Activation Rule Options Question

[kwhitehead]

The activation rule selections under the options section allow you to choose what a stack can do with an unactivated leader (move and fight with penalty or no movement if not activated).

Is there any way to set what an leaderless stack can do? Or are the settings in the Activation also affecting them?

[arsan]

No, leaderless stacks are always active, but experiment penalties for lack of command points.
Regards

[kwhitehead]

No, leaderless stacks are always active, but experiment penalties for lack of command points.
Regards

But curious choice by designers. It seems the gain in fexibility of being able to always move and attack would more than offset the disadvantage of having no leader. Especially since the leader would probably not be activated any way. This though in regard to rear area troops that are usually operating singlely or in small groups.

I haven't tried comparing how the stats compare of a leaderless unit versus the same unit with an inactive leader. They may be the same although I would think a leaderless unit attacking a unit with an inactive leader would favor the unit with the leader.

[Big Ideas]

Leaderless units can move, but with a 35% penalty, they also fight with a 35% penalty in both attack and defence. Leaderless units have the following advantages over inactive leaders: can blow up depots, can use "evade" special order, can sortie from a structure or fort, and can force march.

Inactive leaders of course can not be given offensive orders. And they suffer a movement penalty of 35% (same as leaderless stacks). And when on defensive posture they suffer a combat penalty equal to the enemy military control of the region (maxed to 35%). If in passive posture there isn't a penalty.
When in open terrain the commanding officer can add huge benefits to the frontage limitations and you should really read Major Tom's thread on Frontage Primer to get the full story.
Leaders can add their stats to fire combat and help with any withdraw from combat die rolls.
All leaders can gain experience even lowly one.
Inactive leaders still add any of their strategic ratings to entrenchment activities.
don't forget a leader who is activated this turn gets a +1drm next turn.

BI

[arsan]

I think the design idea behind this is precisely to give some flexibility for rear area /small groups of units.
If not, you will need a leader for every single stack.
But for any stack bigger than 4 or 5 units, or used for “real” combat line operations the use of a leader is nearly imperative. Even if a medicre obe
Of course if you want to form a division a corps or army stack you need a leader. And with out these formations you can only expect to properly fight small skirmishes or do some raiding.
Regards

[kwhitehead]

I can see why they let the leaderless units be able to execute offensive actions. It would be very difficult to guard the rear areas against raiders without it. It is just odd to penalize a unit that has a leader. Seems the relative capacities of units should have followed leaderless unit < inactivated leader unit < activated leader unit.

I know the Activation Rule option has another setting allowing unactivated leaders to do more but I am not sure how that affects them or the game.

[Clovis]

I can see why they let the leaderless units be able to execute offensive actions. It would be very difficult to guard the rear areas against raiders without it. It is just odd to penalize a unit that has a leader. Seems the relative capacities of units should have followed leaderless unit < inactivated leader unit < activated leader unit.

I know the Activation Rule option has another setting allowing unactivated leaders to do more but I am not sure how that affects them or the game.

Leaderless stacks are inferior in capacity. Frontage is essential for combat resolution. Read here why your point isn't right

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=13016

[husky1943]

That got me thinking.....

I read (or thought that I read) that there is an option in game setup that allows us to turn off the activation rule, or at least setting it from high to low. Is it true that if the activation rule is set to maximum (effect) then an inactivated leader cannot even MOVE?

[arsan]

Hi!

We discussed about this some time ago on the WIA beta forum so i think i can give some more info
Is a little more complicated than: unnactive=locked

With the hardened activation option enabled a stack commanded by an inactive leader will become locked in place (the whole stack) for the turn on a % chance depending mainly of the military control of the region.
In a region 100% under your control the stack will lock 50% of the time,s and then up to 100% locked with 50% or less MC.

I think the idea is that inactive leader can function more or less normally on their own "backyard", but have problems to advance on enemy/contested regions when inactive.

In addition there are some bonus for not getting locked if you are low on supply or completely unsupplied.
On AACW i think the numbers are the standard, so, posting a neat table Lodilefty did , chances are like this

[ATTACH]7456[/ATTACH]

On a recent patch on WIA (not sure if its on the 1.04c or on a future 1.05 beta) they were tweaked and the no supply bonus increased so a nearly starving stack won't get never locked in place and can run in search of food.

You can check (and tweak) all this on one of the files on the settings folders: command&leaders.opt.

Oh, i forgot!
In addition...
"If a leader has the Ability Over_Cautious an additional roll is done:
MC >= D100
If this test fails the commander will be not active." Primasprit dixit

Regards!

[husky1943]

Thank you, Sir. Now it makes a lot of sense, even though I am still not confident enough to use that rule. Now I understand why Lincoln was so frustrated with his generals (Little Mac)!!