PROMOTION OR LACK THERE OF?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

PROMOTION OR LACK THERE OF?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Civil War II >> PROMOTION OR LACK THERE OF?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

PROMOTION OR LACK THERE OF? - 1/19/2014 4:36:31 PM

bbbwl

Posts: 14
Joined: 10/15/2013
Status: offline

I have played Civil War 1 and 2 for several years now. While I love the game the one thing that has always bugged me was the system (or lack there of) for promotions. There seems to be no rime or reason to promotions. This is particularly devastating to the South.The North receives a greater number of pre-promoted Generals of both 2 and 3 star (which I find funny as Grant was the only Union General to actually be promoted to 3 star during the war). This means that by mid war without any computer controlled promotions the south could only field 4 Armies and in those they would only have 4 or 5 Corps commanders ( 1 corp per army). This bugs me in two ways.

1. First if you are unable to get officers promoted you can not field Armies or Corps, this is simply not how Armies work. 2 star Generals in both Armies were Division, Corps and Army commanders (particularly in the Union Army). Even more importantly no spot goes unfilled. If a Corps commander is killed he is replaced by the next office in the chain of command, no matter what rank the officer is. No Force would disband an Army just because there where no more 3 star generals, that's just not how armies work. The next man in the chain would take over, or to form a new group (Army, Corps or Division) the must senior office would get the job (promotion to follow).

2. As I play the south a lot one of the first things I do is to work on getting good leaders promoted for later in the war. I am playing the latest update in my current campaign and have two officers that I have tried to get promoted and just cant and between them the represent most of the flaws with the current system,.

First is J.O. Shelby. I have been using him a lot. He has had many very successful battles and while his seniority has claimed from the 70's to the 20's and his personal stats have climbed I cant get a break to promote him to his second star. He has even been the senior 1 star in a battle that saw other 1 star generals with less seniority then him get promoted( three times!) yet he is still a 1 star.

Second is Benjamin McCulloch, and his is even more confusing. He has been used a lot in on the Western front and has been promoted to his second star, and has worked his way up to number 1 in seniority TWICE and still cant get his third star. This is mind blowing when you figure in that while he was number 1 in seniority and a Corps commander after a big winning battle 2 of his 2 star Division commanders with less seniority become promotable to their third stat yet he was not even as the number 1 in seniority.

I was hopping for two things. First can any one explain how the promotions work, as they really seem to have no set system they follow and second can some one please make an update that will allow at lest some promotions by the player ( at the very lest to fill existing needs).

Sorry for the long post and thanks for any help you can give.

Post #: 1

RE: PROMOTION OR LACK THERE OF? - 1/19/2014 5:31:25 PM

Ol Choctaw

Posts: 75
Joined: 9/12/2011
Status: offline

Some of the leaders, particularly those who were a part of the Trans-Mississippi can never get more than one, or at most two stars.

McCulloch is capped at 2 stars. Shelby can not currently be promoted at all. These are not the only two that are limited.

There are some Union generals that can�t make their third star too but the south is much, much more limited and whether the general was good or not doesn�t make a lot of difference.

Actually most generals in the game got a second star during the war. Not many got a Corps to command though. That seems what holds most of them back.

(in reply to bbbwl)

Post #: 2

RE: PROMOTION OR LACK THERE OF? - 1/19/2014 5:51:21 PM

bbbwl

Posts: 14
Joined: 10/15/2013
Status: offline

Thanks for the info. I have never understood historic games that limit you by the history. Part of playing the game is to out do history. In real life there may have been reasons these generals never got promoted, but if they are preforming well in the game then there should be no reason to hold them back. I play the loosing side in most games as I find it they most challenging, (The Battle of Midway being one of the few exceptions, it is nearly imposable to win that one as the US).

Even with this limits (which I totally disagree with) that does not explain how the system works for those who can get promoted.

I still think that their should be a way for the play to promote some Generals. There would need to be limits of cores you cant have an Army with all 3 star generals. It makes no sense that you can work a General up to number 1 in seniority and yet can't promote him.

Is their a list some where of all the generals that have limits on them, and if so where could I find it.

Thanks again

(in reply to Ol Choctaw)

Post #: 3

RE: PROMOTION OR LACK THERE OF? - 1/19/2014 7:51:37 PM

Ol Choctaw

Posts: 75
Joined: 9/12/2011
Status: offline

I can�t say why it is the way it is. I find it limiting too.

The leaders list should be out with the next patch, to be some time in Feb.

The promotion system is also due for some changes, I understand, but after the next patch I believe.

As of now the best way to promote those eligible is in a stack they are leading and make the promotion the very last action you do with that leader.

(in reply to bbbwl)

Post #: 4

RE: PROMOTION OR LACK THERE OF? - 1/19/2014 8:03:06 PM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ol Choctaw

Actually most generals in the game got a second star during the war. Not many got a Corps to command though. That seems what holds most of them back.

The book The Longest Night does mention Confederate generals who got promoted. But as they were not confirmed by the Confederate Congress, they were not official.

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to Ol Choctaw)

Post #: 5

RE: PROMOTION OR LACK THERE OF? - 1/19/2014 8:18:49 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

I've stated before that the South should get a couple more 2* for free, specifically Hardee and Bragg, and arguably Van Dorn as well.

To the original poster, don't get hung up on actual ranks. The game really is looking at more functional than actual ranks, which I think is a better system. As you may know, both sides had some peculiarities on ranks; the CSA used Major General and Lt. General actively, which meant almost every division commander was a Major General. The USA had only one Lt Gen, but many general received Brevet or other promotions to MGV later in the war.

_____________________________

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 6

RE: PROMOTION OR LACK THERE OF? - 1/19/2014 8:29:44 PM

KamilS

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline

Regardless of the fact, that CSA have to few and USA too many higher ranke commanders, I would really like to see some cap on armies.

Either army have to have at least certain amount of men (or certain percentage of total forces) or creating new armies should be possible only if corresponding number of soldiers is met.

For example first 4 armies for "free", and 5th and following would require 50000 soldiers more, starting with 200000.

< Message edited by Kamil -- 1/19/2014 9:50:19 PM >

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 7

RE: PROMOTION OR LACK THERE OF? - 1/19/2014 10:00:31 PM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kamil

Regardless of the fact, that CSA have to few and USA too many higher ranke commanders, I would really like to see some cap on armies.

Either army have to have at least certain amount of men (or certain percentage of total forces) or creating new armies should be possible only if corresponding number of soldiers is met.

For example first 4 armies for "free", and 5th and following would require 50000 soldiers more, starting with 200000.

As there was no "corresponding number of soldiers" to create an army, that doesn't make much sense. They all varied in size.

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to KamilS)

Post #: 8

RE: PROMOTION OR LACK THERE OF? - 1/20/2014 1:18:52 AM

Queeg

Posts: 495
Joined: 6/23/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I've stated before that the South should get a couple more 2* for free, specifically Hardee and Bragg, and arguably Van Dorn as well.

Agreed. It's too bad we don't have access to the files necessary to mod this. We shouldn't have to wait weeks or months for a patch to fix something that we could mod to our liking in five minutes.

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 9

RE: PROMOTION OR LACK THERE OF? - 1/20/2014 2:50:03 PM

bbbwl

Posts: 14
Joined: 10/15/2013
Status: offline

The main sticking point for me is that, for example, if you lack 2 star Generals you cant make Corps no tree star you cant make Armies. This would never and never did stop either Army from making new Units. The Game really needs to allow one of two things.

1. The ability for the player to promote Generals when needed.

2. The ability to use the available officers as needed. i.e. if no three stars are available then a two star gets command of an Army and same for one stars getting command of a Corps.

While I fully understand that promotions cant be limitless (no army has all 3 star Generals) it is equally silly for the game to not allow any player based promotions or to limit any game General to a set top rank. The hole point of playing games like this, at least for me, is to try and rewrite history.

(in reply to Queeg)

Post #: 10