Lousy Army Commander

[Cromagnonman]

As General Grant's legions moved inexorably down a solid front from the Appalachians to the Mississippi, the distance became so great that not even his legendary command could direct the corps at the far reaches of his line. Thus it was that Grant's army split in two, mostly focusing on Mississippi in the West, while Old Rosey came back from Missouri to command the troops who had so recently driven Beauregard from Chattanooga.

Yet Rosecrans seemed to have a consistently crippling effect upon the new Army of the Cumberland; a solid 3-2-3 general himself, he nonetheless caused his several subordinates to each suffer a -1 penalty to both Strategic and Offensive skills. Now such legendary heroes as Dodge and Whipple, nay even Buell himself, were reduced to quivering kittens, motionless in the mountains while the plains of Georgia sat wide-open before them.

At first, Lincoln accepted that Rosecrans had been selected for this post because it did not require lightning offensives, and perhaps the new Army's growing pains would resolve with time and acquaintance. Yet as the months dragged by, the Curse of the Cumberland continued, with the same malaise affecting every corps in the army. Maybe Hooker will have to come West...

[LCcmdr]

What I'm not understanding about generals is this, I build distinct, divisional stacks with various emphases (arty, sharpshooter, cav), choosing carefully who has command--since the general rating significantly impact combat. What happens, Athena gets to choose which stack to attack and, then, proceed to use the highest level senior officer (who's stats are sometimes pathetic (1-0-0) versus a Longstreet or Jackson (whose stats are great). Wonderful, Mr. Moron loses the battle, my chits are dwindled away, and I'm left disasterous clean up.

Now that the rant is done, this really is like, too close to real life--Who put the morons in charge?.....

[Cromagnonman]

Freakin' Patterson... The US Army had a very competitive promotion system, and peacetime was not ideal for identifying effective combat officers. In many ways the CSA was better able to appoint effective leaders from the start.

Perhaps what was lost in the narrative above was an occurrence I find rather peculiar; every corps in Rosecrans's army got the same "bonus" every turn, although I think the bonuses are supposed to be re-rolled for each corps each turn. Also, -1,-1,0 is I think a less-likely bonus from a 3,2,3 commander

[Gray Fox]

If you put Grant at the center of your campaign in the west, then his command ability would stretch 5 or 6 regions to the west and again to the east. Corps commanders along your "solid front" would then benefit from the banks of Ole Miss to the head waters of the TN river. Grant would be positioned as overll commander and not necessarily as the point of your spear.

You don't have to fight the whole war with just one great General. Division commanders get the most experience from winning battles. In 1862 put Lyons, Sherman, Thomas etc. as Division commanders in Grant's stack and get them promoted. Artillery Division commanders cause a lot of damage and don't take many hits for a very good experience delta.

[ArmChairGeneral]

LCcmdr:

Distinct divisional stacks? So you have a lot of stacks with just one division in it? If so, this is a major part of the problem. If you have four divisions in a region they all need to be in the same stack, otherwise your opponent (who will have all of HER divisions concentrated in one stack) only has to fight one division at a time and will locally outnumber them. The number of men listed at the top of the battle screen lists all men available to fight in the region, not how many actually fight. Look at the number of hits you take in your next battle, and how they are spread out: if all the hits are going to one division and nothing to the rest, that indicates that you have divisions that are not participating in the battles for whatever reasons (this can happen naturally too, but if you are not putting everything in one stack it will happen in every battle).


Cromagnonman,
That is weird. While a -1,-1,0 result is not unusual, you are right, it should change from turn to turn.

[LCcmdr]

LCcmdr:

Distinct divisional stacks? So you have a lot of stacks with just one division in it? If so, this is a major part of the problem. If you have four divisions in a region they all need to be in the same stack, otherwise your opponent (who will have all of HER divisions concentrated in one stack) only has to fight one division at a time and will locally outnumber them. The number of men listed at the top of the battle screen lists all men available to fight in the region, not how many actually fight. Look at the number of hits you take in your next battle, and how they are spread out: if all the hits are going to one division and nothing to the rest, that indicates that you have divisions that are not participating in the battles for whatever reasons (this can happen naturally too, but if you are not putting everything in one stack it will happen in every battle).


Cromagnonman,
That is weird. While a -1,-1,0 result is not unusual, you are right, it should change from turn to turn.

no, I have all my divisions stacked together--just with the best seniority and attributes as the leading officer of that stack of divisional commanders.

Three questions:
First, how many divisions is too many in a single stack?
Second, do all the divisions in a stack operate based upon their own stats or does the entire stack operate on the basis of the designated stack leader?
Third, why can I not designate one of my experienced division commanders as the Corp chief?

[Gray Fox]

Okay...you can put your entire military in one stack and get a terrible command penalty that will make them worthless and weak. By "no, I have all my divisions stacked together--just with the best seniority and attributes as the leading officer of that stack of divisional commanders." you mean they are not in a Corps?

I noticed in a related thread that you couldn't form Corps commands. If this is the problem, then report the bug for a fix. Corps and Army commands get lots of CP's that enable Divisions to operate at full combat abilities...up to the limit of the Corps/Army. Too many units with too many CP's will get the 35% penalty making them slow and weak.

-First, how many divisions is too many in a single stack?

If you cursor over a stack, you will get a message as to how many CP's (command points) are available. Each Division requires 4 CP's and each loose combat unit in the stack takes 1. So if Grant gets 24 CP's, then he could safely command 6 Divisions.

-Second, do all the divisions in a stack operate based upon their own stats or does the entire stack operate on the basis of the designated stack leader?

In combat, the unit gets the benefit of the unit commander and the stack commander's offensive or defensive stats.

-Third, why can I not designate one of my experienced division commanders as the Corp chief?

This is the historical guideline of the game mechanic. You can use the most senior General as the stack commander. He may not be eligible for Corps command due to rank. However, if you win enough battles, he may be ready to promote. So you can choose a stack commander or a Corps commander from the most Senior General of a given rank.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Answers to your questions:

First: as many as you have CPs. If you have an Army or Corps stack you get about 16 CPs, and at 4 CPs per division, that is 4 divisions. Better Army commanders and special support units like HQ and balloons can boost this and the best leaders can have 5 or even 6 divisions in a stack. If you go over the CP limit you can still put more troops int he stack, but they begin to suffer combat and movement penalties. Outside of the Army command structure, (i.e. stacks that are not Armies or their Corps) are limited to a max of 8 CPs (plus bonuses) which is 2 divisions.

Second: A combo. The stack leader provides a 5% combat bonus for each point of relevant OFF/DEF stat. The division commander gives a 3% bonus for each stat. The Overall leader is the senoir leader, adn if it is an Army commander, he may be in a different region, and is not providing direct combat bonuses (those come from stack and div commanders) though his strat rating is what gets rolled againstt when trying to withdraw, etc.

Third: All of the following conditions must be met to form a Corps. You must have a 2 or 3 star general to command the Corps. He must be within 4-6 regions (depending on the strat rating of the Army commander) of an actual Army (not just a 3 star general) to become subordinate to. He probably has to be active (can't remember for sure) too. If he is currently in command of a division, he cannot be made into a Corps or Army commander, but if you split him out of the division the option will light up.

Edit: Fox and I seem to be cross posting a lot this morning

[LCcmdr]

Great info for me to process!

Many thanks! Especially for the harmony of these answers.

[Gray Fox]

It's always fun to discuss a great game. I'd still be playing ACW if it wasn't for ACG telling me about the new version.

[Cromagnonman]

Grant's influence can go a long way, but commanding men both in Chattanooga and Jackson left him in a backwater in the middle, requiring his moves to be very carefully planned to maintain command radius. When I brought Meade across the Blue Ridge (b/c Hooker and Hancock were doing just fine, thanks), I discovered that those Corps around Rome GA still belonged to Grant's army (although I was sure I had switched them to Rosey). I still gave them to Meade (of course), but it does explain the lousy modifiers. It wasn't that Rosecrans was saying the wrong things, but that "his" Corps were still listening for Grant's soothing baritone...

I find my Army/Corps practice may be rather different than others. I tend to put no more than 2 infantry and 1 artillery division in each stack, and spread my corps out to block passable ground (eg from the Appalachians to the Atlantic). But others seem to concentrate in a few large Corps. I suppose it depends on the strength of your leaders (there aren't a lot of great Union corps commanders early) and the dispositions of the enemy

[Rod Smart]

Sherman Thomas Lyons and Sheridan should all be commanding divisions with Grant.
Very shortly they'll be commanding Corps.
By the end of the year's campaign season, they'll be ready for their own armies.



By carefully putting my promotable commanders in the best places to succeed and advance, I end up with more army and corps commanders than I could use. As both the North and the South.

[Cardinal Ape]

Lyons as a divisions commander?! No, no! Not for me, my friend.

Inactive and lazy generals are the bane of Union army in the early war. Nathaniel Lyons in the solution. He spied on the enemy by cross-dressing and sneaking into town... He has initiative; just the man Lincoln is looking for. Provided he doesn't die in combat in the first few months like he historically did, of course!

I doubt many other players do this, but I aim to have Lyons become an army commander before the end of autumn '61. With some good swift action out west, he can rank up quick. You do have to take a hit to NM and VP to get him in charge of an army. I think it is worth it, especially if he ends up commanding the Virginia theater. With a bit of experience, Lyons will be a charismatic 4-2-3. Having double the strategic rating of any other available Union commander until Grant gets his three stars.

[ArmChairGeneral]

In my current game I made a point of sending Grant and Lyons into battle together as fast as I could (Missouri). I think I fought like three minor but winning battles with Grant as a two star and Lyons under him before they both got promoted while advancing on Springfield. I pulled Grant out, gave him an Army and sent him to Virginia immediately, and then when Lyons took Springfield, he got promoted again. Lyons' Army now has Kearny supporting him with a Corps harvesting NM in fighting around Bowling Green while Grant is besieging Richmond waiting for CSA NM to drop low enough that taking the city forces a win. It is amazing how good 3-1-1 Corps commanders become when they have Lee or Grant as their boss.

In other words, I focused on Lyons, and also got Grant to 3 stars ahead of time by keeping them together. This was sometime right after Division formation. Under Grant, Lyons was able to fight turn after turn with no command penalties and was able to quickly get the wins he needed. This was definitely in Autumn 61, just after Division formation. Kearney got promoted via fighting in northern VA (I got a little lucky there, McDowell was active a lot on top of the events).

I was a bit gamey with Lyon's Army. I gave Banks and McClellan Armies, but shuffled them so they were out of the way and not interfering with Grant. It would have been 10 NM for McClellan and 5 NM for Banks, but those two fake Armies got it down to a 2 NM cost, which is plenty cheap for getting Lyons an Army.

[Cardinal Ape]

If you are really quick about it and blitz toward Springfield the turn Lyons becomes unlocked, then there is fair chance you can get him the battles he needs before McClellan gets his promotion. Maybe even before Fremont shows up. That would just leave Banks to be passed over, I think.

When it comes to passing over Union army commanders for promotion, I, more often than not, choose to piss off Butler. We all know what kind of man he turned out to be... So when it comes to MY army, Butler can go suck eggs. It makes the NM and VP hits easier to swallow knowing that you good thing for humanity. At least that is what I tell myself...

[Cromagnonman]

I have found it bizarre how little fighting there seems to be in Missouri. Historically Lyon had to fight several small battles to get to Springfield, but there don't seem to be any Missouri State Guard troops in Missouri.