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.
....
resCostPerDay = 10 // -10% for each day of marching
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.
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.
....
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests