Army vs. Corps Command

[Q-Ball]

I am still not sure of a couple things on Corps/Army commands, specifically what the difference is between forming a Corps, and using an Army stack as a "Corps".

This is an expediency probably more for the CSA, who lacks enough 2*. Suppose Johnston commands 6 divisions, split into 1 3-division Corps under Forney, and the other 3 divisions with himself. That is a poor man's 2 Corps army, using Johnston, essentially, as a "Corps".

Would it be better, though, to use, say, GW Smith to command a new Corps with the other 3 divisions, with Johnston all by himself in the Army container? Johnston is clearly a better leader than GW Smith, but do their abilities "Stack", if Johnston commands in a fight?

What is optimal? Basically, what is the downside to using the Army stack as a "corps"?

[GraniteStater]

MTSG parameters differ slightly for Army stacks.

It is a crunch for the CSA for 2* - coupla posts here recently about it. The General of Upholstery is a good man for this specific point.

My playstyle is Stay at Your Desk Behind the Lines for Army Cdrs - but that's me. I could be wrong about this - lately I've been wrong about the simplest things - but IIRC, the Army MTSG "ain't as good" for reaction: two fellow Corps have a better chance to support each other. If AACW rules still apply, Army stacks never initiate combat, again, IIRC.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Yeah, that happens to me almost exactly. I have several reasons why I think it is a good idea to use JoJo as a fighting Army stack with only one Corps.

The CSA's lack of 2*s means that somewhere on the map you are going to have to use a fighting Army anyway. Further, your 2*s are 3-1-1's, so will be inactive a lot and not very good when they are. JoJo has 4 strat, and helps them indirectly by passing strat points sometimes (I think) but they will still not be active enough to really get the most out of the benefits of Corps.

JoJo is good, a 4-2-4, and he has two of the best leader abilities, Good Army Administrator (+15% fatigue recovery) and Skirmisher (bonus to retreat rolls the first two rounds). Those three divisions will perform far better in combat with him leading them than Forney or GW Smith and he will usually be active to boot.

Armies can't initiate combat if there is another friendly stack in the region. You can still use O/* orders with them: if they are attacking into a neighboring region it is going to be your only stack there, so voila! Just make sure there aren't any stray stacks in the region and this limitation is negated even when you want to stay on offense in one spot. They behave normally on Defense.

Corps get +10% to MTSG roll when trying to suppot their Army, and the Army gets +25% when trying to support its Corps. An Army and a Corp are more likely to MTSG with each other than two Corps stacks would be (although the over-riding factor is days marching distance). Source.

The Army commander doesn't always pass stats on to his Corps commanders, and when he does it's not the full amount. I don't know the exact percentages, or even how much gets passed through, that's a part of the GameLogic file I had difficulty deciphering, but a reliable poster (Jim-NC) said that's how it worked in AACW also. It may show up in the battle report, try seeing if the ratings above a Corps commander's picture reflect the Army bonus.

Since the Corps commanders aren't necessarily getting the full bonus from JoJo, a fighting Army becomes even more appealing, since the division commanders will all get Johnston's stats directly. (On a related note, the stack commander's rating is worth 5% to hit and the unit commander's is worth 3%.)

Your extra 2* can go be a mediocre Corps commander somewhere more useful.

If you have not moved him out of the Shenandoah (which it sounds like you have, 'cause where is T J?) the Fighting-Army-Supporting-Corps is even more appealing because you are constrained in space and don't really have the room to make use of a third stack anyway. Also Beauregard's Corps crowd you to the East, and they are in a different Army so will not support you.

If you need a more defensive layout, holding a line several regions wide (say defending the Memphis-Nashville line) then it would make sense to have three stacks trying to keep JoJo between and adjacent to the two Corps. This is also a more effective formation if you were invading IL, IN or OH. There is a lot of room to spread out and entrap and encircle enemy stacks in those wide open spaces.

Army at The Rear is a good approach when the 3* has low stats. Then it makes sense to bring in one of your good 2*s for a Corps and use that as your main battle stack supported by the other Corps. If you can spare a second good quality 2*, then even better, but they don't grow on trees.

[GraniteStater]

OK - so an Army supporting a Corps has a better chance of doing so than Corps/Corps. Got it now. Revamps my habits.

The Army commander doesn't always pass stats on to his Corps commanders

Unclear - I know I have seen Lil' Mac in AACW go from yecch to s. t. like 3-2-4 under Grant, and afaics in CW2, most Corps under McDowell are 2-2-2s, so the X-X-X can get affected...Abilities? Skills? Corps Cdr Numbers are affected, AFAIK.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Yes, bonus gets passed directly to the Corps commander (and counst for +5% to-hit each, because he is the stack leader). But not all of the original stat, and how much exactly (which can be negative if the Army leader's stat is low) is a random event. Really good Army commanders pass more stats, more often than poor ones, but it varies from turn to turn.

Little Mac can get much better under Grant, but he doesn't get all of Grant's stats so is still inferior to Grant in combat.

Let's say the Corps commander is a 3-1-1 and that he ends up with an extra 1-2-2 passed from his Army commander. He is definitely better than he was, and is in fact pretty good, but I would still rather have a division commanded with Lee's 6-5-5 than the Corps commander's 4-3-3. If the Corps commander were already as good or better, then it would definitely make sense to lead with that Corps, but if the 3* has better stats than his subordinates it is often advantageous to use the Army as a primary fighting stack.

Here is the relevant page in the AACWWiki, but it is only an example based on Strategic Rating. From the GameLogic file it looks like the two combat ratings pass more points than Strategic does, but hard to say exactly how many more, or how often.

A corollary: a 3-1-1 Army commander will benefit his Corps commanders very little.

I am pretty sure leader abilities (the icons) only affect the Corps if it is a stated effect of the ability.

Also, on rereading, I may have described the specific rule of Army stack combat initiation wrong, but the point holds: I use fighting Armies all the time, and they almost always do what I expect them to without thinking much about the rule.

[Gray Fox]

Mr. Postman has still not brought my CW2. I can only point out that in AACW, if you click on a Corps stack, then at the bottom of the screen is the rectangular menu bar with the unit icons in that stack. A rather large icon is also present to the right and just above this rectangular menu representing the Corps patch. If you cursor over this patch you get a display of the Army commander's exact bonus (or malady) to that Corps commander's stats for that turn.

FYI, from your excellent guide to combat resolution, Lee's 25% bonus to-hit would only be a 1.25 multiplier in the formula. Using this with the firing element's 24% to-hit you calculated in that thread's example, Lee ultimately gives about +6%. A 3-1-1 would ultimately grant +1%. So Lee is not going to turn a slug fest into a turkey shoot. Also, recall that the overall stack commanders' stats can negate each other in that calculation. So the Army leader as stack commander is mostly a balancing factor and adds a handful of percent to hit to the lower units.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Gray Fox,
Yep, you are correct Fox, it does not work out to Firepower+5, it is actually Firepower*1.05. Good thing I'm not a professional mathematician! (Oh wait, I am a professional mathematician. Don't tell my boss about that OK?)

In CW2 it is located in roughly the same spot. It is hard to see in the screenshot, but the baton is pointing to the diamond on the right of the screen.
[ATTACH]26923[/ATTACH]
This 1-0-0 result is coming from AS Johnson, who is a 4-2-1.

Something to consider: leadership gives a bigger net bonus to units with high Firepower (artillery) than for units with low Firepower (militia).

BTW: Check out the Confederate battle flag roundel on ASJ's map-icon. Thanks fred zeppelin! (Link to mod.)

[GraniteStater]

Something to consider: leadership gives a bigger net bonus to units with high Firepower (artillery) than for units with low Firepower (militia).



I knew there was a reason I'm a gun-lover.

[moni kerr]

There is a downside to this configuration. During combat an enemy force will not target the Army if there is an active Corps in the region.

A wily opponent would attack the Army stack and let the Corps mtsg in support. Once that Corps enters the region and joins in the combat, it's units will get all of the attention of the attacker and will not gain the benefit of the fortifications. The results can be quite devastating.

[fred zeppelin]

BTW: Check out the Confederate battle flag roundel on ASJ's map-icon. Thanks fred zeppelin! (Link to mod.)

Thanks! I also like how it looks on the decision markers.

[khbynum]

The roundels look great and I'd love to use them, but I swear I can't find the attached files, just attached images. What am I doing wrong? Firefox?

[Q-Ball]

There is a downside to this configuration. During combat an enemy force will not target the Army if there is an active Corps in the region.

A wily opponent would attack the Army stack and let the Corps mtsg in support. Once that Corps enters the region and joins in the combat, it's units will get all of the attention of the attacker and will not gain the benefit of the fortifications. The results can be quite devastating.

