Many Generals setting

[USSLockwood]

I've just started a new game, and enabled the 'many generals' option. Wow, what a difference. The Union Army is a juggernaut (at least in the West, I haven't had the guts to try Lee's boys yet). I'm wondering, what is the reason for having fewer generals? Conceivably, the Union had plenty of officers by the end of 1861. Sure, most of them sucked, but even a bad general is better than no general at all.

[jimwinsor]

It's a preference based on one's love/hate of micromanagement.  [:)]

[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.

[Mike Scholl]

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?

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: proginc

...I don't understand the reason for less qualified generals than compartments...The Union Army didn't lack in division commanders, what it lacked in was QUALITY commanders...

The reason was stated in the post right above yours in this thread. You can just think of divisions, or corps, or armies that don't have a named leader as being commanded by one of very poor quality.

[freeboy]

Rememberr you also can build a building that adds more higher ranking generals called a ? oh well it is in the game..

[General Quarters]

academy?

[Hard Sarge]

Roger and there are some changes to the system comeing, if they work out

[jonreb31]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Roger and there are some changes to the system comeing, if they work out

Sounds exciting.

Yes you build Academies to allow more promotions. It takes quite a lot of time and resources though..