Command Levels Reference Guide??

[Andre Bolkonsky]

A commander is limited by his rank on how many men he can control. Got it. Makes sense. 

Is there . . . someplace . . . a table that shows how many men/skirmishers/guns/horses a captain/major/lt. colonel/colonel/brigadier general/major general/lt. general can command?

Surely, Koro, Hill, one of you tester guys has this chart already? 

Or do I need to make one myself? 

Or is this number still in flux and there is no reason to codify it yet because it can change from patch to patch? 

Any advice is appreciated. My thanks in advance. 

Edited January 20, 2017 by Andre Bolkonsky

[Don't Escrow Taxes]

I think its a question experience bar more thank actual rank.  try it ingame, two lt. colonels , one has efficiency drop at one #, the other has the efficiency drop at a different #.  the difference is their progress towards the next rank

[Andre Bolkonsky]

1 minute ago, Don't Escrow Taxes said:

I think its a question experience bar more thank actual rank.  try it ingame, two lt. colonels , one has efficiency drop at one #, the other has the efficiency drop at a different #.  the difference is their progress towards the next rank

OK, that makes perfect sense from what I have seen playing around with it. I agree it scales, and that makes sense. 

But there still has to be a range. Surely, a tooltip wouldn't be that hard to implement; something to put on the list for the patch where they address the camp. God willing, soon. 

Personally, I never noticed the problem until some striped up line infantry inexplicably broke and I realized I had a lt. colonel commanding a full 2500 man brigade, which seemed ok up until that moment. I went back and noticed all my massive brigades of cheap conscript infantry commanded by colonels were all in the red. Live and learn. 

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

And, it seems to be part of a formula. 

I have a corps commanded by a Lt. General, division commander is a major general, and a colonel can easily command 2,500 men. Outside of that structure, it immediately goes red. 

[GeneralPITA]

+1 to creating a tooltip with useful ranges, but as Don't Escrow Taxes said, the effects of command are a continuum rather than discreet values among ranks. This may be a challenge to represent and might have multiple variables attached. 

General rules I use:

1. Never use captains. You can farm majors with dummy brigades.

2. Colonels can effectively command any size unit, however it is better to have a brigadier general for your largest infantry units. 

3. It appears to be waste to assign a major general to a brigade. I appoint them to divisions.

4. Lieutenant generals are always corps commanders.

5. I give brig generals to melee cav brigades when I have them to spare. Infantry get colonels. Artillery and snipers gets lt colonels.

6. If merging units the brigade commanders become negligible. I assign majors to 2400 strength farmer brigades and merge them at battle launch with 100 man Fayetteville brigades. The major general assumes command of the superbrigade with no loss of efficiency. All officers involved in the superbrigade generate experience. 

[Wandering1]

As far as infantry brigade commanders, if you only have colonels as division commanders, I noticed the following command limits before you start taking efficiency hits:

1500 men - Lt. Colonel

2000 men - Colonel

2000+ - Brig General+

Similarly on Cavalry brigades, only Brig General + allowed me to not suffer efficiency penalties on max size cavalry brigades.

I get the feeling once (if) infantry brigades get expanded to 3000 men, you'll need Major Generals on them in order to not suffer efficiency penalties.

Of course, these limits really only matter if you play max-size armies. If you play min-size armies, you don't really need to worry about having enough high level officers.

[sonnypemberton]

7 hours ago, GeneralPITA said:

+1 to creating a tooltip with useful ranges, but as Don't Escrow Taxes said, the effects of command are a continuum rather than discreet values among ranks. This may be a challenge to represent and might have multiple variables attached. 

General rules I use:

1. Never use captains. You can farm majors with dummy brigades.

2. Colonels can effectively command any size unit, however it is better to have a brigadier general for your largest infantry units. 

3. It appears to be waste to assign a major general to a brigade. I appoint them to divisions.

4. Lieutenant generals are always corps commanders.

5. I give brig generals to melee cav brigades when I have them to spare. Infantry get colonels. Artillery and snipers gets lt colonels.

6. If merging units the brigade commanders become negligible. I assign majors to 2400 strength farmer brigades and merge them at battle launch with 100 man Fayetteville brigades. The major general assumes command of the superbrigade with no loss of efficiency. All officers involved in the superbrigade generate experience. 

This is basically what I do also...

[A. P. Hill]

I suppose based on the employed game structure, Brigades, Divisions, Corps, & Armies ... Putting a Brigadier at each brigade level makes sense instead of using Brigadiers to command Divisions where Major Generals should be.    So I see a possible flaw in my mode of operating where the brigade slots are used as regiments.

[clench]

10 hours ago, Wandering1 said:

As far as infantry brigade commanders, if you only have colonels as division commanders, I noticed the following command limits before you start taking efficiency hits:

1500 men - Lt. Colonel

2000 men - Colonel

2000+ - Brig General+

Similarly on Cavalry brigades, only Brig General + allowed me to not suffer efficiency penalties on max size cavalry brigades.

I get the feeling once (if) infantry brigades get expanded to 3000 men, you'll need Major Generals on them in order to not suffer efficiency penalties.

Of course, these limits really only matter if you play max-size armies. If you play min-size armies, you don't really need to worry about having enough high level officers.

This isn't entirely true.

The division commander gives an efficiency/command bonus. A higher level division commander means you can have lower level brigade commanders controlling your brigades. This can come in handy later in the campaign if you're running low on officers but need to put more rifles on the field. 

For example, with a Maj. Gen as division commander you can have Lt. Col command 2000 unit brigades with no loss to efficiency or command. 

The real reason to have higher level officers for your brigades is for the experience bonus provided.

Another example, a raw recruited Confederate infantry brigade commanded by a Lt. Col will have no skills, but if you assign a raw infantry brigade a Colonel it will get enough experience for the first skill which is a real advantage early on.

Edited January 21, 2017 by clench

[Hitorishizuka]

18 hours ago, GeneralPITA said:

1. Never use captains. You can farm majors with dummy brigades.

If you're being really cheap, do use Captains (put them in artillery brigades) because they're cheaper than farming up Majors by a few hundred and if you were legitimately short on officers you were probably short on cash also.

15 hours ago, Wandering1 said:

Similarly on Cavalry brigades, only Brig General + allowed me to not suffer efficiency penalties on max size cavalry brigades.

Mid/late Colonel is actually sufficient FYI. I usually use Colonels in Cavalry brigades to farm up a lot of Brig Generals quickly.

5 hours ago, clench said:

Another example, a raw recruited Confederate infantry brigade commanded by a Lt. Col will have no skills, but if you assign a raw infantry brigade a Colonel it will get enough experience for the first skill which is a real advantage early on.

Only really applies to CSA, I'm pretty sure even 2 star generals won't get a fresh Union brigade to 1 Star. 3 star might but if you have spare 3 star generals to risk as Brigade commanders you're doing far better than me. After fresh recruits it really matters moreso only for hitting the next threshold, which is basically random for what level commander you need to do it.

[Wandering1]

5 hours ago, clench said:

This isn't entirely true.

The division commander gives an efficiency/command bonus. A higher level division commander means you can have lower level brigade commanders controlling your brigades. This can come in handy later in the campaign if you're running low on officers but need to put more rifles on the field. 

For example, with a Maj. Gen as division commander you can have Lt. Col command 2000 unit brigades with no loss to efficiency or command. 

The real reason to have higher level officers for your brigades is for the experience bonus provided.

Another example, a raw recruited Confederate infantry brigade commanded by a Lt. Col will have no skills, but if you assign a raw infantry brigade a Colonel it will get enough experience for the first skill which is a real advantage early on.

Note how I said colonels as division commanders.

Obviously, you can get away with lower ranks the higher you go. Due to the fact that the brigade commander matters more than the division commander as far as unit experience goes, to me, it's usually more worth it to stick the brigadier in brigade that will allow it to get a higher rank compared to sticking the brigadier as a division commander.

One little thing: as far as efficiency goes, I don't really notice the division commanders providing any efficiency (rather than not suffering an efficiency penalty). Not that it particularly matters for the high veterancy units, because you'll hit 100 efficiency from the skill perks so you don't need a high rank division commander to provide any efficiency, since you hit stat caps.

[GeneralPITA]

7 hours ago, Hitorishizuka said:

If you're being really cheap, do use Captains (put them in artillery brigades) because they're cheaper than farming up Majors by a few hundred and if you were legitimately short on officers you were probably short on cash also.

I usually have about 20 majors in reserve by the time I reach Chancellorsville. Right now I have 110 brigades and they're all colonel or higher. More than half are generals. 

[clench]

8 hours ago, Hitorishizuka said:

If you're being really cheap, do use Captains (put them in artillery brigades) because they're cheaper than farming up Majors by a few hundred and if you were legitimately short on officers you were probably short on cash also.

Mid/late Colonel is actually sufficient FYI. I usually use Colonels in Cavalry brigades to farm up a lot of Brig Generals quickly.

Only really applies to CSA, I'm pretty sure even 2 star generals won't get a fresh Union brigade to 1 Star. 3 star might but if you have spare 3 star generals to risk as Brigade commanders you're doing far better than me. After fresh recruits it really matters moreso only for hitting the next threshold, which is basically random for what level commander you need to do it.

 

The experience bonus effects both sides. CSA troops just start with higher experience so they can get their skill early.

Having a high level commander for Union is still important because it saves you money by allowing you to keep your unit skills while hiring rookies at a higher threshold.  

[Koro]

On 20/1/2017 at 11:24 AM, Andre Bolkonsky said:

A commander is limited by his rank on how many men he can control. Got it. Makes sense. 

Is there . . . someplace . . . a table that shows how many men/skirmishers/guns/horses a captain/major/lt. colonel/colonel/brigadier general/major general/lt. general can command?

Surely, Koro, Hill, one of you tester guys has this chart already? 

Or do I need to make one myself? 

Or is this number still in flux and there is no reason to codify it yet because it can change from patch to patch? 

Any advice is appreciated. My thanks in advance. 

Thanks for your faith on me :). I think it's not only pertaining to rank but also to the experience of the general in question, so it's a little hard to make a list about it. I think Majors can have about 1.400 which I what I usually buy for them and then adjust according to when efficiency starts going down.

 

[kurie]

I was trying to figure out this same thing. What commanders do I need for a 2000 man (for example) infantry brigade to avoid the efficiency penalty? It turned out to be pretty simple:

For 2000 inf, you need 45 command (the brigade stat right at the top). I hadn't checked higher sizes, but taking a few sizes up to 2000, it looked like the command required is around (size - 500) / 33.

Brigade command is around 0.1 * brigade_cmd_rank + 0.05 * division_cmd_rank

(The corps commander does not matter for command.)

I valued the commander ranks using the following XP ranges. (You can find where they are in the range by hovering the mouse over their experience bar.)

0-99 captain

100-199 major

200-299 lt. col.

300-399 col.

400-499 brig. gen.

500-599 maj. gen.

600-699 lt. gen

So, the upshot is a brigadier general with 50 XP toward his next rank (450 XP = 45 command) could command 2000 inf essentially on his own, regardless of the division commander. A major with 50 XP toward his next rank (150 XP = 15 command) would need his division commander to be a Lt. general (600+ XP) to command the same number of men without the penalty.

Of course this all may have changed since I measured it I think some time in late December. Also I was only looking at CSA, so I guess the rules could be different for Union?

Edited January 22, 2017 by kurie
summary

[A. P. Hill]

On ‎1‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 5:24 AM, Andre Bolkonsky said:

... Surely, Koro, Hill, one of you tester guys has this chart already? ... 

WAIT! ...

WHAT? ...

When was I made a tester?!?

Sorry, I'm just a guy that, like you, just bought the game to play.      But thanks for the vote of confidence.

