It is June 1862. Both Mac and McDowell are active; and each leads an army driving on Richmond. However, *none* of their constituent ** Corps commanders are active. If one wants to keep moving forward:
1. If the corps/army are synchronized, will the (inactive) corps join the (active) Army in moving into CSA-controlled territory and, if need be, fighting an offensive posture battle there? Or will the Active Army stack be hung out to dry?
2. Or is it better to temporarily place everyone under the active army commander? [e.g., no corps structure for the move; take % penalty]
I recognize better ** is the ultimate solution; but it is early in the war.
Thanks!
-
Bismarck1940
- Sergeant
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 4:47 am
1. The synchronized stacks will move at the pace of the slowest stack, which may be the inactive Corps. A Corps led by an inactive commander will not participate in offensive operations. It most likely won't March To The Guns either.
2. Sun Tzu advises that a general wins the battle first and then fights it. If you know that you have won even with a penalty, then attack. Otherwise, wait until you have the force necessary to ensure victory.
In the future, have several 2-star generals with your offensive army. Rotate in the ones that are active for Corps command. You don't get a penalty for switching a Corps commander out.
2. Sun Tzu advises that a general wins the battle first and then fights it. If you know that you have won even with a penalty, then attack. Otherwise, wait until you have the force necessary to ensure victory.
In the future, have several 2-star generals with your offensive army. Rotate in the ones that are active for Corps command. You don't get a penalty for switching a Corps commander out.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!
-
Union Bear
- Conscript
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 5:34 pm
The Corps commander might have Divisions, artillery, support units and supplies in his stack. Click the General, click the Corps Command icon and then add all the elements you want to his stack. Elements not in his stack may suffer command penalties and won't get his offensive/defensive bonus. Too many units in his stack may also cause a command penalty.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!
-
Bismarck1940
- Sergeant
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 4:47 am
I tried once to get a Native American unit to join my side. It's supposed to be a 50-50 chance. I failed, which didn't seem too bad. Then i noticed that every Native American unit on the map was now at war with my faction. A minor detail that must have been in the fine print.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!
Gray Fox wrote:In the future, have several 2-star generals with your offensive army. Rotate in the ones that are active for Corps command. You don't get a penalty for switching a Corps commander out.
I've been tempted to do this against Athena, myself.
It kinda seems like cheating at solitaire, though. Because, realistically, I don't think anything like this would ever happen.
I like the activation/delay rules, personally. The implementation feels realistic. The only thing missing is to be able to play that last setting (for MP) against Athena while Athena isn't hampered.
Thinking about it, wouldn't two option sliders be better than the one?
One slider for AI activation/delay rules and one for the player (which would be the default MP setting, as well).
That seems like a more logical and flexible format which would give the player the most gaming options.
That makes sense in a way. But, I thought the rule was to simulate order delays and effects like weather, traffic jams or accidents. How can you fire someone when the messengers aren't getting through in the first place? And why would you fire them because a wagon got stuck in the road or whatever?
Also, if you fired a general, would you give him his job back two weeks later? Sounds a bit like having your cake and eating it, too.
Also, if you fired a general, would you give him his job back two weeks later? Sounds a bit like having your cake and eating it, too.
A corps commander won't get any potential stat boosts from the army commander until the turn after his appointment. It's admittedly not as severe as the first turn divisional organizational penalty, but it does exist.
I also don't see the need to be critical of Gray Fox for using carousel corps commanders. He fits very nicely into the min/max category of play style, which some people really enjoy. I know I certainly tend to do it in other games.
I also don't see the need to be critical of Gray Fox for using carousel corps commanders. He fits very nicely into the min/max category of play style, which some people really enjoy. I know I certainly tend to do it in other games.
I meant no criticism of anyone's play style. I'm a history buff at heart, not a gamer. I value the game as a simulation, related strictly to my interest in Civil War history. So, when I say gamey, I mean something that has no relationship to historical practice. I wouldn't do it against Athena and she's not even real.
Since my post included a suggestion on how to improve the game, I felt I could post it here rather than in the historical forum. I apologize if I offended anyone.
Since my post included a suggestion on how to improve the game, I felt I could post it here rather than in the historical forum. I apologize if I offended anyone.
-
Bismarck1940
- Sergeant
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 4:47 am
Merlin wrote:I also don't see the need to be critical of Gray Fox for using carousel corps commanders. He fits very nicely into the min/max category of play style, which some people really enjoy. I know I certainly tend to do it in other games.
