AGEOD Forums

Dear Generals,
recently I bought NCP and since I took my first steps as Commander in this obviously great game in the Austerlitz scenario a few questions came up:

1. What is the best way to compose Divisions and Corps? I learned from ltr213's tutorials how to optimize CP usage and to organize the units to get the most benefits from the leader's traits. But still I am uncertain about the "combined arms" force composition. Are there some "rules of thumb" how many infantry/cavalry/artillery elements should be in a unit/Division? Does the combat engine reward the use of combined-arms-units or is there a penality for using mere infantry-units/cavalry-units? Putting only artillery elements in a unit seems quite unrealistic to me, that's why I guess there must be some kind of combined-arms-factor in the combat calculations. To make it more difficult: do similar rules apply for the next higher organisational level in a corps (for example combining one cavalry-division per three invantery-divisions in a corps)? Last, is it more adviceable to put some artillery or cavalry elements directly attached to the corps (as corps-units, so to say) or does it make any difference organizing them in the corps' divisions?

2. Is it rewarded in the combat resolution calculations if a region is attacked from several sides rather than from just one? For example, if I attack Mack's army in Ulm from all neighbouring regions, will I have an advantage compared to an attack with all corps from the black forrest?

3. Are hostile stacks allowed to retreat in regions where none of my units are present but where I have a military-control-percentage greater than 50%?

Thanks allot in advance for your replies and help!

Yes, I too would like to know if, within the Corps organisation, is it better to include one or two cavalry brigades within an infantry division, or is it better to concentrate your cavalry in divisions of their own?

Also, why does a corps lose power when attaching a medical unit? In 1812, Davout's corps loses about 90 points when I attach the Sanitaire unit from Headquarters.

Hi!

1- The AGEOD games combat engine is so complex and detailed, with so many things affecting the outcome (luck, leaders, terrains, individual units capabilities, whether…) that is hard, if not impossible, to come out with a “perfect” division/corps organization.
Personally, I think that in most cases what worked Ok in history tends to work Ok in game, which is very good.
So I tend to organize forces on a pretty historic way and it seem to work good, and adds to the historical immersion of the game, something very important for me.

Some basic guidelines I use are…
- In divisions definitely put some arty with the infantry. Again, don’t know of any perfect number (terrain type has a big impact in the ability or arty to deploy and fire and long range). But for example a battery for each 3 infantry units looks good to me.
- Always use horse arty with cavalry so you don’t slow them down.
- I prefer to use cavalry out of the infantry/arty division, unless the division is going to operate on its own. But if we are talking about armies /corps, I prefer to make an only cavalry/horse arty division under an appropriate leader (with cavalry commander traits) or left the cavalry on the stack so its easier to detach them to scout around or pursue weak enemy units.
- In any case, always try to have cavalry on any stack/corps as cavalry is important for the pursue after battle: they inflict losses when the enemy retires from battle and protect your own force if he losses the battle and withdraw.
- Not sure if having an only cavalry/horse arty corps like the Grand Armee cavalry reserve is worth it or not, but its definitely cool so I tend to keep it that way. Can be very useful to pursue and trash enemy forces that withdraw after being defeated by your main army.
- Arty at the corps/stack level are also a good idea if you already have your divisional arty needs covered and have enough CP available for them. I like to put the biggest guns at corps/army level for historical flavour.

2- No, the in map regions are very big, so forces have to be in the same region to fight and have some influence on the battle. In fact its possible to be in the same region and still miss the battle region on behind those hills. The exception is when corps from the same army in adjacent regions are committed to a battle by “marching to the sound of the guns” (check the manual), but its not guaranteed.

3- Yes, you need more than 95% MC on a region to make impossible to the enemy to retreat there.

Hope it helps
Regards!

Tx Arsan, some good info there.

You mention following the historical organisation, which presents a dilemma: Austria tends to have its cavalry intermingled throughout a division - tho not always, I might add. My own preference is to group cavalry under a leader with cavalry ability. If I re-organise an Austrian corps so that cavalry is grouped into a single division (irrespective of whether or not the leader has cavalry ability), there is no obvious benefit/loss to such an arrangement?

Another question: sometimes after a battle a corps is automatically placed in a passive posture and assigned a movement path. It seems to happen mostly when a corps loses a battle but also can occur when the corps has won. Is it better to leave the automatically assigned movement and posture, or is there no penalty to pay if I change the assigned movement/posture?

Hi!

Yes, you are right. I really meant French historical organization, the one i know best and the one that seemed more effective back then.

