AGEOD Forums

Many times I have found that if I greatly need to attack when my only leaders in the area are "without orders" (envelope shaded brown), I detach all the leaders and send the troops in to attack.

I know they are fighting with negative modifiers. But what is the design concept behind the fact that "No Leader" always has the initiative to attack?

We did not want to have a leaders war, where even the smallest force have to have a leader to mount an operation. Think the reverse. What if only leaders can do offensive operations, and you will see how it is problematic for the flow of the game.

This has always been a difficult problem, and have already generated many discussions since the release of the first version of BOA!

You can send your troops without leader againt an ennemy formation with leaders. I would advise it though...

I didn't mean to sound so critical. The game works so well as designed that the decision to allow leaderless stacks to attack seems to be the right one.

I guess I was just looking for a "historical" justification, not just a "Game playability" one.

The current rules nicely simulates the role of the multiple smaller (and often local) forces, especially in 1861 and in the the areas away from the major campaigns. Logically, every force should have a leader, but that would make the game unplayable. What we have is a workable design compromise that realistically reflects the command and control problems both sides faced.

Every force, even detatchments have leaders even though you can't see them. At the top of the element panel it states "Col. so and so".

gbs wrote:Every force, even detatchments have leaders even though you can't see them. At the top of the element panel it states "Col. so and so".

I knew a lot of colonels I called "so and so."

The break, though, is very abrupt, and I tend to agree that Col. "I can attack anytime" ought to be constrained if subordinate to Gen. "If I do anything, I might get into trouble, so let's have some whiskey, friendly local girls, and a rubber of whist."

Not that there's anything wrong with that. Just thinking...

pasternakski wrote:I knew a lot of colonels I called "so and so."

The break, though, is very abrupt, and I tend to agree that Col. "I can attack anytime" ought to be constrained if subordinate to Gen. "If I do anything, I might get into trouble, so let's have some whiskey, friendly local girls, and a rubber of whist."

Not that there's anything wrong with that. Just thinking...

I just figure the poor little Colonels are less likely to ignore orders from the big guy than a general who imagines himself well-nigh indispensible. "Imagines" being the key word there.

Spharv2 wrote:I just figure the poor little Colonels are less likely to ignore orders from the big guy than a general who imagines himself well-nigh indispensible. "Imagines" being the key word there.

I dunno, pal. A colonel who acts in disregard of the orders issued him by his immediate commander because he thinks he ought to follow what he thinks are the wishes of "the big guy" (whose orders he has likely never seen) runs the risk of being fried, fricasseed, flapdoodled, and a whole lot of other "f" things.

I guess I see command structure as one of the best parts of the AACW design. I would like to have subordinate commanders subjected to the real-life strictures to which they were then held.

Makes that generalship problem for the Union in the early war seem even more dire, eh? How about late in the war for the Confederacy?

Makes sense, I think, if doable...

Maybe for "leaderless" stacks there could be some uncertainty with respect to setting the posture and/or executing orders.

Make it a "crap shoot" for order execution/implementation of orders and would further create the "feel" for units well removed from formal command structure.

Makes the "certainty" of the bad leader look somewhat more attractive....

Denisonh, I think you may be on to something. There should be some sorta unpredictability in allowing a "Colonel" to make his own decision. I like your idea, in that sometimes it may work out fine and other times it may turn out a disaster. In this manner even a predictable "no attack" month of a Mclellan may be preferable to a possible disaster with a "leaderless" group.


BTW.....welcome to the communithy.

denisonh wrote:Make it a "crap shoot"

Hey, I agree with Jim, great ta "see" ya.

I'm not completely sold on the "crapshoot" idea, though. That allows you to believe that you, as god almighty on your side, have the ability to issue direct orders outside the chain of command to Col. Hamsterhead; then, a die roll determines whether he carries them out. Too "WitP-like" for my taste.

I think the better idea is to maintain the perspective of what your role is as a player and keep these guys within the constraints of their command structure.

I guess, on analysis, what I am saying is that you should have to plan such "colonel-driven offensives" one turn in advance. On the first turn, you detach the unit or units in anticipation of the "stack" commander probably being inactive next turn. Next turn, they can go pillage, plunder, and rape as you see fit - not necessarily in that order, of course.

The risk you take is that you are weakening your core force defensively and committing the detached unit or units to a turn of inactivity.

I dunno. I kinda like the way I think, but my girlfriend the mind reader says she can't make heads or tails of what's in there because it's written in a language that nobody but me understands...

mmmh, when time comes to recheck the 'delay before battle' code, why not putting more emphasis on the leader strat rating? So leaderless forces would spend many days before initiating a fight, thus the unpredictability you seek, while still allowing offensive operations with small forces.

Were there ever leaderless bodies of troops in the ACW?? The answer is 'No, there weren't.'

To portray minor leaders commanding smaller forces, perhaps a generic commander quality/stats. of all 1's could be used, even though there were some good leaders commanding some minor and detached commands??

Chris

Would there ever be leader creation from a successful operation by a "leaderless" group?

I see we get promotions for leaders carrying out a good job, why not for the Colonel so-an-so?

I'm guessing the coding required is disproportionate to the limited benefit to the game?

Just to note that even now the strategy to have a leaderless force (or even one adequately led force) set to attack while their superior leader is unable to act can be pretty dangerous. I had such a case in a recent game. October 61, McDowell (Army of Northern Virginia) and Turner (Corps) are besieging Winchester (which seems to contain three Confederate Corps, but I know Beauregard with the Army command is two regions away). McDowell can't issue orders this turn, but Turner (who has the greater command anyhow) can. So I leave McDowell on defensive (not as if I had an alternative) and set Turner on offensive to try and engage any Confederates trying to withdraw or if Beauregard decides to reinforce Winchester. Result, Beauregard waltzes in, Turner (he's actually a pretty good commander with slight randomisation) happily attacks, all the Confederate Corps support Beauregard as expected, McDowell sits on the sidelines (a bit like that famous night at the second Bull Run) and watches the battle unfold, first round is a Union victory (but already with higher Union casualties), second round first Union defeat, third round another Union defeat (with now several regiments destroyed), fourth round a massive Union defeat (Hunter's entire Corps is wiped out). So next turn I stand there with McDowell's Corps/Army intact having to withdraw from a very satisfied (though probably tired) Confederate Army while Hunter and his surviving Division commanders recover in Harpers Ferry, Washington and Baltimore.

So I definitely would not recommend splitting good units out of a larger Command that's unable to act offensively this turn, at least not anytime even a token defense can be expected (in this case it was obviously not just a token defense, but I hadn't planned to assault the besieged Confederates either). I certainly learned my lesson there.

I think that the idea of a "generic leader" seems to make sense, or at least some kind of delay with a leaderless stack. It seems better than the default "leader" with a strategic rating of 6.

I believe it works well as designed with single units (Bde/regt) being able to move all the time, as smaller level organizations are capable of that kind of efficiency.

It is when an "ad hoc" echelon above brigade/regiment task force(read stack) is formed that the command and control problem would manifest itself. A temporary organization formed around a leader operating above his current level of experience is now leading his peers to conduct offensive combat operations. Add some egos into the mix and it will run anything but seamlessly.