AGEOD Forums

Do corps with inactive commanders march to the guns? If so, does the corps suffer any penalties for an inactive commander in terms of combat performance or in percentage chance of marching to the guns ?

I think they do not march to the guns ... you need activated leader and offensive posture (unactivated leader cannot have offensive posture)

The reason I asked is because I don't think I have seen a corps not march to the guns. But then, I haven't had too many situations occur and haven't been watching that closely. I think I will watch closer in the future.

Matto wrote:I think they do not march to the guns ... you need activated leader and offensive posture (unactivated leader cannot have offensive posture)

I think active or offensive affects the probability, but I don't think they are strictly necessary.

Erik Springelkamp wrote:I think active or offensive affects the probability, but I don't think they are strictly necessary.

I think this is correct. I also don't think a column must be in offensive posture either but I am not completely certain. I am fairly certain that in the other AGEOD games I have played that adjacent columns in defensive posture have come to the aid of a friendly force that is attacked.

So basically, a corps with an inactive leader can still march to the guns but has less chance of marching to the guns than if the leader had been active. That makes sense.

Jagger2013 wrote:So basically, a corps with an inactive leader can still march to the guns but has less chance of marching to the guns than if the leader had been active. That makes sense.

Being inactive is not one of the factors listed in the GameLogic.opt file. The GameLogic file has a great number of adjustable variables for many of the mechanics of the game. This file lists all the other factors that contribute to marching success, so I would take it as a reason to think that being inactive is not a factor.

Philo32b wrote:Being inactive is not one of the factors listed in the GameLogic.opt file. The GameLogic file has a great number of adjustable variables for many of the mechanics of the game. This file lists all the other factors that contribute to marching success, so I would take it as a reason to think that being inactive is not a factor.

Do you mean this section?

// ********************************************************
// ***** RESERVE *****
// ********************************************************
resBaseChanceOff = 100 // Base chance if in Offensive posture
resBaseChanceDef = 90 // Base chance if in Defensive posture
resCostPerDay = 10 // -10% for each day of marching
resModAdjGHQ = 10 // +10% if adjacent to army HQ
resModIsGHQ = 25 // +25% if the army HQ itself
resModLeaderStrat = 5 // +5% for each pt of strat factor of the leader
resControlChunkMod = 5 // Every 5% of MC lacking gives -1% chance (both for start and end region)
resCohCostPerDay = -3 // -3 cohesion for each day of marching

I assume day of marching is the movement cost from the starting region to the combat region?

Yes, that is how I understand it: day of marching = movement cost from supporting region to combat. That makes sense.

Marching is an interesting mechanic in the game. If I remember correctly, the marching force gets no entrenchment bonuses (either from their starting region--which of course makes sense--nor from the combat region, even if the force they are marching to support is entrenched). Also the marching force does not incur any over-the-river negative modifiers. (This is also IIRC.)

Some good info here since I was somewhat uncertain on the factors influencing MSG.

Being inactive is not one of the factors listed in the GameLogic.opt file.

If inactive is not listed as a factor, sounds like a corps with an inactive commander would march to the sound of guns.

Jagger2013 wrote:If inactive is not listed as a factor, sounds like a corps with an inactive commander would march to the sound of guns.

Sounds reasonable as well, otherwise becoming inactive would seriously compromise a defensive position.

Sounds reasonable as well, otherwise becoming inactive would seriously compromise a defensive position.

Actually I lean the other way. How often have we read of a commander doing absolutely nothing and the defensive position was compromised. Fairly common historically...

I think if a commander isn't activated then the strategic rating would probably be the determining factor for marching into danger.

Jagger2013 wrote:Actually I lean the other way. How often have we read of a commander doing absolutely nothing and the defensive position was compromised. Fairly common historically...

But many commanders are so often inactive that it would almost become the rule instead of the exception.

Anyway, the rule is as it is, and for now the evidence seems to be that being passive doesn't prevent reserve action.

But many commanders are so often inactive that it would almost become the rule instead of the exception.

True enough-especially for the Reds.

Anyway, the rule is as it is, and for now the evidence seems to be that being passive doesn't prevent reserve action.

I agree...although I am going to keep watching just in case.