That is pretty important to note; thanks for doing so, otherwise it appears using well-led Fighting army is preferable to so-so led Corps

One other factor that helps army stacks: Commanders like Lee and Jo Jo have attributes that aid their stack, but only their stack (good command, beloved, etc)

[veji1]

There is a downside to this configuration. During combat an enemy force will not target the Army if there is an active Corps in the region.

A wily opponent would attack the Army stack and let the Corps mtsg in support. Once that Corps enters the region and joins in the combat, it's units will get all of the attention of the attacker and will not gain the benefit of the fortifications. The results can be quite devastating.

If it is the case, this is a big big problem, because it means that it is an engine featured that can be exploited. I would have thought though, that the army stack having been engaged first was more or less locked by the routine into fighting until its units started being depleted. I would be suprised if the engine just shifted the focus of the battle like that ?

[GraniteStater]

What is 3* chances for WIA? Anybody seen this? As Army Cdr? Not?

[Gray Fox]

"Leaders of 3-star rank have a lower probability of becoming a casualty; however, ALL Leaders, regardless of rank, may become a casualty if their immediate subordinate unit is eliminated."

[GraniteStater]

I knew there was a reason I kept 'em behind the lines...

you are taking a risk with Fightin' ArmyCdrs, then...

[Gray Fox]

I believe that his whole stack would have to be wiped out. If he loses 20k men, he probably should fall on his sword anyway.

[GraniteStater]

Then we could have a cut scene for digital seppuku!

[Gray Fox]

I'm pretty sure that the Civil War generals would rather drink themselves under.

[GraniteStater]

If it is the case, this is a big big problem, because it means that it is an engine featured that can be exploited. I would have thought though, that the army stack having been engaged first was more or less locked by the routine into fighting until its units started being depleted. I would be suprised if the engine just shifted the focus of the battle like that ?

Remember: MTSG is not automatic - probability city. One reason I'm chary of using 3*s is 've seen odd results when ArmyHQ stacks get involved (AACW).

Plus, I indulge in role playing sometimes...I'd be an odd grognard if I didn't at all. I've always put the 4th Ill Cav with Grant, for instance ("Grant's Escort"). I usually keep Bee's Bde as it is, even well along in the game.

[G-Burg Bullet]

What is 3* chances for WIA? Anybody seen this? As Army Cdr? Not?

I have had A.S. Johnston wounded TWICE in a game as an army commander at 3*'s. It seems with him, game is imitating life! He's the only 3* I have had this happen to repeatedly.

[fred zeppelin]

I have had A.S. Johnston wounded TWICE in a game as an army commander at 3*'s. It seems with him, game is imitating life! He's the only 3* I have had this happen to repeatedly.

I've killed McDowell a couple of times at Manassas. Seemed sorta like adding injury to insult.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Actually, I just saw ASJ get killed, and itwas in a normal battle loss (none or only one or two elements lost, I can't remember for sure, I repeated about twenty battles).

I have been testing the Rules and outcomes for Fighting Army stacks. I just finished the screenies and am writing up the results, which I found illuminating, and address some of the issues in this thread, particularly moni kerr's comment about ignoring the Army stack in favor of fighting the MTSGers.

[moni kerr]

If it is the case, this is a big big problem, because it means that it is an engine featured that can be exploited. I would have thought though, that the army stack having been engaged first was more or less locked by the routine into fighting until its units started being depleted. I would be suprised if the engine just shifted the focus of the battle like that ?

It is a feature that is meant to model the fact that Army commands tried stayed out of the line of fire. The fighting is supposed to be done by subordinates because it's very difficult to coordinate a battle while being in the thick of it. Players should not be using the Army command as a fighting force once Corps become available. If they do, then they should suffer the consequences.

I think of it as a command and control problem. If you use your Army commander like a Corps, then you are forcing him to wear two hats. He has to command his 3 divisions plus the Army. That's just too much to do.

[GraniteStater]

Well, on a coupla threads now, what have I been saying?

I sure don't know everything & I don't crunch numbers, but my instincts usually do not lead me astray too far...most of the time.

Meet ya at the Grog. First round's on y'all.

Oh, y'all can get me a pint of Old Smug.

[minipol]

It indeed sounds better to keep the army out of fights after corps are available.
We already knew that since we had a discussion about where to include the army hq (in the army or the corps).
Army is best with the HQ, divisions that need training (and act as reserves), some arty/units to absorb hits, and that's it.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Not so fast!

I have observational data on this (posting shortly) and there is more going on than first appears. The main problem is that if the Army stack is not targeted by an opposing stack it can only come in to "support" a friendly stack that was already attacked, which causes it to leave its trenches! Opposing stacks tend to target MTSGers, because the Army stack takes lots of hits on the first round (because it is the only stack and is automatically targeted) and wants to sit out until the other divisions have taken hits as well. When it returns, it supports its friends by leaving the trenches and charging across the battlefield to the rescue.

If there is also a Corps in the region this can still happen to the Army stack but less often for some reason. The Corps always stays in its trenches the whole battle, however because it is not MTSG (already in region). In cases where the Army is larger it usually gets targeted and does not have to leave its trenches.

The main thrust of the evidence so far is that relying on MTSG Divisions to support a smallish Army stack (2Divs) means that you will often not benefit from entrenchment for the Army either.

If you are defending with an Army stack it is important to have as many Divisions in it as possible so that it can hold its own until MTSGs arrive on the later rounds. I had good results with 3 Div under ASJ against a 4 Div 3000 PWR stack under Grant, but less so when the third division was with the Corps instead and had to MTSG.

The analysis includes screenshots and is several pages long. I will post it to the AAR section, and will include a save so that the setups can be replicated and further experimented with by others.

[minipol]

Can't wait

[GraniteStater]

Not so fast!

I have observational data on this (posting shortly) and there is more going on than first appears. The main problem is that if the Army stack is not targeted by an opposing stack it can only come in to "support" a friendly stack that was already attacked, which causes it to leave its trenches! Opposing stacks tend to target MTSGers, because the Army stack takes lots of hits on the first round (because it is the only stack and is automatically targeted) and wants to sit out until the other divisions have taken hits as well. When it returns, it supports its friends by leaving the trenches and charging across the battlefield to the rescue.

If there is also a Corps in the region this can still happen to the Army stack but less often for some reason. The Corps always stays in its trenches the whole battle, however because it is not MTSG (already in region). In cases where the Army is larger it usually gets targeted and does not have to leave its trenches.

The main thrust of the evidence so far is that relying on MTSG Divisions to support a smallish Army stack (2Divs) means that you will often not benefit from entrenchment for the Army either.

If you are defending with an Army stack it is important to have as many Divisions in it as possible so that it can hold its own until MTSGs arrive on the later rounds. I had good results with 3 Div under ASJ against a 4 Div 3000 PWR stack under Grant, but less so when the third division was with the Corps instead and had to MTSG.

The analysis includes screenshots and is several pages long. I will post it to the AAR section, and will include a save so that the setups can be replicated and further experimented with by others.

Maybe it's just cuzza I played a lot of AACW - and I think it's important that the engine is different - and this is CW2, not AACW - but, without being able to cast it in words - I knew these things, they're just what I would expect.

What you and others do is valuable, believe me. I always read Jim-NC. I always listen to the Ursine One. Ace is a fount of info. O'C knows what he's talking about. You are rapidly becoming an Authority.

I will never be an Authority. I just play by gut instincts and, I am a veteran IRL. And have read a lot about the ACW.

That's why I'm always typing 'model'. These applications should be playable by someone who knows how RL worked (or works) without too much Rule processing. The Rules should be made for the model, not the model for the rules.

And this one is very well designed, indeed.

[Gray Fox]

There is a downside to this configuration. During combat an enemy force will not target the Army if there is an active Corps in the region.

A wily opponent would attack the Army stack and let the Corps mtsg in support. Once that Corps enters the region and joins in the combat, it's units will get all of the attention of the attacker and will not gain the benefit of the fortifications. The results can be quite devastating.

If I understand the scenario being discussed, Side A has an Army stack defending at all costs in a region, and is attacked by side B. Side B hopes to lure side A's Corps to the fight. Side A's Corps will not have the benefit of entrenchment and will supposedly suffer a beating.

So the commanding Army stack artillery would fire 5+ times with the entrenchment bonus along with its infantry at side B. The stack would then defend an assault without withdrawing in the first round. The Army stack would fire again and defend another assault without withdrawing in the next round. Finally side A's Corps may successfully MTG and get attacked without the benefit of entrenchment. Side B would also be getting no entrenchment bonus to all of this fire from side A. This hardly seems like an exploit.

P.S. If you want Grant or Lee's Army stack at some safe place and not in the battle, then consider the effects of frontage. In clear terrain with fair weather, these two can bring to the fight about twice the number of combat and support elements that someone else might muster in the region. If you want to fight with half an army standing around waiting, then an opponent may not be so inclined. If you are fighting in terrain and weather where your General's leadership abilities are wasted, well that's on you.