AGEOD Forums

I have recently come to wonder whether it isn't a rather unhistoric fact that we know beforehand which general will activate and which won't. We may be bothered by generals sitting idle for turns, but we can adjust for that as best as we can by using others that activate. We don't experience real problems because generals just fail to do what they were ordered to. We know in advance there is no use ordering them if they won't activate so we don't.

Wouldn't it be way more realistic if activation would be determined at the start of the turn resolution? All generals would be available for receiving orders, but we would never know which ones would be actually carried out. Corps would fail to advance, leaving neighbouring stacks in the lurch; gaps would open in the line because someone would not move to fill them in spite of orders; all kind of things would happen that would have happened in real war if someone did not act on his orders, but hardly ever happen in the game. In reality, commanders would receive their orders, even acknowledge them, but then fail to move. In the game as it is, they are just not available for (offensive) orders and that's that.

Just my two (Euro-)cents.

On a more tactical scale I would agree, but on a strategic scale, not so much.

Actually it was like that in an early BOA prototype. And it was very frustrating. So for the sake of gameplay and fun (yes, it is a consideration as this is a game!), we reversed the order.

Pocus wrote:And it was very frustrating.

I would think so! Maybe I have a masochistic strain ... or maybe being a historian sometimes gets the better of me.

deleted

Could lead too to strange results, ie a General unactive being heavily penalized, a move in enemy region could lead to rout when in reality a General receiving an order to attack will move just a bit before stopping on the firt occasion with any pretext....or not move at all. So we would need here a real mechanism limiting movement for unactive general.

Only if I can have a General shot for failure to carry out an order?

Maybe a second check at beginning of resolution phase with chances of going inactive being 25% than normal.

You give him the order to move, but ...will he really carry it out? That's the nice thing

Gray_Lensman wrote:Is it possible to make an option for choosing which way it works?

Possible definitively, but I believe it would ask for some work, and I don't see that as a top priority!

While we're at it, what does the "General X issued contradictory orders and reverted to defensive posture" message do / represent?

Heldenkaiser wrote:While we're at it, what does the "General X issued contradictory orders and reverted to defensive posture" message do / represent?

In defence of the current system: how historical is it for generals to go: 'Hmmmmm my direct orders are to hold fast and wait for reinforcements, I think I'll move my entire army deeper into enemy territory two provinces.'

The only guy who I know of that did that was either Erwin Rommel or Hans Guderian during WW2 (in a sneaky way).

MarkCSA wrote:In defence of the current system: how historical is it for generals to go: 'Hmmmmm my direct orders are to hold fast and wait for reinforcements, I think I'll move my entire army deeper into enemy territory two provinces.'

The only guy who I know of that did that was either Erwin Rommel or Hans Guderian during WW2 (in a sneaky way).

What about Patton?

Grant prior to Vicksburg? Sheridan at Chattanooga? Nearly the entire second confederate advance into MD/PA?

Not a comprehensive list of course, but more applicable to the game we're all playing.

Nearly every Reb general there ever was ticked that way ...

But how is this related to the activation question?