Who's In Charge?

[G-Burg Bullet]

I'm a newbie, but I have jumped into the game in a pretty big way lately and I had a strange phenomenon the other day. I was playing the Shiloh battle scenario. To optimize CP's, I disbanded Lew Wallace's division to free him up for corps command. I created his corps and everything was fine until I assigned McClernand's division to his command. As an aside, the game kept the nomenclature "Wallace's Division" even though it was now a corps and had the diamond indicator. I missed the fact that McClernand had a higher seniority and a weird thing happened. The game changed Wallace's corps name to "McClernand's Corps" but it seemed as though Wallace was still in command as McClernand was still imbedded with his Division, but I wasn't sure. It may be that McClernand was now in command of the corps but was still with his division somehow. Not sure where that left Wallace. Not sure who was in charge at this point. I was totally confused. Was this a bug? Can someone explain?

[James D Burns]

Grab the leader Wallace and drop him out of the stack. Then make him a corps commander. Now drag the subordinate units and drop them into Wallace’s stack and the force should be renamed to Wallace’s corps or something similar.

If you have 2 or more two or three star leaders in a corps stack, the leader on the far left is in command. It does not make any difference if they have a division command or not, seniority over-rides it and they will command the corps instead. The downside is the division loses any benefits the commander would normally give it for individual division command as his skills are used for the entire corps instead. So if you lack other leaders to use make Wallace a division commander again and give him McClernand’s troops.

Jim

[G-Burg Bullet]

Grab the leader Wallace and drop him out of the stack. Then make him a corps commander. Now drag the subordinate units and drop them into Wallace’s stack and the force should be renamed to Wallace’s corps or something similar.

If you have 2 or more two or three star leaders in a corps stack, the leader on the far left is in command. It does not make any difference if they have a division command or not, seniority over-rides it and they will command the corps instead. The downside is the division loses any benefits the commander would normally give it for individual division command as his skills are used for the entire corps instead. So if you lack other leaders to use make Wallace a division commander again and give him McClernand’s troops.

Jim

Thanks! This is quite helpful. The weird thing is that Wallace WAS at the far left, but the game engine named the stack "McClernand's Corps" even though it looked like Wallace was in command. But as I recall, even though McClernand was still with his division, the game was using his modifiers as if he was at the far left and in command. Weird.

[G-Burg Bullet]

A bit more on this...

As you said, even though I created the "Wallace Corps" as you outlined, when I moved McClernand's division into the Wallace Corps stack, it made McClernand corps commander (listed on far left) even though he is imbedded in his division. But it raised another question. Now it indicates that McClernand is providing 4 CP's to the stack. I'm not sure how this is happening. As a 2-star, he provides 8 himself. He loses 4 because he is "quick to anger." That gets him down to 4. But, doesn't he get the strategic bonus from Grant, his army commander (6-2=another 4?) So, shouldn't he be back to 8?