demoting generals

[Drex]

Wait, didn't I say I would shut up about this? Can't keep my big mouth shut.

[dude]

ORIGINAL: Drex

I agree with you that it is a problem with promotion being linked to containers. If you could promote based on need or extraordinary combat action then you could leave Early as he is and promote the general you want. After all, armies were top heavy during war time anyway. You could send Early to New Orleans to run the garrison there or anywhere. Why create another army? If and when you needed another army then bring Early back from New Orleans to his new command. No political backlash there.

I think if you were to send Early to a back water without an army to command... then he'd probably quit. This is esentially what happend to a number of Union commanders. There has to be some penalty for removing a guy from his command in essence... in this game it is abstractly done by demoting them.

The problem is we want our cake and eat it too... We would love to promote who ever we wanted to command each container. Screw who's ever in command currently... so what if we have a dozen four stars stitting in Washington or Richmond without assignment at least I got Grant (or Lee) finally... [;)]

In the war (to the best of recolection... don't shoot me here)... it was a very touchy issue to put a guy in command that didn't have greater time in service AND grade than the guy who was already there. This type of system is not really being modeled here. I still recall Sherman's offer to support and serve under Grant at one point out west "even though he outranked Grant" and this was a very big deal. When Grant later came east I believe more than one general resigned because they felt slighted because they "outranked" Grant in time in grade and service.

I'm not advicating this kind of system. I'm liking the new system more and more (though adding in unlimited demotions to any grade would be a nice improvement.) I think the cost you have to spend on an extra container goes to and can be counted as trying to appease the guy you are replacing. Heck maybe all we need is a way to "buy" more general slots instead of actual containers? just a thought. The Academies can provide the basic number of slots or reduce the cost per slot or something like that perhaps.

Dude

[CSL]

Is there any possibility we can get brevet ranks or something along those lines so that one can make promotions as only a temporary stopgap for when you know better generals are coming along later.

Or, make demotion more acceptable after a commanding general has lost a decisive battle? If so, perhaps also erase the loss of governor support you lose in such a move.

[Gil R.]

I like the idea of adding brevets because it gives greater accuracy and historical flavor to the game, but it does seem that this would get around the rules regarding promotion and demotion. How could brevetting be introduced without doing this? Ideally, there would be some sort of penalty (e.g., brevet generals can't teach special abilities, or have a rating drop), but that would be ahistorical. Maybe promoting a brevet general would not raise a governor's attitude (just as demoting one wouldn't lower it)? We'd have to think of this more.

No matter what, brevet ranks can't be added for this patch, but maybe in the future, if we can think of a good enough way to make them work in the game rather than working around it.

[Drex]

I think you're on the right track CSL and Gil.

[Drex]

I do think promoting only from an elgibles list would be more historical as well as only one grade at a time. As for sending generals to a backwater command as a reward for poor performance, one only has to look at Pope who was sent out to Minnesota to fight the Indians( and he did not quit), as well as afew others. Chris would probably know who these were. Warren was removed from Corps command by Sheridan but I don't think he quit either. In fact removal had to be justified by a military review.That's why I was pushing to make demotions more difficult.

[spruce]

ORIGINAL: Drex

I agree with you that it is a problem with promotion being linked to containers. If you could promote based on need or extraordinary combat action then you could leave Early as he is and promote the general you want. After all, armies were top heavy during war time anyway. You could send Early to New Orleans to run the garrison there or anywhere. Why create another army? If and when you needed another army then bring Early back from New Orleans to his new command. No political backlash there.

now that's the whole point of the discussion. If you want Forrest to become a 4-star - you either demote Early to 1-star (due to the situation) which is ridiculous or you build an extra army container so you'll get another army general.

both options are screwed.

But like Erik told us - the problem will be less aggravated due to new generals not jumping in at 3-star rank.

[f15eagle]

Perhaps there could be additional restrictions placed on promotions and demotions as well.  Maybe once a general is promoted, they can't be demoted for a period of time or until they suffer a decisive defeat.  You could also limit them to a maximum of one promotion in a given time period unless they are involved in a decisive victory.  Lots of options, but it would be interesting to be able to connect promotions to performance and tenure.

On a related note, it would be nice to have some performance and battle history on generals similar to what we now have for units.  Just a report that shows what unit a general was commanding during what time, the battle results, and the casualties, perhaps.  I know we get information about generals on battle reports, but there's not an historical record.

[MadMike]

Along f15eagles line of thought, during the war the demotion of an army commander was not a decision that was made simply because some flashy new guy showed up, the general in charge had to have suffered a defeat or setback to justify the removal from command, and even then McCellan had partisans at work to keep him in charge or bring him back.
 
In the current incarnation of promotion/demotion it's almost too much freedom. The officer corps of an army is not a President's personal plaything to be jiggered with whenever he wants, it has a system of seniority and an culture of it's own, with rules governing promotion/demotion that keep this professional soldier class motivated to continue to perform to the best of their abilities with the promise of an orderly and logical increase in rank, pay, prestige, and command authority as their career progresses.
 
Another point would be that in this game, a player really has to plan ahead because FoF makes you live with the decisions you've made over the course of the game, and deciding that you have to have a 4-star general right now even though he's not a superstar should have consequences and not be an easy thing to change in the short term when a shiny new model of Brigadier General arrives.
 
In fact, being a division/corps commander in a succesful campaign or victorious battle was a very positive resume builder for the officer corps. So you could make every officer in a decisive victory eligible for promotion, while commanders in a defeat are eligible for demotion or retirement. (but demotion should never exceed one rank)
 
Another thought: why is there a limit on the number of any particular rank of general to begin with? If a player wants to promote everyone to 4 stars, what positive benefit would be accrued in game terms? I can't think of a positive, but a negative would be that noone would serve under anyone else in the divisions or the corps containers and thus couldn't cooperate in training the brigades in the unit. (did I just make a point for more freedom after arguing for less this whole time?)

[Gil R.]

Another thought: why is there a limit on the number of any particular rank of general to begin with? If a player wants to promote everyone to 4 stars, what positive benefit would be accrued in game terms? I can't think of a positive, but a negative would be that noone would serve under anyone else in the divisions or the corps containers and thus couldn't cooperate in training the brigades in the unit. (did I just make a point for more freedom after arguing for less this whole time?)

The higher a general's rank, the better his chance to teach a special ability or raise a unit's quality in a given turn. I think that rank also affects chances of rallying in detailed combat, though I might not remember that correctly. There are probably other things like this as well. So, making everyone a four-star general would warp the game.

[MadMike]

OK, thanks Gil, then ignore that entire paragraph.

[dude]

Just tossing these ideas out...
 
If I didn't think it would be such a headache for a player to keep track of I would suggest tracking WHEN a general get's promoted to any rank and then prevent anyone promoted before him from serving in a unit under him.  And possibly prevent 3 and 4 Stars from commanding anything less than a corps? 
 
Dude