Glitch
Conscript
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2017 8:50 pm

Army Commanders Not Leading Battles

Fri May 04, 2018 6:52 am

I'm sure this has been discussed somewhere at sometime, but I was unable to locate it:

With regards to army commanders, my preference (At least with the Union) is to separate the army commander from any corps stack and make him his own independent stack, with perhaps an HQ or some other bonus unit. However, I've noticed that my army commanders tend to not MTSG; instead my corps commanders lead the entirety of the battle. In fact, in one instance Grant did not lead the battle even though it was a 6 hr battle and he was one region away.

The only way, it seems, is to make Grant the leader of a stack and have his stack in the same region as where the battle will occur.

So, my question is three fold: 1) does an army commander MTSG and eventually assume command of a battle and is this random (ie formula determines whether they actually MTSG)?; 2) if my army commander is in an independent stack from my corps, does he need to be in the region where the battle will occur to assume command of the battle; and 3) is it better for a commander like Grant to lead a stack rather than be separate and leading no troops but providing bonuses to an added corps?

Thank you!!

User avatar
pgr
General
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:33 pm
Location: Paris France (by way of Wyoming)

Re: Army Commanders Not Leading Battles

Fri May 04, 2018 5:27 pm

This sounds a bit odd. Normally, army stacks are extra likely to MTSG and the battle CiC is always the army stack commander, provided that they in the battle province or next to it.

It was a bit unclear in your post. You are putting combat divisions in your army stack, correct? If it is just Grant and an army hq, you might be having an issue because only noncombat elements are in the stack.

In general, you wan't to put your main combat power in corps stacks, because army stacks always commit last (which can lead to small corps getting eaten up in the first firing round. ) That said, its good to have a few divisions in the army stack, because when Grant does commit, he gets nice firing bouses.

Feel free to pm me and send a hst file, so i can look at how you are setting things up.

lightbrave
Lieutenant
Posts: 113
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2014 3:39 am
Location: Jackson, Georgia

Re: Army Commanders Not Leading Battles

Sat May 05, 2018 1:27 am

Ok, Glitch is my current opponent and we need a good answer to this questions as it effects both of us. There was current battle at Holly Springs. Its the city just southeast of Memphis. Before the battle I had 1 Corps at Holly Springs and 1 Corps at Memphis. Each had a Corps commander. I also had Johnston (Commander of those 2 Corps) sitting in the Memphis area. He was a stack by himself but was commander of the 2 mentioned Corps. When my opponent attacked, he hit my Corps at Holly Springs. Both of my Corps took part in the battle but Johnston was never in command. After I sent the turn back to my opponent, I tried to see if it was just a fluke, however, I ran the turn 2 more times (without changing anything) and the results of the battle changed but Johnston never took command. I tried a 3rd re-run and the only thing I changed was I moved Johnston from Memphis to Holly Springs (still a stack by himself) and he took command of the battle. I really don't understand this. If my Corps in Memphis made it to the battle then how did Johnston never make it on all 3 turns?

The reason I just don't have Johnston as the commander of one of the Corps stacks is because both of my Corps commanders have a better defensive rating. In fact, the only reason I want him in the battle is for the potential "Surprise Bonus Effect he gives.

On a side note, as to one of my opponents questions, would it be better if Johnston doesn't take command if he is going to lower the stats of my Corps commanders in the first place?

Am i suppose to put Johnston on a certain posture for him to move to an adjacent region to take command?

User avatar
Citizen X
General of the Army
Posts: 637
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:34 pm

Re: Army Commanders Not Leading Battles

Sat May 05, 2018 12:16 pm

That is too much fishing in the dark here. Without sseing the composition of the stacks, there is hard telling.

* As has been stated, the Army stack needs to contain combat units to get committed via MTSG at all.
* There is no MTSG in the first round of the battle.
* Armystacks won't be committed first if there is any other firendly stack present.
* Surprise Bonus effects only the stack of Johnston, only if he is in command of the stack. The trait is relevant on the openeing of the battle, afaik. So unless the Johnston armystack is present in the area and no other stack is present there, it won't fire at all.
* I don't know if this has been fixed now, but it used to very rarely fire anyway.
* Lowered stats are bad. But stacks that can't support each other in battle are even worse. In many cases you pick any army commander, before you let stacks fight individually.
* Battles are broken down to the level of individual elements. Their performance is altered by their unit commander and their stack commander (if they differ, like corps commader and division commander). That's the relevant officers for the outcome of a battle.

Open the battle log and study the details there, if you want to know, what really happpened during battle.
You might ven want to post it here.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5684
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Army Commanders Not Leading Battles

Sat May 05, 2018 2:11 pm

MTSG (March to The Sound of Guns) only ever affects Corps and/or Army Stacks in neighboring regions.

An Army Stack is a Stack containing a leader with Army Command status, even if the leader is the only unit in the Stack.

A Corps Stack is a Stack containing a leader with a Corps Command, even if the leader is the only unit in the Stack.

If a unit is inside an Army or Corps Stack, and your remove it from that Stack--by dragging it outside of the Stack and dropping it onto a different Stack or into the open area of the same or a different region--it ceases to be a part of that original Stack, and is then outside the Chain of Command of that original Army or Corps Stack.

lightbrave wrote:Ok, Glitch is my current opponent and we need a good answer to this questions as it effects both of us. There was current battle at Holly Springs. Its the city just southeast of Memphis. Before the battle I had 1 Corps at Holly Springs and 1 Corps at Memphis. Each had a Corps commander. I also had Johnston (Commander of those 2 Corps) sitting in the Memphis area. He was a stack by himself but was commander of the 2 mentioned Corps. When my opponent attacked, he hit my Corps at Holly Springs. Both of my Corps took part in the battle but Johnston was never in command. After I sent the turn back to my opponent, I tried to see if it was just a fluke, however, I ran the turn 2 more times (without changing anything) and the results of the battle changed but Johnston never took command. I tried a 3rd re-run and the only thing I changed was I moved Johnston from Memphis to Holly Springs (still a stack by himself) and he took command of the battle. I really don't understand this. If my Corps in Memphis made it to the battle then how did Johnston never make it on all 3 turns?


Johnston is not the command of those two Corps Stacks, he is the Army Commander with those two Corps Stacks attached to his Army Command.

Johnston's Army Stack is in Memphis can never MTSG to Holly Springs, which is two region distant from Memphis.

lightbrave wrote:The reason I just don't have Johnston as the commander of one of the Corps stacks is because both of my Corps commanders have a better defensive rating. In fact, the only reason I want him in the battle is for the potential "Surprise Bonus Effect he gives.


Check the tool-tip of Johnston's Surpriser Ability in the element detail window (click on Johnston's Stack, then on his unit in the Stack Panel, then on Johnston's NATO symbol in the Unit Detain Panel to the right of the Stack Panel to open Johnston's element detail window). IIRC it only pertains to small stacks and only when attacking, but I might be wrong.

lightbrave wrote:On a side note, as to one of my opponents questions, would it be better if Johnston doesn't take command if he is going to lower the stats of my Corps commanders in the first place?


Do you mean, would it be better were Johnston not in command during a battle? That would depend on the Posture of the Stacks. If Johnston is in OP (Offensive Posture), his '4' OP value is used; if he is in DP, his '2' DP value is used. Compare them to the Corps Commander's OP and DP values to discover which value is better. But, even if the OP or DP of the Corps Commander were better, an Army Commander adds a bonus to combat. I don't recall the calculation, but IIRC the presence of the Army Commander adds 3% to the Offensive or Defensive values of the fighting elements, depending on the posture of the Army Commander, and thus all forces in the battle of that faction.

lightbrave wrote:Am i suppose to put Johnston on a certain posture for him to move to an adjacent region to take command?


No, but IIRC there is a small bonus for a stack checking to MTSG if it is in OP.

MTSG takes into account how long it would hypothetically take the MTSG'ing Stack to actually move from its current location to the battle location. The quicker the move, the more greater the probability of success.

So, if Johnston has the Rail Movement SO (Special Orders) selected--and if he is alone in a stack, why not, because leaders do not cost anything to move by rail--, and there is a viable rail link between the MTSG'ing Stack's region and the battle region, it will greatly increase the chances of success.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5684
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Army Commanders Not Leading Battles

Sat May 05, 2018 2:11 pm

Citizen X wrote:That is too much fishing in the dark here. Without sseing the composition of the stacks, there is hard telling.

* As has been stated, the Army stack needs to contain combat units to get committed via MTSG at all.


What? Where does it say that?

Citizen X wrote:* There is no MTSG in the first round of the battle.


I'm not sure at the moment, but I believe MTSG is only at the start of battle. Just because the MTSG'ing Stack doesn't arrive until a later round of battle, doesn't mean the decision to MTSG wasn't at the start of battle.

I do not think MTSG can be started after the battle has started, but I'm not 100% certain either.

Citizen X wrote:* Armystacks won't be committed first if there is any other firendly stack present.
* Surprise Bonus effects only the stack of Johnston, only if he is in command of the stack. The trait is relevant on the openeing of the battle, afaik. So unless the Johnston armystack is present in the area and no other stack is present there, it won't fire at all.


Just because Johnston is in command of a battle--being the highest ranking leader in the battle--doesn't mean he is commanding any other stacks than his own. I do not believe his Surpriser Ability can ever affect any of the Corps Stacks attached to his Army Command, even if they start in the same region. The Ability stipulates, the leader must be in commander of the stack, which means it must be IN the stack.

Citizen X wrote:* I don't know if this has been fixed now, but it used to very rarely fire anyway.
* Lowered stats are bad. But stacks that can't support each other in battle are even worse. In many cases you pick any army commander, before you let stacks fight individually.
* Battles are broken down to the level of individual elements. Their performance is altered by their unit commander and their stack commander (if they differ, like corps commader and division commander). That's the relevant officers for the outcome of a battle.

Open the battle log and study the details there, if you want to know, what really happpened during battle.
You might ven want to post it here.

User avatar
Citizen X
General of the Army
Posts: 637
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:34 pm

Re: Army Commanders Not Leading Battles

Sat May 05, 2018 4:09 pm

Captain_Orso wrote:
Citizen X wrote:That is too much fishing in the dark here. Without sseing the composition of the stacks, there is hard telling.

* As has been stated, the Army stack needs to contain combat units to get committed via MTSG at all.


What? Where does it say that?


That was misleading indeed. It was always my understaning, that non-combat units don't target enemy units. So even if the stack would arrive at the battlefield, it wouldn't be an asset. That might prevent Johnston from becoming CiC, even if his stack would arrive via MTSG. Might be wrong here though.

Captain_Orso wrote:
Citizen X wrote:* There is no MTSG in the first round of the battle.


I'm not sure at the moment, but I believe MTSG is only at the start of battle. Just because the MTSG'ing Stack doesn't arrive until a later round of battle, doesn't mean the decision to MTSG wasn't at the start of battle.

I do not think MTSG can be started after the battle has started, but I'm not 100% certain either.


AFAIK there is a chance triggering an eligible stack to MTSG during every round. But not beforehand. Naturally that means that in the first round there can be no help via MTSG.

Forgot to mention, that the Passive/Passive posture prevents MTSG (or used to, might have changed)

Captain_Orso wrote:
Citizen X wrote:* Armystacks won't be committed first if there is any other firendly stack present.
* Surprise Bonus effects only the stack of Johnston, only if he is in command of the stack. The trait is relevant on the openeing of the battle, afaik. So unless the Johnston armystack is present in the area and no other stack is present there, it won't fire at all.


I do not believe his Surpriser Ability can ever affect any of the Corps Stacks attached to his Army Command


No. It can't.

Captain_Orso wrote:
Citizen X wrote:* I don't know if this has been fixed now, but it used to very rarely fire anyway.
* Lowered stats are bad. But stacks that can't support each other in battle are even worse. In many cases you pick any army commander, before you let stacks fight individually.
* Battles are broken down to the level of individual elements. Their performance is altered by their unit commander and their stack commander (if they differ, like corps commader and division commander). That's the relevant officers for the outcome of a battle.

Open the battle log and study the details there, if you want to know, what really happpened during battle.
You might ven want to post it here.

lightbrave
Lieutenant
Posts: 113
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2014 3:39 am
Location: Jackson, Georgia

Re: Army Commanders Not Leading Battles

Sun May 06, 2018 3:03 am

Let me clarify some things. Memphis is in the Shelby Tennessee Region. Holly Springs is in the Marshall Mississippi Region. These regions are most definitely connected.

I have 1 Army within these 2 regions.

I have 2 Corps in this Army.

The Army is led by Albert Sydney Johnston. (He is solitary to his stack)

1 Corps is led by Alexander P Stuart. (Has 3 divisions)

The second Corps is led by B. Cheatham (Has 3 divisons)

Albert Sydney Johnston is 4-2-1
Alexander P Stuart is 4-2-2
B. Cheatham is 4-4-4

Before i ran turn of battle - Cheatham's Corps was entrenched at Holly Springs.
Alexander's Corps was entrenched at Memphis
Albert Sydney Johnston was also entrenched (Solitary but still Army Commander) at Memphis

During turn all where an defensive stance.

My opponent attacked at Holly Springs.

Both Corps took part in the battle (Both Alexander P Stuarts Corps and B Cheatham Corps)

Johnston never took command (although he was sitting in same region as Alexander's Corps)

So after this battle ..................... i re-ran turn 2 more times (changing nothing) and Johnston still never took command.

All 3 times, Cheatham was in command.

The 3rd re-run i moved Johnston to Holly Springs where in that turn he did indeed take command of the battle.

So what am i missing here?




What does Albert Sydney Johnston bring to the fight? He has only a rating of 1 for Defense while Cheatham has 4. (By the way, the first 3 fights, Cheatham was in Command).

If Johnston was in command (of the first 3 fights) would he have given a possible benefit to the outcome? Assume he does not have the Surpriser Buff (Which im told if nobody is in his stack then it doesnt matter anyway).

Is it better that Cheatham was in command?

Should i just leave Johnston behind the lines on passive to keep him away from leading the army (but keeping the Corps together)?

You say putting the General on offensive posture (with rail connection) increases his chance of MTSG. If my opponent would have attacked me at Memphis instead of Holly Springs would i have attacked him while losing my entranchment bonus because i was on offensive posture?


Please let me know if i need to clarify anything else.

Thanks guys!!!

User avatar
ArmChairGeneral
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 988
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:00 am
Location: Austin, TX, USA

Re: Army Commanders Not Leading Battles

Mon May 07, 2018 4:18 am

The leader pictured at the top of the battle result screen is the one who makes the engagement rolls before and during the battle that decide whether to withdraw, retreat etc. In the situation you describe, I would have thought that would have been ASJ in all cases: both Corps report to him, and they are in his command radius. That is how I have seen it work with Lee and Grant: their subordinate Corps commanders are the ones who give the bonuses to their stacks, but the Army commander makes the engagement rolls.

Mind you, I almost never use "reserve" Army stacks. I tend to use Armies as primary combat formations, so it is possible that I just haven't noticed that they have to be present because my Army commanders usually are present.

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

Re: Army Commanders Not Leading Battles

Mon May 07, 2018 7:05 am

lightbrave wrote: .... In fact, the only reason I want him in the battle is for the potential "Surprise Bonus Effect he gives. ... Am i suppose to put Johnston on a certain posture for him to move to an adjacent region to take command?



The 'Surpriser' trait does not function in the current build. I've been a long time advocate that the trait should be replaced or removed.

As others have mentioned, a stack in passive posture will not MTSG, but I didn't see a mention that the 'evade' special order also will prevent MTSG.


By far the biggest factor in MTSG chances are the 'delayed combat' setting in the game options. The terrain, weather, and commander stats have little to no affect on MTSG chances.(*1)

The min/max commit chance of eligible corps:
-No Delay: Range = 100-100
-Small Delay: Range = 65-80
-Medium Delay: Range = 55-70
-Large Delay: Range = 40-60

If you were to go back to the turn in question and set the delay combat option to none, then ASJ should be guaranteed to MTSG if his posture, special orders, and command structure are correct.

*1, I got the feeling that others in this forum do not believe this to be true and instead they cite the old MTSG rules from CW1. While I do stand by my extensive testing (I used my works battery of 64 comps) I am just one random ape on the net. So until another can confirm or debunk my theory, do bring your skepticism.

