AGEOD Forums

Should I group the Leader of an army seperate from the divisions under his command and form those divisions into corps?

That depends on the situation.
Armies can't start a fight but will fight of course if attacked, so the power of DIVs can be used both in corps (supporting their army or not) or in the Army (as extra punch when the army intervenes in support of its corps).
The situation also depends on the corps-army leader's stats and the location of the army/corps relative to the enemy...it's not possible to make a general rule.

Hi
As a rule of thumb i would say yes. Definitely put divs on corps first.
The main advantage about putting division's in corps is that they benefit from both the Army leader and the corps leader stats (offensive/defensive) as the army leader (unless he is very bad) gives bonuses to the corps leaders stats.
So i would put most my divisions on corps but also put some units you have to spare (lone brigade, arty, even some divisions) on the Army HQ as a reserve force.
But give priority to corps. You can even manage perfectly with an Army stack composed only of leader and HQ
Of course thera are special circumstances when this "rule" can change: if you have few cops leaders you will be obliged to use the army stack as another "combat stack" or if the Army leader have some very special and nice special habilities and your corps comanders are crap.

Regards

Well right now I have a monster stack with Robert E Lee commanding the Army of Northern Virginia I have about 4 divisions in the same stack as him I was just wondering if I should break it up and form it into Corps or if its fine to just have the monster stack.

Comtedemeighan wrote:Well right now I have a monster stack with Robert E Lee commanding the Army of Northern Virginia I have about 4 divisions in the same stack as him I was just wondering if I should break it up and form it into Corps or if its fine to just have the monster stack.

Corps are much better IMHO.
As the south you don't have many ** leaders but they are pretty good (Jackson specially and Longstreet if you manage to promote him are awesome) that you should use to full effect packing them with divisions as long as they don't have command penalty (that's up to 4 divisions per corps i think).
Besides having multiple corps give you more flexibility an allow you to cover several regions as they will usually support each others marching to the sound of the guns.
For example, if Jackson is a 6-6-5 leader (can't remember the exact numbers) and you make him a corps commander under Lee Army, Lee excellent stats will give big bonus to Jackson own stats and easily make him a 7- 9 -8 or something like this.
Any troops under Jackson will have a 5% strength improved per each point of offensive of defensive star. So on the above example it means a +45% strength modifier on attacking and a +40% on defending.
That's A LOT!!!
And still, the division leaders will give still more bonus to the units under him to make things better.... not counting all that nice special abilities effects
Directly under Lee the divisions will "just" get a +5% per Lee stat point. In this case is very good also, as Lee has great stats, but not as good as Jackson+Lee given bonuses.
In fact, Lee bonuses can even make standard 3-1-1 corps leaders very good.

For full info on this i strongly recommend this excellent AAR/guide by ltr213
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=7475
Its done for the Napoleon Campaigns game, but the Army/corps/division system works quite the same and its very enlightening.

Regards!

early on, I usually just stick to keeping my divisions clustered under the army commander....because frankly you don't really have enough division to form what I would call a corps. A corps composed of one division wouldn't be a corps....it'd just be a division....to me...but then again you can view it as each "Corps" actually representing a division instead....anyway.

Until I get 4 or more divisions in an army...I'll usually just stack them under the army HQ. I know as the South, you need alot of those extra 2 star leaders for some of your heftier coastal defenses. Charleston, New Orleans etc....

deleted

and I'm with ya Gray...I just prefer a more historical flare. Doesn't feel right....especially as the rebs, to form Corps prior to 1862. Just my own little house rule I suppose.

As far as the math....having a 3-1-1 Corps commander under Beauregard (i.e. Bohnam and Holmes) with the max potential of MAYBE being 5-3-3...but more than likely 4-2-3 or something....

I'd rather just have the direct bonus of Beauregard's 4-2-4 stats combined with the division stats.

Same with Joe Johnson.

Basic Point. If the army commander's stats are already going to be better than what the Corps commanders stats will be....and if I don't have 4 divisions in an army...I won't form Corps until I get good commanders....or until I have too many troops.

Unless I have this confused of course. Because the troops don't get a bonus from the ARMY and CORPS and DIVISION commanders....they get a bonus from the CORPS commander and DIVISION commander. The ARMY commander's bonus just gets passed down to the CORPS commander....not directly to his troops.

correct me if I'm wrong on that please

Well put Banks -- I am another one of those "historical flare" persons. I am playing a game, as CSA, against Athena, trying to remain historically accurate in the early game and placing starting generals more or less where they started out and following basic Confederate strategy...to be altered when an opportunity arises

Perhaps we have a PBEM game in our future, with some "house rules" established

deleted

I agree with you Gray, this game covers how it probably SHOULD have been done....I still like to operate somewhat on what WAS done though . Although I don't think you're correct about the math.

wouldn't a 4-2-4 army commander....and a 4-2-4 modified corps commander give their divisions the exact same bonuses? Why form Corps if you don't need them? That's all I'm sayin'.

I only start forming them when I'm getting a command penalty for having too many troops in the army stack .

deleted

Also corps can support each other. Independent forces can't.

Banks6060 wrote:I agree with you Gray, this game covers how it probably SHOULD have been done....I still like to operate somewhat on what WAS done though . Although I don't think you're correct about the math.

wouldn't a 4-2-4 army commander....and a 4-2-4 modified corps commander give their divisions the exact same bonuses? Why form Corps if you don't need them? That's all I'm sayin'.

I only start forming them when I'm getting a command penalty for having too many troops in the army stack .

For what you explain, i suppose you maintain all the forces together on the same region, don't you?
For me one of the main advantages of corps is that it let you spread your units around and be fairly sure (at least with the good CSA leaders) that they will support each other.
As the CSA, on 1861 in the east i usually use Johnston as army leader, and Beauregard and Jackson as corp commanders, and usually Bonham to if i need to have another fighting stack around.
At first this 3 corps only have two understrength divisions each, with some spare brigades and batteries under the Army stack.
As time go by, they will increase in force up to 4 divs per corps (Jackson has the absolute priority for reinforcements :siffle .

Maybe this is only usefull against the AI I have no PBEM experience...

Regards

GShock wrote:...
Armies can't start a fight... .

Just to add a bit to the confusion , IIRC Pocus stated a few weeks ago in another thread that this army rule (no offensive actions) is only valid if the army is not alone. Is it so ?

I see no point in spreading my Army Corps over several regions unless they're defending a river or a railroad that covers two regions. If my opponent moves and cuts me off....so be it...he's still out in the field where I can get him...or I'm still in a position to strike with my full force with almost NO chance that one of my corps won't participate.

Keeping the front mobile with the technology of this period is crucial...digging into long lines of spread out, mutually supporting Corps, only serves to bog your advance...or hamper your flexable defence. Plus it makes the game boring to play.

This holds especially true for the Yanks....their commanders always suck so bad...it's never reliable to spread them out over a number of regions and just ASSUME they'll March to Guns if one of them is attacked. PLUS...keeping everyone together means the entire army is efficiently supplied, gets all the bonuses of entrenchments instead of not by MTG.

the list goes on and on. Suffice it to say....according to my style. I don't subscribe to the "one corps per region" along a 5 region wide front line of thought.

Don't forget the Training Master and Deceiver traits. They can make it wrthwhile to keep an army together - at least during quiet, or deceptive times.