General of the Army Leadership Suggestion

[civsully1]

Was thinking about General Leadership as modeled in the game. What made think of this is when I was "awarded" General Lee after a battle. Of course I accepted this fine offer and put him in charge of a corps. But it just didn't seem in step with the level of leadership and the point of the campaign where he entered into. Nor of course in actual history.

Maybe a consideration is to have starting out for both sides a "General of the Army" based upon the historical timeline of the war. Each General of the Army would offer certain levels of performance over the course of the war. Impact would be for the Union that the leadership would at first be more negative while the CSA would be more positive in terms of effectiveness say in battle. This would obviously change as the war goes on as it did in reality.

I'm guessing the smart folks here as play testers/experts/gifted players probably have already thought about or suggested this to the developers. But as it came up to me, I thought I'd just throw it out into the forum and see if it floats or sinks. Thanks!

[Fred Sanford]

I'd like something like that.  And make your character unable to take the Army commander slot until he gets Lt Gen.  Also I'd like to see the rank structure more rigidly adhered to, where a Brigadier Gen Div commander couldn't have a Major General in charge of brigade, e.g.

Also I'd like to repeat a suggestion to allow the player to "sell" leaders for cash and/or rep.  My last Union campaign I had MG's leading brigades because all of my corps were Lt Gens, and Divs were all Maj Gens.  I think if an army in one theater was so top-heavy they'd transfer some of them to other theaters, and this mechanic would simulate that.

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard]

Sounds good, as to advantage of the CSA at start, there might be a question of game balance to take into account, but myself i have always prefered a lack of balance as in any war, and thus the choice between an easier game and a more challenging one and the feeling of changing tides of war.

[Andre Bolkonsky]

10 hours ago, civsully1 said:

Was thinking about General Leadership as modeled in the game. What made think of this is when I was "awarded" General Lee after a battle. Of course I accepted this fine offer and put him in charge of a corps. But it just didn't seem in step with the level of leadership and the point of the campaign where he entered into. Nor of course in actual history.

Maybe a consideration is to have starting out for both sides a "General of the Army" based upon the historical timeline of the war. Each General of the Army would offer certain levels of performance over the course of the war. Impact would be for the Union that the leadership would at first be more negative while the CSA would be more positive in terms of effectiveness say in battle. This would obviously change as the war goes on as it did in reality.

I'm guessing the smart folks here as play testers/experts/gifted players probably have already thought about or suggested this to the developers. But as it came up to me, I thought I'd just throw it out into the forum and see if it floats or sinks. Thanks!

I like the way you think, Sully. But . . . . 

They did give the player a 'general of the army' to start the game with. 

Look in the mirror, and tell me what you see? 

The entire game is built around a 'general of the army'. Custom built, design your own narrative, play out various character role plays, 'generals of the army'. It is the heart and soul of the campaign game. 

 

[civsully1]

7 hours ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:

I like the way you think, Sully. But . . . . 

They did give the player a 'general of the army' to start the game with. 

Look in the mirror, and tell me what you see? 

The entire game is built around a 'general of the army'. Custom built, design your own narrative, play out various character role plays, 'generals of the army'. It is the heart and soul of the campaign game. 

 

Touche AB....Touche!!!!  

[Wright29]

A couple of us have loosely talked about revamping the careers system to mix with the perks system for generals. Each general would have career points and only corps and general-in-chief would count. The benefits would mix the economic gains (current career system) with on-field benefits (perks system now) so that some generals might be more useful for macro while others would be more capable in the field. This would give the players some real tough decisions to make. 

Anyways, that's a fun idea for future games and the current system won't change. Just thought I'd mention that you're not alone in wanting to manage the same tough decisions the Union had to make for the Army of the Potomac. 

[civsully1]

18 hours ago, Wright29 said:

A couple of us have loosely talked about revamping the careers system to mix with the perks system for generals. Each general would have career points and only corps and general-in-chief would count. The benefits would mix the economic gains (current career system) with on-field benefits (perks system now) so that some generals might be more useful for macro while others would be more capable in the field. This would give the players some real tough decisions to make. 

Anyways, that's a fun idea for future games and the current system won't change. Just thought I'd mention that you're not alone in wanting to manage the same tough decisions the Union had to make for the Army of the Potomac. 

Appreciate your comment Wright! Thx