How does one handle this situation?

[Stonewall]

I also think that swapping Corps commanders based on their activation status is gamey. But, whatever, its a game, people can play however they want. I mod the hell out of my game (mostly leader ratings and attributes). Many people would consider that gamey. So, to each his own.

What would be interesting to know is whether the last activation option (all leaders appear active and only become inactive once the turn starts) applies to Athena as well.

It's also interesting to see how other games handle the issue. For example, in GG's War Between the States (fantastic game in MP, but absolutely dreadful AI), whenever a combat unit (brigade) is assigned to a command unit (division/corps), the entire command unit has its movement points reduced by 2. The effect is to prohibit commands with new combat units from instantly being able to conduct offensive operations. However, said units are able to defend themselves and MTSG in the MTSG phase.

Personally, I have my own house rules that I play by to try and make the experience more immersive. I assign corps commands based on seniority. I reserve the right to remove corps commanders who are ineffective, but must either disband them (dismissing them from service) or transfer them to another army. They are never allowed to rejoin the army commander who banished them. This usually results in bad leaders who I have no choice but to use at the start, commanding irrelevant forces behind the lines, which is pretty historical. 3 star generals not in army command always get preference for corps command over 2 stars. Even if they suck.

[khbynum]

Well, the Washington Redskins played effectively in the 1970s with Billy Kilmer and Sonny Jurgensen at quarterback (that should date me).

As for Beauregard, he was a high-ranking general with no fixed command and was often moved to where he was needed, just as J. E. Johnston was before he fell out of favor. He didn't replace an army commander, but took a theatre command above him. Meade replaced Hooker, he wasn't swapped in and out with him. I don't want to belabor the point, but this idea of swapping corps commanders in and out to avoid the consequences of inactivation is just historically unjustifiable. There are penalties if you do it with army or division commanders. I won't do it, but others can do as they please.

PS. Stonewall, you posted while I was typing. That sounds like a good approach. It all depends on what you want out of the game.

[tripax]

@khbynum: I agree, I mentioned those examples because they are close but very much not the same as swapping a commander for someone on his staff. Also, I like stonewall's proposal.

[minipol]

Is it correct that inactive leaders can't attack but they can defend with a penalty?
If so, wouldn't it also be historical for the inactive leaders to still attack but also with a penalty?
Sometimes troops would then refuse to move, others would move with dire consequences.
There probably are historical references to leaders attacking when not totally ready to follow the command of a higher placed leader.

[Ace]

Inactive leaders can attack with penalty. Just plot their movement to enemy held region and they will auto switch posture, but with 35% penalty.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Inactive leaders can attack with penalty. Just plot their movement to enemy held region and they will auto switch posture, but with 35% penalty.

Which BTW means the CP penalty for too large of a formation is irrelevant for inactive leaders forced to attack due to posture change: the penalty can't go below 35%, so you could stack em up as deep as you want.

Inactives ALMOST NEVER win battles they are forced to fight this way, in my experience, unless they already have very favorable odds. Also, if you try this tactic keep in mind that they cannot assault; enemy MC causes them to go to orange posture not red, so you won't ever be able to overwhelm a garrison using an inactive commander.

[Gray Fox]

When Johnston was killed, his army was not leaderless until Jeff Davis sent a replacement. Someone immediately took charge. That person would be the "second in command". Every unit has one.

Here's the only line in the manual about why a non-army leader is inactive:

"Not being activated can represent delayed orders, over cautiousness or even incompetence at the operational level or above."

So, if the leader is overcautious or incompetent, then he should be replaced, right? When the Union army got better, it did so by doing exactly this. If that replacement turns into a loser, guess what? If the orders aren't getting there in time, then what was the historical answer? Send another messenger? Maybe a 2-star who doesn't have to read the plan because he was with the Army commander when the plan was written. In the U.S. Army that I was in, we issued orders to make it happen not excuses about why it didn't.

The manual doesn't have a "How thou shalt play." section. We agree that we can play any way we want. Even if it's a "gamey", "carousel replacement of commanders" that is just "wrong" way. There's no pressure from anyone to see it one way only.

Back in the day, Mike Ditka benched Jim McMahon. Some people probably thought that it was a gamey, carousel of QB's move that was just wrong. Mike didn't care.

