Siege Discussion

[SleeStak]

There is actually nothing wrong with using Lee as a corps commander. His army commander will pass along bonuses that make Lee a better combat asset. The only problem is that the army commander tends to gain seniority faster than his corps commanders (he fights more often because he is more responsive to supporting his corps). This means that he will trump his corps commanders when commanding a battle and you'll end up with a less capable overall commander in charge of your biggest battles. That's my take anyway. It seems to me a better strategy would be make Lee your army commander, give him a division, maybe some artillery and let him follow around one of your corps. All your corps will benefit from his high strategic rating and whenever he fights, he'll be in charge.

As to the leaders advantages propigating down, I'll quote the AACW's manual from the Wiki:

In addition to providing CP’s, as every leader does, the commanding officer of a stack (i.e. highest-ranked most senior leader present) improves the capabilities of his subordinate units with his offensive/defensive rating (+5% to combat for each point) and his special abilities. His strategic rating also has a critical impact on the stack’s performance (see below). Units in a division not only benefit from the benefits just described, but also from their own divisional leader’s capacities.

[dolphin]

Dolphin,

The _offcost lines indicate when units have reduced frontage in an offensive posture. You mention the conditions when units in an offensive posture lose frontage (rough terrain in blizzard/mud or in forts or cities). The values are a percentage of the total frontage.

.

Then it should be 135 and 45.

The reduction is 25%.

180 - 25% (45) = 135
60 - 25% = (15) = 45

Why would the Support Units Offensive cost be listed as a higher number
(100) than without the penalty (60)?

[SleeStak]

I think you misunderstood the meaning of those values. In the chart you are looking at, the terrain type is clear/prairie so there is no reduction in frontage for the attacker. The _offCost values represent a percentage of the frontage available. So in Clear/Prairie the attacker has 100% of his frontage. If you download the spreadsheet from the post I linked to in my last post, you'll see that the appropriate terrains have a reduced frontage starting value and the _offCost values are 75 or 75% of their frontage. Does that make more sense?

[dolphin]

I think you misunderstood the meaning of those values. In the chart you are looking at, the terrain type is clear/prairie so there is no reduction in frontage for the attacker. The _offCost values represent a percentage of the frontage available. So in Clear/Prairie the attacker has 100% of his frontage. If you download the spreadsheet from the post I linked to in my last post, you'll see that the appropriate terrains have a reduced frontage starting value and the _offCost values are 75 or 75% of their frontage. Does that make more sense?

So then what your saying is that in that chart the _offCost numbers are indicating the perentage of the base frontage you get in Clear Prairie
(100%/100%) when in Offensive posture while the other two Quota numbers are indicating the actual frontage amounts in clear prairie (180/60).

That particular chart is saying you get 100% of your 180/60 frontage while in offensive posture in clear prairie.

Thank you for being patient with me.

Had they maybe put a % sign in the _offCost column I might have understood.

[SleeStak]

To be honest, I didn't know what the _offcost numbers meant until I looked at the spreadsheet in response to your post. Your question made it clear to us both.

[dolphin]

To be honest, I didn't know what the _offcost numbers meant until I looked at the spreadsheet in response to your post. Your question made it clear to us both.

I will have to look at that spreadsheet. I am not sure if I have the program I need to run it though. We will see. Checking now.

[dolphin]

To be honest, I didn't know what the _offcost numbers meant until I looked at the spreadsheet in response to your post. Your question made it clear to us both.

I had always been wondering why in the tool tip of a region it had an entry that said (Number of days to move into the region).

A post in the thread at that link the spreadsheet is in just answered that.

Pocus on how movement cost is used for a unit type’s frontage cost: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=11074

“Good question, I had to check the code. This is the 'base day cost' used, drawn from the terrain matrix, and it does not take into account the road network, or the added cost for being under commanded etc.”

“No, MR is not taken into account here. Frontage cost is deduced from the base days needed to travel into a region, because, for a given unit, 95% of the time you see a very strong correlation between how it is easy for her to move into a region and how easy it is to use or deploy the said unit. For example irregulars in wood, artillery in swamps, etc.”

[Mickey3D]

I had always been wondering why in the tool tip of a region it had an entry that said (Number of days to move into the region).

The number in the tool tip will vary based on the composition of the force selected as well as its cohesion, possible leader inactivity and leader special ability.

That's why you have to use the 'base day cost' to compute frontage.

[SleeStak]

I will have to look at that spreadsheet. I am not sure if I have the program I need to run it though. We will see. Checking now.

I've actually added the spreadsheet as an html file on one of my sites so that I can look at it with my mac. If you can't see the file with your computer, feel free to view it here: Link

[Cromagnonman]

Been going through a recent Battle Log with virtually limitless troops & arty in clear/fair. Commanded by Sherman 3** 6/6/6, 49 artillery elements fired in the first round, of which 9 were horse artillery and 5 Rodmans.

[SleeStak]

Sherman's frontage coupled with the advantage a 6 offensive/defensive score gives is pretty unbeatable. If you have the troops to fill out his frontage and can pick the terrain, he's a monster.

The South really have few generals that can match the top union generals. Cleburn and Longstreet are both 6's on the defensive and can hold their own, Lee comes in at a 5 but he'd both have to dig in to face Sherman or Grant. Even Sheridan beats all but the south's very best. Of course, experience can improve the scores and changes the equation a bit. Makes for a very intriguing game.

The South struggles putting 6's in the field on offense. I think Forest is the only Southern General that promotes to a 6 and I always have trouble getting him promoted because I give hima cavalry command. I'll have to rethink that.

Anyone that plays as the North aught to go through the leaders list. Some generals that start out OK, get alot better with promotions. Ord jumps to mind but their are a couple more too.