AGEOD Forums

Putting Leaders in charge of Army command is a troublesome operation with VP and NM points to be paid for any time a senior leader is passed over.

Now, it happens player needs to transfer an Army Commander to take charge of command of a different Army: in other work two Army Leader will switch respective Army commands.
To do that an Army Leader is to be dismissed from first Army command to be moved to the Ledership of the Second Army. Although Leaders are anyway in charge of an Army command, although a different Army, the high dismission costs are to be payed for.
Note dismission costs are charged for both envolved leaders.

Guess in the example I reported, Command dismission costs should not be payed, beeing the two Commanders not fired off but just exchanging their commads.

I'm not sure I understand the problem? If you want an army commander to move his command to a different area, you just let the army HQ follow him and let his stack retain its army status? I.e. not need to dimiss anyone of two commanders are to swap areas of responsibility?

While the tool-tip says that you will pay those costs for each leader, it also says that if the commander is replaced that turn, there is no issue.

If your concern is cosmetic, ie: not having the Army of Northern Virginia dug in on the Tenn. River, you can just disolve the army when is arrives in it's new area and reform it the same turn. This should change the name to a more appropriate one. The only element I would caution you on with that point is to make sure that all of your corps commanders are within range to form their corps again. They should maintain the bonuses/penalty they had before as long as they are reformed on the same turn.

Hope that helps.

soloswolf wrote:While the tool-tip says that you will pay those costs for each leader, it also says that if the commander is replaced that turn, there is no issue.

If your concern is cosmetic, ie: not having the Army of Northern Virginia dug in on the Tenn. River, you can just disolve the army when is arrives in it's new area and reform it the same turn. This should change the name to a more appropriate one. The only element I would caution you on with that point is to make sure that all of your corps commanders are within range to form their corps again. They should maintain the bonuses/penalty they had before as long as they are reformed on the same turn.

Hope that helps.

I thank you for the cosmetic suggestion: I'll try it!

As regard question I was reporting is a bit more complex.
Let say we have a first Army in Texas, lead by U. Grant.
A second Army is in Virginia, lead by McClain.

In one turn, by Quick Redeployement Special Command, I should like to move U. Grant to the Virginia Army & McClain to Texas Army. that without having to pay for descharging any General.

Seems strange that it is giving you any penalty, let alone one for each... I can see that it may give you a ding for one, just because there will be a seniority dip, but the other ought to be fine. Huh. Sorry I can't be more help.

Are you sure you are getting hit for both?

If I move McCellan from Cinncinnati to Fairfax, VA and then try give the command of the AoP to him instead of Fatso, how does that affect the HQ unit? apy:

soloswolf wrote:While the tool-tip says that you will pay those costs for each leader, it also says that if the commander is replaced that turn, there is no issue.

If your concern is cosmetic, ie: not having the Army of Northern Virginia dug in on the Tenn. River, you can just disolve the army when is arrives in it's new area and reform it the same turn. This should change the name to a more appropriate one. The only element I would caution you on with that point is to make sure that all of your corps commanders are within range to form their corps again. They should maintain the bonuses/penalty they had before as long as they are reformed on the same turn.

Hope that helps.

I tried your cosmetic suggestion, dismissing & reforming Army in same game turn: I noticed you are charged for the Army LEADER dismission cost anyway: VPs and MPs.
Guess the cosmetic outcome is not worth the VPs and MPs penalty.

tagwyn wrote:instead of Fatso

Le Ricain - If you're reading this, I think its time for an addition to the Union leaders nicknames thread.

jastaV wrote:I tried your cosmetic suggestion, dismissing & reforming Army in same game turn: I noticed you are charged for the Army LEADER dismission cost anyway: VPs and MPs.
Guess the cosmetic outcome is not worth the VPs and MPs penalty.

You really shouldn't. It sounds like you are having some real issues with this feature.