When I played with the options set to visible, I did this sometimes with the idea that the General was sick or on furlough or something (since the game doesn't simulate winter furloughs, I thought maybe this is similar - it would be interesting if activation was more likely in summer and less in winter). If a corps (or division) commander were sick (or wounded) in the actual war his highest ranking division (or brigade) commander would take his place. I think rarely if ever was the second highest ranking officer of a unit not in command of a subordinate unit, but I think it is possible that a staff officer would take over.
Now I usually play with activation not visible.
khbynum wrote:Since my post included a suggestion on how to improve the game, I felt I could post it here rather than in the historical forum. I apologize if I offended anyone.
Well, you certainly didn't offend me.
I tend to play much like you do with some voluntary restrictions on things I consider to be out of place with the period the game is simulating. However, when it comes to Gray Fox's strategy and methods, I do get a somewhat general and very slight sense of disapproval from out little community as a whole, most likely because the way you and I play seems by far the more common method.
I didn't mean to offend, either.
Like most here, I tend to bend over backwards looking for a good fight from Athena. So, I don't give myself any breaks.
But, when I play MP (haven't yet) I'm sure I'll use every legal way I can to try to eek out a victory. Reading some of the AARs on the forum illustrates the caliber of player involved in this game, though. Clearly, winning won't be easy against the likes of GrayFox, CaptainOrso, Mickey3D, et al. So, it's use every trick in the book or learn to love losing!
Like most here, I tend to bend over backwards looking for a good fight from Athena. So, I don't give myself any breaks.
But, when I play MP (haven't yet) I'm sure I'll use every legal way I can to try to eek out a victory. Reading some of the AARs on the forum illustrates the caliber of player involved in this game, though. Clearly, winning won't be easy against the likes of GrayFox, CaptainOrso, Mickey3D, et al. So, it's use every trick in the book or learn to love losing!
-
AndrewKurtz
- Posts: 1167
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:49 am
- Location: Greenville, SC
Gray Fox wrote:In the future, have several 2-star generals with your offensive army. Rotate in the ones that are active for Corps command. You don't get a penalty for switching a Corps commander out.
The lack of any penalty should be changed. There should be at least as severe a penalty as changing divisional leaders.
-
Captain_Orso
- Posts: 5766
- Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
- Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Generally (very generally) I would put the divisions from the corp into the army stacks and attack with both or one of them.
Honestly, I've never attacked one region with two different armies at the same time, so I'm not sure what will happen with regard to which stacks will fight. But since it's one region I imagine the normal mechanics will be in affect and the highest ranking officer will lead the battle.
One question, why hobble yourself with one very poor and one poor general, when you will have an easier time with just one poor general (McDowell)? Send McClellan back to Manassas or else where and let him train units while allowing McDowell to fuddle through the fighting. McDowell and his corpse will be activated more than McClellan, so why put McClellan any offensive roll at all where you already have McDowell.
That being said, there is one thing I didn't see mentioned, and that is that although the corps commanders are all inactive, once they move into the Richmond region they will go to Offensive Posture, although they will still be inactive. So they will attack, but with -35% power.
Also, it will not be certain, if there are numerous corps stacks, if they will be selected to fight. Movement ability and strategic rating I believe play a large role in this. So If I had an inactive Kearney as a corps commander I might try to split all the available power between McDowell first and then Kearney second without going over the CP limits and see what their power looks like.
After that it's a question of playing around with the stacks to see how much power you gain (and lose) from adding units which put each stack into negative CP's.
The really hard thing is, that with McClellan having 1 Strategic and McDowell 2, there is about a 66.6% good chance that McClellan and a 50% chance that McDowell with go inactive in the next turn and less than 50% that any of the corpse will become activated.
So, attack now or maybe wait for a long time to get a sizable force activated again for an attack; a difficult conundrum depending on a lot of extraneous factors and chance.
Honestly, I've never attacked one region with two different armies at the same time, so I'm not sure what will happen with regard to which stacks will fight. But since it's one region I imagine the normal mechanics will be in affect and the highest ranking officer will lead the battle.
One question, why hobble yourself with one very poor and one poor general, when you will have an easier time with just one poor general (McDowell)? Send McClellan back to Manassas or else where and let him train units while allowing McDowell to fuddle through the fighting. McDowell and his corpse will be activated more than McClellan, so why put McClellan any offensive roll at all where you already have McDowell.
That being said, there is one thing I didn't see mentioned, and that is that although the corps commanders are all inactive, once they move into the Richmond region they will go to Offensive Posture, although they will still be inactive. So they will attack, but with -35% power.
Also, it will not be certain, if there are numerous corps stacks, if they will be selected to fight. Movement ability and strategic rating I believe play a large role in this. So If I had an inactive Kearney as a corps commander I might try to split all the available power between McDowell first and then Kearney second without going over the CP limits and see what their power looks like.
After that it's a question of playing around with the stacks to see how much power you gain (and lose) from adding units which put each stack into negative CP's.
The really hard thing is, that with McClellan having 1 Strategic and McDowell 2, there is about a 66.6% good chance that McClellan and a 50% chance that McDowell with go inactive in the next turn and less than 50% that any of the corpse will become activated.
So, attack now or maybe wait for a long time to get a sizable force activated again for an attack; a difficult conundrum depending on a lot of extraneous factors and chance.
I gladly spent half my youth as a soldier. I'm sure that a member of the NFL plays a computer football game like it's football and not a game. That's how I naturally play a war game. This is how it works. Some officers are great at logistics or getting all the ducks in a row. Every now and then, you find the one who can win battles. I think Lincoln's record with finding a C-in-C affirms this to actually be the historical case during the Civil War. The war-fighter gets his subordinate commanders together and lets them know what's called the Commander's Intent. Things like, be aggressive. Move with a purpose. Worry about how many casualties we'll have if you don't take the hill. Things like that are put out as guidelines. Remember the scene in Patton where a whole column of vehicles and men got strafed because one guy couldn't get a mule cart that was blocking traffic off of the bridge? If my Army stack is in the same region with two Corps stacks and a Corps Commander can't keep pace this turn, then I can send some member of my staff to pinch hit for him. I'm not lining the guy up against a wall and shooting him for goodness sake. Maybe he's sick. Maybe he needs a hug and a shoulder to cry on (just kidding). So I straighten him out and put him back in later. Maybe I just want all of my 2-stars to get troop time.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!
-
AndrewKurtz
- Posts: 1167
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:49 am
- Location: Greenville, SC
My understanding of the inactive leader concept is that it is modelizing the lack of energy, temporary underperformance (like Jackson at the seven days battle) and pusillanimity of an officer.
But in the game you are aware in advance (i.e. beginning of the turn) your leader will be inactive. So rotating your leaders is a little bit like using a crystal ball (but I have to admit I'm doing it from time to time...). That's why I'm more and more considering the possibility to play with the option hidding the activity status of your leaders (this should make Union task harder).
But in the game you are aware in advance (i.e. beginning of the turn) your leader will be inactive. So rotating your leaders is a little bit like using a crystal ball
(but I have to admit I'm doing it from time to time...). That's why I'm more and more considering the possibility to play with the option hidding the activity status of your leaders (this should make Union task harder).The whole concept of hidden activation is for players who don't wish this style of play (I also used it from time to time, but I am not too proud of it, since it defeats the concept of activation). It is hard to put penalties similar to forming a division to a leader just for putting extra division in his stack. Perhaps, if stack Pwr number is changed by more than 1000-1500 Pwr from the turn before, I would put that general inactive - he has to get to know his troops. But I suspect it is hard to implement it and would slow the game down.
Dragging 2 Corps commanders without a Corps only to be assigned command if the actual Corps commander is inactive - sounds wrong...
Dragging 2 Corps commanders without a Corps only to be assigned command if the actual Corps commander is inactive - sounds wrong...
Clausewitz identified a property of war that he defined as friction. This is typified by the axiom that no plan survives contact with the enemy. Things inevitably go wrong and a lot of this happened in the Civil War. Is it historically accurate for the program to randomly decide that Grant can't lead a boy scout troop this turn? Is it historically accurate for Grant and others to have a second in command? Should one ignore a game mechanic that was intended to add historical flavor of the very sordid politics of this war? Personal iron man or MP house rules are great, but a discussion should be open and include all solutions. Follow the advice given or don't. Some people just put up with a certain amount of friction while the rest of us use Clorox to remove the last evidence of friction from the trunk of our cars.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!
You lost me with this post, especially the part about Clorox. You seem to be arguing that the "friction" produced by the game rules is appropriate, but that as a player you have the right to negate it if the code allows. No problem, play the game the way you want. It's a computer game; you can't cheat.
In historical fact, Civil War armies didn't have a "second in command". As has been pointed out above, the next highest ranking commander, who also had a command of his own, would take over. That resulted in a displacement of commanders at every level on down, not something that could be accomplished without turmoil, loss of efficiency, disruption of operations etc. Staff officers weren't sent to replace field commanders at anything above regimental level (your Patton example above). Cite an example if you have one, I love learning new things.
No one is arguing that you can't play as you wish, or as you and your opponent agree in PBEM. You want to beat the game. I want to enjoy an historically realistic simulation. There's room here for everyone. In my case, I think a rule to handicap carousel replacement of corps commanders (thanks, Merlin; great expression) would add realism to the game.
In historical fact, Civil War armies didn't have a "second in command". As has been pointed out above, the next highest ranking commander, who also had a command of his own, would take over. That resulted in a displacement of commanders at every level on down, not something that could be accomplished without turmoil, loss of efficiency, disruption of operations etc. Staff officers weren't sent to replace field commanders at anything above regimental level (your Patton example above). Cite an example if you have one, I love learning new things.
No one is arguing that you can't play as you wish, or as you and your opponent agree in PBEM. You want to beat the game. I want to enjoy an historically realistic simulation. There's room here for everyone. In my case, I think a rule to handicap carousel replacement of corps commanders (thanks, Merlin; great expression) would add realism to the game.
Did I coin a phrase? 
Hidden activation completely eliminates any foresight the player might have as to the behavior of his commanders and effectively gives local autonomy to subordinates, which very accurately reflects the battlefield issues of the day. It also completely eliminates that artificial and irritating issue where you sometimes have to wait several turns for a general to activate just to form a division. I find hidden activation to be enormously fun and quite possibly the best addition to an AGEOD game which I can remember.
Hidden activation completely eliminates any foresight the player might have as to the behavior of his commanders and effectively gives local autonomy to subordinates, which very accurately reflects the battlefield issues of the day. It also completely eliminates that artificial and irritating issue where you sometimes have to wait several turns for a general to activate just to form a division. I find hidden activation to be enormously fun and quite possibly the best addition to an AGEOD game which I can remember.
I'm curious about the hidden activation. The way it's described in the options, it seems like it's maybe more of a problem for the Athena than it is for a human, which is why it would be nice to enable it for the human, but not for Athena. Is that the case or do I misunderstand?
As far as the 'carouselling' goes, I agree there is no right and wrong here. It's a game. By definition, it's intent is to amuse. What amuses me might annoy another player and vice versa. Live and let live say I.
As far as the 'carouselling' goes, I agree there is no right and wrong here. It's a game. By definition, it's intent is to amuse. What amuses me might annoy another player and vice versa. Live and let live say I.
As a possible non-sequiter, I think there was a college football team that played well with two quarterbacks last year. I don't think it happens very often.
Here are a couple bad examples that I think are telling. Before Beauregard was put in command of Hood and Taylor, he was sort of a full General at large, ready to be put into any position if needed. Meade taking Hooker's position just days before Gettysburg is an example of a change with battle imminent.
I think that if I wanted to allow it but restrict it some way, one house rule that seems to fit these examples (or at least the Hooker example) is that it is allowed if the new corps (or division or Army) commander was commanding a division before the switch was made and if the old corps commander is moved out of the area for a few turns (preferably to a command in a different theater). The Beauregard example suggests that if the old commander remains in the theater, the new commander should be of higher rank (but this doesn't really fit as Hood's role didn't change very much except Beauregard was given some authority over Hood).
I don't know the answer in general, but it doesn't matter much for Athena if you turn her activation up.
Here are a couple bad examples that I think are telling. Before Beauregard was put in command of Hood and Taylor, he was sort of a full General at large, ready to be put into any position if needed. Meade taking Hooker's position just days before Gettysburg is an example of a change with battle imminent.
I think that if I wanted to allow it but restrict it some way, one house rule that seems to fit these examples (or at least the Hooker example) is that it is allowed if the new corps (or division or Army) commander was commanding a division before the switch was made and if the old corps commander is moved out of the area for a few turns (preferably to a command in a different theater). The Beauregard example suggests that if the old commander remains in the theater, the new commander should be of higher rank (but this doesn't really fit as Hood's role didn't change very much except Beauregard was given some authority over Hood).
Jethro wrote:I'm curious about the hidden activation. The way it's described in the options, it seems like it's maybe more of a problem for the Athena than it is for a human, which is why it would be nice to enable it for the human, but not for Athena. Is that the case or do I misunderstand?
I don't know the answer in general, but it doesn't matter much for Athena if you turn her activation up.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests