Ability of non active leaders to ....

[Hobbes]

Hi folks, I swear I have now waited at least 3 months for one of my leaders to be able to form a Division. He has a strategic rating of 2 and has not been active for 7 or 8 turns. Fair enough - it's the luck of the dice but I'm sure
he should still be able to form a Division. How does this reflect reality?
If your superior officer tells you that you are now a Division commander surely you would be able to form a Division?

I'm not sure why the inactive rule has been extended. I can understand that it is used to reflect cautious or defensive commanders - that was it's original idea and I think it works fairly well - but why can't I form a Division? I think this was mentioned in another post recently. Also why can't an inactive commander use the evade option?

Any other options that you know that cannot be used by an inactive commander?

The fact that evade can be used by units without a commander at all
but not by a stack with an inactive commander just seems plain daft to me
and can result in odd stack micomanagement.

Talking of odd micromanagement I won't yet go into the weirdness of moving Divisions from Corps to Corps because one Corps commander has gone inactive on the eve of a battle (also mentioned in a thread elsewhere I think)
I thought that maybe it should be impossible to remove Divisions from inactive commander stacks but then other odd play styles may result such as moving lone Divisions into areas before deciding which Corps stack to join before battle. How to prevent gamey play?

Cheers, Chris

[Bodders]

Hehe, I've been worried that it's bugged the other way round!

I had McDowell as army commander in the army of Northeast Virginia with McLellan as corps commander and then swapped that around. They were both able to activate four turns in a row, which is mostly 1s or 0s as strategic rating

Meanwhile the '3' rated Wallace on the west could do nothing. Them's the breaks I guess

I do agree that forming a division should be possible regardless and also there should be some kind of penalty for removing a division from a corps. Maybe the division leader should get the 'newly formed' negative?

[Jagger]

In real life, a change in leadership results in mistakes, misunderstandings and general friction until the new leader and the organization learn to work together.

So one approach would have the effectiveness of a unit increase the longer a unit serves with a division or corps. If moved to another organization, it loses effectiveness and must start relearning how to work with a new commander.

Programming that sort of friction might not be easy to do though.

[Rafiki]

Perhaps inactive leaders should be able to form divisiojns, but should suffer the ratings penalization until they are activated?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Sheytan]

I had grant remain inactive for 3 turns poised outside tennessee capitol? sp (sorry if im mangling the spelling of names here)course I was outraged he decided to take a vacation at this time :} he was under the knucklehead that starts in cinci and I had them fairly seperated. I am wondering if bieng a corp of a army and bieng very far away from the army commander IE outside his influence range, has a negative impact on strategic initative? Perhaps this is why Grant, the drunken sod, decided to cool his heels there for 6 weeks?