major snafu
Corporal
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2016 2:39 pm

Newbie questions about combining stacks for combat, etc.

Mon Apr 24, 2017 4:45 pm

So I have been reading through the points to know and I just want to make sure I am understanding the comments about combining all units into a single stack and to make sure I am really understanding what a stack means.

So If I have an army HQ and 2 Corps attached to this HQ in a single region, then they would be considered three stacks correct?

So if I wanted to make an attack with these units, really the best thing to do, according to the points to know, is to combine them into a single stack to simplify the prediction on what the engine will choose.

But when I do that it appears to me that I am merging all of the units and thus disbanding the corps in the process, which means I then have to remake them when I one again want to spread the army into more than one province.

Is this the correct method, or am I misunderstanding something?

Or, I can leave the Corps in adjacent provinces and hope that the MTSG works if the opposing stack is known to be larger.

So what I think I am getting from this is that, when on defense, corps in adjacent provinces is probably preferable if I feel MTSG will likely work, and when I want to switch over to offensive, I should coalesce the Corps into one stack (opening up my flanks unless I have sufficient screening forces) and then attack with a single stack.

Understanding this as a general principle, and not a hard rule.

User avatar
Gray Fox
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1583
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:48 pm
Location: Englewood, OH

Re: Newbie questions about combining stacks for combat, etc.

Mon Apr 24, 2017 5:17 pm

If you want several stacks to move from the same region together to another region, you have a few options. If each stack is small, then you can drag and drop them all into one stack. This may cause a Command Point problem. In that case it might be better to move them as separate stacks using the unit menu tool for Synchronized Movement. This might cause a Traffic penalty as they all crowd the same route. So you might be better off to send in one stack and hope that March to the Sound of the Guns happens. Good luck!

User avatar
Gray Fox
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1583
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:48 pm
Location: Englewood, OH

Re: Newbie questions about combining stacks for combat, etc.

Mon Apr 24, 2017 5:39 pm

You would be perfectly right to spread your stacks over several regions in the defense. Lots of players do this and as you no doubt recall from the Western Campaign, the Union starts with Left and Right flank forces. What Jomini in his book "The Art of War" that every CW General read and carried would warn, is that the Right flank will not MTSG to the Left flank unless the regions connect. So as Sun Tzu would advise, if you guard everywhere, then everywhere will be weak. I prefer to entrench one Division with a Corps commander inside a stockade in each region in the above line. These will stop an invader cold with their Zone Of Control. Then I have my army's stacks concentrated in one region behind them. I have a tripwire, so to speak and a strong reaction force.

User avatar
ArmChairGeneral
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 997
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:00 am
Location: Austin, TX, USA

Re: Newbie questions about combining stacks for combat, etc.

Mon Apr 24, 2017 7:14 pm

I would say you are definitely on the right track here: overwhelming force when attacking by concentrating your forces CPs permitting. Defending across multiple regions is not always strictly necessary, but if it is, you have the right general plan of multiple Corps adjacent to each other, in that situation I like to keep my largest stack at the point of expected attack. There is quite a bit of nuance beyond that, but you have the gist of it.

Corps can form and unform without cost, so it is not a big deal to "lose" a Corps stack, you can reform it later.



Some nuances:

Fox's technique of using blocking forces and ZOC and bringing the large reaction force to bear the next turn can be highly effective. These are definitely advanced techniques (manipulating ZOC, prepositioning the counterattackers, etc.) but if successfully executed can entirely break an attacking force, destroying multiple enemy elements, winning you NM points and dominating theaters. Advanced stuff to be sure, but wiping out divisions wholesale will give you jump-out-of-your-chair-and-fist-pump moments and lead to outright wins.

Synchronize Move is wonky and does not always work the way you intend it to, if at all. I tend not to make plans that hinge on it working flawlessly for this reason. That said, I tend to avoid it a bit, so it may be that may Synchronize Game is just a personal weakness. (Aside: Fox, only stacks in the same Army structure can synchronize move, correct?)

You do not always need to defend multiple regions. If you don't, it is far more effective to have the defenders concentrated into as few stacks as possible at the point of attack.

The first round of any combat is fought only with the stacks that are initially present in the region; MTSGers will only arrive on subsequent battle rounds, so the initial force must be able to hold in the first round of the battle. Do not have rivers or streams between stacks you plan on MTSGing, they greatly reduce the chance of success, as does bad terrain. I don't think inactive commanders are eligible to MTSG, (not 100% sure) so Strat rating is extremely important during Corps sized actions.

