Hey all, I was wondering if putting a great 3 star general like say Lee in command of a Corps instead of an army is worth it. I guess I just have not really seen how the army commanders stats really affect battles that his Corps are in. For example, in VA, I often have one Corps in the Valley that is basically strong enough to be called an army itself under Jackson. How effective would it be to have say 3 corps ( Jackson, Lee, and Longstreet) with Johnston in command. Would the high traits of the corps commanders be offset by Johnston's stats?
Thanks
-
marinewillis
- Conscript
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:25 pm
What truly matters in Army command is the Strategic Rating. Ideally the best rating in this field would produce the best results as Army Commander and not as Corps commander.
Lee is a monster, but assigning him a Corps commander will do the job until you can find enough resources to assign him an Army of his own. You don't really have to, of course. It all depends on how Johnston is performing.
Most depends on the game settings. I play with slight randomization of stats. In my case, Lee doesn't necessarily have to be the best.
Lee is a monster, but assigning him a Corps commander will do the job until you can find enough resources to assign him an Army of his own. You don't really have to, of course. It all depends on how Johnston is performing.
Most depends on the game settings. I play with slight randomization of stats. In my case, Lee doesn't necessarily have to be the best.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
We ain't going down!
We ain't going down!
I must inform you that Lee's Offensive and Defensive stats also translate to his Corps Commanders, which in turn translate to every element in their respective Corps. For instance in a game I am playing, with Lee in Command of my ANV.
Lee's has (6-5-5)
His two Corps Commanders have received significant bonuses from all three of Lee's stats as a result of him commanding the Army.
1. General Jackson (7-7-8)
2. Edward E. Johnson (5-3-4)
Jackson now gives his troops a 35% offensive fire and assault bonus and a 40% defensive fire bonus.
Johnson now gives his troops a 15% offensive fire and assault bonus and a 20% defensive fire bonus.
Placing Lee as a Corps Commander, under a less able Army Commander is, in my humble opinion, somewhat of a waste since his stats so heavily augment that of his subordinate Corps commanders when he commands an Army.
HOWEVER
Placing a 3-Star such as McDowell, Butler, Banks or Burnside on the Union side in command of a Corps is totally plausable. For instance placing them under say Meade, Grant or Sherman. This will boost their stats significantly making them a much more effective leader. My opponent currently has Gneral Thomas, "The Rock of Chickamauga" Under Grant....defensive stat is 10...fricken 10. That's a 50% bonus to the already astronomical defensive fire values for all his troops. ouch.
and that doesn't count the bonuses each of his division commanders offer. Some of those units receive as much as a 65% defensive bonus. Do the math....
Later war line infantry in defensive posture
that's a base Defensive fire value of 23 + (.65 x 23)
or 23 + 14.95 (rounded up to 15)
totalled to a defensive fire value of 38...WHAM that hurts. And that doesn't take into account artillery elements.
Cheers
Lee's has (6-5-5)
His two Corps Commanders have received significant bonuses from all three of Lee's stats as a result of him commanding the Army.
1. General Jackson (7-7-8)
2. Edward E. Johnson (5-3-4)
Jackson now gives his troops a 35% offensive fire and assault bonus and a 40% defensive fire bonus.
Johnson now gives his troops a 15% offensive fire and assault bonus and a 20% defensive fire bonus.
Placing Lee as a Corps Commander, under a less able Army Commander is, in my humble opinion, somewhat of a waste since his stats so heavily augment that of his subordinate Corps commanders when he commands an Army.
HOWEVER
Placing a 3-Star such as McDowell, Butler, Banks or Burnside on the Union side in command of a Corps is totally plausable. For instance placing them under say Meade, Grant or Sherman. This will boost their stats significantly making them a much more effective leader. My opponent currently has Gneral Thomas, "The Rock of Chickamauga" Under Grant....defensive stat is 10...fricken 10. That's a 50% bonus to the already astronomical defensive fire values for all his troops. ouch.
and that doesn't count the bonuses each of his division commanders offer. Some of those units receive as much as a 65% defensive bonus. Do the math....
Later war line infantry in defensive posture
that's a base Defensive fire value of 23 + (.65 x 23)
or 23 + 14.95 (rounded up to 15)
totalled to a defensive fire value of 38...WHAM that hurts. And that doesn't take into account artillery elements.
Cheers
-
Brochgale
- Brigadier General
- Posts: 474
- Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:22 am
- Location: Scotland
- Contact: Yahoo Messenger
not gamey at all. Had he survived...He'd most likely have been sent out west to command the Army of Tennessee in my humble opinion. If you've got a 3-star Jackson...it's a waste NOT to use him as an Army Commander. Although i've heard he picks up a negative ability once he gets that 3rd star...not sure if that's true though.
But by all means do it. He'll make Bohnam look like Boneparte
But by all means do it. He'll make Bohnam look like Boneparte
-
marinewillis
- Conscript
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:25 pm
Yeah I have had him up to a 3 star but just left him in command of his corps. He picks up the "Hotheaded" trait...but with stats like those its really not that big of a deal. Next time I get him to that level I am sending him out west pronto since he is such a great offensive force and all that open ground in KY would look enticing.
-
Brochgale
- Brigadier General
- Posts: 474
- Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:22 am
- Location: Scotland
- Contact: Yahoo Messenger
Banks6060 wrote:not gamey at all. Had he survived...He'd most likely have been sent out west to command the Army of Tennessee in my humble opinion. If you've got a 3-star Jackson...it's a waste NOT to use him as an Army Commander. Although i've heard he picks up a negative ability once he gets that 3rd star...not sure if that's true though.
But by all means do it. He'll make Bohnam look like Boneparte
I am trying to play a campaign as close to the historical actuality as I can make it. However Giving him command in the west is something I have toyed with as another has already written.
I like the hotheaded trait as I reckon a commander is more likely to attack if he is given order to do so. Especially If I have heavy metal on CD player at time - it sorts of makes me more aggresive?
"How noble is one, to love his country:how sad the fate to mingle with those you hate"
W.A.Fletcher "Memoirs Of A Confederate Soldier"
W.A.Fletcher "Memoirs Of A Confederate Soldier"
Banks6060 wrote:not gamey at all. Had he survived...He'd most likely have been sent out west to command the Army of Tennessee in my humble opinion. If you've got a 3-star Jackson...it's a waste NOT to use him as an Army Commander. Although i've heard he picks up a negative ability once he gets that 3rd star...not sure if that's true though.
But by all means do it. He'll make Bohnam look like Boneparte
I truly question whether he would have been an effective army commander. Not a very good communicator. But that is going off topic.
Crimguy wrote:I truly question whether he would have been an effective army commander. Not a very good communicator. But that is going off topic.
Good point. He may not have been able to handle it historically. But I dunno....he was basically given control of an "army" of sorts at Chancelorsville and he did ok there.....hehe.
He was in command of around 36,000 troops I think.
Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests