charlesonmission wrote:Good discussion. I'm playing the 1864 scenario with principes and asked him about this. We've had 3 turns on Veteran and I've not seen a single unit with a general that didn't move when expected to move. I remember in ACW units with generals would be locked down a turn and they wouldn't move. Has anyone actually seen generals with units actually not move on Veteran Option?
Cardinal Ape wrote:Hmmm, the combat penalty is only on the defensive? Seems weird. I did only test attacking with inactive commanders.. I'll have to try that.
Durk wrote:charlesonmission wrote:Good discussion. I'm playing the 1864 scenario with principes and asked him about this. We've had 3 turns on Veteran and I've not seen a single unit with a general that didn't move when expected to move. I remember in ACW units with generals would be locked down a turn and they wouldn't move. Has anyone actually seen generals with units actually not move on Veteran Option?
Veteran Activation is like the middle normal activation. Units are never locked with Veteran Activation. Otherwise, it is exactly like the middle activation choice. The only differences are that with Vet Activation units are never inactive at the turn's beginning and the penalty for not being activated not is carried over to the next turn.
Gray Fox wrote:Grant or Lee lowers his binoculars after seeing a problem developing in battle for his best subordinate just a few miles away beyond a woods. He writes an iconic Operations Order that is sure to save the day. Then he gives it to a lowly private who rides off and gets lost in those woods. Something real world like this is what the Inactive status is supposed to reflect. Crap happens! My only problem with so called Veteran status is that you are powerless to do anything about it. Ever. That's just not how it works in the real Army where I came. Some butts were meant to be kicked because people were going home in boxes. Broke things get fixed. That's my take on it.
Captain_Orso wrote:Cardinal Ape wrote:Hmmm, the combat penalty is only on the defensive? Seems weird. I did only test attacking with inactive commanders.. I'll have to try that.
Ummm... what?
An inactive Leader cannot voluntarily go to Offensive Posture (OP), but he can be forced into OP, by entering a region, in which he has < 5% MC. Entering such a region automatically causes the Leader to change to OP (which forces him to attack any defending enemy stacks), and gives him 5% MC (which he maintains for as long as he is in the region*) (this means that other leaders subsequently entering the region will not be forced into OP) MC. He will be penalized with -35% Power and -35% movement. The -35% movement is because he is inactive. The -35% Power is because he is inactiave AND in a region where the enemy has 95% MC: Power - (enemy MC or 35%, which ever is lower).
If an inactive Leader enters a region where the Leader has 50% MC, his movement is -35%, because he is inactive, and his Power is -35%, because enemy MC is 50%: Power - (enemy MC or 35%, which ever is lower).
If an inactive Leader enters a region where the Leader has 90% MC, his movement is -35%, because he is inactive, and his Power is -10%, because enemy MC is 10%: Power - (enemy MC or 35%, which ever is lower).
Captain_Orso wrote:Whaaaa ??? So you are saying that a Leader that is given movement orders for a turn, and subsequently discovered to be inactive, simply moves as far as it can for that turn, with -35% movement?
I've never played with Veteran Activate, but that seems laxer than Hardened Activation.
Cardinal Ape wrote: So if I attacked a 100% controlled enemy region with an inactive general I should see a -35% Command Coefficient in the combat logs? I don't.
Inactive or active, the numbers are all the same in the logs. I can't find any evidence that inactive commanders suffer in combat at all.
I hope you prove me wrong. I kinda thought one of the big appeals of playing with veteran activation is that the best planned attacks could still go wrong; there was the hidden chance of your commander being inactive and failing under the pressure or some such. Really, inactivity being a movement only thing is a bit disappointing.
Durk wrote:Question: are you comparing defense automatically turned to offense posture? If so, these are the same no matter the activation option selected. Where it matters is if you would not be auto-changed because your control is sufficient.
So you correctly see no evidence. Remember, this is medium activation without prior knowledge of activation status, only. So it primarily changes movement and March to the Sound of Guns.
Captain_Orso wrote:Actually, you only entrusted your orders to staff officers, who often understood what was expected to be carried out, and sometimes were instructed to insure that the orders were carried out as the commanding general expected. They didn't have the authority to order the receiving generals what to do, but they did have the ability to report whether orders were being carried out as expected.
Durk wrote:Cardinal Ape wrote: So if I attacked a 100% controlled enemy region with an inactive general I should see a -35% Command Coefficient in the combat logs? I don't.
Inactive or active, the numbers are all the same in the logs. I can't find any evidence that inactive commanders suffer in combat at all.
I hope you prove me wrong. I kinda thought one of the big appeals of playing with veteran activation is that the best planned attacks could still go wrong; there was the hidden chance of your commander being inactive and failing under the pressure or some such. Really, inactivity being a movement only thing is a bit disappointing.
Question: are you comparing defense automatically turned to offense posture? If so, these are the same no matter the activation option selected. Where it matters is if you would not be auto-changed because your control is sufficient.
Durk wrote:So you correctly see no evidence. Remember, this is medium activation without prior knowledge of activation status, only. So it primarily changes movement and March to the Sound of Guns.
Cardinal Ape wrote:Durk wrote:Question: are you comparing defense automatically turned to offense posture? If so, these are the same no matter the activation option selected. Where it matters is if you would not be auto-changed because your control is sufficient.
So you correctly see no evidence. Remember, this is medium activation without prior knowledge of activation status, only. So it primarily changes movement and March to the Sound of Guns.
Ya, I sent an inactive general into hostile territory. He auto flipped to offensive because of a lack of MC, and then he engaged the enemy force.
I repeated the same task with an active general. There was no combat difference between an inactive and an active general.
I also tried to attack an inactive Union force in a region with 10% Union MC (so no auto flipping postures) and there were no signs of a combat penalty in the logs.
I thought inactive generals in hostile territory were supposed to get a combat penalty like Orso and the manual say. How would I go about seeing this penalty? I want to believe...
DrPostman wrote:Captain_Orso wrote:Actually, you only entrusted your orders to staff officers, who often understood what was expected to be carried out, and sometimes were instructed to insure that the orders were carried out as the commanding general expected. They didn't have the authority to order the receiving generals what to do, but they did have the ability to report whether orders were being carried out as expected.
Two words sprung to mind when I read this: "If practicable".
aariediger wrote:Has anyone actually tested this then? Are we saying there is NO inactive penalty for inactive generals? I know what the manual says, but it sounds like the logs are the things to trust.
Also, is it possible that the penalty could be "indirectly" applied through he movement penalty? As in, if a unit is slower, I believe it takes up more frontage, so slower movement means less units in the fight. But, only for battles large enough for you to max out your frontage. Inactive generals still do provide bonus frontage in open terrain, correct?
pps, on the flip side, do Fast Mover generals also generate 'bonus' frontage by letting you cram more units into the same amount? And slow mover the opposite?
Cardinal Ape wrote:Yup, I am saying there is NO combat penalty for inactive generals.
To be extra clear, I am also saying there may be no combat penalty for inactive generals in any ageod game since CW1.
Cardinal Ape wrote:aariediger wrote:Has anyone actually tested this then? Are we saying there is NO inactive penalty for inactive generals? I know what the manual says, but it sounds like the logs are the things to trust.
Also, is it possible that the penalty could be "indirectly" applied through he movement penalty? As in, if a unit is slower, I believe it takes up more frontage, so slower movement means less units in the fight. But, only for battles large enough for you to max out your frontage. Inactive generals still do provide bonus frontage in open terrain, correct?
pps, on the flip side, do Fast Mover generals also generate 'bonus' frontage by letting you cram more units into the same amount? And slow mover the opposite?
Yup, I am saying there is NO combat penalty for inactive generals.
To be extra clear, I am also saying there may be no combat penalty for inactive generals in any ageod game since CW1.
I've spent a good chunk of time testing it. In CW1 the penalty can be seen in the combat logs, any game released after CW1 has nothing in the logs. I've tested several games (not every one) from BOA2 to The Thirty Years War, I've found no evidence that inactive generals suffer a combat penalty.
Ya, inactive generals still get their stats for frontage in clear terrain. The movement traits don't have an impact on frontage.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests