How do the officer stars for abilities change after a promotion?

[jefbethc]

I promote officers and their stars for abilities change. Is there a logic for the changes?

[SAS]

When they get promoted they lose stars in some areas to show they are learning their new rank.

[jefbethc]

Thanks!

[Traf]

An officer lose 1 star experience for every promotion. So if you have a battle hardened crack captain with 5 stars of experience and got him raised to major>>>lt colonel>>>colonel>>>bg general>>>mg general he will lose all 5 experience stars. You can be an expert captain at commanding your battery of 6 guns, but cant be same expert within a few days as mg general commanding corps or even armies. Losing 1 EXPERIENCE star will lower commander's SKILL stars. I havnt calculated, but its like inexperienced commander got his SKILL stars halved if he have no EXPERIENCE star. 3 experience stars giving commander's actual skill stars. 5 experience stars boosting commanders skill stars.
An example. We have bg general with all skills at 3 stars, but with no experience. So at army officer pool he will look like a bg with all skills at 3 stars. But when you recruit him to actual command, his skills will drops to 1,5 stars each. After our hero get 1 star in experience, his skill stats grow by 0,5 star and now his skills will look as 2 stars each. 2 stars experience and he will get another 0,5 skill stars and by so all his stats will be as 2. So every experience star will give a commander 0,5 skill stars, except fame. Fame can variate by other things, mostly by doing well or bad in battles.

[Oubley]

Originally posted by jefbethc:

Is there a logic for the changes?

Personally I think one should just go into the config files and reduce the experience loss if not competently remove it.

The system is designed more for a regiment to brigade to division transition and in vanilla you don't have regiments.

The game is trying to simulate cases like John Hood with promotion and experience loss, but those type of cases they didn't really become bad, they were overrated division commanders to begin with. Injuries didn't help.

Ewell seemed competant until injuries mounted up.

What Union general was worse at corps and army level then at division level?

if you're bad at corps/army it probably means you shouldn't have been a division commander either.

[jefbethc]

Wow, This explanation was great! I had given up trying to understand why some seem to get worse and others better when I promote them. Thanks!

[Paladin04]

Originally posted by Oubley:

Originally posted by jefbethc:

Is there a logic for the changes?

Personally I think one should just go into the config files and reduce the experience loss if not competently remove it.

The system is designed more for a regiment to brigade to division transition and in vanilla you don't have regiments.

The game is trying to simulate cases like John Hood with promotion and experience loss, but those type of cases they didn't really become bad, they were overrated division commanders to begin with. Injuries didn't help.

Ewell seemed competant until injuries mounted up.

What Union general was worse at corps and army level then at division level?

if you're bad at corps/army it probably means you shouldn't have been a division commander either.

Well off the top of my head for the Union Burnside was a horrible Army commander and should have stayed at the Division level. Pope was a stupid choice by Lincoln to be an Army commander. Heck even Little Mac was not fit for overall Army command. He was outstanding at drilling and logistics but never should have commanded an entire army.