Exploiting the activation rule

[Courtenay]

When one has multiple stacks with multiple commanders in a region, it is clearly possible to exploit the activation rule by moving subunits from unactivated to activated commands. Doing this seems very 'gamey', though. How do people handle this, versus either humans or the AI?

Sometimes, it strikes me that an argument could be made that it is legitimate.
Early in the war, I have many stacks from the Army of Northeastern Virginia in Manassas, and want to attack. Almost all of the leaders are inactive. However, McDowell himself is actually active. It strikes me as reasonable for him to grab a bunch of units and advance. What are people's opinions on this?

[DarthMath]

Some use it and some don't. Except with an explicit "house" rule with your opponent before the game, I think you have to live with that.

[arsan]

Or use the hardened activation option that locks stacks in place (so you can get any unit out of it) when inactive.
The locking don't happen 100% of the times, the chance is related to the military control you have on the region so usually you can move on areas under your control (your "backyard"), but it usually locks on contested or newly conquered areas.
It can be frustratingly enjoyable

[biggp07]

I think its only gamey in certain situations, like to "get out" of an unwinnable battle or the like. But think of it like this too, you are the CINC and have control of your commanders so why not be that CINC that says "OK if your not going to take this force and do something with it then I'll give it to someone who will". Kind of like Lincoln was thinking about McClellen when he was so stagnant and delayed moving the army. Be the Lincoln (or Davis) that didn't hesitate to replace a leader if they wern't performing like you wished. At least playing against Athena who doesn't "complain" about your use of gamey tactics. Probably different in PBEM but easily comprimised with house rules and game options.

I suppose it can be argued either way. And there are options to keep the "abuse" to a minimum.

[Pocus]

Athena does that anyway...

[W.Barksdale]

Once you get a several months into the game general officers will be in such short supply that it is nearly impossible to switch them out. Note that you can still attack with a stack who's leader is not active.

[Heldenkaiser]

This exploit simply wouldn't work if we wouldn't know a fortnight in advance who is going to be active and who isn't. If activation would be decided only when the turn is being resolved, i.e. everyone can be given orders, but some won't execute them, it would be more realistic IMO. But I seem to recall this has been suggested before and rejected. I think it could at least be made optional. I would sure love it.

[Captain_Orso]

Yes, I do this . As the Union player with only army leaders with a strategic rating of 2 or less and almost no 1 or 2 star generals with a strategic rating higher than three, if you don't use all the resources available to you, you will have a really hard time.

There are practically no generals that start out low, like 3-2-1 and improve greatly to when they eventually get to be 3 star generals that you actually get a good army general out of them. And then you still have to pay all the darn NM and VP penalties for promoting them or giving them armies before Butler, Banks, McClellan, Sumner, Freemont, Halleck, Buell and co.

One other thing that I do, if I can get it organized, is after '61-10, when you can build divisions is to use a general with a relatively low seniority to build the division and have one or two generals with seniority just above the division commander's and one just below it in the same stack. That way, you have a much greater chance at having a stack with at least one general to lead the division. Example below in '3)'.

One strategic 3 gen had a 50% chance of activating. Two in one stack have 50% + (50% of 50%) = 75%, etc.

There is also a factor about the chance of a leader activating being modified by whether he was active in the previous turn. If he was active, then the chances are that he reactivates again in the next turn are increased. I think it adds 1 to the d6 activation-check die role, but I can't remember if it works the other way around if the general was inactive the previous turn. It sure often feels like it though

The major disadvantages of this are

1) you need a lot of generals to run one good division,

2) it doesn't help you if your division is stacked with a 3-1-1 2 star general with 1 or more other division (unless you break it out of that stack to attack alone),

3) if you have built a division, let's say, around Butterfield (Sen 53) and have French (Sen 54) as the helpers-help-general and Crittenden (Sen 26) and Prentiss (Sen 30) as the additional back-up generals and you go into battle with that stack with Crittenden or Prentiss active and get a really good results leading to promotions or increase in seniority or even experience points being handed out, Crittenden and Prentiss will usually be left out, because Butterfield is the division commander and was in combat but the other generals may not be deemed to have affected the battle,

4) it's a lot of micro-management, because you have to check all the generals in a stack each turn to see if you can do anything productive with the division.

It's lots of work to get around the 10% penalty for being under-commanded or the 35% penalty for being inactive.

[MarkCSA]

Or use the hardened activation option that locks stacks in place (so you can get any unit out of it) when inactive.
The locking don't happen 100% of the times, the chance is related to the military control you have on the region so usually you can move on areas under your control (your "backyard"), but it usually locks on contested or newly conquered areas.
It can be frustratingly enjoyable

How do I activate this rule/option?

[enf91]

In the game menu, click "options". Then go to the "game" tab and look for "activation rule".

[Captain_Orso]

How do I activate this rule/option?

Masochist

[blackbird]

When one has multiple stacks with multiple commanders in a region, it is clearly possible to exploit the activation rule by moving subunits from unactivated to activated commands. Doing this seems very 'gamey', though. How do people handle this, versus either humans or the AI?
Sometimes, it strikes me that an argument could be made that it is legitimate.
Early in the war, I have many stacks from the Army of Northeastern Virginia in Manassas, and want to attack. Almost all of the leaders are inactive. However, McDowell himself is actually active. It strikes me as reasonable for him to grab a bunch of units and advance. What are people's opinions on this?

My opinion is that as President(Commander In Chief), I should be able to reassign commands as I wish. I was able to shuffle brigades around in v1.07, but I've noticed that if I pull a brigade from a non active general and assign it to an active general under v1.15, it deactivates that general. So, in response to your first question, are you even able to reassign subunits? Does it matter if they are divisional commanders, or just brigadier commanders? Perhaps we are unable to reassign them now under v1.15. What version are you playing when you move these units and successfully reassign them to active generals?

[enf91]

You cannot move subunits. They are frozen into their brigades.
The activation thing is for every level general. I think it's been that way since about 1.13.