AGEOD Forums

I was wondering if generals shouldn't get an activation bonus when in stronger defensive positions or forts?
One could expect less problems when defending: layout your defense, point at the enemy and shoot.
Where as coordinating maneuvering and positioning your forces to attack or assault defensive positions might be more prone to errors,
and thus inactive generals. I don't think the game represents this at the moment.
I think there should be an activation bonus for a general that has been in defensive positions for a long time or in extensive defensive works like a fort or level 5+ trenches.
Maybe the history buffs can shed some light on this: were less active generals sent to more defensive duties, in other words, not on the immediate front line?

I wouldn't say that defensive leaders were always ready. Two counter-examples that come immediately to mind are Pickett's attending a shad bake during Five Forks and Sheridan's being absent at the beginning of Cedar Creek which made necessary his famous ride. Grant was unprepared at first at Shiloh, I think, as well.

tripax wrote:I wouldn't say that defensive leaders were always ready. Two counter-examples that come immediately to mind are Pickett's attending a shad bake during Five Forks and Sheridan's being absent at the beginning of Cedar Creek which made necessary his famous ride. Grant was unprepared at first at Shiloh, I think, as well.

Grant always disputed being surprised at Shiloh, but it is fairly clear that he and his army were unprepared if not totally surprised. Grant himself was several miles away eating breakfast in Savannah, on the other side of the river, when the battle began.

I think the strategic rating+defensive rating, along with the "Delay Battle" setting work together to simulate what you are proposing Minipol. Plus, good leaders made mistakes even when on defense. At Gettysburg Meade pulled the XII Corps of their defensive positions on Culp's Hill to reinforce the II Corps during the evening of July 2nd. It arrived too late, and by the time it returned Confederates had occupied their defensive works. At Chickamagua Rosecrans ordered Wood's Division to cover a gap in the lines which didn't exist. Controversy ensued because Wood followed the order, despite knowing no such gap existed and following it would create one at his current position. That position happened to be exactly where Longstreet attacked almost moments later, turning what had been a close battle into a Union rout. Both of these situations happened on the second day of battle, so both commanders were prepared in strong defensive positions.

I agree that some of it is covered by strategic rating and defensive rating. These have result on combat, in other words, simulating a general that is not ready, or not efficient.
But there also is an activation penalty. My thought was to give these leaders in defensive structures a small bonus so they are more active in there than they would be on the attack
or not in a structure. They still would suffer the same penalties from their strategic and defensive ratings.

Does it matter if the leader is a Major-General in charge of a corps or a Colonel in charge of a brigade? I think that it doesn't. I think the defensive, dig-in bonus seems to simulate this for forces whether they have a leader or not. Plus, if the battle is delayed, the forces might have a couple extra days to dig in - not much but not nothing.

Well, IMO one area the simulation currently falls short in is forts. Specifically, they should be more resilient/harder to capture, especially the coastal forts. Historically the Confederacy never retook a coastal fort once it fell, and I am not sure it even tried. As it is it is far too easy a Confederate player to besiege them.

So in general, I support buffing fort defenders. Rather than changing the leader stats, I would suggest tweaking how siege values are rolled by giving more weight to the defender's artillery value, a bonus to the defender if the harbor exit is not blockaded, a bonus to the side with the longest range artillery, etc. (I couldn't find how siege values calculations are broken down, so some of this might already be factored in.)

Alternatively I could learn to leave bigger garrisons in forts, but what's the fun in that?

Well, IMO one area the simulation currently falls short in is forts. Specifically, they should be more resilient/harder to capture, especially the coastal forts. Historically the Confederacy never retook a coastal fort once it fell, and I am not sure it even tried. As it is it is far too easy a Confederate player to besiege them.

So in general, I support buffing fort defenders. Rather than changing the leader stats, I would suggest tweaking how siege values are rolled by giving more weight to the defender's artillery value, a bonus to the defender if the harbor exit is not blockaded, a bonus to the side with the longest range artillery, etc. (I couldn't find how siege values calculations are broken down, so some of this might already be factored in.)

Alternatively I could learn to leave bigger garrisons in forts, but what's the fun in that?

Keeler wrote:Alternatively I could learn to leave bigger garrisons in forts, but what's the fun in that?

Garrison duty. Sign me up

The penalties for a stack commander not being activated are:
Reduced movement (-35% speed) --unless in PP.
Combat penalties in hostile regions (up to –35%) [I understand this to mean, that it is dependent on the MC the stack has in the region. I believe I actually read this in the forum somewhere.]
Offensive posture prohibited (not applicable for admirals).

So, until an assault occurs, the activation status of a stack commander is irrelevant, these things are:
Manual:Siege combat
Sieges and breaches

If the besieger decides to assault the Overcrowding Rule will take affect.

I'm not sure of the penalty for being un-activated, because that penalty pertains to the region and the combat during an assault takes place inside the location, which the defender controls to 100% --because it's always an either/or proposition.

Maybe Pocus can say whether this is the case.