MarkCSA
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 3:35 pm
Location: In a safe place, they couldn't hit an elephant at this distance

Brigades not commanded by Generals

Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:00 pm

Gentlemen,

I am currently moving all my brigades into divisions (to make them big and powerful and scary and all that), however, I have just reveived another flood of 1 star generals and could now, theoretically, attach individual generals to brigades and have them fight like that.

What are the pros and cons to either approach? I've noticed that a general commanding a division loses 2 offensive and 2 defensive skill points, so how does all this work?

Also: is there a penalty for uncommanded,'non-divisioned' brigades fighting and what is it?

P.S. I can't find it in the wiki.
Murphy's Law of Combat: 'The most dangerous thing on a battlefield? An officer with a map'

User avatar
arsan
Posts: 6244
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:35 pm
Location: Madrid, Spain

Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:35 pm

Hi

The big plus of divisions is that they let you command 17 elemnst with just 4CP. Thats the CP a standard 4/5 element brigade cost so... do the math... nearly x4 CP efficiency :siffle:
Still, for small stacks leader+ brigade can be ok, but for BIG stacks (armies, coprs...) you need divisions to cram as many men and guns as possible on a stack without paying CP penalties.
About the loss of leaders deff/off skill, its only on the turn the division is formed. Next turn they will recover their full skills.
About uncomanded/non divison brigades, the penalty is 5% per 1CP cost.
So a standard 4 elements/3CP cost brigade will fight with 15% penalty if not stacked or merged without a leader.

I think the only differece between a brigade merged with a leader and a brigade stacked with a leader is that, if merged, another higher seniority leader can command the stack and the brigade will recieve both combat bonus: 5% per off/deff skill point of the stack commander and 3% per off/deff skill point of the merged brigade commander.

Regards!

Jim Pfleck
Private
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:57 am

Thu Apr 10, 2008 4:37 pm

I think that the ratings reduction only happens for the turn you form the division. The next turn they should be back to normal.

User avatar
W.Barksdale
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 916
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:17 pm
Location: UK

Thu Apr 10, 2008 4:47 pm

They will return to normal once the cost of forming the division is paid.

User avatar
Evren
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:31 pm
Location: Istanbul, Turkey

Thu Apr 10, 2008 5:05 pm

MarkCSA wrote:Gentlemen,

I am currently moving all my brigades into divisions (to make them big and powerful and scary and all that), however, I have just reveived another flood of 1 star generals and could now, theoretically, attach individual generals to brigades and have them fight like that.

What are the pros and cons to either approach? I've noticed that a general commanding a division loses 2 offensive and 2 defensive skill points, so how does all this work?

Also: is there a penalty for uncommanded,'non-divisioned' brigades fighting and what is it?

P.S. I can't find it in the wiki.


As far as i've observed, there's one serious penalty for unattached units (this applies for the unassigned generals also) besides CP penalties. Unassigned units tend to lose elements much easier than the ones attached (either directly to a general or in a division), once engaged in a battle. There's the same penalty for unassigned leaders in a stack also, they have a high tendency to die when they are not commanding anything. It is better to merge brigades with generals, if you're not going to put them in divisions. Once attached, brigades also are useful in the battlefield. These are all observations though, i haven't read anything about this before, i just realized this in my games.

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Thu Apr 10, 2008 10:02 pm

deleted

User avatar
Heldenkaiser
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 943
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:32 pm
Contact: Website

Thu Apr 10, 2008 10:11 pm

Evren wrote:There's the same penalty for unassigned leaders in a stack also, they have a high tendency to die when they are not commanding anything. It is better to merge brigades with generals, if you're not going to put them in divisions.


Fall 1861, I have only one army command and only a handful of two-star leaders, so I have a lot of independent forces that consist of one division plus a second leader to get to 4 CP. Is that bad?

If I would detach a brigade from the division to merge it with the spare leader, this brigade would need an additional 3 CP or so, so I'd need yet another leader ... and so on. :bonk:
[color="Gray"]"These Savages may indeed be a formidable Enemy to your raw American Militia, but, upon the King's regular & disciplined Troops, Sir, it is impossible they should make any Impression." -- General Edward Braddock[/color]
Colonial Campaigns Club (supports BoA and WiA)
[color="Gray"]"... and keep moving on." -- General U.S. Grant[/color]
American Civil War Game Club (supports AACW)

User avatar
soloswolf
General of the Army
Posts: 683
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:56 pm
Location: Ithaca, NY

Thu Apr 10, 2008 10:17 pm

I think the idea people seem to be pointing to is to assign your spare generals and brigades to one another, and then add them to your various corps. Because as you said, you won't be able to keep up with your cp needs if you spread your larger brigades out.
My name is Aaron.

Knight of New Hampshire

Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests