elxaime
Brigadier General
Posts: 493
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 11:57 pm

Leader Seniority and Combat Stacks

Sat Dec 17, 2016 7:46 pm

I have noticed something that is a bit frustrating, but I think is particularly a problem with RUS. Here is an example from PBEM:

I have a stack of Red Army with several two-stars. I put the less skilled two-stars into divisions to command them. The best two star I make the Army Commander. The less skilled division commanders have more seniority than the excellent two-star I put in Army Command. All looks well though as you hit save and get ready to send the turn. The Army Commander you have chosen is at the top of the stack and the movement is calculated according to their abilities (in this case the fast move attribute of the Army Commander I have chosen).

Then when you see the turn get run - lo and behold, the more senior two-star division commander has taken command of the whole stack! The great two-star you chose to command has been stripped of command. Even worse, the senior two-star didn't give up his division to seize command, he still commands that (and according to how AGEOD calculates command impacts, the rest of the stack gets no bonuses). All of a sudden, your well-planned attack stack has turned into a poorly commanded horde.

I understand the whole seniority thing. You take VP costs when you promote someone of lower rank, etc. But it seems very weird that the player cannot choose who commands as army leader from among the available two-stars in the stack - the senior ranked two-stars, even if they are division leaders at the time, always seize control.

Any way this can be fixed in a future patch? If not under the current AGEOD system, then in a future one? Or is this WAD?

User avatar
Durk
Posts: 2209
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:36 am
Location: Wyoming

Re: Leader Seniority and Combat Stacks

Sun Dec 18, 2016 4:30 am

You know elxaime, this is how I always thought the game should act. So for me it is not a problem. Only with three star leaders do you as the faction head have the prerogative to overturn seniority. It is sensible to me that you must send junior two star leaders into other stacks (even if in the same region) if you wish for them to command.

I have forever sent the poor leader to a new venture so my desired leader could command.

So I do not see this as a system flaw, but as a feature of how the system should work.

elxaime
Brigadier General
Posts: 493
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 11:57 pm

Re: Leader Seniority and Combat Stacks

Sun Dec 18, 2016 5:29 am

Thanks - no worries then. I don't mind historically based restrictions like this. I was just wondering if it was intended.

User avatar
ERISS
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1955
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:25 am
Location: France

Re: Leader Seniority and Combat Stacks

Tue Dec 20, 2016 4:16 pm

I think this is not WAD: In bolshevik system, 'seniority' is all:
In the Party, members submit to the more influent personnalities, they in the end vote for the stronger willed for power (like Lenin), or the stronger steal the votes (like Stalin) and the bolshevik majority tolerate this for the Party cohesion. So they don't need ranks, or rank is given so by the party just as a tool. Bypassing the 'seniority' meens being against the party decision, and should be punished with death or other.
So, in the game, seniority should never be bypassed, even with a cost.
This is not nice that the game punishes the player, let him do then take it back.

User avatar
Khanti
Sergeant
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 6:06 pm
Location: Poland

Re: Leader Seniority and Combat Stacks

Sun May 28, 2017 11:58 pm

elxaime wrote:(...)
I have a stack of Red Army with several two-stars. I put the less skilled two-stars into divisions to command them. The best two star I make the Army Commander. The less skilled division commanders have more seniority than the excellent two-star I put in Army Command. All looks well though as you hit save and get ready to send the turn. The Army Commander you have chosen is at the top of the stack and the movement is calculated according to their abilities (in this case the fast move attribute of the Army Commander I have chosen).

Then when you see the turn get run - lo and behold, the more senior two-star division commander has taken command of the whole stack! The great two-star you chose to command has been stripped of command. Even worse, the senior two-star didn't give up his division to seize command, he still commands that (and according to how AGEOD calculates command impacts, the rest of the stack gets no bonuses). All of a sudden, your well-planned attack stack has turned into a poorly commanded horde.
(...)


I've never thought it could be a problem for someone, so I'd like to write a few words, as advice.

In this (old) example the situation is very clear: if in the same stack the are two or more 2-star commanders, then to know who actually is in command, look at their seniority ratings. Always commander with better seniority (lower number) is a commander of stack. Abilities or experience do not count.

I don't know who will command if both would be 2-star generals with the same seniority (never happened to me in the same stack, but it should be possible).

But having 2 or more 2-star generals in the same stack is a waste. If you can create corps (a must for winning war) then you only need one 2-star free-of-divisional-duty commander. The rest of generals should be 1-star commanders inside their divisions.
Meteoryt-like user. Strikes and disappears.

Return to “Revolution Under Siege”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests