Hello
My great plans allways go sour because the army commanders don't come and help the corp commanders! I'm asking why they don't is there some rule for that ***stars are just looking over when he's corp commanders get fucked up pr what?
If the Army is in a region adjacent to the Corps it should MTSG. If they are not, check the command relationships. If your cursor is on the army, attached corps with flash red. This is the first check. The second check is to make sure you do not have any locked units (units who cannot move due to being static or lock in a region). Of course, locked units will not march anywhere.
If not one of these two issues, if you can explain in a bit more detail that would help.
If not one of these two issues, if you can explain in a bit more detail that would help.
well i had corps at alexandria and montgomery and mcdowell was at leesburg to railing back to alexandria. enemy attacked at alexandria the two corps fought and mcdowell took the charge but he's men just looked a side when the other two corps did the fighting and it isn't the first time this happens to me!
-
Captain_Orso
- Posts: 5766
- Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
- Location: Stuttgart, Germany
There is a rule I don't know many of the details of, that within a region when stacks are choosing who they are attacking if the size of the attacking stacks already outnumbers the defending stack(s) by a certain percentage, no further stack(s) will be called to attack the defending stack(s), even if other friendly stacks in the region have no target and do nothing else that turn.
-
McNaughton
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
Looking at historic OOB, army commands only held token protection forces (maybe a brigade) in case the enemy caught the command off guard.
Take this as a discovery, in that Army Commands are primarily there for influence, and cannot be relied upon for tactical support, but to ensure that if a command HQ is isolated and attacked that they have a division or so worth of troops as to not result in an easy destruction of the command.
It just happened that the rule didn't work in your favour this time, but, you will probably never know how many times this rule has saved an army HQ from destruction.
Take this as a discovery, in that Army Commands are primarily there for influence, and cannot be relied upon for tactical support, but to ensure that if a command HQ is isolated and attacked that they have a division or so worth of troops as to not result in an easy destruction of the command.
It just happened that the rule didn't work in your favour this time, but, you will probably never know how many times this rule has saved an army HQ from destruction.
Maybe he had his reasons:
. he had a big pool of possible excellent High Generals
. he had at now a bad High General in command, with the better seniority
so, he wanted this strategical man to be killed by a lost bullet (no political loss about seniority), to replace him thenafter.
That's why he had treated his administrative High Force as a combat one.
Okay, it may not be explained somewhere...
. he had a big pool of possible excellent High Generals
. he had at now a bad High General in command, with the better seniority
so, he wanted this strategical man to be killed by a lost bullet (no political loss about seniority), to replace him thenafter.
That's why he had treated his administrative High Force as a combat one.
Okay, it may not be explained somewhere...
In RUS-Gold manual (I don't know about CW2):
So here it is written, but:
. It should be explicitly warn in the rules about this commonly 'problem' found by newbies.
. Moreso being able of MTSG is misleading for well understanding it
The GHQ will support, but ONLY by afar...
5.5.2 Benefits of Army GHQ
Once created, an Army GHQ is considered ruling a Command Chain which subordinate Army Corps forces around.
Besides the Army GHQ Force provide the following benefits or penalties:
(...)
. An Army GHQ Force has the Reserve Movement ability: it can receive or give support in battles to Army Corps Forces in adjacent regions.
. An Army GHQ force will never apply an Assault or Offensive posture in a region if there is another friendly stack in this region.
So here it is written, but:
. It should be explicitly warn in the rules about this commonly 'problem' found by newbies.
. Moreso being able of MTSG is misleading for well understanding it
The GHQ will support, but ONLY by afar...
-
Captain_Orso
- Posts: 5766
- Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
- Location: Stuttgart, Germany
I think there is a general misunderstanding of the army stack rule.
From my understanding
- An army stack in a region with >=1 other friendly stacks will not try to target or be allowed to be targeted for attack; the other stack(s) will always take precedence.
- Once a battle has started the army stack can always be called upon to join the battle per the rules regulating any available stack being called upon to join a battle but with a greater chance of success at being called-up, and units in the army stack, if joined into the battle, will be selected the same as any other units in stacks involved in the battle.
- If the army commander is the highest ranking leader in the region, which he generally is, he is always in command of the battle, whether his army stack is actually in the battle or not. And if the army commander is leading the battle there is a chance of him being killed.
From my understanding
- An army stack in a region with >=1 other friendly stacks will not try to target or be allowed to be targeted for attack; the other stack(s) will always take precedence.
- Once a battle has started the army stack can always be called upon to join the battle per the rules regulating any available stack being called upon to join a battle but with a greater chance of success at being called-up, and units in the army stack, if joined into the battle, will be selected the same as any other units in stacks involved in the battle.
- If the army commander is the highest ranking leader in the region, which he generally is, he is always in command of the battle, whether his army stack is actually in the battle or not. And if the army commander is leading the battle there is a chance of him being killed.
-
ArmChairGeneral
- AGEod Grognard
- Posts: 997
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:00 am
- Location: Austin, TX, USA
My understanding of how it is working in CW2 is word-for-word what Orso said.
This really is just an implication of the more general statement of the rule in Orso's first bullet point, but it is a very important practical takeaway. Let's say you are besieging DC, and you have two Corps and an Army. The Army will not Assault the structure with the other two Corps no matter what orders you give it, since they cannot target another stack. Similarly, shuffling heavily damaged divisions into the Army stack in this situation would mean they are prevented from fighting and recover cohesion and hits unmolested.
Another implication/consequence is that under the normal rules Orso refers to in the second bullet point, like any other stack Armies in Defensive posture CAN enter on the second and later rounds in support of "overmatched" friendly Defensive stacks. This is based on a different criteria than MTSG, (150% of PWR or something) and it is common for battles to occur in which an Army might have tipped the scales but didn't meet the threshold to enter the battle.
So, ERISS, I would agree that they are BEST used as MTSGers, but they CAN, under certain conditions, participate in defensive battles with other stacks present.
Since I am a CSA player and often do not have enough Corps Commanders, I regularly cram Army stacks to their CP limits and use them as effective front-line combat stacks. In order to get around the Army Participation rules, I avoid situations where they might enter combat when there are other stacks present, and when I can't avoid it, I either consolidate to just the Army stack, or maximize Corps stacks and minimize the Army, so that as many troops as possible can participate. I use them exactly the same as any other Corps in situations where I want to spread across multiple regions and have them MTSG (although I make sure they are the only stack in their specific region).
Armies are likely to MTSG, and if they enter a large battle with just a brigade or an under strength division they will be in big trouble since they will not be big enough to fight a round on their own. Having too small of an MTSGing stack has cost me in battle after battle, and is something I carefully avoid (a full division is sometimes enough). Consequently, if I am not outfitting an Army as a fighting stack, I don't put anything in it at all: having just a few combat elements draws them into battles they are too small for, artillery would be better off in a stack that can fire during the first round, and any other support elements in the stack aren't benefitting fighting troops. That means that Lee is either decked out with six divisions an HQ and a Balloon, or he is all by his lonesome (or babysitting a bunch of unused 3-1-1s). I have never ever lost an Army commander in actual combat, (not saying it couldn't happen) and leader-only stacks are almost impossible to force to battle anyway, so I think it is perfectly safe to use a "naked" Army set-up.
. An Army GHQ force will never apply an Assault or Offensive posture in a region if there is another friendly stack in this region.
This really is just an implication of the more general statement of the rule in Orso's first bullet point, but it is a very important practical takeaway. Let's say you are besieging DC, and you have two Corps and an Army. The Army will not Assault the structure with the other two Corps no matter what orders you give it, since they cannot target another stack. Similarly, shuffling heavily damaged divisions into the Army stack in this situation would mean they are prevented from fighting and recover cohesion and hits unmolested.
Another implication/consequence is that under the normal rules Orso refers to in the second bullet point, like any other stack Armies in Defensive posture CAN enter on the second and later rounds in support of "overmatched" friendly Defensive stacks. This is based on a different criteria than MTSG, (150% of PWR or something) and it is common for battles to occur in which an Army might have tipped the scales but didn't meet the threshold to enter the battle.
So, ERISS, I would agree that they are BEST used as MTSGers, but they CAN, under certain conditions, participate in defensive battles with other stacks present.
Since I am a CSA player and often do not have enough Corps Commanders, I regularly cram Army stacks to their CP limits and use them as effective front-line combat stacks. In order to get around the Army Participation rules, I avoid situations where they might enter combat when there are other stacks present, and when I can't avoid it, I either consolidate to just the Army stack, or maximize Corps stacks and minimize the Army, so that as many troops as possible can participate. I use them exactly the same as any other Corps in situations where I want to spread across multiple regions and have them MTSG (although I make sure they are the only stack in their specific region).
Armies are likely to MTSG, and if they enter a large battle with just a brigade or an under strength division they will be in big trouble since they will not be big enough to fight a round on their own. Having too small of an MTSGing stack has cost me in battle after battle, and is something I carefully avoid (a full division is sometimes enough). Consequently, if I am not outfitting an Army as a fighting stack, I don't put anything in it at all: having just a few combat elements draws them into battles they are too small for, artillery would be better off in a stack that can fire during the first round, and any other support elements in the stack aren't benefitting fighting troops. That means that Lee is either decked out with six divisions an HQ and a Balloon, or he is all by his lonesome (or babysitting a bunch of unused 3-1-1s). I have never ever lost an Army commander in actual combat, (not saying it couldn't happen) and leader-only stacks are almost impossible to force to battle anyway, so I think it is perfectly safe to use a "naked" Army set-up.
-
ArmChairGeneral
- AGEod Grognard
- Posts: 997
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:00 am
- Location: Austin, TX, USA
To Havi, I think that the problem was that your two Corps were too close in power or size to their opponent to allow the Army stack to join. If you had targeted McDowell's movement to join the Corps stack then all his forces would have been in the same stack and able to participate (assuming that Corps was the only Alexandria stack outside the structure). You might have ended up with CP penalties that outweighed the benefit of the extra men though.
In RUS GHQ tied to strategic city locations they start locked for a few turns than unlock. If player moves GHQ in other region it becomes 'overrun' and not available next turn. Where as in here like in ROP it is better not to leave GHQ and supporting corps within same region with similar power ratio.
Thanks all for your precisions.
Yes the army commander, as he is the commandant of the battles in his region, can still be killed, but I think it should be more risky for him if his group actually entered the combat.
I know all forces can be combat groups; an army group can actually be it, if needed.
But in a big scale war (with sufficient signal technology) it's usually better to make it an HeadQuarter only, an administrative group, only representing its army.
The corps group being his fighting body.
Maybe the newbies are fooled too by the (naturally) huge commandment capacity of the army group, and believe it is intended and must use it, and so this stack would mendatory be a combat unit...
Yes the army commander, as he is the commandant of the battles in his region, can still be killed, but I think it should be more risky for him if his group actually entered the combat.
I know all forces can be combat groups; an army group can actually be it, if needed.
But in a big scale war (with sufficient signal technology) it's usually better to make it an HeadQuarter only, an administrative group, only representing its army.
The corps group being his fighting body.
Maybe the newbies are fooled too by the (naturally) huge commandment capacity of the army group, and believe it is intended and must use it, and so this stack would mendatory be a combat unit...
-
ArmChairGeneral
- AGEod Grognard
- Posts: 997
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:00 am
- Location: Austin, TX, USA
Until April 1862 you only have Army stacks. These large stacks perform all the necessary postures just fine. After this date they still do just fine at least offensively. I've led with Grant's large stack attacking Richmond and the Corps stacks MTSG. I've had his stack and the Corps do a synchronized move/attack together. So a strong Army stack is what I always use. Now if an Army stack didn't fight in a MTSG scenario, then perhaps this was because of the MTSG rules.
http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/Combat_Explained#Marching_to_the_sound_of_the_guns
The link doesn't state anything about an Army not MTSG or not participating in combat because it is an Army.
http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/Combat_Explained#Marching_to_the_sound_of_the_guns
The link doesn't state anything about an Army not MTSG or not participating in combat because it is an Army.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!
-
ArmChairGeneral
- AGEod Grognard
- Posts: 997
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:00 am
- Location: Austin, TX, USA
Just to clarify havi's original post, McDowell was not MTSG. He started in Leesburg, railing to Alexandria, and he would have arrived on either day one or two. Anyone attacking Alex couldn't have gotten there before this, so McDowell was already in Alex and fell under the multi-stack commitment rules, rather than MTSG.
Army stacks are fantastic MTSGers, and the special Army rules do not affect MTSG in any way other than to increase the likelihood that they will MTSG.
I am pretty sure that if you Synchronize Move then the Army rules do not apply, since the engine does not consider the other stack to be "already present" because they arrived simultaneously.
I do not ALWAYS use a strong Army stack, but I do a lot and hardly ever have a problem.
Army stacks are fantastic MTSGers, and the special Army rules do not affect MTSG in any way other than to increase the likelihood that they will MTSG.
I am pretty sure that if you Synchronize Move then the Army rules do not apply, since the engine does not consider the other stack to be "already present" because they arrived simultaneously.
I do not ALWAYS use a strong Army stack, but I do a lot and hardly ever have a problem.
That was my understanding of the tactical situation. I'm sure that you can make a wide range of tactics work, ACG.
My comments were directed at the idea that Army commanders somehow should only be used for influence or that a rule from RUS Gold applied to this game. Strong Army stacks don't just work for "newbies".
My comments were directed at the idea that Army commanders somehow should only be used for influence or that a rule from RUS Gold applied to this game. Strong Army stacks don't just work for "newbies".
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!
-
ArmChairGeneral
- AGEod Grognard
- Posts: 997
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:00 am
- Location: Austin, TX, USA
Fox,
Right, I am saying that I agree with you and disagree with advice that recommends not fighting with Army stacks. There are a few weird situations that can come up, (Havi) but for the most part it is easy to slug it out with Army stacks, and indeed you must fight with them at least sometimes since they are almost always able to be hold more divisions than a Corps stack.
I just wanted to disambiguate that MTSG is a separate mechanic that applies in different specific situations than the special Army rules that we are trying to pin down. The title of this thread erroneously refers to MTSG, when it is in fact the Army's interaction with multi-stack engagements that is at issue.
Right, I am saying that I agree with you and disagree with advice that recommends not fighting with Army stacks. There are a few weird situations that can come up, (Havi) but for the most part it is easy to slug it out with Army stacks, and indeed you must fight with them at least sometimes since they are almost always able to be hold more divisions than a Corps stack.
I just wanted to disambiguate that MTSG is a separate mechanic that applies in different specific situations than the special Army rules that we are trying to pin down. The title of this thread erroneously refers to MTSG, when it is in fact the Army's interaction with multi-stack engagements that is at issue.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests