So are you the general of the army or just a general in the army?

[General Hancock]

The game does state that you are the general but are you the general of the Army or a general in the army? Based on not commanding the entire army, I would think we are only a general in the army.

thoughts? 

[Koro]

You are the general of one army, free to arrange your army as you see fit and fight as you please. You don't fight the entire war but parts of it.  

The only real hint of this is given in the reputation shop description where you are told why it costs rep because you are asking for more than you deserve. 

We were told as much in beta though :). 

[General Hancock]

Koro, I agree based on the fact that you only control a segment, in this case an army, but not the entire Union army. 

[KaleRaven]

On the career page, you have the title "General-in-Chief". In theory this would mean that you are in overall command of all armies and military strategy for your side. However, the actual gameplay suggests you are in charge of a single army. Save for a few exceptions, that would be the Army of the Potomac/Army of Northern Virginia respectively.

Edited December 19, 2016 by KaleRaven

[A. P. Hill]

Actually, in campaign mode, it would appear that you're in charge of all armies and that your armies are to fight in every theater of the war whether they did or not.  I'd like to see this divided up in the future where you can pick to be in either the eastern theater or the western theater and only fight battles related to those theaters.

[General Hancock]

Kale,There is no title in the military as general in chief. Where did you see that? All I have found I should on the game page that says that "you are the general". 

AP, that's why I asked. If you are only the commander of an army then the game makes more sense to me as you are being given orders. 

[KaleRaven]

Just under the "Battles Map" header in the attached screenshot. General in Chief wasn't the formal title, but was sometimes used to refer to the position.

Edited December 19, 2016 by KaleRaven

[James Cornelius]

21 minutes ago, General Hancock said:

Kale,There is no title in the military as general in chief. Where did you see that? All I have found I should on the game page that says that "you are the general". 

AP, that's why I asked. If you are only the commander of an army then the game makes more sense to me as you are being given orders. 

As Kale pointed out in the above screenshot, the game calls you General-in-Chief. While there is no current rank as such in the military, there was in 1861. Indeed, there was from roughly 1789 until 1903, though for the first decade or so it was known as "Senior Officer of the Army". Then, it was either the "Commanding General", or "General-in-Chief". In 1903, the General Staff system was adopted in the US and the Commanding General became the Army Chief of Staff. Winfield Scott was the longest serving, before being replaced by McClellan in late 1861.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commanding_General_of_the_United_States_Army

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General-in-chief

[vren55]

Wait... i'm confused, if I'm the General in Chief, why do I start off as a corps commander? Generals like McClellan and Grant commanded corps, but through subordinates, eg. Sherman, and Hooker. 

Also, while I don't mind this as much, how the hell does it work that a Brigadier General in charge of a Corps can have a Major General in charge of a Division? I don't mind it b/c it's a game, but IRL wouldn't this make for a confusing command structure?

Edited December 19, 2016 by vren55

[James Cornelius]

Those are valid concerns. Of course, at the start of the war you DID have colonels commanding divisions (such as Bull Run) and "armies" were the size of large corps of the late war. Until the Peninsula Campaign, Brigadier Generals were still commanding Union Corps, and it wasn't until October '62 that the Confederate Army created the rank of lieutenant general, even though they had brigadier, major, and full general ranks since just after Bull Run (the exact dates elude me at the moment). The Confederates were, from Oct 62 onwards, much more formal about ensuring brigades were commanded by brigadier generals, divisions by major generals, and corps by lieutenant generals. Until the end of the war the Union, on the other hand, often had colonels commanding brigades and brigadier generals commanding divisions because, of course, with the exception of Grant there was no one higher than major general.

 

But, the issue you mention in the game where a brigadier general can command a corps or division while you have a major general commanding a brigade under him is ahistorical. While I like the Barracks feature where you have a group of officers and you need to "purchase" more when needed, I think the system needs reworking.

 

I would propose the following:

 

Officers develop characteristics independent of rank, but related to how they perform in battle with some randomness. Examples could be things like:

"Cautious": 5% movement penalty

"Quick": 5% movement increase

"Inspiring": 5% morale boost

"Lackluster": 5% morale penalty

etc (I would hope for many others)

 

Officers could develop new traits throughout a campaign, and thus an officer who was an excellent division commander might end up as a poor corps commander.

 

Then, as officers are in battle they will develop a sense of "seniority" based at least partly upon performance, similar to the method used in the game "Civil War II". Thus, you try to promote your best officers, but that's not always possible because your senior most officer might not be your best. Then, as their rank increases, you can assign additional traits/specializations using the same system as now when an officer reaches general rank. For added realism/challenge, if you pass over an officer for promotion too many times then he might resign and you lose him completely. 

