Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

I agree that it is odd to be able to promote generals at will, which means really on the basis of historical hindsight. But it is hard to provide a historical justification for rules requiring battles or even time in rank. Early on, guys became generals on the basis of some combination of actual military record, reputation, personal presence, ambition, political standing, previous connections, and being in the right place at the right time.

Grant was lucky to have a congressman who could get him appointed general and he ended up in charge of the troops in Cairo which were not yet an army but became one. Halleck was given a major department without having seen a shot fired in the CW. Look at Polk, G.W.Smith, Lovell, Pemberton, Toombs, Fremont, Pope (whose father was a judge before whom Lincoln had practiced), McClellan (both a military record and a lot of connections as RR pres, including Lincoln as one of his attorneys), and so on.

McClellan did have political conections but not with Lincoln and Lincoln was never his lawyer. They never met before the war. Lincoln defended the Illinois Central Railroad in a lawsuit while McClellan was still in the army. Grant had help from a congressman but his later promotions were due to his war record. All but one of the other generals you mentioned had military experience and only two did not graduate from West Point. They were also either already generals when the major fighting began or became a general shortly afterwards. At the time you had to look at the person's record and hope for the best. No american had ever commanded forces of that size before. The relatively small armies at Bull Run were more than twice the size of any force ever commanded by an american. By the end of 1861 and afterwards almost all generals gaining command of a division or higher had seen combat earlier in the war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drex

Thanks for the flag change info Sarge. I was wondering how to do that. I need to read the manual a couple more times.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

That is why I changed it, you guys were haveing a good debate and info flowing though, I didn't want it getting lost

if we could, I would like to see a General have to go though some combat before being allowed to be promotted, maybe earning points with each battle (errr, that would totally change the system, oh well)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drex

Should Generals of one rank be considered equal or should they also be ranked as to seniority within their level?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rook749

There is currently some method the game uses to choose between two generals of the same rank, is there any way that one of the dev’s can enlighten us as to what the tie breaker currently is?

Rook

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

I will be leaving the game if the changes to generals become so drastic. It simply wont be worth my time to play it

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

No they are not. I have been asking for Historical population, historical Orders of battle, Historical economies.

Why have generals at all , well except "historical" ones with ranks and positions defined by "history" if your going to create this malaise of ridiculous restrictions, and I notice the restrictions are again being targetted against the Union not the CSA.

Argueing Grant cant command an army on turn one but Lee can is an interesting arguement to say the least.

Combat experience is a ridiculous requirement when for the North combat is a disaster for the first year and nearly impossible in the east till late 43 or 44.

The conduct of the war should be left to the player. that INCLUDES who gets promoted and who leads what and where. You want "historical" restrictions , fine when does the arguement begin as to where and when a general can fight on the map? I mean "historically" Lee never fought in the West, lets prevent him from doing so cause after all that is "historical".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Alphabetical order. (I won't be able to read your responses, since I'll be ducking below my desk now.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Well, I think you would have to stand in line

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rook749

There is currently some method the game uses to choose between two generals of the same rank, is there any way that one of the dev’s can enlighten us as to what the tie breaker currently is?

Rook

Alphabetical order. (I won't be able to read your responses, since I'll be ducking below my desk now.)

quote:

If the computer can keep track, it would make sense for it to be the order in which they were promoted to their rank in the game. That would be the game's version of seniority in rank. You would have the same problem that, say, Lee had with G. W. Smith and McClellan with Sumner and Keyes. Lee put Smith on sickleave and dispersed his brigades to other units. McClellan reduced the size of Sumners and Keyes corps and put them in Porters. So having to dealing with seniority would be very historical.

quote:

Christof -- Yes, the fact is that different players like different things. You like total control, I like constraints. Some players take pleasure in "reenactment," such as having Sumner, Heintzelman, Keyes, and McDowell in charge of AoP corps. Others of us like being able to send Stonewall to Tennessee.

My overall preferences is for constraints that make decisionmaking factors similar to the history but leave the details open which also seems historical to me (e.g., there was no necessity to Lincoln's appointing Sumner etc or even to keeping Jackson with the ANV). But we all have to accept that others have different preferences. This forum is our opportunity to let the designers know what most players want.

My seniority idea is somewhat independent of these preferences, however, since the game has to select in some way and alphabetically has nothing to say for itself whereas seniority in rank at least reflects something.