Commanding generals and supporting units

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

Just a quick question: Does the commanding general of an army actually need infantry and/or cavalry units (not including corps associated with said army) under their direct command, or is a headquarters staff, engineers, medics, etc, sufficient? Or would leaving the commanding general alone with just a few supporting units result in the general and his crew being blown into smithereens?

[Pocus]

I'm not actually too sure about the meaning of the question ... Depending of the battle intensity, how can it be possible that support units and medics and such like be enough to fight the battle?

[Citizen X]

If he got no combat units with him, he won't need support. Support in battle terms would include artillery though. So your question is unclear.

[Durk]

I think the answer is yes, absolutely. The purpose of an army is to support corps; however, if you just wish the army to coordinate corps and not add the army and leader values, you can, but then you sacrifice the leader ratings of the army commander. This is even true of McClean's excellent defense bonus.

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

My apologies, I should have clearer.
I meant in terms of those units 'travelling' in the same stack as the commanding general. Does he (and headquarters staff, medics, engineers) require infantry/cavalry/artillery as protection against enemy attack? And if devoid of those units, will he still exercise effective command over a battle and still be relatively protected from enemy attack by corps under his command?

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

I think the answer is yes, absolutely. The purpose of an army is to support corps; however, if you just wish the army to coordinate corps and not add the army and leader values, you can, but then you sacrifice the leader ratings of the army commander. This is even true of McClean's excellent defense bonus.

Sorry, I didn't see your reply until after I'd posted my last. Cheers!