AI sticks Unlocked units in Locked Stacks

[McNaughton]

As of 1.07e I still see the AI placing unlocked units (those recently built, those recently moved, those which would unlock in a few turns, etc.) into permanently locked commands. I fear that these units stay in these locked commands, and thereby the AI is constantly trapping a good proportion of their forces every game (meaning their field armies are weaker than they should be).

[GShock]

Yes i've seen that too in Maryland in my Campaign thanks to my sneaky Smith's Cav DIV (the sappers and saboteurs i send from Harper's Ferry to Maryland).

I am also concerned about AI not detaching an inactive leader to assault a 1mil-garrisoned town with a 20 unit stack.

The fact the player can do this (detach inactive leader -> assault with independent force) and the AI can't, gives an unfair adv over the AI.

[denisonh]

There is a fix for that:

Any combat in a region automatically falls under command of the senior commander inf outside the corps/Army command construct. If the combat is offensive and the leader not activated, then the command orders would revert to defense and combat would not take place.

The idea that a leader can be detached, the command perform an offensive action, then reattach the next turn and continue makes no sense. If the detachment results in forces going to different places, then fine. But not allowing this "exploit" would help the AI and better represent the problems of command outside the Army/Corps organized command structure.

Yes i've seen that too in Maryland in my Campaign thanks to my sneaky Smith's Cav DIV (the sappers and saboteurs i send from Harper's Ferry to Maryland).

I am also concerned about AI not detaching an inactive leader to assault a 1mil-garrisoned town with a 20 unit stack.

The fact the player can do this (detach inactive leader -> assault with independent force) and the AI can't, gives an unfair adv over the AI.

[Rafiki]

Perhaps any commander suddenly finding himself in command of a stack, when previously in a stack commanded by someone else, should become inactive, due to the confusion that surely must arise when suddenly being independent?

Alternatively, this should only happen if the original stack commander was inactive, i.e. not able to "launch" the new stack properly.

[GShock]

Yes rafiki, when switching leaders, the new leader should always become inactive when taking command of the new stack regardless of the stance being in place for that stack prior to his going in charge.

I guess though this woulnd't be easy to build in AACW because there's no real priority in determining who's the leader when no leader is present (i.e. inf bde being leader). Ur point would do and i guess would be easy for a leader-leader swap...but independent forces have no "leader"...

[denisonh]

I am not sure about that.

If a subordinate leader is tasked to take a mission and the commander departs, I would believe that the current leader activation combined with the "out of command" penatlies would be sufficient to represent the command and control issues. It would be the newly arrived leader that may cause some problems, but even then, an active and aggressive commander would still move forward with offensive operations.

It is just that if the senior leader in the location is colocated and not moving as a way to circumvent his inactivation, then a restriction needs to be in place to prevent this situation.

[Rafiki]

The motivation behind my suggestion was to elimante any unfair advantage a human player might enjoy over the AI (in a (fairly) simple way). I'll be the first to admit that any "real life" explanation for it will become a slight stretch of things.

[denisonh]

I think it best to stay with simple constructs that also are explainable.

I think it would become a little difficult to manage from a player and programming persective to be changing activation and non activation.

I think that a player who leaves a senior commander "detached" in a region while a separate force executes and offensive operation is knowingly bypassing a mechanism that represents the command and control aspect of the game. Make that senior commander be in charge during resolution of the combat and if unactivated the corresponding suspension of offensive operations takes place.

If you "recall" that senior commander to a different location, you can execute that action, but the detached stack is an independent command with the requisite penalties.

Keep in mind, these are primarily for situations outside the Army/Corps construct and implementing this as a change would reiterate the importance of having that command relationship as opposed to working in adhoc formations.

Simple and realistic.

The motivation behind my suggestion was to elimante any unfair advantage a human player might enjoy over the AI (in a (fairly) simple way). I'll be the first to admit that any "real life" explanation for it will become a slight stretch of things.

[McNaughton]

Ok, while one is an enhancement (the general attachment issue) the other is what I see as a major bug (units forever locked away).

I don't want this issue to be buried by another discussion. Players using the general system to its fullest is one thing, but the AI losing a good number of its forces due to attachment issues is substantially greater.

Sure, the AI would do better if it deployed its commanders the way that is discussed, but, I think in the end the loss of whole units for the entire length of the game is a much more important issue.

[Pocus]

The AI do check for the potential issue you speak about.