Do *not* use army generals as stack commanders?

[Philo32b]

I've always thought it odd when starting scenarios how the army stack has the army general and little else, certainly no fighting units. I've always quickly merged the nearest corps with the army stack to make a fighting stack. Mostly I was thinking of "March to the Sounds of the Guns," in which the army stack gets a bonus in the odds it will respond with help to one of its corps in trouble. Then I read this:

Don't use your army commander as a commander of a stack. One of the major reasons why I lost one game was because the stack under command of Denikin didn't attack when it was supposed to. Though you could use an army commander stack as support to your frontline corps(Marching to the Sound of Guns, when an engaged corps calls upon nearby corps and the mother army(if close enough) to help).

This worries me. Is there some reason that using an army general stack as a regular fighting stack is a bad idea? I haven't seen anything horrible happen, but maybe I'm missing out on something? As Poland in the Poland scenario the SE Front army general is one of the better generals available. I'd hate to bench him.

Could someone enlighten me as to why it is bad to use your army general as a stack fighting general?

[GlobalExplorer]

I would like to know that, too.

There is usually shortage of really good Corps commanders, so I use army stacks like Corps, with some of my weaker divisions in it.

There is usually the task of guarding the nearest strategic town and supply base, and the Army HQ needs to be in the center of its Corps anyway. So why not use the stack for this (defensive) task? Otherwise I would have to move another Corps into the same region, meaning I 'd have to use two generals for the task of one, which I never do for lack of commanders.

Another reason would be that if an army general has the Training Officer skill (Almazov), I put new divisions in the stack and have them trained, so yeah his stack has quite naturally a Corps size.

[loki100]

the basic problem is that the army stack won't initiate combat if another formation (no matter how small) is in the province. So that can be frustrating when you want to assault a fort for eg and you have a supply wagon (maybe moving back to replenish) or a single cavalry unit hanging around.

Equally the army stack will commit last and, esp in RuS, that can see heavy losses on one of your sub-units.

I must confess that in RoP, I tend to be very disciplined about this, with the army just the CinC or any units I am hiding from combat (as above) to let regain some strength. In RUS, as above, I find with the lack of corps commanders and the extent that, esp with the Reds, that you need to rotate stuff around the threatened areas, that I rarely build a corps-army relationship that has much value in any case. So I do build quite large leader stacks.

[lodilefty]

the basic problem is that the army stack won't initiate combat if another formation (no matter how small) is in the province. So that can be frustrating when you want to assault a fort for eg and you have a supply wagon (maybe moving back to replenish) or a single cavalry unit hanging around.

Equally the army stack will commit last and, esp in RuS, that can see heavy losses on one of your sub-units.

I must confess that in RoP, I tend to be very disciplined about this, with the army just the CinC or any units I am hiding from combat (as above) to let regain some strength. In RUS, as above, I find with the lack of corps commanders and the extent that, esp with the Reds, that you need to rotate stuff around the threatened areas, that I rarely build a corps-army relationship that has much value in any case. So I do build quite large leader stacks.

To be clear: that is a friendly unit. A single supply unit, lone leader, etc. will prevent the Army from initiating combat. It will defend ok, and MTSG, etc, but the Generasl is so busy shuffling papers that he forgets to order the attack!

[Baris]

I think when single friendly unit (not in command hierarchy) in the same region defeated in battle where there is also CIC stack, they both return to passive posture and retreat even though CIC doesn't engage combat at all. It can be very frustrating when that happens.
In ROP I usually send Frederick army stack upfront while corps waiting in the adjacent region.
For Rus there is no need to think strategically about all of that as it not crucial to form corps.

[ERISS]

the General is so busy shuffling papers that he forgets to order the attack!

To explain some more:
When the war theater is small (and the army is not too numerous), the army has not to (administrativly) split and a big alone group is adequate.
When the split is needed, the army general becomes the head of several separated corps (and special detached units), and his group becomes an administrative non-combattant intended group (at least non frontline, or just defensive) busy in ordering the all whole army. This group is said 'army' for it is representative of the army and its task is on the whole army level (not just the zone where it is placed).
Yes, as this army group is able to order many units, it is tempting to push making it a combattant huge stack (as if it were in a small area war) even it is not its role: It is possible, but dangerous for not being optimised for that in a big theater (it is slow and alone, while the opponent can seize back all objectives where the stack of death is not).
If any unit/group is/seems detached from the army stack in its zone, it is ingame to vanguard protect alone the GHQ group before it could be attacked.
Ok, maybe this rule has to be enhanced.

[andatiep]

To be clear: that is a friendly unit. A single supply unit, lone leader, etc. will prevent the Army from initiating combat. It will defend ok, and MTSG, etc, but the Generasl is so busy shuffling papers that he forgets to order the attack!

That would be very usefull if that information could be in all AGE games common tooltips, like when a player look at an Army unit and let the mouse on some of its settings (or kind of ability description).

Maybe an other way, if possible, would be to always lock the Red and Orange attack buttons of the Army units. Thus the players would quickly understand that they can't expect this units to attack by itself (doesn't matter if it could have do it in some situations : the bigger problem is that it don't attack when you believe it does, not that it could have attack in few cases when you believe it never can).

[GlobalExplorer]

To be honest I read the posts in this thread but I still don't completely understand it.

The army stack will attack except sometimes it won't attack

For now I think it's best to simply follow the advice and use a separate Corps stack.

P.S. And yeah, I have won the game even with Army Generals as stack commanders, for example Robert. E. Lee makes an excellent stack leader

[lodilefty]

If an Army stack [= is defined as an Army via the orders] is in a Region with no other friendly units, it can and will initiate attacks, assaults etc.
Thus, we cannot 'lock off' the Assault and Atack Postures

If any [and I mean any] other friendly unit of any kind, in any posture is also in the region, the Army cannot initiate combat, but will support/engage in combat as usual. The 'other' friendly must start any combat [or the enemy can]

Note that units 'just passing through' can intermittently prevent the Army from starting a fight also!

[Narwhal]

While it has been so for quite a long time, I don't believe it is good game design as it is not intuitive and can create artificial constraints (i.e. "I am force to detach some part of my army to assault because I have some cavalry in the region).

[Baris]

And by mistake if there is single unit and CIC in region, by the time single unit engage in combat and defeated CIC also defeated and revert to passive posture. CIC can not initiate combat by MTSG for quick skirmishes.
There is also other thing that when leaders are passive they can not assault. Workaround is to remove leaders from stack. IMHO it is just tiring to do that.