AGEOD Forums

I've been trying to cultivate a talented officer corps in my current Union game starting in April '61. Yet it seems that for every hard-earned promotion for a skilled general, some no-talent hack is being promoted without such orders. Frequently the shlub is the one has better seniority at the new rank, with the result that he replaces his more-gifted former commander as stack leader.

Where are these random promotions coming from? I'm taking care to separate my promoting commanders so that I don't inadvertently promote everyone in the stack. Are these promotions scripted, or is there something else going on that I'm missing? Examples so far have been Keyes and Crittenden.


Also enjoying the turn replay function. Is there any way to back through and watch all previous turns? Would be interesting...

There are scripted promotions based on historical dates of achieved ranks.

There are automatic promotions for some generals for both the North and South. They are built into the game and are added for realism and flavor. I don't have an exhaustive list, but for the North I believe the automatic promotions will go to Lew Wallace, Sumner, Keyes, and Kearney. There are some other promotions later on in the game, such as "Baldy" Smith, French, and Newton.

There are some on both sides. I did some updated listing before the final legacy patch (but I don't think anything changed in regards to the generals in the legacy patch) you can see them here:

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=14894

BB

deleted

Gray_Lensman wrote:Surprise... Surprise... Now you know how Lincoln felt being saddled with "No-talent Hacks" the first couple of years. This is a deliberate part of the game design so you'll have to get used to it.

I don't mind the no-talent hacks' existence, as they seem to be trainable (ie adding attribute points with experience). I just mind having them out-promoted seemingly arbitrarily. If the purpose is to add flavor and realism, why not script all promotions and take the player out of the loop? Or at least give a flavorful newspaper clipping to explain

If there ever ends up being a sequel, this is one of the things I'd like to see changed. I really don't enjoy the game forcing historical things on the player that may not reflect anything that happens in the game. For example, in real life McClellan got promoted up due to his success in western Virginia in 1861. But in the game you get McClellan promoted up no matter what you do. It doesn't make sense to saddle the player with something like that.

deleted

That's indeed the big old debate of sandbox versus historically constrained, although I would not have said that exactly has Gray_Lensman

You have the right to not like our approach that you may find too rigid at time. We had a lot of discussions at AGEOD on that and we came to something which I believe can be as close as 'best of both world' possible, for Vainglory of Nations. More on that later.

So if the recipe works for VGN, why not for an AACW2, if there is one to be done in the future (no insurance here!!)

Gray_Lensman wrote:The south had a better military tradition at the start with poor resources to draw on while the north had overwhelming resources but suffered at the start from poor military command and tried to make up for it with political appointments.

That historically asymmetrical configuration is what makes the game interesting and potentially long. Allowing the USA player to bypass historical realities regarding the Union's poor military command will merely allow the USA to win quicker--perhaps much quicker.

I have no complaints about the Union having poor leaders to start- thats the way it was. It's just the apparent randomness and inexplicabilty (within game) of the promotions. Knowing that they were coming, or at least why, would really make a difference.

if the game accuratly followed the rules of 'chain of command' these promotions wouldnt be a problem.generals do not suborn a command simply becouse theyre in the same area or(gamewise)the same stack.they have to be appointed to a command unless things are done differently in the U.S.

deleted

captain curruthers wrote:if the game accuratly followed the rules of 'chain of command' these promotions wouldnt be a problem.generals do not suborn a command simply becouse theyre in the same area or(gamewise)the same stack.they have to be appointed to a command unless things are done differently in the U.S.

At the time of the US Civil War, seniority at rank superseeded pretty much all else. For example, if three regiments were supposed to work together and all had commanders of equal rank, the senior at the rank would be in charge. There's even an example of this early in the war when Grant was commanding troops near St. Louis. Fremont sent another officer of Grant's rank to him with some additional troops. Because that officer was senior to Grant, Grant turned the force over to him and reported back to Fremont, who was surprised to see him as he hadn't intended for Grant to be relieved.

As for the broader issue, I think there are ways to reflect the weaker overall leadership among Northern commanders that don't involve forcing the player to accept promotions they have no control over. The framework that limits the northern player from "gaming" things too much is already in place with the need to give leaders experience before they can be promoted. That system could be developed further.

On the other hand, I'm coming at this from a perspective where I'd like to see a American Civil War game where the player faced more realistic leadership challenges then what we normally see. As players we have a huge benefit of knowing who the best leaders on both sides were. A system where you didn't know that in a truly random sense would be heaven from my point of view, even though I realize there are plenty of others who want to be able to see generals with historical abilities. But I think there is room for both options.

It would be great if AACW2 had an option for semi-random hidden system for leader attributes (as seen in many ACW games), and the automatic non-sensical (IMO ) "historical" dates could be left for those who prefer to play the game as if it was a history book Yes, it might mean Mac actually gets good stats when he gets promoted, but it wouldn't be very likely (and you might be very reluctant to find out the truth in battle, thus achieving the ponderous action time Mac had in reality) and it might result in Grant not being the excellent theater leader in west.

Ie. if I had all the power in the world, I would design the system so that Mac has 50% chance to recieve below average stats when promoted, and 25% to recieve really poor but 25% chance to get average stats. Conversely, Grant might have 25% chance to get average stats, 50% chance to get above average stats and 25% change to get good stats. These might be called A, B and C type leaders (A has 50% to have above average, 25% to have good and 25% to have average stat(s), B might have 50% average and C might have 50% chance to have below average stats).

Would it require more work? Dunno, if average would (in AACW terms) be "3", and it has been determined in AACW a given commander has mostly 2's as stats, maybe he would be determined to be a C class commander. It would also be possible to change the classification of leaders as they get promoted (for example, Mac might be B class initially, but when promoted to Army commander he would be a C class commander).

Just rambling here, I'll go and hide myself behind the rock again

Jarkko wrote:It would be great if AACW2 had an option for semi-random hidden system for leader attributes (as seen in many ACW games), and the automatic non-sensical (IMO ) "historical" dates could be left for those who prefer to play the game as if it was a history book Yes, it might mean Mac actually gets good stats when he gets promoted, but it wouldn't be very likely (and you might be very reluctant to find out the truth in battle, thus achieving the ponderous action time Mac had in reality) and it might result in Grant not being the excellent theater leader in west.

Ie. if I had all the power in the world, I would design the system so that Mac has 50% chance to recieve below average stats when promoted, and 25% to recieve really poor but 25% chance to get average stats. Conversely, Grant might have 25% chance to get average stats, 50% chance to get above average stats and 25% change to get good stats. These might be called A, B and C type leaders (A has 50% to have above average, 25% to have good and 25% to have average stat(s), B might have 50% average and C might have 50% chance to have below average stats).

Would it require more work? Dunno, if average would (in AACW terms) be "3", and it has been determined in AACW a given commander has mostly 2's as stats, maybe he would be determined to be a C class commander. It would also be possible to change the classification of leaders as they get promoted (for example, Mac might be B class initially, but when promoted to Army commander he would be a C class commander).

Just rambling here, I'll go and hide myself behind the rock again

Yeah, that's what I'd like to see as well. Years ago, in an otherwise marginal Frank Hunter Civil War game, there was an interesting optional rule. IIRC, what you saw as far as leader stats were approximate. As they fought, those abilities might change, up or down. It really took several engagements to find out who was really good or not. Kind of like the real war.

So to run through the auto-promotions for the Union:

Edwin Sumner to 2-star in Feb '62. Historically promoted by Lincoln in May of '62 to command a corps in the AotP. Fair enough, based on seniority, and adjusted in game for corps formation. Does he also automatically die from a heart attack in March '63?

Keyes to 2-star in May '62. Historically promoted in May, but, like Sumner, given corps command by Lincoln due to seniority. Auto-promo earlier for corps command purposes.

Lew Wallace to 2-star in Mar '62. Historically promoted at this time for actions at Fort Donelson. Auto-promo unjustified, as historical promo was due to historical actions in the field.

Crittenden to 2-star in July '62. Historically promotedafter Shiloh, and resigned in Dec '64. Auto-promo once again questionable. Should he be auto-retired in '64?

French to 2-star in Nov '62. Historically promoted after long service in the AotP.

Phil Kearny to 2-star in Apr '62. Historically promoted in July after strong leadership in the Peninsula, and never reached corps command. Auto-promo early and unwarranted.

Baldy Smith to 2-star in Apr '63. Historically promoted in July '62, but not confirmed in the Senate due to Fredricksburg, and did not command a corps. Promoted again to Maj Gen after opening the cracker line in Nov '63, and commanded a corps in the Army of the James during '64 without distinction, and was releived of command. Auto-promo inexplicable.

Isaac Stevens to 2-star in July '62. His in game appearance as Brigadier is several months late, while Wikipedia does not record a date for his promotion to Maj Gen. He never commanded a corps, and was killed in Sept '62. Auto-promo questionable.

John Newton to 2-star in Jan'64. Actuallu promoted to that rank in early '63, but rescinded a year latet due to his role in sacking Burnside. Temporarily commanded I Corps. Auto-promo inexplicable.


