Matrix Games Forums

Why is it that I never seem to have enough generals? I am playing the North, and have about as many two stars and I have one stars (roughly 24 each). The system doesn't seem to be generating as many one stars as I need. Are generals generated based on the number of brigades that are recruited?

No.

I find it necessary to play with "More Generals" enabled.  Otherwise, attrition means that I'm short of 2 stars by 1864 a lot of the time.

HiHi

Hazarding a guess here Otay, but from OoBs from JT Battleground series then it may be that it is WaD to represent the number of fed (and some Reb) Brigades that didn't have a General in charge but were led by a Colonel.

But I may be wrong.

All the Best
Peter

Peter,
I am not sure I understand what you are saying.  Is there an AAR under JT Battleground series that I should look at?

I think his point was that the game was intentionally designed to have fewer generals than brigades.
 
That certainly is true from what I can tell, because the game generates generals based on a historical with a % chance for each general to appear (with some being 100% certainties).
 
Even if you play with More Generals, you will probably never have 1 for each brigade.

Thanks.  I don't mind not having one general per brigade, I am simply worried about a top heavy force with more two and three stars than one stars - somehting that is very unrealistic.

Many Union brigades were really commanded by Colonels but I use the "More Generals" option as a matter of course.
 
Best Regards

The thinking behind our design was that every brigade has a "general," but that could sometimes be a colonel during the war, so there are indeed fewer generals than brigades. Think of a general as a sort of bonus, then, who gives boosts to the unit's performance. As for 2- and 3-star generals, the game starts off with a bunch of guys given those ranks according to their historical ranks at the time, but then as the game continues it is only possible to promote generals when there are fewer 2-stars than division containers, fewer 3-stars than corps, and fewer 4-stars than armies -- so this business of a "top-heavy force" should not last for too long, due to the killing of generals over time.

HiHi

Otay, there are AARs on JT Battleground battles on the Matrix Battleground site and fascinating to read they are too, but they may not help you see the OoB.

So I have had a quick looksee at the OoB for Gettysburg in that game and listed are around 30 fed Brigades (sorry I lost the exact count scrolling down) that fought at G’burg commanded by colonels rather than Generals, for eg Col Roy Stone commanded the Pa Bucktails, and both Bufords Cav Brigades were commanded by Cols, Devin & Gamble, Rebs by contrast only had 7 Cols in charge of Brigades, but then they didn’t have as many brigades on the field as feds.

This is a ‘Just in case’ (I missed it when I 1st started playing [8|]) but you do know you can promote & demote gens by using the 2 arrowed tabs with 4 stars on top in a commanders info box, you don’t have to wait on the end of turn sequence that throws up possible promotions; as Gil has pointed out however this will only be applicable if there are spare containers for the new rank available.

Now, if you think you need more 1 star Gens you can demote to that rank, BUT, it carries a risk, a) the Gen may resign in a Huff, b) you will lose points from Governors support, so you need to be careful when doing that.

All the Best
Peter

I forgot to note the most important reason we don't have lots and lots of generals: most players would consider it too much micromanaging.

Anyone who wants even more generals than the "More Generals" setting provides can simply mod the files to give the 25-percenters and 9-percenters greater chances of showing up.