I don't thing having cavalry on his own division have any adverse effects as long as its stacked with the other inf/arty divisions units.
On battle or on the pursue after battle the stack will be considered as one and the cavalry will pursue/protect form pursue the other divisions.
For example, cavalry also increase the detection value of the whole stack, but it does not matter if its in a mixed division or not.

Having the cavalry in one division certainly makes it's easier to detach it to do some scouting or take some important position before the enemy can arrive there. Having them mixed with the infantry will force you to disband and recreate divisions (which is a bore) to form your all cavalry fast strike force .
So probably its more a matter of convenience that of efficiency.


What you comment about the passive posture forces seems to be a case of retreat BEFORE combat.
This happens sometimes when a force decides by itself (even overriding the player orders) that its better for his health to avoid a combat as he is heavily outnumbered.
In this cases (if the force passes some rolls to actually be able to avoid getting engaged with the enemy) it will be put on passive and moved towards a nearby region automatically until turn ends.
But after that you are free to alter his route and posture without limitations.
No adverse effects.
Cheers!

arsan wrote:What you comment about the passive posture forces seems to be a case of retreat BEFORE combat.

I have a specific example: Lannes Corps has just attacked a Prussian army in Kassel and has won the battle, inflicting about 6000 causalties whilst sustaining about 5000 itself. At turns end (ie. begiining of new turn), the Prussian army has retreated into the city (I assume) and the Lannes force has adopted a passive posture and has a movement path assigned to the adjacent region - Arnsberg. Even tho Lannes won the battle, he did not gain control of the region, but he has not been forced to retreat - altho if I dont give him any new orders he will retreat to Arnsberg in a passive posture next turn. I was wondering if by leaving his corps alone and allowing him to remain in a passive posture whilst moving to Arnsberg will the corps recover cohesion quicker than if I left him in the Kassel province with a new posture?

Hi

Not sure why Davout is leaving the field too (maybe his casualties and cohesion loss were big enough for him wanting to retire).
In any case, there is no special rule for this cases. The Cohesion recovery depends of the posture (passive recovers faster) but it recovers the same no matter who selects the passive posture (game engine or yourself).
Moving cost cohesion, so its better to stay put on the region you are currently in passive stance for fastes cohesion recovery.
But of course it can be a bad idea dependings of enemy presence nearby.
Bear in mind forces in passive have penalties when attacked, So near enemy forces defensive posture is a good compromise between safety and cohesion recovery.
Regards

Tx for ur reply. Its reassuring to see some of the 'old hands' still keeping an eye on this forum and helping the newbies out.

Regarding the question under discussion; I notice another Prussian army to the northwest, so that Lannes (ie. the AI) has perhaps assumed his current position is untenable. If he were to remain in Kassel he would be possibly sandwiched between 2 prussian armies and has decided to retreat. But if that were the case, why would the AI give him a passive posture from which he'll suffer combat penalties? Should not the AI give him at the least a defensive posture? I guess at the crux of the matter is; should I trust the AI to choose the best posture and move for this force, or should I override the AI and alter his posture and movement orders?

Hi

No, the AI wont take so much control from your or take into consideration the strategic situations. This is your work
This "orders override" only kicks in in dire circumstances like, for example if you order a stack to attack a single division on an adjacent region but when they get there an enormous new prussian army (unseen until then) has joined the lone division.
In this case the leader in command (ie the AI) will consider your orders void as the situation is completely different. This is not guaranteed and many times your force will still engage and be defeated so you have to take into account this kind of unexpected situations when planing your moves.

On in your Davout case, it seems both sides retreated after the battle to recover strength. So it was a forced retreat after battle, even if ou were victorious
(you will see that, like in reality many times is difficult to tell who won and who lost and the game will sometimes award you victory or defeat if questionable circumstances).

The passive posture is used in this cases because, even if it gives combat penalties it makes more probable to avoid an engagement and will permit your forces to retire sooner if engaged. Check the manual for more detils on postures. They are very important.

As a rule of thumb, use your judgement and overrride if needed the Ai orders. You are much smarter then her
The pasive posture+ "get the heck out of here" generic AI orders can save your armies in dire situation but can usually be improved by you (like choosing where its better to retire for example, or using evade combat orders...)
Cheers

That's some good advice. You have really improved my grasp of the tactical situation. Cheers.

Poor Blucher, who started the thread. He's gonna get excited when he says he has 6 replies within 24 hours only to discover the thread has been hijacked by another newbie.

Never mind, if you keep your conversation that interessting Of course I appreciate any newbie input and veteran answers, since most of it would also come to my mind as question sooner or later, I guess. Good ideas!

Thanks for your reply, arsan! I now see things much clearer. Nevertheless I'm looking forward to more player's expierences and preferences in force composition.

Here's another question regarding the same issue: Is it preferable to put more elements in less units/divisions in a corps? Or has it more advantages to have a greater number of units in a corps which are in turn each built of a smaller amount of elements, provided one has enough leaders with almost equal traits. For example the Bavarian Corps of Davout (i don't know exactly if this is the right name of that guy) in the Austerlitz scenario: It would be possible to disband the units and recombine less of them with a higher number of elements in it. This would at least give further unused CPs. Any other advantages or disadvantages in this?

Although it's off topic, mayby someone can answer me why in 2D unit view the false leader portraits are shown on the map Aren't the unit markers supposed to show the picture of the officer in command of the stack rather than arbitrarily(?) showing some division-commander? I have 1.05a installed.

Blücher wrote:Although it's off topic, mayby someone can answer me why in 2D unit view the false leader portraits are shown on the map Aren't the unit markers supposed to show the picture of the officer in command of the stack rather than arbitrarily(?) showing some division-commander? I have 1.05a installed.

Hi! Strange... in my game the most senior leader in the stack (ie the commander) is always shown on rge counter.
IN some instances the more senior will be one with a generic portrait. Can it be the case??

Regarding the big/small divisions issue... you have to take into account...
- Very good divisional leaders should be topped up with units to take advantages of theirs qualities.
- Less big divisions will need fewer CP than more smaller divisions.

But of you have enough CP and leaders of similar abilities there is no disadvantage on having smaller divisions. They offer bigger flexibility when having to detach them around and they are more historical.

Cheers!

EDOT: Oh! and another thing: using more small divisions increase the number of leaders that can gain experience in combat. Although this is not very important for the short-medium campaigns.

Prins van Oranje wrote:Also, why does a corps lose power when attaching a medical unit? In 1812, Davout's corps loses about 90 points when I attach the Sanitaire unit from Headquarters.

I must admit, I am still mystified by this.

Hi guys, just in case anyone is reading this forum anymore... I have really, really read through as much as I possibly could (8 or 10 pages of threads) but I have not found anything like a manual for download which lists the unit types and comments on their characteristics?

I have puzzled over the question of whether to integrate cav into divisions as well and want to thank you for the comments above (ok, you won't read them, most probably...). And since I'm posting anyways, I prefer pure cav divisions in general but I do have some special infantry divisions with a cav element.

What promted my query is (EDIT) if it makes sense to have a grenardier unit in each infantry division or if the grenardiers serve better as their own division within the corps. But, would they stiffen other units' spines if spread among the divisions and so keep more line units from running?

EDIT: I see that the grenardier units were nearly the only units which took damage and got pretty much exhausted in a major battle, so having failed to immediately check the number of guys who ran, I suppose they were just the last to remain standing and thus did the most fighting. So, ofc I will have grenardiers in each corps, and I tend to have them in their own division so I can give them more rest than the others.

Q-Kee wrote:Hi guys, just in case anyone is reading this forum anymore... I have really, really read through as much as I possibly could (8 or 10 pages of threads) but I have not found anything like a manual for download which lists the unit types and comments on their characteristics?

I have puzzled over the question of whether to integrate cav into divisions as well and want to thank you for the comments above (ok, you won't read them, most probably...). And since I'm posting anyways, I prefer pure cav divisions in general but I do have some special infantry divisions with a cav element.

What promted my query is what the advantage of a grenardier is over a line unit since the line infantry has generally better values, and if it makes sense to have a grenardier unit in each infantry division or if the grenardiers serve better as their own division within the corps.

This might provide what you are looking for.
It details unit qualities.

http://ageoddl.telechargement.fr/latest/NCP_DB.zip

Durk, many thanks!

Anyone who feels like it, more questions have come up...

In a battle, how many units can be in the front line at once, maximum, with a 2* corps commander?? How do they rotate (rear to front), in divisions, brigades or regiments? Will the unit with the best cohesion (grenardiers) rotate in last, or first?

Q-Kee wrote:In a battle, how many units can be in the front line at once, maximum, with a 2* corps commander?? How do they rotate (rear to front), in divisions, brigades or regiments? Will the unit with the best cohesion (grenardiers) rotate in last, or first?

Most AGEOD have similar frontage rules. Look here in the forum for some general background, then maybe try the wiki or the data files you have.
I cannot claim I understand frontage. I just pack the units in and hope for the best. But those who know will provide best ratio of cannon to troops and how terrain changes all this.

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=22599

Thanks, again! :