|
Mike Scholl -> RE: Many Generals setting (12/23/2006 10:48:34 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: proginc
Great Game, minor complaint. I don't understand the reason for less qualified generals than compartments. For example, if you have 3 divisions, you should have three 2 star Generals. The Union Army didn't lack in division commanders, what it lacked in was QUALITY commanders. Whenever you build a division, corps, army you should get the corrisponding General Promotion.
Good point. Couple of other oddities come to mind as well. "Mustering" a regiment/brigade causes you problems with the State Governors. This is exactly the opposite of the Union situation for certain, and the probably Confederacy's as well. Mustering a unit in the state meant the Governor got to appoint his favorite political hacks and supporters as Colonels and Generals (where did you think all those lousy leders came from?). That's why the North kept raising new units instead of reinforcing already existing ones. More units meant more officer appointments for the Governors, creating MORE support by them for the "cause".
And couldn't the game be tweeked to have the Officers arrive in a "real province" rather than a river one? One with more "room" to display them? Like putting the Union leaders in Deleware and the South's in Petersburg?
|
|
|
|
