Invincible army stacks.

[Merlin]

I'm putting this to the rest of the forum since it seems to have gotten very little attention. Post 15 and beyond is what proves my point.

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?38161-Possible-bug-Army-MTSG-and-no-casualties

I'd like additional corroboration for what I've found.

[Pocus]

The army stack did fight, it was not targeted by the enemy though, unless there was an overwhelming number of enemies. This is somehow irealistic indeed, as in real life it should have probably taken losses, but this is a protection mechanism for the army stack. The game will engage it against an enemy already in combat with one of your force. It can be attacked only if an enemy stack is not committed and you have no other stack available.

[Merlin]

The problem is the army stacks won't engage until they happen to be the last man standing unless there are no subordinate corps in or within one region. That's fine out west or in places like Louisiana where an army is likely to operate by itself, but causes problems elsewhere.

The Union gets enough generic 2 stars to be able to afford leaving the army stack empty or with no more than one division. They generally become artillery parks for heavy batteries. The Confederacy, with its often limited 2 star pool, has a much more difficult time dealing with this. Often, CSA army stacks will have as many as four divisions, all of which contribute nothing to a fight because subordinate corps get savaged and then the army stack bails out because the odds are bad. It's less of a problem when attacking while relying on subordinate corps to MTSG, but as I was able to demonstrate in the other thread, I generated three defensive battles in as many attempts where the army stack contributed nothing or almost nothing to the fight.

I think army stacks need to fight just like their corps. Most players are already inclined to use them like corps, so keeping them as a protected unit just cuts out forces which would otherwise better contribute to a fight and creates wonky results which most players won't understand. The problem compounds as well when there are multi-turn series of battles involving damaged corps. It's possible to nearly destroy corps over several turns while the army stack remains relatively inactive/untouched, especially if the corps are in different regions and there is no real way to exchange divisions between them.

[Pocus]

They engage, as corps, but they are not fired on unless there is no other stack available, to sum up and simplify. So they participate and the enemy is not deprived of any target, it is just that they have the lower priority in target assignment.

[Gray Fox]

I believe that the frontage may be to blame. The frontage numbers for CW2 seem much smaller than for AACW. If you switch on the terrain map filter you can check this. Click a combat stack, then cursor over the region you plan to fight in. You'll get the exact numbers of combat elements and support elements that can actually fight. If you have different stacks in one battle, then of course only the highest numbers count, not the total. So the biggest numbers I'm getting in my battles are like combat elements 60-70 and support 7-20 depending on the terrain. In AACW, this was more like 200 and 24 with Lee or Grant. Thus one corps gets targeted and then mauled. It retreats and everyone else joins in the retreat without ever having fought. Even set to HAAC, after you suffer 20% casualties, you auto-retreat. It should state if a force auto-retreated in the battle log.

[Merlin]

They engage, as corps, but they are not fired on unless there is no other stack available, to sum up and simplify. So they participate and the enemy is not deprived of any target, it is just that they have the lower priority in target assignment.

I understand, so perhaps it is I who is not making my point with sufficient clarity. I think the selection of a corps stack over an army stack during combat is too heavily skewed toward the corps. It's incredibly difficult to get an army committed to meaningful combat when subordinate corps are involved.

I believe that the frontage may be to blame. The frontage numbers for CW2 seem much smaller than for AACW. If you switch on the terrain map filter you can check this. Click a combat stack, then cursor over the region you plan to fight in. You'll get the exact numbers of combat elements and support elements that can actually fight. If you have different stacks in one battle, then of course only the highest numbers count, not the total. So the biggest numbers I'm getting in my battles are like combat elements 60-70 and support 7-20 depending on the terrain. In AACW, this was more like 200 and 24 with Lee or Grant. Thus one corps gets targeted and then mauled. It retreats and everyone else joins in the retreat without ever having fought. Even set to HAAC, after you suffer 20% casualties, you auto-retreat. It should state if a force auto-retreated in the battle log.

The message isn't explicit, but is there. You see a message stating a force retreated hastily or some such thing, and that always, at least in my experience, compares positively with forces which were trashed and routed off the field.

[charlesonmission]

They engage, as corps, but they are not fired on unless there is no other stack available, to sum up and simplify. So they participate and the enemy is not deprived of any target, it is just that they have the lower priority in target assignment.

Pocus, can you confirm the Army stack fires on the enemy before they are attacked?

[Gray Fox]

It may also depend on what is in the Army stack. A stack with a cavalry Division and some loose artillery would not be the same priority threat as a stack with five infantry Divisions. I'll check if I have any battle logs to confirm this suspicion.

[Merlin]

It may also depend on what is in the Army stack. A stack with a cavalry Division and some loose artillery would not be the same priority threat as a stack with five infantry Divisions. I'll check if I have any battle logs to confirm this suspicion.

It actually doesn't really seem to matter at all. If the army stack isn't alone, it never gets into the fight in a meaningful way.

Honestly, the really significant thing here is the fact that I was able to demonstrate three instances in which the army stack did little or nothing in three attempts. 100% results isn't arguing very successfully for the current state of affairs.

[Gray Fox]

On page 33 of the manual is the following passage:

"An Army HQ with combat Units in reserve will react quickly to support Corps formations but should not be viewed as a combat Stack."

So how would a quickly reacting Army HQ stack support a Corps formation in any tangible way as anything other than a combat stack?

I have no reason to doubt any of the observations you have reported. Apparently, the Army stack you have in support of a front line Corps in defense should just be another Corps stack to get any useful result. This would be a problem for a CSA player who already has fewer Corps commander types. The alternative might be to keep the Army stack and place it on the front line in defense with the Corps stack as the quickly reacting support force.

[Merlin]

Actually, for a CSA player, you need to isolate the army stack or keep it with as few divisions as possible. That's a real problem.