AGEOD Forums

Having entered into 1863 I find the Union as lots of leaders with nothing to lead. So my question is how best to use them so they are having a positive affect. For example, a Division stack can usually use an so called second in command to at his CP to it. What about a stack made up of a Corps, Corps Leader, and four divisions with their leaders?

How many leaders can be added to the stack and actually contribute something to it?

Good question! I have no idea but when I have alot of leaders hanging around I'll combine some with brigades just to get them off my monitor. Whether this helps a brigade or not I couldn't tell you.

kwhitehead wrote:How many leaders can be added to the stack and actually contribute something to it?

As soon as command penalty reach 0% adding more leaders will contribute to nothing.

Exception :
- Adding a leader with better precedence and better ratings (strategic, defense, attack) : due to his precedence he will take command of the stack and his ratings will be used.
- Leader with special abilities that apply to the whole stack he belongs to even if he is not in command (Not sure but I believe it's the case with the "Artillery specialist" ability).

I find this very hard to believe. I am always desparately short of leaders playing either side.

Give them command of independant bde's, place them on garrison on duty...etc...
There are just countless assignments for a very limited number of Generals.

I invariably run short ultimately on Union generals and always on CSA ones. Generals are invaluable for commanding independent cavalry brigades because they increase evasion ratings; up from 11-16 to 25-36. Makes cavalry behind enemy lines almost uncatchable when attached as Bde commanders.
In addition consider adding a spare leader to every Union corps. When promotions occur it allows the corps to keep on truckin by moving the promotable out for the turn and the spare one star to takeover his troops if he activates and you got division cap leeway and resources to do it. Kinda like an ADC (assistant division commander).
Extra two star generals also allow you to deploy short corps (one or two division corps) to emergency spots that don't need full ones (like coastal invasion sites).
Lastly consider baiting a trap with a small grouping of units led by a two star that are bordered by bodaciously large corps's that are certain to march to the sound. If you can possibly position the huge corps in fog of war you may catch an unsuspecting enemy in your vise.
The AACW Wiki site enumerates what factors maximize your MTSG or you can use this excel spreadsheet to practice with your gaming situations until you have an inherent feel for it. It lists the Wiki MTSG data and allows you to calculate MTSG odds.

[ATTACH]8231[/ATTACH]


My thought is that if you've got a big stack of generals around, either:

a. your casualties are excessive
or
b. Your Generals enjoy sitting in DC playing poker too much
or
c. you aren't using all your resources to the fullest.

You make the call.

Don't forget to use your training officers (Siegel, McClellan and Halleck, CSA Taylor) as separate commands. They work to elevate conscipt troops to line troops so long as they don't move AND troops are under their command, i.e they are the senior officer in the stack that contains the conscripts. Form divisions out of militia and independent artillery at a discount cost to regulars, and with training officers present, fairly quickly.

And to use your Militia training ability generals (Sherman, Couch, McClellan,Taliaferro, etc) for putting most of your militia in their stacks to take advantage of the extra 10% cohesion in battle.

Separate out your recruiting officers, put em inside a level five city and make sure they are the senior officer in their stack to add to your turn recruiting numbers (Banks, Burnside and McClernand and late in the game Field for the CSA IIRC)

And lastly don't forget your Training Masters. They aide in experience in every stack they're included in.

These are all uses that can lessen that stack of dormant generals left trolling for (female ??) companionship and card games in backwater capitols.

I regard to command penalty my impression was that only two leaders can be used to contribute command points to a group. I am pretty sure that is how it works for a division. It can have a commander and then a so called second in command who will help with CP. However, after these two I don't believe adding leaders has any affect.

This gets more complex when you get into stacks that are created by Corps where you have the Corps commander then a number of divisions under the Corps.

Then there is the question of special abilities. Does the leader have to be actually in command to contribute his special abilities to the group? Is it worth while sticking these guys into divisions and corps?

The reason I said I have an excess is in early 1863 you get quite a few leaders which are mostly 3-1-1 with no special abilities. While you probably have lots of independent units acting as garrisons throughout the north you probably don't want to put these leaders in with them since it would remove their automatic initiative which is probably more important than improving their combat. Throwing them into Corps stacks may be degrading the stack since they may replace good leaders already there.

kwhitehead wrote:I regard to command penalty my impression was that only two leaders can be used to contribute command points to a group. I am pretty sure that is how it works for a division. It can have a commander and then a so called second in command who will help with CP. However, after these two I don't believe adding leaders has any affect.

Up to four leaders each add CP, but only up to eight CP.

So 1 two-star general and 3 1-star generals get you 8 CP, as do 1 two-star general and 2 1-star generals.

If the unit is an army or a corps of an army, CPs are doubled. High strategic ratings and certain leader traits increase (or reduce) available CPs. For details, consult The AACW Quick Reference Guide, section "Leaders and HQ".

Then there is the question of special abilities. Does the leader have to be actually in command to contribute his special abilities to the group? Is it worth while sticking these guys into divisions and corps?

Two good sources for this. From the AACW Quick Reference Guide:

UNIT (Any collection of regiments. A division is a unit. A leader or regiment within a unit grants these abilities to that unit only.)
Entrencher, Sharpshooter, Strong Morale.

STACK (A collection of units, represented on map as a single icon. An individual corps is an example of a stack. A leader or regiment anywhere in the stack grants these abilities to the entire stack.)
Artillerist, Cavalryman, Deceiver, Deep Raider, Defensive Engineer, Engineer,
Expert Forager, Forager, Fort Defender, Partisan, Indian Fighting skill,
Irregular Fighting Skill, Militiaman, Patroler, Pontoneer, Ranger, Screener,
Sea Spotter, Siege Expert, Supply Ranger, Training Master.

COMMANDER (Apply only if possessed by the top-ranking general in the stack)
Adept Raider, Ambusher, Blockade Runner, Charismatic, Dispirited Leader,
Dispersed Move, Fast Mover, Fort Runner, Gifted Commander,
Good Army Administrator, Good Commander, Good Population Administrator,
Good Subordinates, Hated Occupier, Hothead, Master Logistician,
Master Spy, Occupier, Over Cautious, Patriot, Pillager, Poor Spy Network,
Quickly Angered, Reckless, Recruiting Officer, Seaman, Sea Raider,
Skirmisher, Slow Mover, Strategist, Surpriser, Training Officer,
Very Fast Cavalryman, Very Fast Mover, Very Fast Raider.


Also be sure to grab a copy of Aphrodite Mae and Dixicrat'sQuick Reference to Game Manual Additions.pdf.

The reason I said I have an excess is in early 1863 you get quite a few leaders which are mostly 3-1-1 with no special abilities. While you probably have lots of independent units acting as garrisons throughout the north you probably don't want to put these leaders in with them since it would remove their automatic initiative which is probably more important than improving their combat. Throwing them into Corps stacks may be degrading the stack since they may replace good leaders already there.

Consider using the leaders with garrisons. On the defence it doesn't matter whether a unit is active or not.

Thanks guys!! Very Helpful indeed!! t apy: (Yep!! Still here!!)