Thoughts on the activiation rule

[charlesonmission]

What are people's thoughts on the 'full' activiation rule. The hardest one where your generals/units can be locked and you can't move them at all. I had begun to play that way against the AI. Do people like it? I guess I find it to be much more historical. There were many times when generals would move. Meade after Gettysburg, Mc after Antietem, Johnston. Yes, it might be frustrating to have a single unit frozen, but it really makes the game more strategic, IMHO.

Thoughts?

Charles

[GraniteStater]

I'm playing a few Union games right now with the rule and I endorse it for the Union, at least. It definitely slows the onslaught down. Recommended.

[charlesonmission]

I believe it has to apply to both sides.

I'm playing a few Union games right now with the rule and I endorse it for the Union, at least. It definitely slows the onslaught down. Recommended.

[GraniteStater]

Unsure if it inhibits the AI also. Dunno if a human would agree in a PBEM.

[Citizen X]

I prefer high delay instead.

[gchristie]

Unsure if it inhibits the AI also. Dunno if a human would agree in a PBEM.

Tried it once playing Union in a PBEM. Very frustrating! But had also imposed a house rule of more historic full mobilization dates. The two combined ground my offensives to a near halt.

[GraniteStater]

So, when I play the AI with the setting, it applies to the AI, also? As the Union, it wouldn't be that bad - a lot of CSA Leaders are not going to be affected as often. I have been playing Union with it and it doesn't seem to inhibit the CSA that much.

[wsatterwhite]

I don't like it just because of how quickly large forces can move in this game with no chance to have a reactionary move- the situations that the rule is meant to represent (McClellan on the Peninsula, Meade after Gettysburg, etc...) are all easily replicated by the game system itself- forces led by inactive generals move and fight with penalties so a player can choose to be how aggressive he wants to be inactive forces. But if it's the late June 1863 turn and the Army of Northern Virginia just swung around through the Shenandoah Valley and is headed to Pennsylvania, should an inactive Joe Hooker prevent the bulk of the Army of the Potomac from reacting? Even McClellan or Joe Johnston were able to move their army when they knew they absolutely had to move his army- they weren't just randomly bolted down in place.

[GraniteStater]

A good point. Maybe it becomes incumbent to plan with the 'uh-oh' factor more in mind?

[wsatterwhite]

Yes, if anything, the "uh-oh" factor has caused me to appreciate why generals like McClellan were so cautious at times and why the Federals kept so many troops stationed in Northern Virginia and around Washington. Letting the enemy have a 15-day headstart and then taking a chance of having the bulk of your army immobilized in an unrealistic manner only makes things worse.

[GraniteStater]

Well, when a new Wal-Mart opens in Manassas, ya can't blame the boys.

[charlesonmission]

I'm not sure I would totally agree with this. McCellenwas very slow getting out of the Peninusala (I would say much more so than simply movement penalties). Wasn't it Butler that refused to move after a small initial attack in the Peninusula during the overland campaign.

I don't like it just because of how quickly large forces can move in this game with no chance to have a reactionary move- the situations that the rule is meant to represent (McClellan on the Peninsula, Meade after Gettysburg, etc...) are all easily replicated by the game system itself- forces led by inactive generals move and fight with penalties so a player can choose to be how aggressive he wants to be inactive forces. But if it's the late June 1863 turn and the Army of Northern Virginia just swung around through the Shenandoah Valley and is headed to Pennsylvania, should an inactive Joe Hooker prevent the bulk of the Army of the Potomac from reacting? Even McClellan or Joe Johnston were able to move their army when they knew they absolutely had to move his army- they weren't just randomly bolted down in place.

[charlesonmission]

We are using both in my current PBEMs.

Tried it once playing Union in a PBEM. Very frustrating! But had also imposed a house rule of more historic full mobilization dates. The two combined ground my offensives to a near halt.

[wsatterwhite]

I'm not sure I would totally agree with this. McCellenwas very slow getting out of the Peninusala (I would say much more so than simply movement penalties). Wasn't it Butler that refused to move after a small initial attack in the Peninusula during the overland campaign.

If anything, I think McClellan's sluggishness is represented perfectly by low ratings for his subordinate Union generals and the assorted penalties that come from their lack of activation- it puts the player in McClellan's shoes and allows you be as aggressive as you dare to be with more than half of your army inactive on a given turn and facing a formidable foe- especially considering how strong defensive positions are within the game.

While McClellan did indeed drag his feet after being ordered off the Peninsula, I don't think that sluggishness is done any justice by actually locking him in place within the game. Again, when the rebels moved into Maryland, he was able to move just fine when it was absolutely necessary even though in game terms he might still not be considered to have been "activated". If anything, the Antietam campaign shows that just having severe penalties for inactive forces is sufficient- an army full of inactive generals can move into place where it needs to be but if only half the army is active, an offensive will be nowhere near as effective as it should be.

To a degree the same would apply for Butler later on the Peninsula- the Union generals in command on that sector weren't exactly Grant and Sherman or Lee, Jackson and Longstreet (although now that I think about, the game's default ratings for Butler, Smith and Gilmore might not accurately reflect their lack of ability).

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

Hmmm...maybe "inactive" should apply only when moving into territory with less than xx% military control (i.e., any leader is "active" as long as he's moving into or through territory in which his side has xx% military control or greater.

Just musing

[Longshanks]

I don't like it just because of how quickly large forces can move in this game with no chance to have a reactionary move- .....

You can still move your army even if the leader is inactive:
1) put him in his own stack
2) plot the army move
3) plot his move to the same region (presumably) if he's allowed to move
4) he'll be there when the army is, if partisans don't get him first (no, jk, leaders have a hide value of 5 usually)

Of course, this is not as ideal as having an active leader. Stripping the army hq may substantially lower the PWR of the stack, but even zero movement doesn't mean the army can't move, it just means the leader can't.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

You can still move your army even if the leader is inactive:
1) put him in his own stack
2) plot the army move
3) plot his move to the same region (presumably) if he's allowed to move
4) he'll be there when the army is, if partisans don't get him first (no, jk, leaders have a hide value of 5 usually)

Of course, this is not as ideal as having an active leader. Stripping the army hq may substantially lower the PWR of the stack, but even zero movement doesn't mean the army can't move, it just means the leader can't.

Many people would consider that "gamey", me included. The AoP couldn't just decide to act independently of lil mac.

[GraniteStater]

Whassa matter, PC, ya never heard of Mac 'n Cheats?

No, I'm not accusing you of anything, 'Shanks - just couldn't resist the pun.

IMO, one can only truly be gamey in a PBEM. The program has no feelings and there is no moral component to how you want to use or abuse an AI.

[charlesonmission]

Really, I don't think that works. I tought that only works on the medium activiation level, not high.

Many people would consider that "gamey", me included. The AoP couldn't just decide to act independently of lil mac.

[Jim-NC]

I tried the locked generals once (and only once). Never again. I had McDowell move into Loudon VA (he was active), lose the battle and get locked the next turn. He stayed locked for several turns, until his food ran out (he unlocked when his units started to starve). I was able to turn the tables, however, and my opponent found himself in the same situation with Bory (south-east of Petersburg). I find it completely unhistorical for any commander to sit there and let his men starve, and start deserting before he "unlocks" and can retreat to his supplies.

[gchristie]

I find it completely unhistorical for any commander to sit there and let his men starve, and start deserting before he "unlocks" and can retreat to his supplies.

Except for Rosecrans at Chattanooga

http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/battles-campaigns/1863/631024-1101.html

Though I agree with your point.