There are dozens of other generals in the game, many of whom received promotions during the war, who are not auto-promoted. Porter, Heintzelman, and Franklin also were promoted when the AotP adopted corps, yet they are not auto-promoted. The auto-promotions in the game seem to be inconsistent, in that they represent only a few of the historical promotions, and often of men whose contribution was less than that of thers who are not promoted. Yet others are auto-promoted based upon historical promotions that were based on historical achievement, but these generals might not be so accomplished in a game. The game already has a fine system for promotion based on seniority and achievement, so there's no reason to implement a few promotions that rarely fit the context of the game being played.

obsolete

deleted

Where would you suggest I look to discover the volunteers' rationale for these particular auto-promotions? I'm pretty sure I can manage to edit them out of the game myself, if the events are all text-based like Victoria etc.

PS- I think it's pretty clear that I have been arguing for fewer auot-promos, not more. I'll thank you for refraining from suggesting that I am whining about a lack of effort on the volunteers' part.

deleted

Thanks, I was beginning to wonder if it was an AI support thing. I guess I'll just have to take the pending auto-promos into account next time I start grooming generals for greatness.

One question remains. I've seen the stats of several leaders improve as they gain experience. Do these improvements carry over after promotion?

May I recommend for your viewing pleasure the attached article on experience and the working general. It has a wealth of information (if I do say so myself).

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=14311&highlight=experience

And to answer questions about promotions and experience... A general's experience (the number, not the stars) is cut in half when he is promoted.

Talk about digging up an old thread .... I did so, because it addresses a bunch of promotion issues and I have one that I bet many of you have experienced but, like me, just shrugged off.

In a current game, I got a notice that if I promoted Kearny, that Sherman wouldn't like it. Okay, but I was promoting Sherman too, so I figured no worries. I promoted Sherman first (just to make sure), then I promoted Kearny (the same turn, to be clear).

Next turn I got a notice that McClellan was upset, and the cost was more expensive than Sherman's was. The same thing happened for three other promoted generals, in all costing 1 NM and 118 VPs. At least two of these I would not have promoted had I know there was someone besides Sherman that wouldn't like it.

So, the complaint is this: if there's going to be a penalty, I'd like a list of ALL OF THEM who are going to complain, not just the first guy on the list. Alternatively, it'd be ok to say X number of generals will object and not name them.

Perhaps there's a way to see such a list that I just don't know about. If so, someone please hit me up side da head with it.

Longshanks wrote:Perhaps there's a way to see such a list that I just don't know about. If so, someone please hit me up side da head with it.

"There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don't know.”

I won't bother citing the source on the above.

At least you know the list exists... or do you?
A capricious unknown (but known) list of penalties melds rather well with the other volatile components of this recreation where its rags to riches, hero to military failure, with one miss-step, miss cue, omission... or capricious promotion penalty.

I rather like the idea that it just might be a randomized penalty roll made for each promotion.

That was from Dick Cheney, when he was Secretary of Defense if memory serves me. (wikipedia'd it... it was Donald Rumsfeld ... got the DoD part right tho!)

Longshanks wrote:That was from Dick Cheney, when he was Secretary of Defense if memory serves me. (wikipedia'd it... it was Donald Rumsfeld ... got the DoD part right tho!)

Yes it was Rumsfeld being clever.
Seriously, a few of those promotion situations had me wondering if perhaps there was a variable in there, penalty-wise. I suppose not though.

Use roster and sort generals by rank. This should sort each rank by seniority also. See if there's more than the complaining general above who you want to promote.

I don't think that the order in which you click the promote button on leaders during one turn plays any role as the promotions you enter are executed in the same turn.

In general, if the tool-tip for Kearny's promotion says that Sherman will be upset, but you are promoting Sherman in the same turn, then the tool-tip for Sherman's promotion should be showing that McClellan will be upset--which he always is that , unless Sherman is either above McClellan or Sherman has seniority between 1 and 4, in which case even if McClellan is above Sherman he can't say anything, because Sherman has earned the promotion fair-and-square I hate McClellan, can you tell?

Okay, I had to think about this for a while, but I think I've figured out what happened.

Kearny is below Sherman, because you are warned that Sherman will be upset if Kearny is promoted before him. You didn't say that you had a tool-tip warning about promoting Sherman, so we will assume that there was none and that Sherman is therefore above McClellan. So the order of seniority is:

Sherman - McClellan - Kearny

Kearny's promotion tool-tip warns about Sherman because Sherman has the highest seniority of the rank. But Sherman is getting promoted too--why would you even have to think about that? --therefore the burden of whining about being passed over falls onto McClellan.

So, as Pat has stated, the only thing you can do is to check the generals roster to if there is anybody in between the generals you are promoting who might put up a stink.

I believe I've had this happen to me too one or two game ago. I just suck it up and enjoy the fact that I've got two good generals promoted and who ever is whining has lost seniority, that uuuuuh I hate that McClellan