Forming army question

[Ghostware]

In reading the manual it says that in the army stack ( the one with the star on the tab) you don't place massive amounts of troops because it is not used as a combat stack? It says the corps are the attack stacks? Is this correct, have I been playing the wrong way? For example is this saying I would just put a " few reserve units" in General Lee's army stack and all other divisions in the corps stacks? ( for example stonewall jackson's stack)? I had been filling both stacks (Lee and stonewall Jackson)with divisions, is this wrong? What is the disadvantage of what I was doing? Also please explain the reinforcements that they recomend putting in the main army stack how do this reinforcements work, do you manually move them to other stacks as "reinforcements"? Or is there some kind of automatic feature that happens?

[RebelYell]

There are people that like to use it as an Corp stack, almost a question of taste.

I personally think it is better used as an combat stack with an supportive role that you tailor with the situation.

The Army stack is almost certain to MTSG compared to the Corps stacks, so you can count on in its support.
An elite infantry division, artillery division and an cavalry division with great leaders could be a good combination usually.

[FightingBuckeye]

Cavalry divisions tend to fare rather poorly in large pitched battles. Cavalry divisions are really great in other roles though.

As for the question, I use my army stacks as I would a corps stack. And depending on the front or leadership quality, it'll usually be one of my strongest formations as well. As RebelYell indicated, Army HQs has a much greater chance of MTSGing into a battle and also has a greater chance of other formations marching to its aid.

http://www.ageod.net/aacwwiki/March_to_the_sound_of_the_guns

The base chance of joining the battle is 100%. This probability is modified by the following factors[1]:
-10% for each day of marching (all normal factors affecting the stack's movement apply)
+10% if adjacent to army HQ
+25% if the army HQ itself
+5% for each point of strategic rating of the leader
Every 5% of military control lacking gives -1% chance (both for start and end region)
-10% if in defensive posture[2]

[RebelYell]

Cavalry divisions tend to fare rather poorly in large pitched battles. Cavalry divisions are really great in other roles though.

As for the question, I use my army stacks as I would a corps stack. And depending on the front or leadership quality, it'll usually be one of my strongest formations as well. As RebelYell indicated, Army HQs has a much greater chance of MTSGing into a battle and also has a greater chance of other formations marching to its aid.

http://www.ageod.net/aacwwiki/March_to_the_sound_of_the_guns

The base chance of joining the battle is 100%. This probability is modified by the following factors[1]:
-10% for each day of marching (all normal factors affecting the stack's movement apply)
+10% if adjacent to army HQ
+25% if the army HQ itself
+5% for each point of strategic rating of the leader
Every 5% of military control lacking gives -1% chance (both for start and end region)
-10% if in defensive posture[2]

I you think the battle will be dangerous for the cavalry then separate them for independent operations or give them infantry for cover.

Cavalry use should be flexible but are also Army asssets for me and can even join the main battle.

They can be chosen as a target sometimes and get badly hit but they also do pursuit amage themselves.

Maybe the cavalry should be made more evasive to getting stuck in to a pitched battle against infantry.

[Captain_Orso]

Cavalry will only be picked to populate frontage if there are no infantry units left to populate it.

[Gray Fox]

Until the Corps formation becomes available, Army stacks are the only units that can control lots of CP's. After April '62, powerful Army stacks don't suddenly become a bad idea. The manual's advice is perhaps philosophical. If you have a line of Corps in several regions then put the Army in a region behind but adjacent to their's. The Army more likely can MTSG and "reinforce" any one of the Corps under attack.

Enemy raider elements can quickly move deep into your homeland. In addition to destroying structures and blocking supply lines, they also give your opponent "eyes on" to what you might be preparing to do. So an equally fast cavalry force can hunt then down. A cavalry brigade can outmatch a raider element, a Division a raider Brigade and a Corps a raider Division.

When I form an Infantry Division, I use a couple of the brigades that have a cavalry element included. That way a stack with these Divisions already has 8-10 cavalry elements total. I've checked battlelogs and this arrangement gets me about 10 hearts worth of pursuit damage against a retreating opponent that already suffered 90-100 hearts damage in battle. I find this acceptible. Then I use the single cavalry elements available to build independent raider or cavalry formations.

[RebelYell]

Cavalry will only be picked to populate frontage if there are no infantry units left to populate it.

It would be good if they would mainly target other cavalry elements and screen or pursuit when needed.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Edit: cross posted with Fox

The manual overstates the difference between Army and Corps stacks. There is a slight difference in behavior, but it only happens in narrow circumstances which only occasionally come into play. For the most part an Army stack behaves just like a Corps stack, and if you are in a situation in which you want an Army stack to be a main fighting stack then by all means do so. Just be careful in situations in which there is another stack in the same region (not in the structure) that might get chosen instead of the Army stack to fight the first round (but you should be avoiding split-stacks anyway, making the "support effect" irrelevant).

Forget completely the "reserve units" and the "reinforcements" stuff the manual says about Army stacks. This is a vague and misleading reference to the Army's greater chance for MTSG; Armies have no special ability to help other stacks in a fight outside of the ability bonuses they give to Corps commanders and the normal MTSG mechanism. If you are planning on an Army stack doing any fighting it should be organized the same way you would organize a Corps stack, and for the most part you should use it the same way you would use a Corps. DO NOT put just a few loose brigades into an Army stack, which is what the manual seems to imply and what Athena often does! If it MTSGs into a battle it will be totally overwhelmed when it engages with an opposing Corps, and would have been better off with nothing in the stack at all.

I often end up with fighting Army stacks, but I also end up with "dummy" Armies with nothing but the general, instead choosing to do all the fighting with the Corps. This mainly depends on the quality and special abilities of the respective stack commanders. Lee and Grant often command five and six division fighting stacks, but if my Corps commanders are better than the Army leader I will sometimes leave the Army empty and just fight with my corps (the tradeoff being slightly worse MTSG chances). As the CSA you are often short on Corps commanders so Armies tend by necessity to assume frontline combat roles.

Cavalry will only be picked to populate frontage if there are no infantry units left to populate it.

Wasn't aware that they were handled differently in the frontage, but I know for sure that cavalry will not take hits in combat until all infantry IN THEIR UNIT have taken hits. If there are only cavalry in a division, and it is chosen for combat, it will start taking expensive-to-replace cavalry hits right away. Whenever I have a primarily cav division that is about to see substantial combat, like in a corps vs. corps battle, I like to put at least 5 or 6 elements of infantry into the division with them. This minimizes the number of cav hits you take, as well as improves performance in the assault phase and gives the division better overall firepower and combat performance. I also want a cav leader (red horse-head) somewhere in the stack; they provide a MAJOR combat boost to all cav in the stack, making them only slightly worse, instead of substantially worse, than infantry. All the normal benefits that you get from cavalry like Pursuit and screening happen whether there are infantry mixed in their divisions or not.

Speaking of Pursuit, as far as I can tell the quantity of cav elements used to calculate pursuit damage is based on total cav elements in stacks that participated in the combat. It doesn't matter if the individual elements actually participate in battle or not, so long as something in their stack does. This means that the (mostly) cav division will be just as helpful in generating pursuit hits whether it is an MTSGer arriving late to the party or in the initial stack, so which stack it is in doesn't really matter as long as their stack engages in the battle.

[RebelYell]

Edit: cross posted with Fox

The manual overstates the difference between Army and Corps stacks. There is a slight difference in behavior, but it only happens in narrow circumstances which only occasionally come into play. For the most part an Army stack behaves just like a Corps stack, and if you are in a situation in which you want an Army stack to be a main fighting stack then by all means do so. Just be careful in situations in which there is another stack in the same region (not in the structure) that might get chosen instead of the Army stack to fight the first round (but you should be avoiding split-stacks anyway, making the "support effect" irrelevant).

Forget completely the "reserve units" and the "reinforcements" stuff the manual says about Army stacks. This is a vague and misleading reference to the Army's greater chance for MTSG; Armies have no special ability to help other stacks in a fight outside of the ability bonuses they give to Corps commanders and the normal MTSG mechanism. If you are planning on an Army stack doing any fighting it should be organized the same way you would organize a Corps stack, and for the most part you should use it the same way you would use a Corps. DO NOT put just a few loose brigades into an Army stack, which is what the manual seems to imply and what Athena often does! If it MTSGs into a battle it will be totally overwhelmed when it engages with an opposing Corps, and would have been better off with nothing in the stack at all.

I often end up with fighting Army stacks, but I also end up with "dummy" Armies with nothing but the general, instead choosing to do all the fighting with the Corps. This mainly depends on the quality and special abilities of the respective stack commanders. Lee and Grant often command five and six division fighting stacks, but if my Corps commanders are better than the Army leader I will sometimes leave the Army empty and just fight with my corps (the tradeoff being slightly worse MTSG chances). As the CSA you are often short on Corps commanders so Armies tend by necessity to assume frontline combat roles.



Wasn't aware that they were handled differently in the frontage, but I know for sure that cavalry will not take hits in combat until all infantry IN THEIR UNIT have taken hits. If there are only cavalry in a division, and it is chosen for combat, it will start taking expensive-to-replace cavalry hits right away. Whenever I have a primarily cav division that is about to see substantial combat, like in a corps vs. corps battle, I like to put at least 5 or 6 elements of infantry into the division with them. This minimizes the number of cav hits you take, as well as improves performance in the assault phase and gives the division better overall firepower and combat performance. I also want a cav leader (red horse-head) somewhere in the stack; they provide a MAJOR combat boost to all cav in the stack, making them only slightly worse, instead of substantially worse, than infantry. All the normal benefits that you get from cavalry like Pursuit and screening happen whether there are infantry mixed in their divisions or not.

Speaking of Pursuit, as far as I can tell the quantity of cav elements used to calculate pursuit damage is based on total cav elements in stacks that participated in the combat. It doesn't matter if the individual elements actually participate in battle or not, so long as something in their stack does. This means that the (mostly) cav division will be just as helpful in generating pursuit hits whether it is an MTSGer arriving late to the party or in the initial stack, so which stack it is in doesn't really matter as long as their stack engages in the battle.

I remember reading that having different stacks of the same army in a region gives a bonus in battle?

In my set up you naturally need to always have an Corps stack in the same region with the Army stack.

[ArmChairGeneral]

I remember reading that having different stacks of the same army in a region gives a bonus in battle?

In my set up you naturally need to always have an Corps stack in the same region with the Army stack.

Not sure what you could be referring to. Any idea where you might have read about it and what the bonus is?

I would love to see a screenshot or something of your set-up, I am definitely interested in how people set up their Armies/Corps and why, as I could always use a new trick or two!

[seathom]

In the CW2 manual, under Chain of Command Section - Corps - it states the bonuses of having a corps within range of its GHQ. One of the bonuses is "Combat bonuses when several Corps are fighting together (they will help each other more efficiently during a fight)." Exactly how much of a bonus, it doesn't state!

[Captain_Orso]

In the CW2 manual, under Chain of Command Section - Corps - it states the bonuses of having a corps within range of its GHQ. One of the bonuses is "Combat bonuses when several Corps are fighting together (they will help each other more efficiently during a fight)." Exactly how much of a bonus, it doesn't state!

The "Bonus" may simply be that corps of the same army have a much greater chance of fighting together.

--

BTW

The most important thing you will have to understand about how Army Stacks differ from Corps Stacks, is that an Army Stack in a region with any other stack of any size or composition will alway force the other stack to be selected for combat before the army stack. A single unit stack simply passing through the regions of an Army Stack that is entered by an enemy Stack will be picked to fight first. Only if it has survived the first round(s) of battle, can the Army Stack be called to joint in. I've lost expensive units this way, before I realized how dangerous using an Army Stack as a Corps Stack can be, and that's not fun.

[ArmChairGeneral]

If that is coming from the manual, I would bet it is referring to MTSG behavior, and if they are in the same region they would then have a pretty high chance of MTSG, since there is no malus for distance. The section dealing with Army and Corps usage is one of the least trustworthy parts of the manual, IMO: not quite WRONG, but like Fox said, more philosophical than rules driven.

Orso hits it on the head with the most succinct and accurate description of the mysterious Army "support effect" that I have seen yet.

The same logic applies to having multiple stacks in the region of any type, and is why I recommended in a post further up not to have multiple stacks in the same region no matter what type they are: a stack in Offensive posture can only target one opposing stack, so if you are being attacked, your second stack cannot join the fight until the second round, and then only if the first stack is losing. The Army stack will join on the second round even if the first stack is NOT losing but it cannot be targeted by enemy stacks unless all other stacks have already been targeted (i.e. the enemy has multiple stacks too). Either way, it is best if you have everything in one stack so that a too-small stack does not get overrun in the first round, and so that you have the bulk of your troops available to fight in the first (money) round during which many more shots are fired than in the later rounds. Anyone who has ever tried finessing inactive generals into attacking by splitting off a smaller stack under an active leader set to Offensive posture in hopes of triggering a battle that the inactive stack can then join has probably witnessed firsthand the bad things that can happen with multiple stacks.

If you have multiple maxed out Corps or Armies, then multiple stacks usually won't give you any problems: each of them should be large enough to fight for a round on their own against any stack the enemy can throw at them.

(Minutiae: stacks without any combat units are never targeted by enemies, so it is perfectly safe to have a "dummy" Army in the same region as another stack, but if it has support units in it and the other stack withdraws or is destroyed, the support units become vulnerable to capture.)

[Captain_Orso]

If that is coming from the manual, I would bet it is referring to MTSG behavior, and if they are in the same region they would then have a pretty high chance of MTSG, since there is no malus for distance. The section dealing with Army and Corps usage is one of the least trustworthy parts of the manual, IMO: not quite WRONG, but like Fox said, more philosophical than rules driven.

MTSG is only for Corps/Army Stack in adjacent regions. If stacks are in the same region the commitment rules apply.

Orso hits it on the head with the most succinct and accurate description of the mysterious Army "support effect" that I have seen yet.

The same logic applies to having multiple stacks in the region of any type, and is why I recommended in a post further up not to have multiple stacks in the same region no matter what type they are: a stack in Offensive posture can only target one opposing stack, so if you are being attacked, your second stack cannot join the fight until the second round, and then only if the first stack is losing.

The description of how stacks commit against each other is a bit lacking, but one defending stack can easily be targeted by more than one attacking stack. A targeted stack has to have more than 150% more line elements attacking it than it has before it is not considered for targeting again. I cannot remember ever seeing multiple battles at the same time in the same region, so there is some undocumented--as far as my knowledge goes--rule with is lumping the battles together.

The Army stack will join on the second round even if the first stack is NOT losing but it cannot be targeted by enemy stacks unless all other stacks have already been targeted (i.e. the enemy has multiple stacks too). Either way, it is best if you have everything in one stack so that a too-small stack does not get overrun in the first round, and so that you have the bulk of your troops available to fight in the first (money) round during which many more shots are fired than in the later rounds. Anyone who has ever tried finessing inactive generals into attacking by splitting off a smaller stack under an active leader set to Offensive posture in hopes of triggering a battle that the inactive stack can then join has probably witnessed firsthand the bad things that can happen with multiple stacks.

It depends on the frontage really and the total number of elements fighting on each side. Consider a region with 2 US and 2 CS corps stacks. It can easily occur that the two Union corps stacks target 1 CS corps stack. If the first CS corps stack can easily fill the frontage for the first couple of rounds of battle, then the second CS corps stack has lots of time to come to the support of the 1st CS corps stack without anything bad happening because of this.

If you have multiple maxed out Corps or Armies, then multiple stacks usually won't give you any problems: each of them should be large enough to fight for a round on their own against any stack the enemy can throw at them.

(Minutiae: stacks without any combat units are never targeted by enemies, so it is perfectly safe to have a "dummy" Army in the same region as another stack, but if it has support units in it and the other stack withdraws or is destroyed, the support units become vulnerable to capture.)

You must have never had a supply unit get smacked while arriving in a region where battle a is going to take place. I've lost enough of these like this to know that they are being targeted.

[ArmChairGeneral]

The situations that arise with multiple stacks are tricky and have a lot of edge cases for sure. When I switched to concentrating stacks as my rule of thumb, most of the weird results (shocking losses that should have been easy wins) quit happening. There are definitely ways to finesse it, but having multiple stacks in the same region is very risky if you miscalculate.

You must have never had a supply unit get smacked while arriving in a region where battle a is going to take place. I've lost enough of these like this to know that they are being targeted.

Yeah, definitely had that happen, I avoid "naked" support stacks if at all possible. I always figured it was because its posture caused my wagon to try to start a battle rather than the other way around, but I can see how it could have been the commitment rules that caused it instead.

Usually if I have a dummy Army, it just has the general, no wagons or anything else that could either get captured or might trigger a battle. I can't say for sure that a lone general would NEVER get targeted, but I haven't seen it happen.

Question: lets say I have two maxed out Corps defending in a region, and an enemy stack move in and targets one of them, when the second stack joins the battle on the second round (assuming that it does) does the second stack get to apply its entrenchments, or do they lose them like with MTSG?

[ArmChairGeneral]

It depends on the frontage really and the total number of elements fighting on each side. Consider a region with 2 US and 2 CS corps stacks. It can easily occur that the two Union corps stacks target 1 CS corps stack. If the first CS corps stack can easily fill the frontage for the first couple of rounds of battle, then the second CS corps stack has lots of time to come to the support of the 1st CS corps stack without anything bad happening because of this.

Another follow-up question:
In this scenario, for the purposes of a withdrawal check does he compare only his stack, or does he consider the size of the friendly stack in the region as part of his calculation on whether he is outnumbered enough to need to withdraw?

[RebelYell]

Question: lets say I have two maxed out Corps defending in a region, and an enemy stack move in and targets one of them, when the second stack joins the battle on the second round (assuming that it does) does the second stack get to apply its entrenchments, or do they lose them like with MTSG?

My understanding is that they are all entrenched.

[FightingBuckeye]

Cavalry will only be picked to populate frontage if there are no infantry units left to populate it.

I stand by my statement, please refer to the mix he suggested of a single division each of infantry, cavalry, and artillery. In most cases a single infantry division is not going to be able to provide the meatwall needed to protect the cavalry division and artillery division. Either the terrain/frontage will force that cavalry division to the frontlines or in the case of multiple battles the single infantry division will be beat up/destroyed and then the cavalry division will be mauled in turn. Maybe out somewhere in Missouri/Arkansas that mix would be acceptable due to the terrain limitations, lack of civilization to open up frontages in battle, and the lack of numbers/quality of forces. But that mix is just asking for trouble in Virginia or Kentucky/Tennessee, even as a reserve force.

[RebelYell]

I stand by my statement, please refer to the mix he suggested of a single division each of infantry, cavalry, and artillery. In most cases a single infantry division is not going to be able to provide the meatwall needed to protect the cavalry division and artillery division. Either the terrain/frontage will force that cavalry division to the frontlines or in the case of multiple battles the single infantry division will be beat up/destroyed and then the cavalry division will be mauled in turn. Maybe out somewhere in Missouri/Arkansas that mix would be acceptable due to the terrain limitations, lack of civilization to open up frontages in battle, and the lack of numbers/quality of forces. But that mix is just asking for trouble in Virginia or Kentucky/Tennessee, even as a reserve force.

If Longstreet and Jackson are both commanding a 4-5 division corps and Lee has a division, cavalry and the artillery in reserve, it is not very likely that will happen.

[Captain_Orso]

The situations that arise with multiple stacks are tricky and have a lot of edge cases for sure. When I switched to concentrating stacks as my rule of thumb, most of the weird results (shocking losses that should have been easy wins) quit happening. There are definitely ways to finesse it, but having multiple stacks in the same region is very risky if you miscalculate.

It's unfortunate that the debugging log doesn't clearly represent the comment phase before battle. I think it would shine some light on what is happening. What it will not do is give the player any more control over what is happening, but as you have said, it would give the player the information to make decision he can make.

Yeah, definitely had that happen, I avoid "naked" support stacks if at all possible. I always figured it was because its posture caused my wagon to try to start a battle rather than the other way around, but I can see how it could have been the commitment rules that caused it instead.

Support units, including artillery, may not initiate battle.

One of the lessons a player needs to learn is to not have stacks in positions where they need to have supply trains manually shuttled between a depot and the front. If only that were always possible

Usually if I have a dummy Army, it just has the general, no wagons or anything else that could either get captured or might trigger a battle. I can't say for sure that a lone general would NEVER get targeted, but I haven't seen it happen.

A stack with only leaders can not commit nor be committed against.

Question: lets say I have two maxed out Corps defending in a region, and an enemy stack move in and targets one of them, when the second stack joins the battle on the second round (assuming that it does) does the second stack get to apply its entrenchments, or do they lose them like with MTSG?

I see what you did there , you almost had me thinking in Reality-Argument™ mode .

Of course one might also consider that the one corps shares the entrenchments the other corps has already prepared, but if you think in Reality-Argument™'s too much you will only hurt yourself, so careful there

Another follow-up question:
In this scenario, for the purposes of a withdrawal check does he compare only his stack, or does he consider the size of the friendly stack in the region as part of his calculation on whether he is outnumbered enough to need to withdraw?

I believe all the known enemy troops in a region are considered if it comes to retreat, but probably also the friendly forces.

[Captain_Orso]

I stand by my statement, please refer to the mix he suggested of a single division each of infantry, cavalry, and artillery. In most cases a single infantry division is not going to be able to provide the meatwall needed to protect the cavalry division and artillery division. Either the terrain/frontage will force that cavalry division to the frontlines or in the case of multiple battles the single infantry division will be beat up/destroyed and then the cavalry division will be mauled in turn. Maybe out somewhere in Missouri/Arkansas that mix would be acceptable due to the terrain limitations, lack of civilization to open up frontages in battle, and the lack of numbers/quality of forces. But that mix is just asking for trouble in Virginia or Kentucky/Tennessee, even as a reserve force.

Each stack does not have its own frontage; all stacks and units share the same frontage.

Terrain cannot "force" cavalry into the frontage, but as you noted, if the present infantry is beaten down enough, cavalry will start to be included.

[FightingBuckeye]

Each stack may not have its own frontage, but there's always the possibility of that small corps getting tagged by an enemy corps. We've all probably been in situations where we've been forced to improvise due to some unexpected situation or enemy action. Counting on that corps to solely be a reserve force is not always going to happen despite the best laid plans. And I've had my cavalry divisions tagged enough that I avoid sticking them in corps where they don't have enough of a meat shield to protect them. At least where I can help it out East.

[JohnPerry]

It would be good if they target others.

[Rod Smart]

--

BTW

The most important thing you will have to understand about how Army Stacks differ from Corps Stacks, is that an Army Stack in a region with any other stack of any size or composition will alway force the other stack to be selected for combat before the army stack. A single unit stack simply passing through the regions of an Army Stack that is entered by an enemy Stack will be picked to fight first. Only if it has survived the first round(s) of battle, can the Army Stack be called to joint in. I've lost expensive units this way, before I realized how dangerous using an Army Stack as a Corps Stack can be, and that's not fun.

This

Army stacks are great as large corps stacks. But be SUPER-careful about sending them reinforcements.