AGEOD Forums

Can anyone tell me what the exact requirements are for generals gaining seniority?

Is it just participating in a battle or is it winning the battle? How much seniority is gained and in what situations?

I have several Generals who have participated in more than one battle and their seniority has not changed at all.

I don't want to micromanage but, I would like to know how the system works.

http://ageod.nsen.ch/aacwwiki/Manual:Army_organization#Promoting_and_relieving_leaders

Look for messages that he is congradulated for his efforts in the message log.

I responded in another thread I think.

Pocus wrote:I responded in another thread I think.

No. The actual mechanics of what exactly gains a General seniority and how was never answered.

The Wiki rules just mention getting combat experience.

I've been fighting battles for most of '61 with most of my generals and finally my Brigadier General (1 star) moved from seniority 101 to 100.

Woo Hoo!

I want some of the precise mechanics used to gain seniority.

deleted

Groucho wrote:No. The actual mechanics of what exactly gains a General seniority and how was never answered.

The Wiki rules just mention getting combat experience.

I've been fighting battles for most of '61 with most of my generals and finally my Brigadier General (1 star) moved from seniority 101 to 100.

Woo Hoo!

I want some of the precise mechanics used to gain seniority.

Its strange... or you have just plain bad luck in the rolls to gain seniority or your battles are to small to gain it.
Do you have them commanding (on divisions, corps, army...) or just on the stack/region?

In my current campaign as the CSA (with the las patch 1.07h) i had 4 or 5 leaders from my main army on the east gain seniority by turn 12. Some of them a couple of times, and Jackson is even promotable to three stars already by august 1861 by seniority gain.
This was after 3 or 4 pretty big battles between my army and corps against the USA main army on Manssas/Alexandria, with loses of about 6.000 - 8.000 men for the losing side (them ) and 2.000 - 4.000 for the wining side (me).

Cheers

I don't know the exact way, but I would imagine being in battles helps. Being in winning battles helps even more. Though I got to promote Foote to Admiral, and he never even moved from St Louis.

Pick one general and have him fight battle after battle. Make note of how many he fights before the congradulations come. How many wins/losses.

I would hazard a guess that there is some randomness in the process.

I´m pretty sure there is some randomness.
I suppose every time a leader is on a battle there can be a roll for seniority gains, modified by size of battle, leader units performance...
Also there is event driven promotions for historical reasons. I don't play USA much but i know McClellan is promoted by event. Maybe Foote too??

Cheers!

I don't think Foote is. IIRC, it was the turn he became active. Never saw that before. Of course, in the same game I kept Ft Sumter till turn 19

I think that the McClellan thing is a flavor event. I'll have to pay a bit more attention

McClellan event is made to piss off USA players!

arsan wrote:McClellan event is made to piss off USA players!

In the April 1861 campaign, both Foote and Farragut are always immediately eligible for promotion in the turn they appear/are unlocked. I think this is because they both have seniority 1 from the get-go.

Regards, Henry

From my experience destruction of an infantry or cavalry element is usually worth around 1 seniority bump, maybe depending on the strength of the element and its type (elite, etc.). When divided amongst a multi-corp/division force you can see that it will take a while to get someone eligible for promotion. There also seems to be other random factors and/or bumps including winning a battle and inflicting casualties. I also may be completely wrong, so take it fwiw.

Foote and Farguate or whatever his name in the fleet based in New York are both eligible to be promoted to Admiral the very first time they are available.

As for McClellan, I am so glad that I was able to meet the requirements to keep Powell as commander of my main army just because he has ever so slightly higher attributes than McClellan. Worked out nicely though since none of my high seniority commanders are good at all so McClelland is in command of the Western Command based in Paducah, Fremont is in charge of the Army of the Tennessee in Nashville.

As for gaining seniorty, all it takes is a good roll of the dice (the randomness of it) and winning battles. By 62 I have had several Generals promoted and even a few demoted for devestating losses.

All I care about the seniority system is that it works. Small battles do very little for your chances, large ones can have a half dozen gain seniorty if they just decemated the enemy.

Remember also that some generals wont be promoted even if seniority climbs.
I always see people going up and down and of course 1 affects the other.
S!

Gray_Lensman wrote:Groucho:

1) One of your recent opening statements was quote: "So? Is this game just a dog, or what?..." (I'm not even going to quote the rest of that particular post.) Not a good beginning when you expect to get answers from one of the lead programmer/developers, especially when his time is split between ACW and NCP, or from anyone else for that matter !

With all due respect, I would expect that a lead programmer/developer would be able to look beyond one gamer's frustration and at least remember one thing. You're here to sell a product. I used to be in software sales and talking down/insulting a frustrated customer is not the way to do it.

I'm just trying to learn this game. Matrix sure doesn't talk to their customers this way. Even the ones who occasionally get frustrated and angry.

I stuck around to get some help and hopefully recommend this game to others as a purchase option.

No offense intended.

deleted

Groucho wrote:With all due respect, I would expect that a lead programmer/developer would be able to look beyond one gamer's frustration and at least remember one thing. You're here to sell a product. I used to be in software sales and talking down/insulting a frustrated customer is not the way to do it.

I'm just trying to learn this game. Matrix sure doesn't talk to their customers this way. Even the ones who occasionally get frustrated and angry.

I stuck around to get some help and hopefully recommend this game to others as a purchase option.

No offense intended.

When I volunteered for Matrix back in 2000 on the game Pacific War, we experienced exactly the same comments from customers of even the free games we provided. Frankly, smaller companies (like when Matrix first started out) cannot afford a customer relations department, and their developers have to fill in so many roles (developers, customer relations, testers, etc.). The larger that a company gets, the more free time individuals have in order to address these repeating questions.

AGEOD in 2007 is like Matrix in 2000, they are just starting out. To expect and compare the companies, after Matrix had so many more years to organize and profit and expand is unfair to AGEOD.

Anyway, in regards to manuals, very few manuals have exact computations as to how specific aspects of a game work. They say 'do this to expect this result', but there is no real representation of code, or exact odds in manuals. In a way, showing all of this information would be like knowing what your Christmas presents will be before you open them.

Facts are, seniority is gained primarily through successful battles. There is some randomness to this as well. It is probably based on the destruction of units vs. the weakening of units (as what VP stats are based on), but not necessarily so. The more successful the battle, I find that I recieve more seniority and congratulations. A general does not have to command a stack to gain (or lose) seniority, but merely has to be in combat with the stack.

All of this was gained through in-game experience, reading other comments, reading the manual, and logical deduction. Sure, there isn't a concrete algorithm, but I don't think that it would be more helpful.

So, if you want to gain seniority, put generals in the best position in order to win battles. Nothing is a guarantee though.

Groucho:

Let me just say that I do think I understand what you're driving at here, even if you might have said it in a different way.

I haven't said a whole lot about it during my time here, but AGEOD tends to be "game inner-workings stingy" for lack of a better phrase. Of course, that's their choice.

I think you are like me and many others who crave knowing how the game is determining all these parameters so that we can strive to play a better and less confusing game -and let's be honest, it's what we are used to!

I also find it rather irritating that there is so very little information disseminated on, at times, basic workings of AACW. But... I have gotten used to it and directed my energy in other directions like helping Gray Lensman and McNaughton with their modding/tweaking initiatives.

So, I think you are not alone in this, but, to be honest, I don't think AGEOD has much intention of changing things, at least not for a while.
FWIW,
pw

I have thought that, for the most part, AGEOD has been pretty forthright about answering most questions about the inner workings of their game. There have been many discussions over the months I have about the inner workings of combat, retreating, supply and so on. I don't think it has anything to do with being stingy as it does having no staff to devote to this game when their next game was under development and through release.

Does the general in question have to be the "Commander" or does he just have to be present in the battle, in a subordinate role, to gain 'seniority' points?

Groucho wrote:Does the general in question have to be the "Commander" or does he just have to be present in the battle, in a subordinate role, to gain 'seniority' points?

He just needs to participate in the battle, in any capacity...

Regards, Henry

Guru80 wrote:I have thought that, for the most part, AGEOD has been pretty forthright about answering most questions about the inner workings of their game. There have been many discussions over the months I have about the inner workings of combat, retreating, supply and so on. I don't think it has anything to do with being stingy as it does having no staff to devote to this game when their next game was under development and through release.

While I do agree to some extent Guru, I had some of the same questions about how things worked when I first purchased AACW that I am seeing people who are just now getting the game are asking. How do you fix railroads? What good are Naval Engineers? Regular Engineers? How does the blockade work? What good are Divisions? Etc., etc.

There are many things that could have been explained in a manual or appendix that are not. I chalk that up to limited time by the staff to get the "nice-to-do" things done, like fine tuning a manual.

You have to admit, it causes them a lot of grief to have to keep explaining these elementary game concepts over and over here. That's my point- this all could have been avoided by AGEOD in my opinion; it was a choice they made.
I won't post anymore on this as I don't want to be seen as a "griefer" or anything like that.

If some member of the community would put together all the info into an unofficial manual that would be great. If not I will find the time to do it but I am finishing up my scenarios to be submitted to Pocus for review/changes and on the program I promised everyone plus my PBEM games so time is limited on my end.