[Andre Bolkonsky]

3 hours ago, A. P. Hill said:

WAIT! ...

WHAT? ...

When was I made a tester?!?

Sorry, I'm just a guy that, like you, just bought the game to play.      But thanks for the vote of confidence.

Three different groups. Koro. You. Testers. 

You usually have a spreadsheet of facts and figures laying around, thought I'd tap your databanks. 

[GeneralPITA]

1 minute ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:

Three different groups. Koro. You. Testers. 

You usually have a spreadsheet of facts and figures laying around, thought I'd tap your databanks. 

Andre and Mercanto get their own caste so that makes four. 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

10 minutes ago, GeneralPITA said:

Andre and Mercanto get their own caste so that makes four. 

I can think of a lot worse things that being lumped in with Mercanto. 

For example, having to read more transcripts cut and pasted off 1st Vermont's USB Archive. . . . 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

19 hours ago, kurie said:

I was trying to figure out this same thing. What commanders do I need for a 2000 man (for example) infantry brigade to avoid the efficiency penalty? It turned out to be pretty simple:

For 2000 inf, you need 45 command (the brigade stat right at the top). I hadn't checked higher sizes, but taking a few sizes up to 2000, it looked like the command required is around (size - 500) / 33.

Brigade command is around 0.1 * brigade_cmd_rank + 0.05 * division_cmd_rank

(The corps commander does not matter for command.)

I valued the commander ranks using the following XP ranges. (You can find where they are in the range by hovering the mouse over their experience bar.)

0-99 captain

100-199 major

200-299 lt. col.

300-399 col.

400-499 brig. gen.

500-599 maj. gen.

600-699 lt. gen

So, the upshot is a brigadier general with 50 XP toward his next rank (450 XP = 45 command) could command 2000 inf essentially on his own, regardless of the division commander. A major with 50 XP toward his next rank (150 XP = 15 command) would need his division commander to be a Lt. general (600+ XP) to command the same number of men without the penalty.

Of course this all may have changed since I measured it I think some time in late December. Also I was only looking at CSA, so I guess the rules could be different for Union?

Best first post ever. This is an excellent explanation. 

Welcome to the party, you will fit right in . . . 

Edited January 22, 2017 by Andre Bolkonsky

[kurie]

1 minute ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:

Best first post ever. 

Welcome to the party, you will fit right in . . . 

Thanks!

[GeneralPITA]

6 minutes ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:

I can think of a lot worse things that being lumped in with Mercanto. 

For example, having to read more transcripts cut and pasted off 1st Vermont's USB Archive. . . . 

I read that entire (very long) thread aside from 1st Vermont's copy & paste propaganda. That was the day I became a tester. It's a very good read. I found out that I'm limited to 100 likes per day on this forum and used most of them on you two wordsmiths. I was laughing for hours.  

[Andre Bolkonsky]

10 minutes ago, GeneralPITA said:

I read that entire (very long) thread aside from 1st Vermont's copy & paste propaganda. That was the day I became a tester. It's a very good read. I found out that I'm limited to 100 likes per day on this forum and used most of them on you two wordsmiths. I was laughing for hours.  

Thank you for the compliment. Glad to know all this hard work and effort doesn't go to waste. A forum conversation, I learned long ago, is like a tennis match. The goal is to get the ball back across the net, keep it in the bounds of polite conversation, and remember you are doing this for fun and exercise. 

But, it never hurts to have a wicked backhand and put a bit of spin on the ball now and again to keep folks on their toes. 

Edited January 22, 2017 by Andre Bolkonsky

[A. P. Hill]

2 hours ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:

Three different groups. Koro. You. Testers. 

You usually have a spreadsheet of facts and figures laying around, thought I'd tap your databanks. 

Ah!  My bad.

I only spreadsheet historical stuff, not necessarily game related, but if Devs can use the information I'm good.

[Koro]

9 hours ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:

Three different groups. Koro. You. Testers. 

You usually have a spreadsheet of facts and figures laying around, thought I'd tap your databanks. 

I have my own group because I am special ?