Commanding generals and supporting units?

[BairStrokes]

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?

[Durk]

It depends upon what you want to do with an Army. If just coordinate, sure this is fine. But an army's real strength is in supporting corps in battle, which your theoretical army could not do. So build it up to about the same strength as a corps in infantry, cavalry and artillery.
And welcome to the forum.

[pgr]

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?

As an aside, just putting support units with an army commander would be a waste, because the bonus they give goes only to the stack they are in, and no combat units would benefit.

If memory serves, an army leader by himself does not get pulled into the battle as CiC.

Army stacks are treated a bit differently than corps stacks. They have a bit higher MTSG chance and the enemy attacks any other stack (even one with just support units) before the Army stack.

So if you have a loaded up Army stack and a little corps in the same reagion, the enemy engages, and mauls the little stack pretty good in round 1 before the Army stack gets involved in round 2.

So unless you are having it operate alone, treat it as a reserve stack (with minimal arty compared to corps). The place for the "Old Guard" to be held back until later in a battle or for battle damaged units to be sheltered.