Who are more important, Corps or Division COs?

[BigDuke66]

Corps COs can get a lot bonus from the Army CO and have their stats considerably raised, it's not the same with Division COs that keep their stats.
But what is now more important?
I wonder if I should promote my good division COs to Corps COs, a good Corps CO won't get much benefit of the Army CO if any.
So wouldn't it be better to preserve the COs with good stats for commanding a Division, and to use the lousy 3-1-1 2-Star generals as Corps COs who get their stats considerably boosted by the Army CO?

[principes romanes]

This is not a complete answer, but another consideration based on the game mechanics.

From some time I've spent looking at combat results, I believe that the combat bonus for the officer directly commanding a unit (i.e. division) is halved compared to an officer commanding the overall formation (i.e. corps). So an officer with a 2 offensive ratting would provide a +10% on attacks but only a +5% if commanding the division. (Don't quote me on the bonus actually being 10%/5% for a 2 offensive rating).

[Gray Fox]

This is how the numbers work in combat:

viewtopic.php?f=331&t=38273

I deduced these from the Wiki entry on combat.

Of course, you may not get to the combat if the lesser stack CO is not active due to lower strat number.

Traditionally, the best guy should be calling the shot and he should be stack commander.

[principes romanes]

Thanks for the link to your detailed analysis!

[Gray Fox]

You're most welcome! Here's the Ageod Wiki link:

http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/Combat_Exp ... _Mechanics

[ArmChairGeneral]

The premise of only using mediocre commanders as Corps commanders is that somehow Corps commanders only benefit from their Army commander if they are not good themselves. I don't think this is true, although others should weigh in if I am wrong.

As far as I know, the Army commander passes bonii based on HIS stats only, not the stats of the receiver, so good Corps commanders get even better because of their Army Commanders (unless their Army commanders suck, in which case they get worse, but so would a bad Corps commander). Corps commander combat bonuses are more impactful than Division COs (5% vs 3% per point) and their activity roll (Activity is by far the most important stat for a Corps commander) affects the stack while the Division CO's activity roll is irrelevant to anything except division creation.

Conclusion: Unless I have misunderstood the mechanic and the Army commander bonii ARE dependent on the difference between the Army and Corps commanders stats, then the only reason to promote a bad commander is to avoid seniority penalties, and even then I would eat the cost if it meant I could get Lyons (for example) in charge of a Corps.

[Durk]

I am so with you Arm Chair General. Totally what happens and my understanding.

[Captain_Orso]

Bonus and malus are passed on depending on difference in values between the army and corps commander's. I'm not sure at the moment, if an army commander can raise any subordinate corps commander's values onto parity with his own, or not.

At any rate, the greater the difference, the greater the chance at passing values on, both good and bad.

[GraniteStater]

Really good Army COs can really help Corps COs. Open an 1863 Union start and look at Grant's Corps in the Vicksburg area: McClernand is a 5-4-4, IIRC. His base is something like 3-1-2 or maybe even less.

In AACW, and a couple of times in CW2, I have put McClellan under Grant. Not bad at all, Grant really buffs him. As I once noted a long time ago, Grant 'spreads the Grantness all around.'

I have a current '62 Union where I have brought Rosecrans to the East (Grant got killed, but I was leaving Grant out west, anyway) and replaced McClellan. A distinct difference, especially in the Strategic rating for all Corps COs. Not awesome, but definitely better than Lil Mac.

Put Thomas in Grant's place in the west; he was already a ***. Not a big dropoff at all, actually.

Army COs can definitely make a difference to Corps.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Orso, do you have any numbers for how this works? Don't have game on front of me but IIRC the game files make no reference to the effect of the subordinates stats, only the chances of increase based on the Army commanders stats. Is this a hidden calculation?

[ArmChairGeneral]

Or perhaps what you mean is that since the increase cannot go above the Army commander's stats then for example, Jackson under ASJ would never receive a bonus because he is across the board better than ASJ and has no room to be increased. This is a slightly different thing than saying the bonus passed on is based on the absolute difference between the two, which would imply that ASJ would lower Jackson's stats on most turns, since there is a negative differential between them, and I have not noticed this effect in game. (Not saying it isn't there, just that I haven't noticed it).

[BigDuke66]

Yea the calculation of what is passed on would be interesting.
I think there is no limit of what is passed on as long as the values won't reach thos of the Army CO. That means a bad 2-star gets more points than a not so bad 2-star, while a 2 star that is a bit better than the Army CO doesn't receive anything while a 2-star who is a lot better might even get a penalty.

It does make much sense to me that a bad 2-star and a not so bad 2-star might end up having the same values, I think that there is just a certain range of how far an army CO can improve a 2-star.
Or doesn't anyone have an historical example of a bad general that was improved by his superior so much that he turned him into a good general?

[Gray Fox]

Good leaders, good subordinates and good units don't just happen. When you take command, you get a kettle of stew and you have to motivate everyone to step it up a notch. The CO mentors his subordinate leaders. He instructs them to be aggressive, take the initiative and make it happen. The subordinates train their units to do their mission well. Set goals and train to surpass them. More sweat means less blood. Sprezzatura is an Italian word that means essentially "to do difficult things so that they look effortless". Historically, good commanders are so exceptional at getting the best out of their men, that historians fail to record what's going on. When Patton took over in Tunisia, a losing Army became a winner from the ground up. Every good leader knows, it's not what you get when you start that counts, it's what you have when you finish.

[Cardinal Ape]

Ya, the inherited stats can't exceed the army commanders own stats.

I believe the strategic rating is the only stat capable of being reduced through the chain of command. The offensive and defensive ratings will never go down. Giving Grant a corp under Lil'Mac will only negatively affect Grant's strategic rating, at least that's what I've seen.

The calculation for passing on stats appears to be hidden; I can't find any sign of it in the logs..

Taking a shot in the dark, I'd guess it is something like:

Each corp commander rolls a 10-sided die. If the result is equal to or lower than the Army commanders target stat then the corps commander will gain stat points based on the difference of the roll and the army commanders stat. For every two points the die roll is under the general's own stats it will award an additional stat point.

So a 3-1-1 corps commander under Grant (5-6-4) attempting to increase it's offensive value would roll a 10-sided die. On a roll of 7 to 10 it would gain nothing. On a roll of 5 to 6 it would gain one offensive point. On a roll of 4 to 3 it would gain 2 points. On a roll of 2 to 1 it would gain 3 points.

[Captain_Orso]

Orso, do you have any numbers for how this works? Don't have game on front of me but IIRC the game files make no reference to the effect of the subordinates stats, only the chances of increase based on the Army commanders stats. Is this a hidden calculation?

IIRC I saw it written out in the forum once, but I don't know if I make a bookmark of it. I'll have to look around.

[Captain_Orso]

Sorry, but I didn't save a reference to what I recall having read

What I can say though, through a quick test I ran, if you have a very poor army commander, like Paterson (1-0-0), with a very good corps commander, like Sherman (6-5-5), the subordinate corps commander will only lose 2 from his strategic value, but NOTHING from his offensive nor defensive values. So Sherman goes from 6-5-5- to 4-5-5.

This has gotten me wondering about the bonus for stack commander, if the stack commander is also the unit commander, in other words, if the stack is an independent division with 2+ leaders, one of them being the division commander.

What you can read here Leader and independent division is that both bonuses only come into play, if they are different leaders, but I can't recall actually having seen the evidence, and I'm kind of an a-hole when it comes to evidence

Do actually we see the bonuses in the battle reports at all, so that they could be directly confirmed?

[Gray Fox]

A listing of the CO's with their adjusted stats next to them is in the Battle Report. In the Battle log you have annotated who led what in the conflict resolution.

