Chain of command not clear

[theone1]

How do you know which Armee-Korps is subordinate to which Armee?

[Tamas]

How do you know which Armee-Korps is subordinate to which Armee?

Actually, corps if not stacked with an army are pretty much independent, so this is something you don't have to be worried about.

[turska]

A bit similar thing. If i have a general with 3-1-1 stats and i make corps commander out of him and then his stats go down to 1-0-0?

[caranorn]

A bit similar thing. If i have a general with 3-1-1 stats and i make corps commander out of him and then his stats go down to 1-0-0?

That's just for that turn, next turn stats will recover to their original...

[fred zeppelin]

Actually, corps if not stacked with an army are pretty much independent, so this is something you don't have to be worried about.

I've been wondering about this too. For example, XII Corps was historically part of the German 3rd Army. Here, it starts next to 3rd Army but apparently is independent. I assume that means it ultimately can move pretty much anywhere and operate completely independent of 3rd Army? Is that correct?

What is the rationale for having so many independent Corps? Shouldn't they be in some way tied to a specific army? Seems to make the whole command and control system a bit more of a free-for-all than likely was the case historically.

Or am I missing something? Thanks.

[Revan]

+1 for the OP, and an other +1 for Fred Zepplin. having some army HQ and a lot of independent corps around leads to the feeling that the battleground is a complete mess.

It may be somewhat ridiculous but i love to have clear command chains and have clearly defind armies, each one having a part of the front to take care off.

[gekkoguy82]

So corps here do not behave in a similar fashion to ACW and CW2 then? As in, corps from the Civil War/RoP/RUS games can be several provinces away but still a part of their parent formation, whereas here they're only actually attached to the army they're physically stacked with?

[DrPostman]

So corps here do not behave in a similar fashion to ACW and CW2 then? As in, corps from the Civil War/RoP/RUS games can be several provinces away but still a part of their parent formation, whereas here they're only actually attached to the army they're physically stacked with?

Or near to.

[caranorn]

Acctually this game uses exactly the same system just on a different scale. Fred Zeppelin's proposal for instance would require changeing the system...

In ACW/CW2 you have corps tied to army and a special unit type division. In ROP you have corps/column tied to army and a special unit type brigade. In EAW you have GHQ tied to army and a special unit type corps. The only thing new there is that any force led by a 2 or 3-star can march to the sound of the guns...

Of course it would be nice to rework the chain of command, that is to create an actual one. But that would be a major undertaking...

[Highlandcharge]

I like the command system, different armies and corps no matter what army they where in can support each other...

If you want a corps or 2 assigned to a defined bit of front, set them to defend with normal stance and to evade combat, that means if the commanding general is activated they will not MTSG but will defend there region if attacked directly, that way you don't get them marching and losing there trench/defensive bonus if the main battle is lost...

[Taciturn Scot]

Ace posted this in the 'first impressions' thread a few days ago

All stacks commanded by ** generals will MTSG (They are Corps attached to nearest Army without the trouble of manually attaching anything)

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?36840-To-End-All-Wars-First-Impressions&p=324254&viewfull=1#post324254

It seems it's designed this way to relieve the player of too much micromanagement. In a game this massive in scope, that's probably not a bad thing

[Kensai]

In a nutshell:

• Use the Theater filter on the map to study the various land theaters.
• Decide on the Theater you're going to have major action and set or move the GHQ there. The GHQ can be an army on its own, it has a lot of CP itself.
• Set/move Armies that are attached to the GHQ and are within the borders of the Theater. This way they will get the GHQ's 3-star advantage and since in chain of command will have almost double CP.
• Have Corps in the same region as Armies/GHQ. Although not strictly subordinate, Corps (under 2-star Generals) will move in synchrony and march-to-the-sound-of-guns when necessary.
• Do not worry too much about the chain of command, it can make the difference only if all other parameters are at maximum efficiency. Most players I see losing do so because they don't understand basic AGEOD battle characteristics such as when to give battle: weather, terrain, activation, artillery initiative, CP penalties, etc.

[fred zeppelin]

Acctually this game uses exactly the same system just on a different scale. Fred Zeppelin's proposal for instance would require changeing the system...

In ACW/CW2 you have corps tied to army and a special unit type division. In ROP you have corps/column tied to army and a special unit type brigade. In EAW you have GHQ tied to army and a special unit type corps. The only thing new there is that any force led by a 2 or 3-star can march to the sound of the guns...

Of course it would be nice to rework the chain of command, that is to create an actual one. But that would be a major undertaking...

I think I'm proposing the same thing as in other AGEOD games - that Corps generally be tied to an Army. Here, half the units on the map have no chain of command at all as best I can tell. I don't think that's how the other games work. And I wonder if that could have something to do with why some folks are seeing the AI send units all over the place - they're not tied to a command structure.

[Kensai]

If Armies were the new GHQs and Corps the Armies, we would literally be filled with chains of command. What's the point? Germany instead of two would have at least 8 (up to 10 till the end of war, possibly more). Not even RUS had so many.

The AI sending units all over the place has to do with the AI Agents of the historical plans. These will probably be deactivated after the initial months and Corps shall behave normally. It has nothing to do with their chain of command as long as it is in the same theater.

Τhe only thing I could wish is to have the 3-star Army Leaders who are in the GHQ chain of command give their leader* advantage to the Corps that fight with them (same region or march-to-the-sound-of-gun) if active. Don't know if this is technically possible without a major change to the engine.


*you may have noticed that the 3-star Generals (and Admirals) have an extra Theater-wide ability when active; this ability is the one I'm talking about

[Taciturn Scot]

I think I'm proposing the same thing as in other AGEOD games

I'm not by any means an expert but it seems to me that the command structure in AGEOD's stable of games varies from one title to another. AJE has a very different command system from ROP and PON is different from RUS.

I think the reason for this somewhat freer command structure is to simplify things for the player. This is probably the largest game (not map) in the AGEOD series. The number of units we have to handle is amazing and so they might have thought this was better than having to create and co-ordinate complex chains of command. Imagine the fun we'd have if players had to first create a viable chain of command at the start of a campaign and then ensure that XII Armeekorps stayed withing one or two regions from the Army it was attached to while invading Russia or Belgium.

And I wonder if that could have something to do with why some folks are seeing the AI send units all over the place - they're not tied to a command structure.

I couldn't possibly commenbt whether that is true or not. However, changing the command structure would be a pretty hefty change to the game's code.

[Bismarck1940]

Kensai: How will solving the agent issue address the widely-reported problems of the CP not being aggressive *enough* in the West? E.g., never taking Liege or Namur no matter what the settings and not advancing into NW France? We seem to have three recurring problems:

1. CP passivity in BE/NW France opening few months.
2. Formation of mega-stacks without regard to Command Point penalties or front lines.
3. Use of said stacks to sit and defend objectives deep behind lines.

Like Bob, I've had the Germans (when I play the EE) sit back and defend Breslau; the Austrians behave rather well, however. So there is hope. ;-)

Yes, next time I will post the saved game.