AGEOD Forums

Not sure how to read the brackets. I am thinking Polk has seniority, but I am not certain.

Could someone explain the brackets? Also what would happen if both numbers were the same on both leaders? Would the one with the higher Politics have senioroty in that case?


Polk with a 4 [4] Politic - 10

Jackson with a 4 [5] Politic - 7


Which would lead a battle?

dolphin wrote:Not sure how to read the brackets. I am thinking Polk has seniority, but I am not certain.

Could someone explain the brackets? Also what would happen if both numbers were the same on both leaders? Would the one with the higher Politics have senioroty in that case?


Polk with a 4 [4] Politic - 10

Jackson with a 4 [5] Politic - 7


Which would lead a battle?

I think the bracket is what seniority they started at. I'm not sure who would lead in that case. I've seen it switch back and forth between 2 leaders that have the same seniority before.

Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne wrote:I think the bracket is what seniority they started at. I'm not sure who would lead in that case. I've seen it switch back and forth between 2 leaders that have the same seniority before.

I need to know for sure. Hopefully someone will tell both of us whats what.

All you have to know about seniority is to sort them on seniority. If you try to promotoe someone with less seniority, there will be a tooltip saying you're going to be angering someone.

hgilmer wrote:All you have to know about seniority is to sort them on seniority. If you try to promotoe someone with less seniority, there will be a tooltip saying you're going to be angering someone.

My question has to do with who commands a battle. Not an issue involving promotions.


However in a way you kind of answered my question. I can just put them both in the same stack and the senior one gets the first spot on the left.

In my case Polk is senior to Jackson.

You can control the order they appear by merging one into the other or vice versa. Want Jackson in charge of Polk? Merge Polk into Jackson's corps.

Cromagnonman wrote:You can control the order they appear by merging one into the other or vice versa. Want Jackson in charge of Polk? Merge Polk into Jackson's corps.

Thats may work with regards to commanding a particular corp, but in the actual Battle Polks' numbers would still end up being used instead of Jackson's as the overall force commander.

dolphin wrote:Thats may work with regards to commanding a particular corp, but in the actual Battle Polks' numbers would still end up being used instead of Jackson's as the overall force commander.

Take Polk out of the force? You don't want to repeat what happened at Fort Donellson.

Why do you even need both of them in a force? Jackson alone (in a corps) provides 8 CPs and divisional commanders each provide enough to support their division.

pesec wrote:Why do you even need both of them in a force? Jackson alone (in a corps) provides 8 CPs and divisional commanders each provide enough to support their division.

Check your private messages and I will explain.

In any case there are many reasons you will want an extra corp commander available for a just in case situation..

Polk =4 (started game as 4)
Jackson = 4 (started as 5) (thats after his promotion from *)

Its seems as if the game recognises Polk's seniority (at least until Jackson overtakes him) it would be interesting if you had a third ** at 4 to put in same force to check how they stack up.

S!

Don't be so certain that the leader who is leftmost in the stack will in this case be the one to actually command when the computer executes the turn. I've seen this many times in WiA (where Howe and Clinton start at same rank and seniority in the same command) and I'm sure a few times in AACW. They could switch roles during march (particularly bad if the second is inactive) or combat. In this case I'd definitelly leave Polk out of the stack unless you absolutely need him...

Note, I really like how the game handles this. You should never be certain who will command your force if you place two leaders of identical rank and seniority into the same force. A historic situation like this in the ACW would be McCulloch and Price (I still assert McCulloch was senior, but many say the opposite), one a very senior CSA brigadier general, the other a MSG major general who disputed each other over who should command their combined command (Army of the Indian Territory and Missouri State Guard, also probably still the Arkansas State Guard brigade present at the time). The issue finally being settled by bringing in CSA major general van Dorn to supercede both...

caranorn wrote:Don't be so certain that the leader who is leftmost in the stack will in this case be the one to actually command when the computer executes the turn. I've seen this many times in WiA (where Howe and Clinton start at same rank and seniority in the same command) and I'm sure a few times in AACW. They could switch roles during march (particularly bad if the second is inactive) or combat. In this case I'd definitelly leave Polk out of the stack unless you absolutely need him...

Note, I really like how the game handles this. You should never be certain who will command your force if you place two leaders of identical rank and seniority into the same force. A historic situation like this in the ACW would be McCulloch and Price (I still assert McCulloch was senior, but many say the opposite), one a very senior CSA brigadier general, the other a MSG major general who disputed each other over who should command their combined command (Army of the Indian Territory and Missouri State Guard, also probably still the Arkansas State Guard brigade present at the time). The issue finally being settled by bringing in CSA major general van Dorn to supercede both...

Agreed. That's what I intimated by saying leave 2 similar generals out. Fort Donellson had the same problem.

I've had plenty of times when Jackson and Longstreet were both at 1 seniority and command switched back and forth. There should almost be a penalty for having 2 commanding generals without a clear leader. I'll just say I like the uncertainty, regardless of how specific some wargamers want the numbers to be.