[Cardinal Ape]

@Orso, Yup, you are correct; a general can't be both a stack and a unit commander at the same time. If a general is the stack commander and also has a division when a battle ensues, his division will not receive any division command bonuses.

I have tested it several times, because the first time I read about it (thanks GF) I was skeptical. The evidence can only be seen in the battle logs; the in-game power ratings do not account for a stack commander losing direct control of his division.

Back in my early days of playing this game I used to give Grant a division all to himself, I mean look at that huge power number of his division compared to others... Well, it turns out that displayed power rating was a lie. The power rating shown adds in both Grant's stack bonuses and his division bonuses, but he can't use both. I've tested this too. Removing Grant's divisional command to another general, say Sherman, should increase the displayed power of the stack, but it doesn't.

I can't help but wonder if this has caused some early game disasters by misleading CinC's to think that Grant or Jackson are packing more heat than they really are. It is natural to put your best troops with your best commanders to make the best divisions, and if that division is lead by your stack commander, like Grant or Jackson, then that best division will lose it's divisional bonuses. In those close early game battles, a small thing like Stonewall's elite brigade missing out on Jackson's unit bonuses because he is trying to dual-lead a brigade and a stack at the same time could be the difference.

[BigDuke66]

On top of comes that the usual 1 star division won't have enough CP and has to take -10%.
But the wrong PWR is really a trouble, I had already witnessed that the PWR changes when you processed a turn and reloaded it.

[Rod Smart]

The highest strat rating should be in charge.

Having a guy who is active half the time leading a stack, instead of a guy who would be active 90% of the time, is foolish. Forget the offense and defense and combat bonus and malus. You gotta be active to get anything done.

[Captain_Orso]

That's only half true. An inactivated leader doesn't have the power of his stack necessarily reduced by -35%. The penalty of an inactivated leader is dependent on the MC he enjoys in the region and capped at -35%.

So if an inactivated leader is attacked while stationary in a region, where he starts with 100% MC, he will still be at 95% in the battle, because the attacking stack automatically gains 5% MC when entering the region and is automatically changed to OP, if not already in OP. The attacking stack cannot gain any more than the original 5% MC other than through battle, as long as the defending stack is in good order; ie not in PP.

Of course, it you want to use a stack for offensive purposes, being activated is practically a must, ergo the higher the Strategic rating, the more viable the leader is offensively.

[ArmChairGeneral]

More reasons Strat is most important stat for Corps commanders: you get movement and cohesion penalties and risk getting a whole Corps fixed in place (assuming you use that rule) when inactive.

Inactivity is the bane of the Union player. How many times have you had overwhelming force you could bring in at just the right time, but inactivity stopped you cold and gave the CSA time to reinforce or escape? Lots! I feel Lincoln's pain: huge armies sitting around doing nothing.

Whatever the event is called where (I think) McClellan is automatically activated is a godsend when it fires.

(It isn't cool with the CSA either, but mostly they have quality Corps and Army commanders and so don't suffer from inactivity nearly as much.)

[Rod Smart]

That's only half true....

So if an inactivated leader is attacked while stationary in a region, where he starts with 100% MC, he will still be at 95% in the battle, because the attacking stack automatically gains 5% MC when entering the region and is automatically changed to OP, if not already in OP. The attacking stack cannot gain any more than the original 5% MC other than through battle, as long as the defending stack is in good order; ie not in PP.

True, for the corps commanders in charge of stacks that will never ever move.

But I find most of my "defense" involves chasing down flanking stacks, or moving units between defensive positions. And hopefully chasing down the battered enemy after I defeat them. Having a 1-1-7 corp commander isn't suitable for that.

I'd rather have a 5-2-4 Longstreet than a 2-1-7 Longstreet

[Captain_Orso]

I agree, but if you've got a 1-1-7 Gen. Short-Cake, you might as well put him to use where you can.

As the Union I always put my 3-1-1 out there to defend depots and the such. Better to have an average leader negating CP penalties, who's not going to go anywhere, than to not have him there, sitting on my important depot.

Late in the war I have to put event those to use as division commanders, because I've simply created so many division. I've actually run out of leaders a couple of times.

[ArmChairGeneral]

What you can read here Leader and independent division is that both bonuses only come into play, if they are different leaders, but I can't recall actually having seen the evidence, and I'm kind of an a-hole when it comes to evidence

I can 100% confirm that this is how it works through direct experience and checking the battle log.

If you have an independent stack, it needs an unattached general with higher seniority and a division commander with lower seniority to get both bonuses. If the highest seniority general is also in command of a division, he will only give the unit commander bonus, (3% per OFF/DEF) not stack leader bonus (5% per OFF/DEF).

[Cardinal Ape]

If the highest seniority general is also in command of a division, he will only give the unit commander bonus, (3% per OFF/DEF) not stack leader bonus (5% per OFF/DEF).

That's backwards, its the other way around. The highest seniority commander will lead the stack and provide stack commander bonuses. If said commander was leading a division, the division gets left in the dust with no unit commander bonuses.

Here is a bit of a battle log.. Two opposing divisions led by Sherman and Hardee, they are the only commanders in their stacks, they both lead divisions:

6:02:12 PM (Reporting) Waterhouse 1st IL - Commander: William T. Sherman Cmd Coeff. %: 110
6:02:12 PM (Reporting) Swett's MS Bty - Commander: William J. Hardee Cmd Coeff. %: 115
6:02:12 PM (Reporting) Waterhouse 1st IL - Unit Commander: William T. Sherman Cmd Coeff. %: 100
6:02:12 PM (Reporting) Swett's MS Bty - Unit Commander: William J. Hardee Cmd Coeff. %: 100

Both stacks with an added division commander, Sherman and Hardee are now stack commanders only:

6:05:19 PM (Reporting) Ross 2nd MI - Commander: William T. Sherman Cmd Coeff. %: 110
6:05:19 PM (Reporting) 9th & 10th MS - Commander: William J. Hardee Cmd Coeff. %: 115
6:05:19 PM (Reporting) Ross 2nd MI - Unit Commander: S. Hurlbut Cmd Coeff. %: 103
6:05:19 PM (Reporting) 9th & 10th MS - Unit Commander: Jones M. Withers Cmd Coeff. %: 103

[ArmChairGeneral]

Thanks Ape, I stand corrected!

[aariediger]

I might be out of my element here since I just got AACW 2 for Christmas, but back in the day in the first AACW, the bonuses that commanders gave to individual units's fire effectiveness were pretty 'meh' in my opinion. The main thing is having a good stack commander for the bonus frontage in clear/wooded terrain from offense/defense ratings, and of course strat rating for activation

Off the top of my head I think the numbers I used to use was anybody could command three divisions in open terrain, plus 1 for every point of offense/defense rating for a three star general. So 6-6-4 Grant attacks with about 9 divisions and defends with 7. I think that was based off the frontage from 13 line units and 4 batteries in an average division, so I don't know if that's still accurate but it's probably close enough for government work. Throw in that most units shoot about twice as good on defense as offense, and I'd have a pretty good idea how a battle was going to go assuming I knew the two generals's stats and about how many troops they could bring. Course finding out those two things the is trick though, ain't it?

[ArmChairGeneral]

oops, double post, see below

[ArmChairGeneral]

aariediger,

Good to see you are still around!

I don't know about those exact numbers although they don't sound unreasonable. Regardless, I agree with your general analysis that OFF/DEF stats are meh and that STRAT is what counts most.

That said, this is a game of inches, and you need to maximize everything you possibly can before going into battle in order to increase your chances of winning, especially when Corps and Army sized stacks are on the line. OFF/DEF rating alone will not be decisive, but combining that (small) advantage with all the other little things you can do to gain advantage is how decisive battles are won .