Corps operating outside of Army range

[sbr]

What are the negatives to a Corps operating outside of the Army leader's command radius? Is it just that they don't benefit from the 3-star general's stats and traits? For example, McClelland is in Maryland guarding the approaches to DC and I create a Corps under him with a decent-to-good 2-star general and send that Corps elsewhere, like Kentucky or down the Atlantic seaboard. The Union seems to spend most of the game dealing with crappy army leaders, this would at least take away the negatives that McClelland gives out. Is there something I am forgetting about that would make this a bad idea?

[Daniel_Morgan]

What are the negatives to a Corps operating outside of the Army leader's command radius? Is it just that they don't benefit from the 3-star general's stats and traits? For example, McClelland is in Maryland guarding the approaches to DC and I create a Corps under him with a decent-to-good 2-star general and send that Corps elsewhere, like Kentucky or down the Atlantic seaboard. The Union seems to spend most of the game dealing with crappy army leaders, this would at least take away the negatives that McClelland gives out. Is there something I am forgetting about that would make this a bad idea?

That seems like a great idea using him to generate independant corps stacks.

I don't see a downside other than the units that are in his control area.

[Cromagnonman]

There's no downside I can see, esp if you've got a nincompoop like McClellan in charge. You do get to keep the CP and MtSG of being a corps. In fact, you could park Lil' Mac in Boston while "his" arny marauds thru Virginia and Carolina.

[GraniteStater]

McClellan's armies don't maraud, they meander.

[Cromagnonman]

McClellan's armies don't maraud, they meander.

Only when they're within his command radius.

[Mickey3D]

What are the negatives to a Corps operating outside of the Army leader's command radius? Is it just that they don't benefit from the 3-star general's stats and traits? For example, McClelland is in Maryland guarding the approaches to DC and I create a Corps under him with a decent-to-good 2-star general and send that Corps elsewhere, like Kentucky or down the Atlantic seaboard. The Union seems to spend most of the game dealing with crappy army leaders, this would at least take away the negatives that McClelland gives out. Is there something I am forgetting about that would make this a bad idea?

I know there is a weakness in the game that allows you to do what you described but IMHO I think it's a "gamey" strategy. I mean this is not historical and goal of the crappy leaders is to give the union player a feeling of Lincoln difficulty to conduct the war. You have to find a way to promote the good leaders.

[Jim-NC]

One downside:

You have a limited number of corps per army, and could run out if they are all on "detached" duty.
I believe you get Army Strat rating +4 (or +6). But I do know there is a hard limit.

[Cromagnonman]

One downside:

You have a limited number of corps per army, and could run out if they are all on "detached" duty.
I believe you get Army Strat rating +4 (or +6). But I do know there is a hard limit.

True- but I tend to run out of divisions before I run out of corps.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Cromagnonman]

If I'm remembering correctly, when a Corps moves out of the command radius, it loses its Corp status, I.e. It's no longer a corps but just a stack.

Not so far in my campaign, GL. Maybe it's being changed in 1.16? I'm on 1.15 until 1.16 is official.

[Carrington]

Not so far in my campaign, GL. Maybe it's being changed in 1.16? I'm on 1.15 until 1.16 is official.

I've seen PBEM house rules imposing a voluntary restriction on prodigal corps. But I don't think there's any code. It is, arguably, a fairly large hole in the code when a corps from Army of the Potomac comes ashore at New Orleans.

[Jim-NC]

Not so far in my campaign, GL. Maybe it's being changed in 1.16? I'm on 1.15 until 1.16 is official.

In 1.15 I too have had a corps move outside of the range of the parent HQ. It stayed a corps, but without all the boni from Grant. I was chasing down a CSA corps that had moved behind me with 2 of my own. They both were still corps at the end of the adventure.

[soloswolf]

I've seen PBEM house rules imposing a voluntary restriction on prodigal corps. But I don't think there's any code. It is, arguably, a fairly large hole in the code when a corps from Army of the Potomac comes ashore at New Orleans.

I haven't played in a while, but I think the Corps status goes away when you load them onto ships.

[Cromagnonman]

I haven't played in a while, but I think the Corps status goes away when you load them onto ships.

By Jove, I think you're right. This is going to make my Grand Bahama cruise a little more interesting. I'll bet, tho, that Grant's command radius could reach there from southern Louisiana...

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Cromagnonman]

So in effect, it's just a stack as I suspected. Bet it doesn't March to the Sound of Guns either. Other than saving it's status as a Corps, it's effectively useless (in any form as a Corps) AND it still takes up one of the Army Commander's Corps as applies to it's commander's limit.

It still has the 16 CP of a corps rather than the 4 of an MG stack, which is one of the bigger advantages of the cirps organization.

[Carrington]

By Jove, I think you're right. This is going to make my Grand Bahama cruise a little more interesting. I'll bet, tho, that Grant's command radius could reach there from southern Louisiana...

Just give the army a round trip ticket, leave its other corps behind.

[dolphin]

What are the negatives to a Corps operating outside of the Army leader's command radius? Is it just that they don't benefit from the 3-star general's stats and traits? For example, McClelland is in Maryland guarding the approaches to DC and I create a Corps under him with a decent-to-good 2-star general and send that Corps elsewhere, like Kentucky or down the Atlantic seaboard. The Union seems to spend most of the game dealing with crappy army leaders, this would at least take away the negatives that McClelland gives out. Is there something I am forgetting about that would make this a bad idea?

There actually is a negative that I can verify because it just happened in a game am playing. I was curious and then actually looked in the Wiki, or somewhere (I forget) and verified it.

As the CSA I had an opportunity to make a Corp sized attack on Cairo.

I decided to transfer Stonewall Jackson to command the attack by using my single strategic redeployment (teleport). He took over Command of the Corp from a 3-1-1 Corp Commander.

Unfortunately this stack was one region removed from being in the command radius of the Army of the Tennesee. Fortunately by just plopping him into the stack he automatically took command from the existing corp commander without actually having to use the button to promote him.

That was when I noticed there is in fact a negative impact.

All of Jacksons stats were reduced by -1.

[Cromagnonman]

Just give the army a round trip ticket, leave its other corps behind.

Too late for that. But Couch is a three star with signal & balloon, so he should be okay. If he activates before emptying his 3 supply wagons.

[soloswolf]

All of Jacksons stats were reduced by -1.

If you redeployed him his stats should be -2/-2/-1 for the rest of the turn. That is a function of the redeployment, not the switching of corps command. But, you are definitely spot on for the exploit of transfering command of the corps.

[dolphin]

If you redeployed him his stats should be -2/-2/-1 for the rest of the turn. That is a function of the redeployment, not the switching of corps command. But, you are definitely spot on for the exploit of transfering command of the corps.

I can also say for certain that his stats did not reduce until I dropped him into the stack and he became Corp Commander. I reloaded my turn to doublecheck because at the time I was unaware of any penalties.

Still it was better than the (1) the other guy had and it was a critical battle to win. Which I did, but I was only able to because my PBM opponant forgot to put his river boat on Offensive to prevent my crossing the river.

Now I'm confused. I could swear I read somewhere that there is a (-1) penalty to all stats for being out of the command span of the army HQ.

[Ace]

Redeployment is a great tool to reduce micromanagement of shifting generals between theaters. It should not be used to magically teleport best generals on the eve of the battle.

My opinion is, in AACW2, to limit exploit, teleport should have temporarily penalty which reduces commander ratings to 0/0/0 for a turn. Everything else is a little bit gamey.

[Mickey3D]

Redeployment is a great tool to reduce micromanagement of shifting generals between theaters. It should not be used to magically teleport best generals on the eve of the battle.

My opinion is, in AACW2, to limit exploit, teleport should have temporarily penalty which reduces commander ratings to 0/0/0 for a turn. Everything else is a little bit gamey.

+1

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

I remember his attack rating was at (3) after assigning him as the new Corp Commander. I can also say for certain that his stats did not reduce until I dropped him into the stack and he became Corp Commander. I reloaded my turn to doublecheck because at the time I was unaware of any penalties.

Still it was better than the (1) the other guy had and it was a critical battle to win. Which I did, but I was only able to because my PBM opponant forgot to put his river boat on Offensive to prevent my crossing the river.

Now I'm confused. I could swear I read somewhere that there is a (-1) penalty to all stats for being out of the command span of the army HQ.

I'll 3rd not using redeploy in that manner. Also, his stats most definitely should go down right when you redeploy for a turn, not when you place him in a stack.

[dolphin]

Redeployment is a great tool to reduce micromanagement of shifting generals between theaters. It should not be used to magically teleport best generals on the eve of the battle.

My opinion is, in AACW2, to limit exploit, teleport should have temporarily penalty which reduces commander ratings to 0/0/0 for a turn. Everything else is a little bit gamey.

Eveidently it does. -2, -2, -1. Although I do think it should possibly make the General innactive for at least a turn, or if you prefer the community term "Brownied".

In any case it is not an exploit particularly given players have the option to completely shut off the option, or limit it to just one
"Strategic Redeployment" per turn. I think the term teleport is a bit out of place for the genre of the game.

[Ace]

As I sad, it is useful option, it reduces loads of generals without armies redeploying all over the map and I wouldn't shut it down.

Recently, in my PBEM, my distinguished opponent has flanked my main force and is threating my major supply route. I could teleport Longstreet with a defense rating 8 to defend that supply post. -1 on defense wouldn't hurt that much then, would it?
But I would feel like cheating. I dont mind using it as you have if it involves jumping 10 railroad connected provinces. Obviously, historically it wouldnt take 10 days to travel from Wilmington to Richmond for example.

[dolphin]

As I sad, it is useful option, it reduces loads of generals without armies redeploying all over the map and I wouldn't shut it down.

Recently, in my PBEM, my distinguished opponent has flanked my main force and is threating my major supply route. I could teleport Longstreet with a defense rating 8 to defend that supply post. -1 on defense wouldn't hurt that much then, would it?
But I would feel like cheating. I dont mind using it as you have if it involves jumping 10 railroad connected provinces. Obviously, historically it wouldnt take 10 days to travel from Wilmington to Richmond for example.

How did you get Longstreet to have an 8 defence? He starts as a 6.

In a PBM game alls fair in love and war unless you precluded it as a house rule. I would not hesitate to do it if I were you.

You have to be able to see things in the abstract I think.

CSA Intelligence found a Longstreet lookalike to play act for the enemy to make them think he was in one place while he was secretly traveling to his new command.


In my case with Jackson it was certainly feasable. He was in Fredricksberg doing nothing forever, so I figured why not get him into the action finally. Besides that Lee just became active and I am using him as a corp commander for now.

[soloswolf]

How did you get Longstreet to have an 8 defence? He starts as a 6.

Commanders stats increase with each star of experience. Defense increases on odd stars, offense on even.

[dolphin]

Commanders stats increase with each star of experience. Defense increases on odd stars, offense on even.

Do commanders with the training trait give training to commanders?

[Cromagnonman]

IMHO, redeployment is inappropriate for combat. I use it mostly to move an active BG to a new division being formed. This is mostly as a work-around for requiring leaders to be active for division formation. It's very rare that I form divisions anywhere near the front after Oct '61.
Mr Lincoln tells Franz Sigel "I know you just arrived in St Louis, but a new division is being formed in Springfield. Get there without delay and take command, the paperwork is already done."

But "Franz, I know you've been sitting on your butt in St Loius for the whole Summer, but suddenly there's an unanticipated enemy force on Cairo's doorstep and I need a man with your expertise there now to deal with it" seems underhanded.

I know, I know, I'm saying that my exploit is more fair than your exploit. But I think that using the redeploy as a way to suddenly change a tactical picture which you did not forsee is outside the spirit of thd game. Using it to overcome the limitations of leader spawning imposed by the engine without instantaneous tactical & strategic ramifications is more justifiable.

Also, I just discovered that all single-element support units are redeployable.