutenant general without passing from major general rank.

This is more evident with full generals Buell and Rosecrans.

So, should Berry, Dix, etc. be present from the very start of the campaign as major generals?

Should they be promoted by event or by field merits?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Hohenlohe]

I'm playing an USA April 1861 Two Teathers with Kentucky campaign.

With the new year I got a good bunch of new (one and two stars) generals and this event made me wonder: where did the two star ones have been until now?

It's strange. I don't think a former brigade general could be suddendly promoted to lieutenant general without passing from major general rank.

This is more evident with full generals Buell and Rosecrans.

So, should Berry, Dix, etc. be present from the very start of the campaign as major generals?

Should they be promoted by event or by field merits?

From my personal game experience the game invites you to use the first generals gaining combat experience by merits although you can get some decent two-stars early enough for both sides. But it is in your hands to develop your generals.

greetings

Hohenlohe

[Njordr]

Don't make the mistake of trying to definitively tie a general's command level to the titles of Major General or Lieutenant General in the game. The historical scripted event promotions are for the most part based on when they historically were assigned to command certain formation sizes coincident with the game design.

I.E.
1-star generals show up when they historically first took command at the Division level since in game the 1-star generals can form up and command divisions.

2-star generals show up when they historically first took command at the Corps level...

3-star generals show up when they historically first took command at the Army level...

When an event driven promotion occurs, if there was a lower ranked "version" of that same general already existing, it is removed/replaced by the promoted "version. In some instances the new location may actually differ from where the lower ranked version was removed from. These historical event driven promotions serve two purposes. The first is just historical flavor of the game. The second and more important is to help the AI to have better generals to work with.

In the latter versions of the game, it is also possible for the player/gamer to promote a general in-game to a command level one level higher than historically achieved.


_______________________________________

Sent from my Droid X using Swype.

Ok, but apart the promotion issue (that's a secondary question), should Berry, Dix, etc. be present from the very start of the campaign as Major Generals?

Or due to game balance reasons they have to appear in January 1862?

[Yee Haa]

Grays post clears mup a few things for me, I have found so many inconsistencies in the dates for the appearance of Generals. William Mahoe CSA is a good example he was promoted Brigadier General in November 1861, having already contributed to the bloodless capture of Norfolk Navy Yard. He first led his brigade in to the battles of Seven Pines and Malvern Hill during the Seven Days campaign on the Peninsular. He went on to fight at 2nd Mannassas (wounded), Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg the Wilderness and Spotsylvania Courthouse before achieving his greatest exploit at the Battle of the Crater at the siege of Petersburg. However I believe he was promoted to Major General following this and the date ties in with his appearance in AACW, I can give dozens of other examples like this it seems that Generals tend to appear around the time of their promotion to Major General. - Yee Haa

[Yee Haa]

P.S. I do think that William Mahone CSA should be given some sort of engineer special ability as he was a highlky innovative and successfull engineer and railroad, road builder. Yee Haa

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Njordr]

I should explain better my original question.

If I remember right, Union player gets Hooker in AUg 1861. Historically, we know Hooker started as a division commander and slowly climbed the command chain until he became Army of the Potomac's commander (and then Chancellorsville, but this is another history). In AACW he starts as a one star general and if he can climb the chain is up to you.

Now, fast forward to January 1862, with the '62 Generals event. We have Berry, Dix, etc. as two star generals. The question is: where did they hide until now?

We get them yet with two stars, as a gift. But shouldn't it be more theorically correct to have them at the very moment they became one star generals (the start of the campaign/scenario or in a precise month) as Hooker?

Shouldn't we see the natural evolution of the gameplay? Why Hooker or another early commander have to fight bloody battles with the risk of being killed to improve their seniority and Berry appears with his two shiny stars without having done nothing worth to mention?

In a previous post Gray wrote:

1-star generals show up when they historically first took command at the Division level since in game the 1-star generals can form up and command divisions.

2-star generals show up when they historically first took command at the Corps level...

3-star generals show up when they historically first took command at the Army level...

So there were generals who took command of a Corp without ever having a divisional command? It's not a tricky question for I admit my ignorance in this field.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Njordr]

Njordr:

It has to do with the fact that even after 3 years, the work was not complete. Last year, around this time, it was decided that the database rework had to be curtailed and only those issues having to do with game play bugs, (not historical inaccuracies), were to be "officially" addressed going forward. The rest of the database historical inaccuracies are left in place for modders to address as they wish.

Sorry, but at some point the game database modifications had to cease for work to move on to other projects. AGEod could not continue to support a single game for the next decade. We are lucky that they are still backfitting new features into it from the new game even now, but the database changes are limited to correction of bug issues and no longer for historical purposes.

Ok, this is a fair answer. Understood!

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted