Matrix Games Forums

I like having a fair number of generals. The only thing I don't like is the fact that you can't specify which generals are in charge of individual brigades, or even a Division. I understand that throwing all the generals in a Division together makes it easier to manage things, but this leads to a couple problems. First, if I have multiple 2-star generals in a single Division (as is *very* often the case with the Confederacy at the beginning of the game - there are way more 2-star generals than there are divisions) then it's unclear who will actually lead the division. Second, I would like to make sure that certain brigadiers end up in charge of certain brigades, so it's not totally left to chance - I want my better generals leading my better brigades to get the most out of them.
 
Not a game-breaker by any means, but sure would be nice to be able to assign generals to individual brigades (you can't unless I missed something), just as you can to Corps and Armies. That would incidentally mean you would also be specifically assigning a Division commander as well.

Miserere,
When two generals of the same rank are in a container the one whose last name comes first alphabetically is in charge.

As for assigning generals to brigades, you can do this in detailed combat. (I think it's the 'g' key.)

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Miserere,
When two generals of the same rank are in a container the one whose last name comes first alphabetically is in charge.

As for assigning generals to brigades, you can do this in detailed combat. (I think it's the 'g' key.)

IIRC you put Holmes as division commander under Johnston commanding a corps - Holmes will take command of the corps - given the fact they both are 3-stars. So this is not exactly the same as you stated Gil ... [:'(]

To avoid M's problem, I do not promote weak generals to two stars.

Sometimes I have to promote a poor general simply because he has a needed attribute while the other well-known general's attributes are still hidden. This gives me a jump on training.

Do I understand correctly that there is zero benefit from having a general who is not going to command a division wear two stars instead of one?

If you had two major generals, the the first one alphabetically would command the division and the other would command a brigade if I understnad correctly. So you do get some benefit.

ORIGINAL: spruce

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Miserere,
When two generals of the same rank are in a container the one whose last name comes first alphabetically is in charge.

As for assigning generals to brigades, you can do this in detailed combat. (I think it's the 'g' key.)

IIRC you put Holmes as division commander under Johnston commanding a corps - Holmes will take command of the corps - given the fact they both are 3-stars. So this is not exactly the same as you stated Gil ... [:'(]

If Holmes is in a division container and Johnston is in the corps container then Johnston should command the corps -- are you seeing otherwise? Did I make an unclear statement to that effect? Or a clear one that was erroneous?

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

Do I understand correctly that there is zero benefit from having a general who is not going to command a division wear two stars instead of one?

I can't think of one, though Eric is the only one who knows for certain.

The more I think about it, the more I think that the solution is to keep 9-percenters at that level, and just have more 25-percenters instead of having both 18- and 25-percenters. My original thinking was that 25-percenters should be the most important generals (who don't qualify for 100-percenter status), but when you think of it, there's no harm in having big names who might not have had important commands (or who might have really sucked at them) appearing as often as guys like Custer, Chamberlain, Buell, etc.

As of now, I've added eight new 18-percenters, not including the ones suggested above. Seems like making these guys 25-percenters, plus a handful of other guys down the road, won't create a horrible glut of generals. Unless there are objections, then, this will be my policy.