Army vs. Corps Command

[ArmChairGeneral]

Also, the meaning of HQ has changed since AACW. Then the Army-effect could be thought as coming from the HQ unit that the Army was required to have, so Army and HQ-unit meant the same thing. In CW2 the Army stack itself determines the behavior, whether or not it has the now optional HQ unit in it (as far as I can tell, anyway; the save I am using does not have an HQ-unit on either side.)

GS, thanks for the kind words. My wife would like to point out that sounding authoritative is not the same thing as actually being an Authority, and that in my case it is often the former rather than the latter.

[GraniteStater]

But ya still gotta buy me a beer.

[fred zeppelin]

[ATTACH]26923[/ATTACH]

BTW: Check out the Confederate battle flag roundel on ASJ's map-icon. Thanks fred zeppelin! (Link to mod.)

FYI - I added a second version - oval shaped - to the linked thread. Fits a bit better on the counter.

[Ace]

It is a feature that is meant to model the fact that Army commands tried stayed out of the line of fire. The fighting is supposed to be done by subordinates because it's very difficult to coordinate a battle while being in the thick of it. Players should not be using the Army command as a fighting force once Corps become available. If they do, then they should suffer the consequences.

I think of it as a command and control problem. If you use your Army commander like a Corps, then you are forcing him to wear two hats. He has to command his 3 divisions plus the Army. That's just too much to do.

The feature models this quite well. The only problem I see with it is that Army commander do not pass their traits to subordinate corps, like beloved ability for example. At the same time, quick angered ability trait is passed down. So it can be done, but why it is not done, I do not know.

[ArmChairGeneral]

I posted some results, some observations and the save file for the initial setup in the AAR forum.

I have only gotten one of the sets of observations written up so far, but it is the most interesting set. Try loading the save and watching the round-by-round results in the Battle Report. Everything is set up so you can just hit end turn upon loading to replicate the battle I tested. Watch what ASJ does on the 2nd and later rounds.

I will never be able to test all the possible configs on my own, so hopefully others will report on their own results so we can figure out what is going on with Army combat. (Unless you think actually PLAYING the game is more fun than reloading the same battle over and over again just to decipher the meaning of an obscure rule. Weirdos.)

[GraniteStater]

Just don't blow up the lab, Einstein

[Q-Ball]

The feature models this quite well. The only problem I see with it is that Army commander do not pass their traits to subordinate corps, like beloved ability for example. At the same time, quick angered ability trait is passed down. So it can be done, but why it is not done, I do not know.

That bugs me too; it makes most of the special abilities possessed by Army Commanders to be irrelevant. That's when many of those traits should be MOST relevant.

[GraniteStater]

Well, some are, right? In that case, it gets down to cases and I'm sure they discussed it in the design meetings.

We'd all come up with this & that - whether it should be a blanket, is another issue.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Final results are in for Army combat-behavior tests (claim your prizes in the Testbed AAR thread).

Synopsis:

Granite Stater gets a beer: zero Army is OK, while an Army with a division in reserve is Really Good.

moni kerr is right, attackers tend to target MTSGers (although not 100% of the time) and they won't benefit from entrenchments.

Armies tend to leave their entrenchments to support friendly stacks.

Fighting Army stacks (though not optimal) are quite effective on both offense and defense.

Defensive Army stacks are best in reserve with a combat division, MTSGing in support of their Corps. They are still pretty good when they are the only stack in the main battle, but are less effective when they share the region with another stack. MTSGing Divisions are weaker than those in the initial region, so spreading out in small Corps stacks to defend a wider area results in decreased combat performance compared to concentrating the Divisions in fewer stacks and regions.

[GraniteStater]

Love the screenshots in the Testbed thread.

Armies tend to leave their entrenchments to support friendly stacks.

Just had this happen in PbeM. Army stack of one Div came out, MTSGed one Region away, won and returned to original Region and kept the entrench level value.

I have usually kept a small to moderate Div in an Army stack. In the case immediately above, the Army is at the front, due to circumstances.