 

This would also allow the historical officers to be given their historical traits and therefore make them more valuable since, in cases like Longstreet, Jackson, Sherman, etc they would have almost universally positive traits.

 

This would of course mean you would have whatever number of senior officers you decide is necessary for your army, and not too many major generals or higher ranking officers commanding brigades under lower ranking officers and things like that.

Edited December 19, 2016 by James Cornelius

[Koro]

53 minutes ago, vren55 said:

Wait... i'm confused, if I'm the General in Chief, why do I start off as a corps commander? Generals like McClellan and Grant commanded corps, but through subordinates, eg. Sherman, and Hooker. 

Also, while I don't mind this as much, how the hell does it work that a Brigadier General in charge of a Corps can have a Major General in charge of a Division? I don't mind it b/c it's a game, but IRL wouldn't this make for a confusing command structure?

This is a bit confusing.. The "you" part is almost out of the picture after creating your army. You can out yourself as a brigade commander or bench yourself completely. Even die if you are unlucky enough as a brigade commander. 

In effect, you are the general. 

[Don't Escrow Taxes]

3 hours ago, Koro said:

 You can [p]ut yourself as a brigade commander or bench yourself completely. Even die if you are unlucky enough as a brigade commander. 

 

Yeah once you get better generals it makes sense to replace yourself at the head of the Corps, like when you get A.S. Johnston or Grant. I had my character die on the battlefield as the head of a division, which was one of the stranger out-of-body experiences i have had in a video game LOL.  Since then I put my toon as the head of my dedicated artillery division in my 1st cops since he would typically be safely behind the front line... 

[RobWheat61]

16 hours ago, James Cornelius said:

But, the issue you mention in the game where a brigadier general can command a corps or division while you have a major general commanding a brigade under him is ahistorical. While I like the Barracks feature where you have a group of officers and you need to "purchase" more when needed, I think the system needs reworking.

Why is it an issue of the game? The game doesn't force you to use officers in positions not adequate to their rank. It is solely the players who decide how to employ their officers in the game.

[General Hancock]

20 hours ago, James Cornelius said:

As Kale pointed out in the above screenshot, the game calls you General-in-Chief. While there is no current rank as such in the military, there was in 1861. Indeed, there was from roughly 1789 until 1903, though for the first decade or so it was known as "Senior Officer of the Army". Then, it was either the "Commanding General", or "General-in-Chief". In 1903, the General Staff system was adopted in the US and the Commanding General became the Army Chief of Staff. Winfield Scott was the longest serving, before being replaced by McClellan in late 1861.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commanding_General_of_the_United_States_Army

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General-in-chief

James, didn't know that. Thank you for enlightening me. However, as others have questioned then why does it seem we only command a Corp or an Army? 

[General Hancock]

2 hours ago, RobWheat61 said:

Why is it an issue of the game? The game doesn't force you to use officers in positions not adequate to their rank. It is solely the players who decide how to employ their officers in the game.

Because that's not how it works in real life. Please remember that this is beta and we are trying to provide feedback in order to improve the game. 

[James Cornelius]

2 hours ago, General Hancock said:

James, didn't know that. Thank you for enlightening me. However, as others have questioned then why does it seem we only command a Corp or an Army? 

Well that's the question at hand. Initially when I started playing, and the first couple battles including Bull Run talked about "your division" I assumed that you only commanded a portion of the army directly, even if you had full control for some battles. That proved to not be the case, though it would be interesting if some early battles featured only your troops under your command, and the rest of the battle AI on both sides so that while you couldn't do everything to win the battle, it better simulated what a division or corps commander was supposed to do. Then, you would work your way up to army command.

[General Hancock]

2 hours ago, James Cornelius said:

Well that's the question at hand. Initially when I started playing, and the first couple battles including Bull Run talked about "your division" I assumed that you only commanded a portion of the army directly, even if you had full control for some battles. That proved to not be the case, though it would be interesting if some early battles featured only your troops under your command, and the rest of the battle AI on both sides so that while you couldn't do everything to win the battle, it better simulated what a division or corps commander was supposed to do. Then, you would work your way up to army command.

I certainly think it would make it a much more interesting game and provide a deeper feel of being a commander in the civil war. 

[Sgt Shriver]

Well, it could be a temporary promotion, like what John Hood had. 

[GeneralPITA]

On 12/18/2016 at 8:04 PM, vren55 said:

How does it work that a Brigadier General in charge of a Corps can have a Major General in charge of a Division? I don't mind it b/c it's a game, but IRL wouldn't this make for a confusing command structure?

A very good question. The *&%# should roll downhill, so to speak.