User avatar
Citizen X
General of the Army
Posts: 637
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:34 pm

Re: Army Commanders Not Leading Battles

Mon May 07, 2018 9:14 am

lightbrave wrote:
Albert Sydney Johnston is 4-2-1
Alexander P Stuart is 4-2-2
B. Cheatham is 4-4-4


Both Corps took part in the battle (Both Alexander P Stuarts Corps and B Cheatham Corps)

Johnston never took command (although he was sitting in same region as Alexander's Corps)

So after this battle ..................... i re-ran turn 2 more times (changing nothing) and Johnston still never took command.

All 3 times, Cheatham was in command.

The 3rd re-run i moved Johnston to Holly Springs where in that turn he did indeed take command of the battle.

So what am i missing here?




What does Albert Sydney Johnston bring to the fight? He has only a rating of 1 for Defense while Cheatham has 4. (By the way, the first 3 fights, Cheatham was in Command).

If Johnston was in command (of the first 3 fights) would he have given a possible benefit to the outcome? Assume he does not have the Surpriser Buff (Which im told if nobody is in his stack then it doesnt matter anyway).

Is it better that Cheatham was in command?

Should i just leave Johnston behind the lines on passive to keep him away from leading the army (but keeping the Corps together)?

You say putting the General on offensive posture (with rail connection) increases his chance of MTSG. If my opponent would have attacked me at Memphis instead of Holly Springs would i have attacked him while losing my entranchment bonus because i was on offensive posture?


Please let me know if i need to clarify anything else.

Thanks guys!!!



To become CiC an (army?) commander needs to have at least a unit of (any?) kind with him in his stack. Tested this with army commaders and supply wagons. Being in the region of the battle seems to override this.
If the army commander is lone, then the corps commander with the highest seniority seems to become CiC.

Offfensive Posture doesn't lose fortification levels. The stack loses bonusses of fortification and terrain, though.

The stack entering the region is still the attacker.
Does anybody know if the defenders are also losing the 1.5 bonus for defending against an attacker in Offensive Posture?

It is my best knowledge that for the CiC it is the strategic rating that counts, So in your case this should not matter.

As a total blind shot I would recommend that you provide Johnston with at least one division and a supply wagon. As an overall rule of thumb, lone generals can result in unwelcome results sometimes. So keep the guy outa trouble for the time being

I also want to hint you to straight arrows excellent "Points to Know - CSA" thread. http://www.ageod-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=331&t=43086

As a sidenote, I never saw the CSA holding the Memphis-Nashville line, when the Union opponent put his ambition into taking it.

User avatar
Gray Fox
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1431
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:48 pm
Location: Englewood, OH

Re: Army Commanders Not Leading Battles

Mon May 07, 2018 5:55 pm

During my tests with an artillery Division, I sent one under a Corps commander and nothing else into a battle. The stack (Corps commander and one artillery Division) would absolutely not enter the region of the planned battle until I added a combat unit to the stack. So IMHO, that might be why the two lone Army commanders were not MTSG.

Also, frontage is affected by the leader:

http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/index.php? ... ction=edit

"In open terrain only (clear/prairie/desert/wood), the Units Quotas are modified by leader (rank)*(offensive/defensive rating) depending whether in offensive or defensive posture:"

In the situation described by lightbrave, Johnston would only have a leader factor of 3 (rank 3 x def 1) while Cheatham would have an 8 (rank 2 x def 4) and Stuart a 4 (rank 2 x def 2) if both were only 2 stars. If Cheatham were senior to Stuart, it would be advantageous to have him as overall commander in the battle and not Johnston, but Stuart would also be slightly better. In Glitch's case, Grant would almost always be the better choice for leader present at the battle.

If I must hold Memphis and Holly Springs then what is the best course of action? Obviously, Memphis is the priority. Give Cheatham as many Divisions as he can command and assign him this task. Stuart with a mixed Division, a supply unit and some extra artillery should entrench in Holly Springs, perhaps in a stockade/fort for extra protection. Johnston should be somewhere safe so that he has both Corps commanders in range of his command radius for any bonus. Then the primary objective is defended as best you can and Holly Springs is a trip wire.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!

User avatar
pgr
General
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:33 pm
Location: Paris France (by way of Wyoming)

Re: Army Commanders Not Leading Battles

Wed May 09, 2018 1:51 am

lightbrave wrote:Let me clarify some things. Memphis is in the Shelby Tennessee Region. Holly Springs is in the Marshall Mississippi Region. These regions are most definitely connected.

I have 1 Army within these 2 regions.

I have 2 Corps in this Army.

The Army is led by Albert Sydney Johnston. (He is solitary to his stack)

1 Corps is led by Alexander P Stuart. (Has 3 divisions)

The second Corps is led by B. Cheatham (Has 3 divisons)

Albert Sydney Johnston is 4-2-1
Alexander P Stuart is 4-2-2
B. Cheatham is 4-4-4

Before i ran turn of battle - Cheatham's Corps was entrenched at Holly Springs.
Alexander's Corps was entrenched at Memphis
Albert Sydney Johnston was also entrenched (Solitary but still Army Commander) at Memphis

During turn all where an defensive stance.

My opponent attacked at Holly Springs.

Both Corps took part in the battle (Both Alexander P Stuarts Corps and B Cheatham Corps)

Johnston never took command (although he was sitting in same region as Alexander's Corps)

So after this battle ..................... i re-ran turn 2 more times (changing nothing) and Johnston still never took command.

All 3 times, Cheatham was in command.

The 3rd re-run i moved Johnston to Holly Springs where in that turn he did indeed take command of the battle.

So what am i missing here?




What does Albert Sydney Johnston bring to the fight? He has only a rating of 1 for Defense while Cheatham has 4. (By the way, the first 3 fights, Cheatham was in Command).

If Johnston was in command (of the first 3 fights) would he have given a possible benefit to the outcome? Assume he does not have the Surpriser Buff (Which im told if nobody is in his stack then it doesnt matter anyway).

Is it better that Cheatham was in command?

Should i just leave Johnston behind the lines on passive to keep him away from leading the army (but keeping the Corps together)?

You say putting the General on offensive posture (with rail connection) increases his chance of MTSG. If my opponent would have attacked me at Memphis instead of Holly Springs would i have attacked him while losing my entrenchment bonus because i was on offensive posture?


Please let me know if i need to clarify anything else.

Thanks guys!!!


So based on what you describe (and my own experience) ASJ in not becoming the CiC because he has no combat units in his stack. Now you compared his stats to your corps commanders stats, and in a way it's irrelevant because the offensive/defensive stats for firing are taken from the stack commander and his division commanders. So even if ASJ was the CiC, AP Stewart's corps uses his stats, while Cheatham's corps uses Cheatham's stats.

The real impact of the CiC is frontage. To quote the wiki...
In open terrain only (clear/prairie/desert/wood), the Units Quotas are modified by leader (rank)*(offensive/defensive rating) depending whether in offensive or defensive posture:

* Combat Units Quota: (+25 points)*[(rank)]+(off/def rating)]

* Support Units Quota: (+10 points)*[(rank)]+(off/def rating)]


If ASJ is the CiC, in defense the would give a Combat Unit Quota bonus of 25*(3+1)=100
If Cheatham is in in charge, you would get 25*(2+4)=150

So in this case you are BETTER OFF with ASJ not acting as CiC because Cheatham will be able to get more elements on the firing line.

User avatar
Gray Fox
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1431
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:48 pm
Location: Englewood, OH

Re: Army Commanders Not Leading Battles

Wed May 09, 2018 8:00 pm

I chose to follow the text version from the Wiki to determine the quota adjustment for leaders, multiplying rank and off/def rating. Apparently the original Wiki entry had the example that followed do this as well. Narwhal then changed the example to sum the two in the Wiki but not the text. Perhaps someone from Ageod can clarify which one it actually is.

http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/index.php? ... oldid=2773
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!

Blood and Thunder Brigade
Sergeant
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Tasmania, Australia

Re: Army Commanders Not Leading Battles

Thu May 24, 2018 2:58 pm

How do you tell how long a battle lasts?

User avatar
Gray Fox
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1431
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:48 pm
Location: Englewood, OH

Re: Army Commanders Not Leading Battles

Thu May 24, 2018 3:20 pm

In the top left-hand corner of the battle report is an "E". Click this icon and you get the results by each round and thus the number of rounds.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!

Return to “Civil War II”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests