Commanding Generals

[bradhunter]

I was re-reading the forum posts, and if I'm interpreting one of them correctly, the player has no control over the "Commanding General of the Union Armies," or the "General and Chief of the Confederate Armies." Is this correct? If so, are we "stuck" with, for example, McClellan and Johnston?

Brad

[GrayGhost]

I believe we are in full control and can appoint any leader we want!

[Waxolm5]

I think Brad is right. In a recent post, one developer noted that the president chooses the commanding general, but you (apparently) control the rest. They choose the commanding general based upon all the available factors: fame, experience, etc. It sounded to me like you are "stuck" with whatever choice the president makes.

I was hoping to hear more about this. I was a bit surprised this was the case, since you can choose the overall economic policy your nation takes, so I'd think you would at least have a voice in picking the top general too.

[PikeStance]

I thought was mentioned that if you replaced a commander with a lesser commander then they will be penalties.

[Zipuli]

Yes, the president appoints the commanding general. He is the most successful and famous commander in your army, and will influence the other commanders' attributes.

[bradhunter]

I’m sure that I’m not the only one who would like to know how the mechanism for appointment of these generals works, and exactly what their influence is, on the armies under their command.

1) This could be an *absolutely brilliant* way to introduce the historical struggle that both Presidents had in finding the “right man” to lead the armies, and conduct the war according to their respective visions on how the war should be conducted.

OR

2) If this isn’t implemented properly, this could be a game-breaker.

PS: The letters on the compass rose are rotated.

Brad

[Menace]

It would be nice if you could "influence" the presidents decision in some way. Maybe not have complete control, but put something, maybe points, on the line to influence the decision.

[Zipuli]

Originally posted by Menace:

It would be nice if you could "influence" the presidents decision in some way. Maybe not have complete control, but put something, maybe points, on the line to influence the decision.

Well you can in a way... have the commanders succeed. The idea here is that you cannot choose your own favorite, but you could end up with generals like McClellan or Halleck - ones you, as player, would probably never pick.

[bradhunter]

Historically, the Union “General-in-Chief” was as follows:

MG Winfield Scott – 07/05/41 to 11/01/61 (retired)
MG George B. McClellan – 11/01/61 to 03/11/62 (removed)
(Lincoln and Secretary of War Stanton – 03/11/62 to 07/23/62 – temporary)
MG Henry W. Halleck – 07/23/62 to 03/09/64
LG Ulysses S. Grant – 03/09/64 to 03/04/69

Halleck wasn’t much of a field commander, but he was an excellent organizer and administrator. He worked closely with Lincoln and Stanton (his office was next door to Stanton’s at the War Office). He understood the “big picture.” When Lincoln promoted Grant to Lieutenant General, Halleck immediately tendered his resignation, because he was senior to Grant, had been passed over, and felt that he could no longer fulfill his duties. Lincoln and Grant talked him into staying on in an administrative role (more on this later).

Historically, the Confederate “General-in-Chief” was as follows:

Jefferson Davis (with General Samuel Cooper – Adjutant General and Inspector General of the Confederate Army) – 11/06/61 to 02/06/65
General Robert E. Lee – 02/06/65 to 04/12/65

General Lee was named “General-in-Chief” much too late in the war to make any difference. Things may have been different if this had happened earlier in the war. The creation of the position of “General-in-Chief” had been debated in the Confederate Congress as early as February, 1862, but Jefferson vehemently opposed the creation of this position, fearing that his position as Commander in Chief would be somehow usurped. Jefferson was a West Point graduate and a veteran of the Mexican-American war.

[Scotters]

GRANTed I understand that you want to keep things accurate, but can we have a little LEEway in picking our top General. Could you make it an option or something?

[PikeStance]

I lost our point of view. What are we in the "simulation?" Generally, you tend to be omnipresent, sliding from one position to another, but usually there is one spot that is your own. Examples, in Football manager, you are a manager in charge of all operations, but there is an uncontrollable board above you. However, you slide down to coach in games if you choose. You can be fired. In Front Office Football, you are the owner. However, you can slide down as a coach. In Total war, you are in charge of everything. In EU4 it is similar. In CKII, you play an evolving or revolving character that can be killed.

Anyway, how do we fit in the simulation?

[gekkoguy82]

I'm curious about where we fit in as well.

[Zipuli]

The players' role is more like a mix of the commanding general and the war cabinet.

[bradhunter]

The Union only had two General ranks; Brigadier General and Major General, until the reestablishment of the rank of Lieutenant General on 02/29/64 (only held by George Washington previous to this).

Major Generals of the Union Army, and their dates of commission were as follows (these are Regular Army [USA] ranks):

Winfield Scott – 06/25/41 (was appointed to the rank of Brevet Lieutenant General on 03/29/47)
George B. McClellan – 05/14/61
John C. Fremont – 05/14/61
Henry W. Halleck – 08/19/61
John E. Wool – 05/16/62
Ulysses S. Grant – 07/04/63
William T. Sherman – 08/12/64
George G. Meade – 08/18/64
Phillip H. Sheridan – 11/08/64
George H. Thomas – 12/15/65

There were numerous more Major Generals created, but within the US Volunteer (USV) system. Major Generals holding Regular Army rank (USA), automatically were senior to Major Generals holding USV ranks. This was true for all officer ranks, not just generals.

The CSA had four General Ranks; Brigadier General, Major General, Lieutenant General, and ‘full” General. The “full” Generals of the Confederate Army, and their dates of commission were as follows (these are ACSA ranks, so that these generals would have seniority over PACS and militia ranks):

Samuel Cooper – 05/16/61
Albert S. Johnston – 05/30/61
Robert E. Lee – 06/14/61
Joseph E. Johnston – 07/04/61
P.G.T. Beauregard – 07/21/61
Braxton Bragg – 04/06/62
E. Kirby Smith – 02/19/64
(John B. Hood – 07/18/64 – only temporary)

Lieutenant Generals of the Confederate Army, and their dates of commission (these are all PACS ranks):
James Longstreet – 10/09/62
E. Kirby Smith – 10/09/62
Leonidus Polk – 10/10/62
William J. Hardee – 10/10/62
Thomas J. Jackson – 10/10/62
Theophilus H. Holmes – 10/10/62
John C. Pemberton – 10/10/62
Richard S. Ewell – 05/23/63
Ambrose P. Hill – 05/24/63
Daniel H. Hill – 07/11/63
John B. Hood – 09/20/64
Richard Taylor – 04/08/64
Stephen D. Lee – 06/23/64
Simon D. Buckner – 09/20/64
Wade Hampton – 02/14/65
Nathan B. Forrest – 02/28/65

By law, Generals commanded Armies and Departments, Lieutenant Generals commanded Corps, Major Generals commanded Divisions, and Brigadier Generals commanded Brigades, with obvious exceptions to account for issues “in the field.” The initial commissioning of Lieutenant Generals during 10/62 reflected the creation of Corps, authorized by the Confederate Congress. The later promotions reflected reorganizing of Armies, with the need for additional Corps commanders.

[bradhunter]

Seniority within commissioned ranks was a big deal during the Civil War (and still is). In the example above of Confederate Lieutenant Generals, James Longstreet is the senior Lieutenant General of all of the officers commissioned within this rank, because his date of commissioning predates all of the others.
Halleck, the Union General-in-Chief, disliked this system, believing that officers should be promoted based on merit, but traditions slowly die. As a result, the Union Army (read Lincoln and Stanton) was more likely to promote officers above others who may be more “senior.” This caused discord within the army.
One example is Halleck himself, when Grant was promoted to Lieutenant General (USA). Halleck’s promotion to Major General (USA) dates to 08/19/61, while Grant’s promotion to Major General (USA) dates to 07/04/63, after his victory at Vicksburg. Halleck was clearly senior to Grant, but no one could argue that Grant didn’t deserve it, or was “the man” to conduct the war according to Lincoln’s vision.
Another example is General John Pope. Brigadier General (USA) John Pope had served under Major General (USA) John C. Fremont in the Department of the West. Halleck appointed Pope to command the new Army of the Mississippi, Pope still holding the rank of Brigadier General (USA). On 03/21/62, Pope was promoted to Major General (USV), also still holding his rank of Brigadier General (USA). During June, 1862, Lincoln ordered Pope to the eastern theater, to command the new Army of Virginia, consisting of Major General (USA) John C. Fremont’s Corps (who had previously been ordered East), Major General (USV) Irvin McDowell’s Corps, and Major General (USV) Nathaniel P. Banks’ Corps. Because Major General (USA) John C. Fremont’s ranking as Major General in the Regular Army (USA) was automatically considered senior to John Pope’s ranking as Major General in the United States Volunteers (USV), Fremont immediately resigned and left the army, having been “passed over” by right of seniority. Fremont was replaced by Major General (USV) Franz Sigel. Irvin McDowell (MG USV dating to 03/14/62) and Franz Sigel (MG USV dating to 03/21/62) were “team players,” while Nathaniel P. Banks (MG USV dating to 05/16/61) was junior to John Pope within the Major General USV ranks.
These issues were not infrequent within the Union Army, but less so in the Confederate Army. Other than the initial ACSA General ranks, after the beginning of the war, all General ranks were PACS ranks. Both ACSA Generals, and PACS ranks had automatic seniority over State Guard and Militia ranks. Joseph E. Johnston continuously complained, both during, and after the war, that he should have held the senior General rank within the Army, rather than Samuel Cooper, based on his rank and date of commissions within the US Army. An effort was made to base most of the seniorities within ranks on pre-war US Army ranks and commissioning ranks, but this wasn’t always the case.
Confederate and Union regimental officers and NCOs were elected by the personnel of the regiments, and these positions confirmed by the respective States’ Governors. After acceptance into “federal” service, these rankings may, or may not, have been confirmed by the Union (USV rank) or Confederate (PACS ranks) governments – it really depends on the time period during the war, and the current political situation.
I won’t go into Brevets at this time, but the Union used “breveting” rather liberally, while, legally, according to CSA law, Brevets were legal, no Brevets were issued by the CSA.

[bradhunter]

IMHO, "fame" or "popularity" should not be a part of the mechanism for the appointment of a General-in-Chief. I wouldn't want to see a "revolving door" of Generals-in-Chief because they happen to meet a game mechanism, and end up only being the "General de jeur." It would be nice to see some options for this, from sandbox to historical.