Matrix Games Forums

In FoF, promotions are not nearly as tightly controlled.
 
1.  You have a limited number of generals allowed at each "Rank".  Those limits can be increased by building acadamies.
 
2.  As long as you have a "slot" open, you can promote anyone into it.  A general can go all the way from 1 "star" to 4 at any time (so long as the slot is open).
 
3.  You can demote any general at any time.  Any general can always be demoted to 1 "star".  There must be a "slot" open for a lesser promotion.  So a 4 star could be demoted to a 3 or 2 "star" if such a slot is open and they could be demoted to a 1 star at any time since there are an unlimited number permitted.
 
4.  The promotion or demotion of a general impacts your standing with the governor of the state from which that general hails.

If that's the case then why would you ever use a bad general? In the war both sides had to at times. It seems like you could always promote the best at the beginning of the war.

OK... let's see what happened now that the war is in full swing.

The siege in Jackson made some progress. Encircle really is an effective technique when engineering and artillery are not yet fully developed.

Ack! He avoided the battle in Lower Tennessee river. That little bugger sure is slippery.

A few more buildings come on line. While camp output keeps growing, so too does the need for reinforcements. I still haven't even reached a break even point, let alone starting refilling the ranks.

Disease in Tallahassee. That little trip has been a difficult one for all involved. The losses were fairly light, mostly because the units are already badly depleted just from the trip.

He somehow has the money to be investing in diplomacy still? And he's making progress too. Though there is still al long way for him to go before it becomes worrisome. I never like seeing the phrase "CSA conquers..." That will need to be looked into.

Looking out west, he not only slipped away in the Lower Tennessee, but he is moving south to engage those armies will all alacrity. Well, I guess the good news is I finally got him out of Nashville.

And looking further south, he managed to cut my supply line, though with a meager force. Still it will have to be dealt with.

I'll pull Keyes down as far as he can make it. I'd love to catch a rebel force now, but we seem to be playing cat and mouse and I doubt he'll march right into my most obvious path. Still, I need to quickly get into position to do something later and the obvious path is the fastest one. I'll pull the army from Little Rock to try and retake Yazoo. The army isn't a veteran bunch, but hopefully their numbers will prevail. Once Keyes is down, he can become the policeman and there should be time to return on Little Rock for a winter siege.

I'll begin my Siege in Tallahassee, but even as weighty as the numbers first appear, the 11th Corp is not in good shape.

Virginia is tricky. Marching into the Shenendoah is very likely a trap. Why leave a little division there except to bait me as Robert E comes circling back? Still, supply is high and the army grows restless, so let us give it a try. If he doesn't come back now, we hold the heights and he'll be hard pressed to leave his soil in our hands.

I'll bring my siege artillery to Kentucky for rendezvous. By next turn I'll have to decide if I should take them back to Nashville or to a softer target. Taking Murfreesboro would make it much harder for him to relive subsequent attacks on Nashville.

For builds, I'll do the planned Mfg Center in NY. I'll put it in Buffalo since that is the city where I am most likely to build troops later on (due to its relatively weak economic performance). That leaves me in the unusual position of having excess cash with few other resources. This might be the time to invest in a lab and get my logistics research kick started. I'll go ahead and switch cities from labor back to cash. Surplus or not this turn, that's still what I seem to be most frequently running short on.

And with the end of this turn, I receive not one but 2 advances. For the first, I'll enhance my inclimate weather performance.

And the second is another engineering advance and the sweet taste of exactly what I was hoping for.

And yet another turn is done. Many things are in motion now. While flags may not be raised and lowered until it all plays fully out, the outcome of the war may well be determined in the near future.

ORIGINAL: chris0827

If that's the case then why would you ever use a bad general? In the war both sides had to at times. It seems like you could always promote the best at the beginning of the war.

If you are using historical/visible stats (which we are), then you should promote the best right at the outset (thus my earlier comment on Grant and a possible reason for his delayed availability - you can only promote the fellows who have made their debut). Those wishing to model the difficulty of going through generals and attempting to find and promote the right ones might prefer the random/hidden attributes option.

ORIGINAL: jchastain
If you are using historical/visible stats (which we are), then you should promote the best right at the outset (thus my earlier comment on Grant and a possible reason for his delayed availability - you can only promote the fellows who have made their debut). Those wishing to model the difficulty of going through generals and attempting to find and promote the right ones might prefer the random/hidden attributes option.

The game provides two ways of handling generals, and most players will be able to live with at least one of them; but I think quite a few players will feel that neither way is completely satisfactory. Random/hidden gives the better simulation, but it makes the names of the generals meaningless, which is a bit sad.

I already posted about this some time ago so I won't go on at length here, but I can't resist mentioning it in this context.

I noticed in the screenshots there are corps and divisions without generals. I assume this means no general is better than a bad general. How about requring a leader in order to purchase a corps or a division? This would force both sides to use some of the less successful generals in order to field large armies. It's just not the civil war without generals like Butler, Banks, Fremont, Halleck, Pemberton, Bragg, or Pillow. As the game is now you'll never see them. I wouldn't mind seeing some promotions happening randomly either. Let's say General Sigel is in command of a division at the battle of Manassas. His troops luckily perform well despite the general's lack of ability. His friends at the war departement get him a promotion. At the next battle his corps commander is killed. You want to make General Logan the new corps commander but Sigel outranks him. Do you promote Logan over Sigel and anger his home state governor and possibly drive sigel to retire? What if a poor general is loved by his troops and you want to replace him? Do you risk lowering the troops morale or keep the bad general?

ORIGINAL: chris0827

I noticed in the screenshots there are corps and divisions without generals. I assume this means no general is better than a bad general. How about requring a leader in order to purchase a corps or a division? This would force both sides to use some of the less successful generals in order to field large armies. It's just not the civil war without generals like Butler, Banks, Fremont, Halleck, Pemberton, Bragg, or Pillow. As the game is now you'll never see them. I wouldn't mind seeing some promotions happening randomly either. Let's say General Sigel is in command of a division at the battle of Manassas. His troops luckily perform well despite the general's lack of ability. His friends at the war departement get him a promotion. At the next battle his corps commander is killed. You want to make General Logan the new corps commander but Sigel outranks him. Do you promote Logan over Sigel and anger his home state governor and possibly drive sigel to retire? What if a poor general is loved by his troops and you want to replace him? Do you risk lowering the troops morale or keep the bad general?

Actually, all it means when there are units without generals is that I am too lazy to give them one. It is possible that units are better with no general at all - I'm actually not sure on that but I would assume TERRIBLE across the board would be worse than none at all. That said, I have plenty of decent generals that could be assigned if I were willing to take the time to think through the assignments. Gil wanted to play with the "More Generals" option. Personally, I prefer playing with less as haviung to balance and rebalance 100 generals and deal with the ripple effect every time someone new pops onto the scene is the point where I start not wanted to deal with the micromanagement. Add in the fact that I cannot promote anyone further and all the new 1 stars could only command a single brigade anyway, and I just haven't felt the value justified the time investment required.

The retirement of generals is an interesting angle that isn't included within the game but that has been discussed a few times on these boards. I strongly suspect that the rules around generals in general (sic) will get plenty of discussion once the game launches. It is just one of the topics that people tend to feel most passionate about.

There is a flurry of activity just ahead of winter setting in. The sieges in Tallahassee and Jackson both creep along.