When defending across multiple regions you often have a relatively small stack being attacked by a large one for the first round of combat before MTSGers can arrive. Good commanders tend to decide to retreat before battle in these situations which is a tactical disaster as they give up the strategic location without a fight (the MTSGers won't show up later to join because there isn't a battle to join). Similarly, if a force loses badly on the first round the retreat engine does not take into account potential MTSGers when making its retreat decision, so you can get in situations where the initial stack is pummeled badly enough that it retreats after the first round and since there is no second round, the MTSGers don't do anything and you have simply lost a major battle and a key position. Setting your posture to Defend at All Costs (Red) short circuits the pre-battle withdrawal roll, and makes it more likely that they will not retreat after the first round, so when defending with multiple small stacks across multiple regions make sure to check that posture.

When deciding how to array your Corps across multiple regions bear in mind that artillery get extra shots during the 1st round of battle. (Actually every element does, but artillery get more and are more effective when they do fire, so they are the ones you want to plan around). Therefore an artillery piece at the point of attack is more effective than an artillery piece in a stack that will MTSG. Concentrate artillery at the point of attack.

MTSGers do not receive entrenchment bonuses during combat resolution, so it makes sense to have more troops benefit from entrenchments. Again, this particularly applies to artillery since they gain extra to-hit bonus in high level entrenchments that they would not get if they were in an MTSG stack.

Forces inside the structure, whether that is the city, a stockade fort, whatever, do not participate in combat defensively unless the opposing stack has set their orders to Assault, so even though there are high entrenchments it does not do any good for a bunch of artillery to be in a structure if you plan on fighting the battle in the field. The Sortie special order DOES NOT make them to come out and participate in a defensive battle. Sortie is for when the structure is beseiged and a friendly force is entereing the region to attack the besiegers; then the stacks inside the structure will come out and attack in support of their relief force.

User avatar
Gray Fox
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1583
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:48 pm
Location: Englewood, OH

Re: Newbie questions about combining stacks for combat, etc.

Mon Apr 24, 2017 10:23 pm

Correct ACG, synchronized move works only for an Army and its Corps. That's what the message box says if you cursor over the icon.

major snafu
Corporal
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2016 2:39 pm

Re: Newbie questions about combining stacks for combat, etc.

Wed Apr 26, 2017 3:31 am

Thanks, ACG, et al.,

I have been traveling for work.

Great pointers very much appreciated.

Regards,

SNAFU

User avatar
loki100
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 2399
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 4:15 pm
Location: Caithness
Contact: Website Twitter

Re: Newbie questions about combining stacks for combat, etc.

Wed Apr 26, 2017 8:58 am

ArmChairGeneral wrote:
...

I don't think inactive commanders are eligible to MTSG, (not 100% sure) so Strat rating is extremely important during Corps sized actions.

....



They do but face a malus and a problem. The key is they move slower due to being inactive so:

resCostPerDay = 10 // -10% for each day of marching


has a greater impact than on an active stack.

There are also possible oddities about their stance on the actual battlefield and the stack selection routines.

If you have MC, they will arive still in their defaulted defensive stance. Since the stack targetting algorithm (see here for the WoN rules but the same applies to ACW) means that a stack in a defensive stance will most likely join in an existing battle - unless the enemy has a lot more stacks than you do.

If you lack MC then they will arrive and be flipped to an attack stance but with a large malus due to their initial inactive status.

So yes inactive stacks can MTSG but there are adverse consequences.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Newbie questions about combining stacks for combat, etc.

Wed Apr 26, 2017 4:40 pm

loki100 wrote:
ArmChairGeneral wrote:
...

I don't think inactive commanders are eligible to MTSG, (not 100% sure) so Strat rating is extremely important during Corps sized actions.

....



They do but face a malus and a problem. The key is they move slower due to being inactive so:

resCostPerDay = 10 // -10% for each day of marching


has a greater impact than on an active stack.

There are also possible oddities about their stance on the actual battlefield and the stack selection routines.

If you have MC, they will arive still in their defaulted defensive stance. Since the stack targetting algorithm (see here for the WoN rules but the same applies to ACW) means that a stack in a defensive stance will most likely join in an existing battle - unless the enemy has a lot more stacks than you do.

If you lack MC then they will arrive and be flipped to an attack stance but with a large malus due to their initial inactive status.

So yes inactive stacks can MTSG but there are adverse consequences.


Corps or Army stacks will never be automatically changed to OP (Offensive Posture) through MTSG, because for MTSG to occur, first a different Corps or Army stack must enter the battle region. If this side has 0% MC it will immediately gain 5% MC, and if not already in OP, it will be automatically changed to OP. So by the time MTSG can occur, that side already has the minimum 5% MC to prevent a stack entering the region from auto-changing to OP.

That being said, a stack lead by an inactive leader will suffer the movement and power penalties associated with being inactive, which in this case equal the amount of enemy MC in the region, up to a maximum of 35%.

User avatar
loki100
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 2399
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 4:15 pm
Location: Caithness
Contact: Website Twitter

Re: Newbie questions about combining stacks for combat, etc.

Wed Apr 26, 2017 6:01 pm

ok - I presume you are sure about that.

Well in that case you have the problem that if they arrive they are in a defensive stance and that will affect how they are chosen for the stack selection routines. Not a big deal but it will have a small influence on how they engage in the wider battle

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Newbie questions about combining stacks for combat, etc.

Thu Apr 27, 2017 6:21 pm

MTSG occurs after the battle has already begun, so there is no issue with a Corps stack choosing or being chosen as a target. The MTSG'ing Corps simply joins the battle already in progress. The only issue is how affective it will be in battle, considering its penalties for its leader being inactive.

But if you don't want a Corps stack to MTSG, the only way to truly prevent it, is by setting it to PP (Passive Posture), which I would not suggest doing with any Corps in the proximity of an enemy stack, unless you are in the process of trying to get it out of the area at all costs, and it is already in motion.

User avatar
loki100
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 2399
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 4:15 pm
Location: Caithness
Contact: Website Twitter

Re: Newbie questions about combining stacks for combat, etc.

Thu Apr 27, 2017 8:29 pm

Captain_Orso wrote:MTSG occurs after the battle has already begun, so there is no issue with a Corps stack choosing or being chosen as a target. The MTSG'ing Corps simply joins the battle already in progress. The only issue is how affective it will be in battle, considering its penalties for its leader being inactive.

....


Of course it either chooses or is chosen via the stack selection routine. How else does it decide which part of the battle (assuming the enemy has more than one stack) to take part in?

User avatar
ArmChairGeneral
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 997
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:00 am
Location: Austin, TX, USA

Re: Newbie questions about combining stacks for combat, etc.

Thu Apr 27, 2017 9:31 pm

IIRC, an MTSGer in Defensive Posture uses the same come-to-the-aid mechanic that Army stacks use. So when they arrive, if one of their friendly stacks is overmatched (I forget the specific threshold) then they will engage their friendly stack's (largest) opposing stack. If their friendly is above the threshold then they engage via normal stack mechanics.

(Which means there are rare situations where if the MTSGer arrives to a slightly winning or even battle while on defense, then depending on how many stacks are on the opposing side there might not be attackers who decide to engage them if they are not triggered to support their friendly stack. This happens more often with Army stacks who don't engage immediately because there are other stacks, but then engages on later rounds becausel one of its friendlies is losing.)

For the OP and any other new players not familiar with it, a definitive explanation of the Special Army Combat Stack Selection Rule written by Captain_Orso can be found here http://ageod-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=331&t=40370&p=354606&hilit=Army+stack#p354606. That topic is only tangential to the original post but is an important mechanic that is difficult to get your head around and that post deserves a read.

User avatar
Cardinal Ape
General of the Army
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:59 am

Re: Newbie questions about combining stacks for combat, etc.

Fri Apr 28, 2017 5:36 am

Captain_Orso wrote:But if you don't want a Corps stack to MTSG, the only way to truly prevent it, is by setting it to PP (Passive Posture), which I would not suggest doing with any Corps in the proximity of an enemy stack, unless you are in the process of trying to get it out of the area at all costs, and it is already in motion.


That is true for inactive commanders, but active commanders can use the 'evade combat' special order to prevent a stack from MTSG. If playing on Veteran activation there is a danger of a commander disobeying his evade orders so going passive would be the only surefire way to make a stack sit out for a battle on that setting.

--

I think a common misconception in the inner working of MTSG combat is who leads who. Just because the portraits in the battle report show Grant and Lee does not mean they actually led troops in battle. An element only receives combat bonuses from his division commander and his corps commander. Army commanders do provide offensive and defensive stat bonuses to their corps commanders which does trickle down, but they need not be present in a battle to do their 'leading'.

Anther nuance, one that took me a while to figure out, is that each corps in battle has their own, independent posture. Stacks that MTSG do not inherit the posture of the stack they MTSG'ed to. Its something to keep in mind with lopsided generals like Longstreet who would fight 15% worse if not in defensive posture, possibly more if his divisions are led by generals who also favor the defensive. Its a bit counter-intuitive to think of defensively supporting an attack or to offensively support a defense, but it can be done in this combat system. Its pretty slick.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Newbie questions about combining stacks for combat, etc.

Fri Apr 28, 2017 3:43 pm

loki100 wrote:
Captain_Orso wrote:MTSG occurs after the battle has already begun, so there is no issue with a Corps stack choosing or being chosen as a target. The MTSG'ing Corps simply joins the battle already in progress. The only issue is how affective it will be in battle, considering its penalties for its leader being inactive.

....


Of course it either chooses or is chosen via the stack selection routine. How else does it decide which part of the battle (assuming the enemy has more than one stack) to take part in?


IIRC the order steps for getting into battle go like this (this happens every day, not turn):

1. A stack enters a new region.
-- If the faction of that stack has <5% MC, and that stack is not in PP, that faction gains 5% MC and the stack(s) are put into OP, if they are not already in OP. This means, that if you are moving 2 stacks in DP into the same region, either from different or the same starting region, if one arrives on day 5 and the other on day 6, the first stack will be auto-changed to OP, but subsequent stacks entering the region will not.

2. There are 1 or more stacks of 2 or more factions, at least one of which is in OP or AP, which are at war with each other, in the same region.

3. One of these stacks has detected an enemy stack.

4. There is a random delay (I don't recall the details, but IIRC, just because one stack had detected an enemy stack, it doesn't immediately attempt to go to battle. The delay battle option may influence this behavior.

5. Once it is determined that battle might occur, the Commitment of stacks process is starts, in which it is determined, which stack(s) battle with which enemy stack(s). It is possible to have more than one battle in the same region at the same time, but to be honest I don't recall ever having seen this actually happen. I believe the process generally has one friendly stack coming to help another friendly stack--on both sides--until there is one big battle, and not several smaller ones.

6. Once stacks have been committed to a battle or battles, MTSG is checked. Stacks which will MTSG start to 'move' toward the battle. If they arrive in the battle region in time, they will simply be added to the units engaged in the battle.

7. Battle starts, which does not necessarily mean that fighting actually takes place. In many cases, if one side is much stronger than the other, the weaker side may attempt to disengage. If they are successful, the battle ends with the disengaging side retreating.

8. Once the battle has ended, the process starts over again with the next day.

This is why MTSG stacks will not auto-change to OP.

User avatar
ArmChairGeneral
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 997
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:00 am
Location: Austin, TX, USA

Re: Newbie questions about combining stacks for combat, etc.

Fri Apr 28, 2017 3:51 pm

" each corps in battle has their own, independent posture."

I am not sure this is correct, although I could certainly be wrong. As far as I understand it, if any friendly stack is in Offensive or Assault posture (Red or Orange) then every stack on their side will fight with that posture. For example, if you have two stacks, one Offensive, and one Defensive, and an enemy stack moves into the region in Offensive posture, then all three stacks will use Offensive posture. So no entrenchment bonus, they use the Offensive rather than Defensive Firepower and Leadership values, and all are considered Attackers in the Stack Selection mechanic. You can see this by looking in the battle log, where you can see in the leadership bonus calculation that elements in the stack originally in Defensive posture are in fact using the Offensive leadership stat and that there are not notations for entrenchment benefits. If a stack is in Passive posture it is likely to be able to withdraw from the fight or avoid being targeted altogether, but if it does end up in the battle, it is resolved using Offensive stats.

This means that an inactive leader set to Defensive posture who then MTSGs to support a friendly in Offensive posture DOES switch to Offensive posture for resolution purposes. I have to assume that if he is inactive at the time he would then suffer the -35% penalty that he would if his posture were flipped for MC reasons, but it hasn't happened often enough in my games for me to confirm that effect in an actual battle log entry.

If there is not a battle, then the stacks keep their postures, so the Defensive stack regains cohesion at a faster rate than the one in Offensive posture, etc.

The Orders on the other hand do not change depending on other stacks. So if one stack is set to Feint and the other is set to Hold at All Costs, then when it is time for retreats, one is likely to do so while the other is unlikely to do so. (I am less certain about this one, it isn't a situation I have seen enough to have examined all the details on.)

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Newbie questions about combining stacks for combat, etc.

Fri Apr 28, 2017 3:52 pm

ArmChairGeneral wrote:IIRC, an MTSGer in Defensive Posture uses the same come-to-the-aid mechanic that Army stacks use. So when they arrive, if one of their friendly stacks is overmatched (I forget the specific threshold) then they will engage their friendly stack's (largest) opposing stack. If their friendly is above the threshold then they engage via normal stack mechanics.

(Which means there are rare situations where if the MTSGer arrives to a slightly winning or even battle while on defense, then depending on how many stacks are on the opposing side there might not be attackers who decide to engage them if they are not triggered to support their friendly stack. This happens more often with Army stacks who don't engage immediately because there are other stacks, but then engages on later rounds becausel one of its friendlies is losing.)