[minipol]

Hhhm in my game, an inactive leader (red ribbon) can't move.
Or are you talking about the failed check so that they can't go on offense (no red ribbon)?

[Ace]

So, if the leader is overcautious or incompetent, then he should be replaced, right? When the Union army got better, it did so by doing exactly this. If that replacement turns into a loser, guess what? If the orders aren't getting there in time, then what was the historical answer? Send another messenger? Maybe a 2-star who doesn't have to read the plan because he was with the Army commander when the plan was written. In the U.S. Army that I was in, we issued orders to make it happen not excuses about why it didn't.

You are right in the part that inactive leaders should be replaced. What I see wrong is giving them command the turn after (when they become active again) - aka constantly shift it between active and inactive ones. If after loosing his command in such way he would be forced out of the game (redeployed to DC and locked for some time), I would call this change in command realistic.

[Gray Fox]

So if he was seriously ill for 15 days he shouldn't be replaced and then later returned to duty?

A game mechanic exists that should reflect historically poor leadership in this war. Apparently, no Alpha dogs were asked if the game mechanic would actually work as such or if it would just get bulldozed flat. I don't do the things that I do because I want to hack the game. I do them because this is what real military leaders would do. This isn't a "holy game mechanic" to me, it's a speed bump.

[Jethro]

It's rare to hear a disagreement, like this, where both sides seem to be correct.

Gray Fox, have you ever considered a career in law? If so, I want you as my attorney!!

[ArmChairGeneral]

minipol:

Inactive = failed activity check, can't voluntarily go on offensive, closed brown envelope, can't form Divisions but can still move

Fixed = inactive leader who also gets the red stripe and cannot move, the total fail condition for inactive leaders. (The "commander carousel" argument does not apply to fixed stacks - you can change the commander all you want, but those troops aren't going anywhere that turn)

[minipol]

Thanks ArmChairGeneral for the explanation.

Then it seems less gamey to me because you can get bitten in the ass quite often with fixed leaders.
So swapping them out seems reasonable if it doesn't happen all the time.
For instance, if you're pushing for a strategic objective and trying to coordinate movements with another corps or army, it's
a good enough reason to put another commander in charge to help succeed the move.

In conclusion, I understand the reasoning from Gray Fox better, but there should be limits/some penalties as a leader removed like this would not be to happy IRL I guess.

[Gray Fox]

There's nothing in the manual about military units randomly getting a "timeout". The rule about leader activation really is an activation rule about the leader. You get a penalty for one turn if you make a General a Division commander. So if you switch Division Commanders you suffer this penalty. When you appoint a new Corps commander, he doesn't get any bonus from the Army commander until the next turn, so once again, a minor penalty may exist if the Army commander is even granting a bonus. If some players interpreted that the meaning of the rule was that the actual military units must suffer the penalty, then let's add something in writing to the game documentation for the rest of us. I think that the actual historical record is that Generals got fired and replaced and some like McClellan got rehired and then fired again. If a random event changes the weather in a region to blizzard, the game gives me the foresight to change the plan for an attack into that region. When the game gives me the foresight that a random event changed a Corps commander to "out to lunch" this turn, then I should have the same opportunity to do something about it.

"An army of lions led by a rabbit, will always be overcome by an army of rabbits led by a lion." Napoleon

Be your faction's lion.

[Stonewall]

When Johnston was killed, his army was not leaderless until Jeff Davis sent a replacement. Someone immediately took charge. That person would be the "second in command". Every unit has one.

Here's the only line in the manual about why a non-army leader is inactive:

"Not being activated can represent delayed orders, over cautiousness or even incompetence at the operational level or above."

So, if the leader is overcautious or incompetent, then he should be replaced, right? When the Union army got better, it did so by doing exactly this. If that replacement turns into a loser, guess what? If the orders aren't getting there in time, then what was the historical answer? Send another messenger? Maybe a 2-star who doesn't have to read the plan because he was with the Army commander when the plan was written. In the U.S. Army that I was in, we issued orders to make it happen not excuses about why it didn't.

The manual doesn't have a "How thou shalt play." section. We agree that we can play any way we want. Even if it's a "gamey", "carousel replacement of commanders" that is just "wrong" way. There's no pressure from anyone to see it one way only.

Back in the day, Mike Ditka benched Jim McMahon. Some people probably thought that it was a gamey, carousel of QB's move that was just wrong. Mike didn't care.

When Johnston was wounded, Gustavus W. Smith, as the senior Major General in the Confederate Army of the Potomac, took command of the army until relieved by Lt. General Lee a day or so later. I'm not sure how such a situation would occur in terms of game mechanics since leader deaths are calculated at the end of a round or battle.

You can play the game however you like. But, please, don't compare benching a QB for small part of the season because he's playing poorly to replacing a Major/Lt. General in 1862. It's one thing to replace someone because he sucks. It's another to replace Jackson with Bonham because Jackson failed his activation roll and Bonham didn't. Especially when your intent would be to give that Corps right back to Jackson the following turn. Seniority between men of equal ranks during that particular period of time meant something. It's why you didn't see commanders who were relieved of command continuing to travel with the army. They were transferred and given commands appropriate to their rank or forced out of the army altogether.

Seniority and "date of rank" was why there was such a fuss when a man was promoted, but the promotion was reverted back to a date which would give him seniority. See J.E. Johnston. The six United States officers who became CSA Generals were, in order of seniority, J.E. Johnston, Samuel Cooper, A.S Johnston, R.E. Lee, P.G.T. Beauregard and Braxton Bragg. Bragg resigned from the US Army in 1856 and was appointed as brigadier general in the PACS on March 7, 1861. He was promoted on September 12, 1861, the sixth and last officer to receive a regular commission in the Army of the Confederate States. Cooper was appointed and confirmed on March 15, 1861. Davis made new appointments on August 31, 1861. Cooper was appointed general to rank from May 16, 1861. A.S Johnston from May 28, 1861. R.E. Lee from June 14, 1861. J.E. Johnston from July 4, 1861. P.G.T. Beauregard from July 21, 1861. Bragg was commissioned in the regular army on September 12, 1861. The only result of these new appointments was to demote J.E. Johnston from first to fourth in seniority, despite him being the most senior general officer.

See also Evander Law. Senior Brigadier in Hood's division at Gettysburg. Took over when Hood was wounded. When Longstreet's Corps was sent to Tennessee. Bragg elevated Longstreet to Wing Commander overseeing his own corps and that of Simon Buckner. Hood was temporarily elevated to take over Longstreet's Corps and Law, as the senior brigadier in Hood's division, would take Hood's division again. Longstreet was not happy at this, but as the senior brigadier, he was unable to change it. After Chickamauga, Longstreet transferred Micah Jenkins' brigade into the division. Due to Jenkins having an earlier date of rank, Jenkins took the division, which was Longstreet's desired result. This created absolute hatred between Law and Longstreet that would ultimately lead to Law being arrested and court martialed.

TLDR: Seniority means something. Rotating corps commanders does not fit the context of the time period. I'm a huge believer in live and let live. You can...and should...play however gives you the most enjoyment. But, please, don't try to justify your play style to the rest of us as historically appropriate, because it most certainly is not.

[charlesonmission]

The beauty of the new activation option (is it called advanced), is that you don't know if your leader will be activated or not. I'm playing using this rule in both my PBEMs and it seems to work well.

Charles

[Jethro]

The beauty of the new activation option (is it called advanced), is that you don't know if your leader will be activated or not. I'm playing using this rule in both my PBEMs and it seems to work well.

Charles

I'm playing Athena using that rule right now.

I LOVE IT!!

I was concerned that it would really hamper Athena. But, the trick is to turn up her activation and it becomes a moot point.

It also makes this argument futile.

[tripax]

@Stonewall: Nicely put. I didn't mean to bring up QBs as a serious argument.

[soundoff]

When Johnston was wounded, Gustavus W. Smith, as the senior Major General in the Confederate Army of the Potomac, took command of the army until relieved by Lt. General Lee a day or so later. I'm not sure how such a situation would occur in terms of game mechanics since leader deaths are calculated at the end of a round or battle.

You can play the game however you like. But, please, don't compare benching a QB for small part of the season because he's playing poorly to replacing a Major/Lt. General in 1862. It's one thing to replace someone because he sucks. It's another to replace Jackson with Bonham because Jackson failed his activation roll and Bonham didn't. Especially when your intent would be to give that Corps right back to Jackson the following turn. Seniority between men of equal ranks during that particular period of time meant something. It's why you didn't see commanders who were relieved of command continuing to travel with the army. They were transferred and given commands appropriate to their rank or forced out of the army altogether.

Seniority and "date of rank" was why there was such a fuss when a man was promoted, but the promotion was reverted back to a date which would give him seniority. See J.E. Johnston. The six United States officers who became CSA Generals were, in order of seniority, J.E. Johnston, Samuel Cooper, A.S Johnston, R.E. Lee, P.G.T. Beauregard and Braxton Bragg. Bragg resigned from the US Army in 1856 and was appointed as brigadier general in the PACS on March 7, 1861. He was promoted on September 12, 1861, the sixth and last officer to receive a regular commission in the Army of the Confederate States. Cooper was appointed and confirmed on March 15, 1861. Davis made new appointments on August 31, 1861. Cooper was appointed general to rank from May 16, 1861. A.S Johnston from May 28, 1861. R.E. Lee from June 14, 1861. J.E. Johnston from July 4, 1861. P.G.T. Beauregard from July 21, 1861. Bragg was commissioned in the regular army on September 12, 1861. The only result of these new appointments was to demote J.E. Johnston from first to fourth in seniority, despite him being the most senior general officer.

See also Evander Law. Senior Brigadier in Hood's division at Gettysburg. Took over when Hood was wounded. When Longstreet's Corps was sent to Tennessee. Bragg elevated Longstreet to Wing Commander overseeing his own corps and that of Simon Buckner. Hood was temporarily elevated to take over Longstreet's Corps and Law, as the senior brigadier in Hood's division, would take Hood's division again. Longstreet was not happy at this, but as the senior brigadier, he was unable to change it. After Chickamauga, Longstreet transferred Micah Jenkins' brigade into the division. Due to Jenkins having an earlier date of rank, Jenkins took the division, which was Longstreet's desired result. This created absolute hatred between Law and Longstreet that would ultimately lead to Law being arrested and court martialed.

TLDR: Seniority means something. Rotating corps commanders does not fit the context of the time period. I'm a huge believer in live and let live. You can...and should...play however gives you the most enjoyment. But, please, don't try to justify your play style to the rest of us as historically appropriate, because it most certainly is not.

A superb +1

As with any game to each his own and whatever floats your boat. However rotating commanders in this manner is not merely out of context with this time period - its out of context with any time period. Yet Gray is right in that the game allows it.

Happy gaming whatever your style

[Gray Fox]

Again, the rule does not pertain to my actual military units being inactive. When a leader is inactive for whatever reason, you can do something about it or not. Some of you just decided that the units were the intent of the rule. I would challenge you to support this view with actual documentation from the game to clarify your position. Until then, the rule affects leaders, who can be replaced. The historical record is that leaders were replaced. I won't make the AI better if I teach myself to do things poorly. No rule makes the player inactive.

P.S. To change the game to actually perform to your interpretation, then a game mechanic would randomly choose stack X in region Y to be inactive, no matter what, for the given turn.

[Mickey3D]

In real life you can do something against the inactivity of your leader after you establish it. In the game you know in advance, at the beginning of the turn, that your leader will not act as expected which is a little bit of prescience.

I will definitively test the hidden activation option in a future game, it should bring more uncertainty and some of the actual frustration felt by historical leaders.

[H Gilmer3]

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 whole-heartedly agree with what Gray Fox said here. What if the general is sick? A famous situation comes to mind. Ray Spruance took over for Halsey when he was sick, right before Midway. After Halsey became better he regained his command, if I recall correctly.

[Gray Fox]

Each turn, I know what the weather is going to be like for the next 15 days across the entire U.S., its territories and for all the ships at sea. This is an enormous amount of ahistorical prescience. So two turns ago, let's say I sent a stack to assault a region. This turn, a raging blizzard has hit that region. If I continue to move there for the assault, my unit will suffer severe casualties. If I do the smart thing and stop the attack, I might suffer excommunication for doing something gamey, wrong, etc. Of course, the game provides me with this information for a reason. The whole point of a strategy game is to practice making sound strategic decisions. If I don't want to make decisions, then I can play a game that is decided by a lucky dice roll. If you all now agree that the game as is does not fit your interpretation of forbidden prescience and actually requires an optional game setting to even mimic what you ordain to be the true spirit of the game, then good luck!

Gentlemen, I believe that I will continue to follow a literal understanding of the actual rules and opt out of any interpretation.