AGEOD Forums

Is there a reason I can't make a arty division out of brigade arty units as the French?

The commander of the stack gets his attack/defense rating * 5 compared to the commander of the opposing stack applied to the to hit. The sub-commander of a unit gets his attack/defense rating * 1 % compared to opposing unit commander applied to dice roll. You want your arty assigned to someone. Forces doing MTSG take less damage. So an Arty Division with a good commander can support any neighboring region, take less damage and gets a bump on all to hit rolls.

does corps arty need to have a general assigned to it or is it automatically assigned to the Corps general?

It's assigned to the commander of the stack. But you are losing percentage points applied to the to hit roll by not having corp level arty assigned to a sub-commander

Thanks, I didn't read that in the manual. One other question can I form a division of arty from arty brigades?

zooter wrote:Thanks, I didn't read that in the manual. One other question can I form a division of arty from arty brigades?

The answer is "sometimes." It's hit and miss - you have to try it with different leaders - use the ones with the "Artillery" Tag. It also appears that you can't form "Artillery Divisions" with captured artillery units, at least I couldn't.

Montbrun wrote:The answer is "sometimes." It's hit and miss - you have to try it with different leaders - use the ones with the "Artillery" Tag. It also appears that you can't form "Artillery Divisions" with captured artillery units, at least I couldn't.

The captured Arty is considered foreign. A leader with multi-national trait can incorporate.

vicberg wrote:The captured Arty is considered foreign. A leader with multi-national trait can incorporate.

Wow that is so nice to know. I think I have spent at least an hour trying different combinations to form a division of arty. Wouldn't it be nice if the tool tip over the plus said why you can't combine the unit instead of just being greyed out.

Lucky wrote:Wow that is so nice to know. I think I have spent at least an hour trying different combinations to form a division of arty. Wouldn't it be nice if the tool tip over the plus said why you can't combine the unit instead of just being greyed out.

I've long thought the formation creation process in AGEOD games is more cumbersome than it need be, but the captured artillery deal is just weird. It's not like you captured the foreign gunners and are making them fight for you against their will. You captured cannons. No reason you should need some "multi-national leader" to use captured equipment with your own troops.

fred zeppelin wrote:I've long thought the formation creation process in AGEOD games is more cumbersome than it need be, but the captured artillery deal is just weird. It's not like you captured the foreign gunners and are making them fight for you against their will. You captured cannons. No reason you should need some "multi-national leader" to use captured equipment with your own troops.

Agreed. For that manner, every "Brigade" should be able to combine into an "Old-Style" division - no exceptions.

Montbrun wrote:Agreed. For that manner, every "Brigade" should be able to combine into an "Old-Style" division - no exceptions.

Agreed. The game system generally makes the player jump through too many needless hoops. If the goal is that formations should match particular leaders and units for optimal efficiency, then impose penalties for sub-optimal formations. But don't beat the player over the head with a bunch of ritualistic busy-work.

A key maxim of game design: Penalize the silicon guys, not the flesh and blood guy who paid for the game.

fred zeppelin wrote:Agreed. The game system generally makes the player jump through too many needless hoops. If the goal is that formations should match particular leaders and units for optimal efficiency, then impose penalties for sub-optimal formations. But don't beat the player over the head with a bunch of ritualistic busy-work.

A key maxim of game design: Penalize the silicon guys, not the flesh and blood guy who paid for the game.

The level of effort to truly transfer control means destroying the captured unit and rebuilding a new unit of exact same type under French (or capturer) Nationality. Honestly, not worth the effort.

vicberg wrote:The commander of the stack gets his attack/defense rating * 5 compared to the commander of the opposing stack applied to the to hit. The sub-commander of a unit gets his attack/defense rating * 1 % compared to opposing unit commander applied to dice roll. You want your arty assigned to someone. Forces doing MTSG take less damage. So an Arty Division with a good commander can support any neighboring region, take less damage and gets a bump on all to hit rolls.

I remember reading this but it took me forever to find it again. Thank you for this tip.

I am playing the French Grand Campain and I have spent a lot of effort trying to document and re-organize the French Command. For Divisional Commanders (Unit Commanders), is the Strategic Rating more important or is the Offense/Defense rating more import.

Take a unit commander that is 2 - 4 - 4 verus a 4 - 2 - 2. Which one is better? From you formula, the 2 - 4 - 4 commander has a 2% bonus above the 4 - 2 - 2 commander but if the most of the bonus is coming from the Stack commander, a 52% bonus that is active twice is much may be much better than a 54% bonus who is active 1/2 as much.

Do you have any idea of the value of the Strategic Bonus for Unit Commanders.

BruceASinger@gmail.com wrote:I remember reading this but it took me forever to find it again. Thank you for this tip.

I am playing the French Grand Campain and I have spent a lot of effort trying to document and re-organize the French Command. For Divisional Commanders (Unit Commanders), is the Strategic Rating more important or is the Offense/Defense rating more import.

Take a unit commander that is 2 - 4 - 4 verus a 4 - 2 - 2. Which one is better? From you formula, the 2 - 4 - 4 commander has a 2% bonus above the 4 - 2 - 2 commander but if the most of the bonus is coming from the Stack commander, a 52% bonus that is active twice is much may be much better than a 54% bonus who is active 1/2 as much.

Do you have any idea of the value of the Strategic Bonus for Unit Commanders.

If in attack posture, attack rating is used. If in defense posture defense rating is used. Strategic is used by the stack leader for activation and/or MTSG.

vicberg wrote:If in attack posture, attack rating is used. If in defense posture defense rating is used. Strategic is used by the stack leader for activation and/or MTSG.

The unit commanders don't use the Strategic rating? For unit commanders, a 1 - 3 - 3 rating is better than a 5 - 2 -2???

Is the Unit's Strategic rating used in determining what units fight in different rounds??

BruceASinger@gmail.com wrote:The unit commanders don't use the Strategic rating? For unit commanders, a 1 - 3 - 3 rating is better than a 5 - 2 -2???

Is the Unit's Strategic rating used in determining what units fight in different rounds??

Yes. For leaders of the stack strategic value is very important. For commanders inside the stack (officers of subunits, in France: division commanders) strategic value is less important than attack/defense.

fred zeppelin wrote:I've long thought the formation creation process in AGEOD games is more cumbersome than it need be, but the captured artillery deal is just weird. It's not like you captured the foreign gunners and are making them fight for you against their will. You captured cannons. No reason you should need some "multi-national leader" to use captured equipment with your own troops.

I think the same. But Ageod gives us cannons with nationality

Khanti wrote:Yes. For leaders of the stack strategic value is very important. For commanders inside the stack (officers of subunits, in France: division commanders) strategic value is less important than attack/defense.



I think the same. But Ageod gives us cannons with nationality

Another question about leaders.

France has many low end divisional commanders 3 - 2 - 1 or 2 - 1 -1. Some of these leaders have the Infantryman triat which gives + 10% Firepower and Assualt.

It appears to me that a 3 - 1 - 1 divisional commader with the Infantryman trait will have more bonuses than a 5 - 5 -5 divisional commander without the Infantryman trait. Is this statement correct.

It appears the divisional commanders with the Fire Discipline, Cavalryman, and Infantryman traits will have more bonues than other divisional leaders with higher offense and defense scores. Would you agree this is true?

At the start of the Grand Campain, Murat's stack has a lot of leaders X - 1 - 1 but have the Cavalryman Trait which gives a 25% Combat Bonus to the Cavalry in the stack. Even though these leaders have a Low offense and defensive stat, the Cavalryman Trait makes them have a larger bonus. For the Cav at least. Would you agree with this statement?