Officers level up too fast/too many Major Generals

[chsalpha]

IMO officers level up too fast during a Campaign. I have way too many Major Generals in my Army around Chancellorsville/Gettysburg already. I have 4 Corps with 4 Divisions each, all commanded by a Major General (so 16 in command) [this is not a problem] but I have around 6 or 7 more Major Generals in reserve, which I don't use atm. I don't like to assign MG as Brigade Commanders. It feels weird to me to assign such high ranking officers "only" to a Brigade. I usually only assign Colonels or Brigadier Generals to Brigade command (sometimes a Lt. Colonel if I've run out of higher ranking officers) somehow this feels more realistic to me.

I think the issue is, that an officer always needs 100Xp to level up. 100XP for a Captain to become Major, 100XP for a Colonel to become Brigadier General, 100XP for a Brigadier General to become a Major General and so on. Wish the higher the rank of your officer is the more XP to reach the next level was needed.

E.G.
125XP to level up from Colonel to BG
150 XP to level up from BG to MG
175 XP to level up from MG to LT. General


This would slow down the progress of officers a bit and prevent you from having way too many Major Generals in mid game already.

[kokopeli]

I have many brigades that have high Efficiency stats. These units require the highest command ability so I have Major Generals leading all the brigades in my top division and I'm probably going to add more to my second division as time goes by. But, I have most of my divisions led by brigadier generals so I just don't see it the same as you. I will be sending down many BGs to command Divisions when they level up to MG though.

[Champin Playr]

Agreed.

[BigJKU316]

Experince and ability should be decoupled from rank really.

Really if you wanted to make the experience more in depth you could by making the player manage rank properly.

[sakowski.finanse]

In Washington I had ALL my divisions led by lt. Generals and some lt. Generals were leading brigades. That leads me to a conclusion, that you are right in your point :)

[pissy*****acct]

I knida agree, but then, look at Custer's and Jackson's, rise thru the ranks.

It is a bit fast I think., but not all of it... Colonel down could be bought. INfact, some got thrie commission without having any previous military exp. And the attrition rates wreaked havoc.

Notabaly, Lt's is missing.
But I can understand that because of the death rates. (pointless amount of work to add them)
Any that didn't die quickly got promoted to replace the Cpt's death, and so on.

Lined up abreast, officers in front. Standard beares and posture marking them... few field officers lasted long.


maybe slow Col & General a little. Slow higher, even more.

HOWEVER,
at 30-ish Bde's I am having to buy Inf, Div, & Corp officers.

[J. P. Armistead]

Agreed. By late game you also have too many Lt. generals - there were only a handfull that attained this rank in the war.
Perhaps the game should allow a finite number of MG's and LG's depending on the number of divisions you have.
or ... better still .... have more skills MG's can earn , say 6 , and only when all skills attained allow them to rank up. Then add more skills say 3 to get to LG. This will slow down the rate of promotion for the highest ranks.
For example command a division/ corps for x number of battles?

Also it shouldn't be allowed that high ranking Generals can command an artillery brigade.
Its so tempting and gamey to stick a Lt. General in command of a brigade just so you can advance their skill level for that next star.

[limith]

To be fair, I tend to have so many injuries that it doesn't matter and am always lacking higher generals. Playing on the hardest difficulty.

[kokopeli]

I need the officers leadership stat to continue to progress, regardless of his rank. You can slow down the promotion rate but don't slow down the leadership stat growth.

[The King of Spades]

I would rather have 5 Vet Major Generals than 15 vet majors any day. If you find that somehow you've managed to have "Too many" Generals, place them as division commanders in your corps that need them, A MG as Division commander with nothing but Majors will make those raw recruits more efficient and over all better troops. The only time I use MG's for anything other than Corps and division commanders would be artillery batteries of more than 2 stars. It is my understanding that command and efficiency are hand in hand with each other.

[Malkor2]

If you have too many Generals you're lucky. I use Brigadier Generals for 3 star units and they die or get wounded in battle. Major Generals serve as Corps and Division Commanders and later on Lieutenant Generals will lead the Corps. I often use Major Generals als Artillery Commanders in order to get the first Lieutenant General faster and also to improve the effectiveness of my Artillery. And don't worry, even your Division Commanders can die. One of my Major Generals who served as a Division Commander died during the battle of Gettysburg.

But i guess that is kind of a rare thing to happen, if something happens to your Division Commanders they end up getting wounded most of the time. So as far as i am concerned i rather have some spare Generals in my Barracks than having to use lower ranking Officers most of the time. And if you lose your Generals you might have to downsize some of your Infantry units because a unit of 2500 men either needs a Colonel with some experience or a Brigadier General.

To sum it up: Leave the XP rate for the Officers be. It's working fine right now and if you end up having some spare Major Generals then put them in charge of a 3 star 2000 or 2500 men Brigade. Or let them command your Artillery units. The better command rating of the unit will make a difference.

[Caramirdan]

Originally posted by Malkor2:

To sum it up: Leave the XP rate for the Officers be. It's working fine right now and if you end up having some spare Major Generals then put them in charge of a 3 star 2000 or 2500 men Brigade. Or let them command your Artillery units. The better command rating of the unit will make a difference.

Exactly.

Chsalpha (this thread's OP), you can never have too many generals. Your initial sentence saddens me. Best wishes learning this game!

[pissy*****acct]

I may be wrong about this...
but doesn't arty officers geta better efficency rating?

If that is correct...
if you swap them, then move former arty officer to a inf unit, do they lose the efficency rating?

[Marcomies]

Originally posted by pissy*****acct:

I may be wrong about this...
but doesn't arty officers geta better efficency rating?

If that is correct...
if you swap them, then move former arty officer to a inf unit, do they lose the efficency rating?

Isn't officer efficiency cap just directly tied to their level of experience?

[wrenchman.rk]

maybe if they let corp commanders die when they get attacked thered be slightly less generals. lol

[pissy*****acct]

i don't know anything about caps.

but it mkes sense that arty would gain both, exp & eff because they are conducting more operations. where as a inf/cav unit fights and stops, arty conitues firing, as they have a much longer range for doing so.

but still the question remians, if move the arty officer from the arty unti, to another unit. do they lose any of the raitings?