For the OP and any other new players not familiar with it, a definitive explanation of the Special Army Combat Stack Selection Rule written by Captain_Orso can be found here http://ageod-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=331&t=40370&p=354606&hilit=Army+stack#p354606. That topic is only tangential to the original post but is an important mechanic that is difficult to get your head around and that post deserves a read.


I would have to slightly revise what I wrote in that post for clarification. During the Commitment of Stacks phase, an army stack in the region is simply not included in the group of stacks checking for commitment, until after the first commitment has occurred.

I don't think I've ever read about there being a preference for Army and/or Corps stacks being added to a battle containing a Corps stack of the same army, but it would seem logical. I just can't recall ever having seen it actually stated.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Newbie questions about combining stacks for combat, etc.

Fri Apr 28, 2017 3:59 pm

Cardinal Ape wrote:
Captain_Orso wrote:But if you don't want a Corps stack to MTSG, the only way to truly prevent it, is by setting it to PP (Passive Posture), which I would not suggest doing with any Corps in the proximity of an enemy stack, unless you are in the process of trying to get it out of the area at all costs, and it is already in motion.


That is true for inactive commanders, but active commanders can use the 'evade combat' special order to prevent a stack from MTSG. If playing on Veteran activation there is a danger of a commander disobeying his evade orders so going passive would be the only surefire way to make a stack sit out for a battle on that setting.

--

I think a common misconception in the inner working of MTSG combat is who leads who. Just because the portraits in the battle report show Grant and Lee does not mean they actually led troops in battle. An element only receives combat bonuses from his division commander and his corps commander. Army commanders do provide offensive and defensive stat bonuses to their corps commanders which does trickle down, but they need not be present in a battle to do their 'leading'.

Anther nuance, one that took me a while to figure out, is that each corps in battle has their own, independent posture. Stacks that MTSG do not inherit the posture of the stack they MTSG'ed to. Its something to keep in mind with lopsided generals like Longstreet who would fight 15% worse if not in defensive posture, possibly more if his divisions are led by generals who also favor the defensive. Its a bit counter-intuitive to think of defensively supporting an attack or to offensively support a defense, but it can be done in this combat system. Its pretty slick.


Hmmm... I'm not sure exactly where Evade Combat fits in. It may be in the commitment phase, or before it, or even in the battle itself.

About "does not mean they actually led troops in battle", that is not correct, if you absolutely follow the statement. For example, Lee's Army stack and a Corps stack of his army are in a region with an opposing Corps stack. The commitment phase may decide that only the two Corps stacks actually take part in the battle, but Lee will still command the battle, which means that all of his Offensive/Defensive values and abilities will be included in the battle, although none of the units in his stack actually take part in the battle.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Newbie questions about combining stacks for combat, etc.

Fri Apr 28, 2017 4:07 pm

ArmChairGeneral wrote:" each corps in battle has their own, independent posture."

I am not sure this is correct, although I could certainly be wrong. As far as I understand it, if any friendly stack is in Offensive or Assault posture (Red or Orange) then every stack on their side will fight with that posture. For example, if you have two stacks, one Offensive, and one Defensive, and an enemy stack moves into the region in Offensive posture, then all three stacks will use Offensive posture. So no entrenchment bonus, they use the Offensive rather than Defensive Firepower and Leadership values, and all are considered Attackers in the Stack Selection mechanic. You can see this by looking in the battle log, where you can see in the leadership bonus calculation that elements in the stack originally in Defensive posture are in fact using the Offensive leadership stat and that there are not notations for entrenchment benefits. If a stack is in Passive posture it is likely to be able to withdraw from the fight or avoid being targeted altogether, but if it does end up in the battle, it is resolved using Offensive stats.

This means that an inactive leader set to Defensive posture who then MTSGs to support a friendly in Offensive posture DOES switch to Offensive posture for resolution purposes. I have to assume that if he is inactive at the time he would then suffer the -35% penalty that he would if his posture were flipped for MC reasons, but it hasn't happened often enough in my games for me to confirm that effect in an actual battle log entry.

If there is not a battle, then the stacks keep their postures, so the Defensive stack regains cohesion at a faster rate than the one in Offensive posture, etc.

The Orders on the other hand do not change depending on other stacks. So if one stack is set to Feint and the other is set to Hold at All Costs, then when it is time for retreats, one is likely to do so while the other is unlikely to do so. (I am less certain about this one, it isn't a situation I have seen enough to have examined all the details on.)


No, I'm fairly certain this is not true. I've simply never read anything ever insinuating that posture is shared. I believe the elements fighting in the battle simply enjoy the modifiers inherited to them by their leaders.

User avatar
ArmChairGeneral
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 997
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:00 am
Location: Austin, TX, USA

Re: Newbie questions about combining stacks for combat, etc.

Fri Apr 28, 2017 4:19 pm

Captain_Orso wrote:
6..... If they arrive in the battle region in time, they will simply be added to the units engaged in the battle.



I am with you on everything except this. The MTSGer is a stack, and the first step in a round is stack targetting. I have been in this exact situation dozens and dozens of times at the start of the Shiloh and 1862 West scenarios and have sandboxed it through more than 200 battle iterations.

The Initial CSA Army at the point of attack is smaller than Grant's attacking force and fights a round. Breckinridge MTSGs in the second round and during that round the ONLY fighting that occurs is between Grant's stack and Breckinridge's stack while, ASJ's Army stack (because Grant cannot now select it as a target because there is a now a non-Army enemy stack present) completely sits out the round. ASJ's stack shows in the battle report as taking 0 hits and 0 cohesion that round, so we know categorically that his stack did not engage. (There is only one enemy stack, it has not selected ASJ as its target, and since ASJ is in Defensive posture he can't target anything.) Then on the third round, Breckinridge's stack (assuming he makes his third round MTSG roll and is still there, sometimes he isn't) is overmatched, so ASJ's stack comes to its defense and all three stacks show hits and cohesion losses for that and subsequent rounds.

If instead MTSG elements were simply dumped into frontage as normal without regard to what stack they were in, then we would not see the effect of ASJ sitting out round 2, and at least some elements in his stack would make it into frontage and we would see non-zero hits and cohesion losses in his stack that round.

User avatar
ArmChairGeneral
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 997
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:00 am
Location: Austin, TX, USA

Re: Newbie questions about combining stacks for combat, etc.

Fri Apr 28, 2017 4:23 pm

Captain_Orso wrote:No, I'm fairly certain this is not true. I've simply never read anything ever insinuating that posture is shared. I believe the elements fighting in the battle simply enjoy the modifiers inherited to them by their leaders.


This is easy enough to test, it will show in the battle log. It will take me some time to get a sandbox set up to check it out and I will get back to you on this one, hopefully by the end of the weekend. I am pretty sure I have seen this in the wikis, but we have lost a lot of info in them over the years due to personal politics, and I think it will be quicker and more definitive to test it in game rather than search for a possibly incorrect reference.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Newbie questions about combining stacks for combat, etc.

Fri Apr 28, 2017 4:54 pm

ArmChairGeneral wrote:
Captain_Orso wrote:
6..... If they arrive in the battle region in time, they will simply be added to the units engaged in the battle.



I am with you on everything except this. The MTSGer is a stack, and the first step in a round is stack targetting. I have been in this exact situation dozens and dozens of times at the start of the Shiloh and 1862 West scenarios and have sandboxed it through more than 200 battle iterations.

The Initial CSA Army at the point of attack is smaller than Grant's attacking force and fights a round. Breckinridge MTSGs in the second round and during that round the ONLY fighting that occurs is between Grant's stack and Breckinridge's stack while, ASJ's Army stack (because Grant cannot now select it as a target because there is a now a non-Army enemy stack present) completely sits out the round. ASJ's stack shows in the battle report as taking 0 hits and 0 cohesion that round, so we know categorically that his stack did not engage. (There is only one enemy stack, it has not selected ASJ as its target, and since ASJ is in Defensive posture he can't target anything.) Then on the third round, Breckinridge's stack (assuming he makes his third round MTSG roll and is still there, sometimes he isn't) is overmatched, so ASJ's stack comes to its defense and all three stacks show hits and cohesion losses for that and subsequent rounds.

If instead MTSG elements were simply dumped into frontage as normal without regard to what stack they were in, then we would not see the effect of ASJ sitting out round 2, and at least some elements in his stack would make it into frontage and we would see non-zero hits and cohesion losses in his stack that round.


No no. I don't mean to sound offensive, but you have a basic misunderstanding of how the BE (Battle Engine) works. Nobody is ever "dumped into frontage". Units are selected for each round of battle, depending on their stati. In your example, ASJ's Army stack fights in the first round of battle, and then Breckinridge's Corps arrives for the second round of battle. At the start of each round of battle, the units which are put into frontage are determined by their strength. There is a positive modifiers for units which were in frontage during the previous round of battle, but depending on their strength at the start of the second round of battle, they may be replaced for the second round, especially if they lost a lot of cohesion during the first round of battle.

The Commitment of stacks phase take place before the battle begins. It actually determines which stacks take part in which battle. But once a battle has commenced, there is no re-shuffling of stacks.

Also, a stack being in DP in no way means that a stack cannot target an enemy stack during the Commitment of stacks phase. It only means that they are included in the pool of stacks looking for targets later in the phase. Also, once they have been targeted, that's it. they are already set to be included in that battle. They do not subsequently search for their own target.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Newbie questions about combining stacks for combat, etc.

Fri Apr 28, 2017 5:16 pm

ArmChairGeneral wrote:
Captain_Orso wrote:No, I'm fairly certain this is not true. I've simply never read anything ever insinuating that posture is shared. I believe the elements fighting in the battle simply enjoy the modifiers inherited to them by their leaders.


This is easy enough to test, it will show in the battle log. It will take me some time to get a sandbox set up to check it out and I will get back to you on this one, hopefully by the end of the weekend. I am pretty sure I have seen this in the wikis, but we have lost a lot of info in them over the years due to personal politics, and I think it will be quicker and more definitive to test it in game rather than search for a possibly incorrect reference.


I know that a lot of post were deleted by a former forum member who had a lot of knowledge and experience, and who left after some conflict he had with... whom ever (I honestly don't know any of the details, and I was on a hiatus from the forums at the time, so I didn't even catch wind of it happening :( ).

Also, I got an archive of the old forum once from Pocus, to search out some of the major important posts (all of which were deleted) by "He Who Must Not Be Named". That's why there back again.

But the Wikis are a different matter. Every change made to them is recorded, and can be rolled back. So I don't think that it's even possible for somebody to have screwed with the Wikis and deleted even his own changes without the entire thing being being reservable.

Now I do feel a bit guilty, for having gotten you to run tests to present the evidence :blink: . I know how much work that is, because I've done a lot of that myself Image

User avatar
ArmChairGeneral
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 997
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:00 am
Location: Austin, TX, USA

Re: Newbie questions about combining stacks for combat, etc.

Fri Apr 28, 2017 9:19 pm

OK, so I was a little imprecise with the "dumped into the frontage" phrase. I should have said "joining the pool of elements that can potentially be selected for the frontage." Looking back, the way I phrased it may have sounded a little snide, I'm sorry if I came off that way. I think we can agree though, that however you phrase it, upon successful MTSG a mass of new elements becomes eligible to be chosen for the frontage via the normal frontage selection process.

--

One thing that I am sure is the case is that stacks in defensive posture do not target enemy stacks at the start of a battle. Attacking stacks choose targets, period, just like in Loki's linked post. Defending stacks either get targeted by an attacker, or they sit there and do nothing. If you have two Corps stacks defending and a single enemy stack attacking, the enemy will choose one of your stacks as its target and engage just that stack, while your other stack sits on its hands. If on a later round the targeted stack is overmatched, THEN your second stack can come in to support, and its elements enter the frontage pool, and potentially the battle.

This is easy enough to reproduce in a test, I will include it in my other results.

--

If I am understanding you correctly, Orso, your overarching argument is that frontage eligibility and subsequent selection is the only mechanic by which the MTSGers enter and participate in the battle, because stack targeting happens once and is then fixed for the entire battle.

What I am saying is that frontage selection alone (whose mechanism is well understood and not in dispute) cannot account for the behavior of the entire stack doing nothing on the second round. If it were, you would expect that at least some elements from the original stack, at least some of the time, would be selected through the normal frontage mechanics to continue engaging in the second round. Since the initial stack consistently has zero hits and zero cohesion loss on the second round, then it stands to reason that none of that stack's elements could have been eligible for the frontage or else at least some of them would have been randomly chosen on at least some iterations.

I am asserting that the reason we are not seeing what we would normally expect from frontage selection is that the attacking stack does not have them selected as a target on the second round, (it is instead targeting the MTSG stack). Since they are defenders, they cannot themselves target an enemy stack and can only re-enter the frontage if a friendly stack is overmatched. It follows from this that stack targeting (as opposed to Commitment) can change throughout the battle.

--

Instead of typing all this I should have been sandboxing....

User avatar
Cardinal Ape
General of the Army
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:59 am

Re: Newbie questions about combining stacks for combat, etc.

Sat Apr 29, 2017 1:27 am

Captain_Orso wrote:
Cardinal Ape wrote:I think a common misconception in the inner working of MTSG combat is who leads who. Just because the portraits in the battle report show Grant and Lee does not mean they actually led troops in battle. An element only receives combat bonuses from his division commander and his corps commander. Army commanders do provide offensive and defensive stat bonuses to their corps commanders which does trickle down, but they need not be present in a battle to do their 'leading'.


About "does not mean they actually led troops in battle", that is not correct, if you absolutely follow the statement. For example, Lee's Army stack and a Corps stack of his army are in a region with an opposing Corps stack. The commitment phase may decide that only the two Corps stacks actually take part in the battle, but Lee will still command the battle, which means that all of his Offensive/Defensive values and abilities will be included in the battle, although none of the units in his stack actually take part in the battle.


Yeah, bad wording on my part. In a round about way I was trying to get to why Grant and Lee should be leading their own stacks instead of putting them in charge of an HQ support staff. And a bit about how corps commanders are almost as important as the army leader.

In your example Lee's stats would affect frontage values, but if he isn't leading troops in his own stack then his Offensive/Defensive values will play no part in the battle other than frontage. He has already increased the O/D values of his corps commanders prior to the battle so being in the region will have no further affect on his corps O/D values.

Like you say, the highest ranking commander will pass on his traits to all other units in battle. I'm not sure which traits can be passed on, but I know for certain that 'artilleryman' works, and is quite nice if you can get such a commander to high enough seniority. The passing on of traits may also be a reason to avoid certain commanders in some situations; it would be nice to know if Lee made all his corps 'reckless'.

User avatar
Cardinal Ape
General of the Army
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:59 am

Re: Newbie questions about combining stacks for combat, etc.

Sat Apr 29, 2017 1:39 am

ArmChairGeneral wrote:
Captain_Orso wrote:No, I'm fairly certain this is not true. I've simply never read anything ever insinuating that posture is shared. I believe the elements fighting in the battle simply enjoy the modifiers inherited to them by their leaders.


This is easy enough to test, it will show in the battle log. It will take me some time to get a sandbox set up to check it out and I will get back to you on this one, hopefully by the end of the weekend. I am pretty sure I have seen this in the wikis, but we have lost a lot of info in them over the years due to personal politics, and I think it will be quicker and more definitive to test it in game rather than search for a possibly incorrect reference.


Like I said, its not all that intuitive at first thought, that's why I found out about it completely by accident. I was looking for something else in the battle logs when I stumbled on it. Ya, it is real easy to see in the logs once you look for it. Maybe use Longstreet to defensively support an attack from Johnston, that should give a good 20% command difference.

I do wish I had know about it earlier; it adds more depth to corps design.

User avatar
ArmChairGeneral
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 997
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:00 am
Location: Austin, TX, USA

Re: Newbie questions about combining stacks for combat, etc.

Mon May 08, 2017 7:27 pm

1st set of tests complete, run with an army and a corps against an army, all in same region, with the "defenders" in combinations of Off and Def postures.

Can I post log files somehow? I can't figure out how to attach them in the new forum.

Short version so far is that stacks keep their postures, defensive posture stacks do not target but can come in to support on later rounds, and Army stacks never target unless supporting on later rounds if there is another stack present.

Have had a case where an Army stack in Def posture simply watched the Off posture Corps get destroyed and never participated.

I will write up more details on these, but I really want to be able to share the log files so others can look at them too....

Next step (after going into more detail on the first setup) is to test behavior when there are two corps in the same region, and after that look into MTSG targeting.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Newbie questions about combining stacks for combat, etc.

Mon May 08, 2017 9:08 pm

Unfortunately, since that last forum SW update, you can only attach files in the Tech Support sub-forums. To have an attachment outside those, you'll need to use a file hoster like Dropbox or WeTransfere.

User avatar
ArmChairGeneral
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 997
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:00 am
Location: Austin, TX, USA

Re: Newbie questions about combining stacks for combat, etc.

Tue May 09, 2017 2:42 am

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

Can someone check to see if this works? There should be 5 battle log files...

Also, can anyone who knows more about how these things work point out if I have left a big security hole or anything by doing it like this?
Last edited by ArmChairGeneral on Tue May 09, 2017 5:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Cardinal Ape
General of the Army
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:59 am

Re: Newbie questions about combining stacks for combat, etc.

Tue May 09, 2017 4:38 am

ArmChairGeneral wrote:Can someone check to see if this works? There should be 5 battle log files...

Also, can anyone who knows more about how these things work point out if I have left a big security hole or anything by doing it like this?


Yup, the five files are there.

Nah, I don't think it leaves a security hole. Its more of a privacy thing; Anyone who follows that link can see your email address and the name associated with it. If you'd rather not have people see that then you could always create a dummy email account.
Last edited by Cardinal Ape on Tue May 09, 2017 6:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ArmChairGeneral
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 997
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:00 am
Location: Austin, TX, USA

Re: Newbie questions about combining stacks for combat, etc.

Tue May 09, 2017 5:48 am

Thanks Ape!

I will probably switch it up then. Although I don't have any issue with any of you guys having that, I might as well not leave it laying around.

Return to “Civil War II”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests