AGEOD Forums

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.

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
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!

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

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

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.

deleted

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.

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.