Armies and Divisions/Brigades

[kwhitehead]

In the Manassas scenario both sides start out with two and one army respectively with units of divisions and brigades. My understanding of the game so far is that you can only attach Corps to armies. Is this correct?

What are you suppose to do with these divisions/brigades to make them fight as part of an army if you can't attach them?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[kwhitehead]

Which version are you playing? It sounds as if you are playing the v1.12a Beta version... I took another look at this due to your previous comment and realized that the corresponding USA generals had not been reduced to match the CSA side. I will have to quickly make amends for the new beta patch. The intent is for neither side to be able to form Corps at the start of the war.

Thanks for the feedback.

Screen credits say 1.12 and I am pretty sure I used the released update not a beta version.

The USA side does have some two star generals so you can form them into two Corps which I did one time. I didn't check the CSA side to see if something similar can be done.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[usfkman]

I thought that Army HQs (icluding their contents) would not fight when standing alone. However, they could aid other friendly units in the same stack, and could march to the guns to aid other units. Is this not so?

Also the Confederacy had a law against the formation of Corps that was not repealed until June (July?) 62. This would greatly hamper the CSA in the early scenarios and probably should not be in any mod.

all the best,

usfkman

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[soundoff]

I'm pretty sure that Army HQ's and their stack contents will fight.

I've never been too sure on this point...really would like clarification. Currently I dont put or place Armies in other than reserve positions.....certainly not as a front line formation no matter how many divisions are with the army.

As I said though I would sincerely appreciate a firm answer.

[Aurelin]

I thought that Army HQs (icluding their contents) would not fight when standing alone. However, they could aid other friendly units in the same stack, and could march to the guns to aid other units. Is this not so?

Also the Confederacy had a law against the formation of Corps that was not repealed until June (July?) 62. This would greatly hamper the CSA in the early scenarios and probably should not be in any mod.

all the best,

usfkman

No law against it that I could find. They just weren't authorized till Nov of 1862.

[Le Ricain]

Armies will not attack on their own. If you have an army that is active, but none of corps are, there will be no attack. However, an army will defend like any corps.

[kwhitehead]

You must be playing the beta version... The last official version (v1.12), still had the CSA generals set at the 2-star rank, which would allow them to form Corps.

Either that, or you you are playing the last official version (v1.12) and don't yet understand how to form Corps with the 2-star generals.

You'll have to let me know which exact version you are playing with before I can actually understand what you are having problems with.

When you initially start the game, what version number is displayed in the lower right hand corner or the screen, v1.12, v1.12a, or v1.12aRC2?

I actually suspect you are new and are unused to forming Corps just yet.

Sorry for the confusion. There has been some changes between the "official" v1.12 version and the new beta update versions and I originally mistakenly thought you were referring to the "new" changes.

In the official v1.12 version:

There are 3 CSA 2-stars in the Bull Run scenario, that can possibly be made into Corps commanders.

There are 0 USA 2-stars and 2 USA 3-stars in the Bull Run scenario, that can possibly be made into Corps commanders. (This is not historical by the way and will probably be changed in the near future).

In the new v1.12a beta versions:

There are 0 CSA 2-stars in the Bull Run scenario.

There are 0 USA 2-stars and 3 USA 3-stars in the Bull Run scenario that can possibly be made into Corps commanders. (Again, a possible but historically incorrect usage).

I went back and checked. I am running 1.12 and there are 3 CSA 2-star generals and 2 USA 3-star generals. While I am new to the game I do know how to form Corps it's just you shouldn't be able to at the time of Manassas. Corps were available once McClellan started reorganizing the northern armies for the USA. For the CSA they were not available as a sanctioned formation until Shiloh and 2nd Manassas. They were informally formed by Lee earlier.

What I wasn't sure of was how to make the Army work without them since the manual only refers to assigning Corps to Army HQ's. The post saying to just drop them into the Army tab worked and I was able to move McDowell as a combined force.

Now if I can just get game to somewhat follow the historic flow of combat and keep the AI from running all the units around the map like Crazy Ants.

[soundoff]

Armies will not attack on their own. If you have an army that is active, but none of corps are, there will be no attack. However, an army will defend like any corps.

That really is important and should be posted in BOLD far and wide. So it really is no use then having an army say commanded by Lee or Grant with 3 or 4 divisions attached...unless you intend to sit tight?

As an aside (for I can live with it but it explains a lot in some of my PBEM's)....what was the reasoning for saying an Army would not attack. It seems too daft to be believable...yet I suddenly can believe thats the way the game has been designed.

No on reflection...please dont say it works like that. I'm sure in previous games I've made Grant an Army commander and attacked with him....hav'nt I?

[Le Ricain]

I'm pretty sure that Army HQ's and their stack contents will fight.

For the Union, War Order #2 (approx. Mar 8, 1862) authorized the creation of USA Corps.

Not sure about the CSA just yet. If you could post links to a possible verifiable source (such as the law you claim above), it would help.

According to Wikipedia entry for the Army of Northern Virginia:

"Command under Brigadier General P. G. T. Beauregard

The first commander of the Army of Northern Virginia was General P.G.T. Beauregard (under its previous name, Army of the Potomac) from June 20 to July 20, 1861. His forces consisted of six brigades, with various militia and artillery from the former Department of Alexandria. Beauregard continued commanding these troops as the new First Corps under Gen. J. E. Johnston as it was joined by the Army of the Shenandoah on July 20, 1861, when command was relinquished to General J. E. Johnston. The following day this army fought its first major engagement in the First Battle of Manassas.

Command under General J. E. Johnston

Gen. J. E. Johnston

With the merging of the Army of the Shenandoah, Gen. Joseph E. Johnston took command from July 20, 1861, until May 31, 1862.

Corps organization under Johnston

First Corps - commanded by Brig. Gen. P. G. T. Beauregard
Second Corps - commanded by Maj. Gen. G. W. Smith"

Confederate corps would seem to date from late July, 1861 and Union corps from early March, 1862.

[Le Ricain]

That really is important and should be posted in BOLD far and wide. So it really is no use then having an army say commanded by Lee or Grant with 3 or 4 divisions attached...unless you intend to sit tight?

As an aside (for I can live with it but it explains a lot in some of my PBEM's)....what was the reasoning for saying an Army would not attack. It seems too daft to be believable...yet I suddenly can believe thats the way the game has been designed.

No on reflection...please dont say it works like that. I'm sure in previous games I've made Grant an Army commander and attacked with him....hav'nt I?

I would bet that you had Grant and his army attacking with some of his corps. It would be extremely unlikely that with his strategic rating all of his corps would be inactive.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[soundoff]

I would bet that you had Grant and his army attacking with some of his corps. It would be extremely unlikely that with his strategic rating all of his corps would be inactive.

I've often moved Grant or Lee on their own...with associated divisions. Cant be totally sure how or why but certainly in offensive mode. As Army commanders though I now see its a total waste of time.

Many many thanks for the enlightenment.....no wonder I dont do so well as sometimes I expect

[kwhitehead]

You're absolutely correct on this. I just verified it. For some reason, I thought there was fix a while back that allowed them to initiate combat. Apparently, I misread it.

The current game rules are that Army stacks cannot initiate combat, however they can support any combat started by a Corps or Division, which pretty much makes sense now that I look closer at it, since the Army stack is supposedly a support stack and not a fighting formation. This means that my previous answer to kwhitehead was in error and he should not place his divisions in the army stack if he wants to initiate combat. However, if you want to make sure they all arrive at the same time in lieu of the "Synchronize Move" capability of Corps, you might stack them all together for the movement, then separate them after they arrive at the destination.

I am not sure of how the rule on Army stacks is stated but I reran the Manassas scenario just to be sure and McDowell will get initiative and attack with all units with him. I place all divisions in the Army tab and used them to attack Beauregard then marched them down to take Richmond without any problem. I didn't try the CSA side but I assume it works for them since both their armies consist of the Leader, HQ and all the brigades in one group.

[soundoff]

I am not sure of how the rule on Army stacks is stated but I reran the Manassas scenario just to be sure and McDowell will get initiative and attack with all units with him. I place all divisions in the Army tab and used them to attack Beauregard then marched them down to take Richmond without any problem. I didn't try the CSA side but I assume it works for them since both their armies consist of the Leader, HQ and all the brigades in one group.

Oh for a straight answer. If I have Lee as an army commander and say he has 4 divisions with him and he is active. Can I attack with him? Surely its a simple one to answer or do I have to playtest to find a solution? Currently I feel in the centre of a game of 'ping pong'

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[soundoff]

Damn, I tried the same thing and though he was activated and set in offensive posture, he would not initiate combat... I then confirmed it by searching the forums for threads on this exact subject. All of them state that an Army will not initiate combat, but will support combats started by Corps and Divs.

Are you sure the other side didn't initiate the combat?

In my test just a few minutes ago, the other side was 2 army stacks (Beuregard and Johnson) both set on Defensive posture. They would not initiate combat though activated and neither would McDowell.

When I did it over again, I separated the Army (McDowell) from the other Divs (set everything to offensive), then initiated a turn which resulted in a battle. Decent results too, I might add. Union defeat... approx 2600 casualties, 1600 CSA casualties.

So I have to playtest....np....but it puts a different slant on what I believe or disbelieve on the forum. And I thought my eye was jaundiced enough before this...obviously not

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Le Ricain]

Oh for a straight answer. If I have Lee as an army commander and say he has 4 divisions with him and he is active. Can I attack with him? Surely its a simple one to answer or do I have to playtest to find a solution? Currently I feel in the centre of a game of 'ping pong'

I am not sure what Kwhitehead did to get his result. What I do know is that an army on its own can not initiate combat, activated leader or not.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Le Ricain]

Happy to help. However, having the Confederate army with corps as of July 1861 and the Union army not having corps until March 1862 is going to make AACW for the Union player very interesting again.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Maqver]

The above Wiki citation by Le Ricain is a misnomer, I think. Nominally groups of units may have been called an "Army Corps" but it was just in name only, an old way of designation. Lee got around the prohibition of corps by declaring these groups "wings," even though at this point they were really corps.

http://thomaslegion.net/organizationofunionandconfederatearmies.html



http://www.hyperbear.com/acw/essays/acw-essays-army-org.html
Until October of 1862, the South didn't officially allow the formation of corps, and did not have the rank of lieutenant general necessary for commanding the corps. However, the corps structure was so important that army commanders got around this by creating informal "wings" and placing a major general in charge of them. "Stonewall" Jackson and James Longstreet were both in charge of "wings" of Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia until after the Battle of Antietam. These were corps in everything but name. In October 1862, both men were given the newly allowed rank of lieutenant general and their "wings" were formally designated as corps.


United States
The first corps in the United States Army were legalized during the American Civil War by an Act of Congress on July 17, 1862, but Major General George B. McClellan designated six corps organizations within his Army of the Potomac that spring. Prior to this time, groupings of divisions were known by other names, such as "wings" and "grand divisions". The terminology "Army Corps" was often used.....In the Confederate States Army, corps were authorized in November 1862. They were commanded by lieutenant generals and were usually larger than their Union Army counterparts because their divisions contained more brigades, each of which could contain more regiments.

[usfkman]

Wow -- I am impressed about the amount of immediate authoritative comment based on this topic. Now I can see what makes AGEOD gamers so different.

This should make a big difference in the 1861 play balance.

You guys put in a great effort in a short time.

usfkman

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Le Ricain]

I must admit that I found the Wikipedia information surprising. I had assumed like everyone else that corps formations for both armies was a later development than July 1861.

I find Maqver's argument compelling. Corps creation for the CSA army in Oct/Nov 1862 seems reasonable.

[Jarkko]

From the link Maqver presents above:

In June 1862, General Lee divided his army into "wings" under Jackson and Longstreet, respectively. These were organized formally into corps in November of that year. An informal corps organization had existed among the Federal forces since late 1861. These were formally designated in July 1862, but first were numbered sequentially within their respective field armies, causing some confusion. Many of the corps were still forming at the time of the Second Manassas Campaign, hence they were not much better structured or coordinated than their Southern counterparts.

It would seem to me *both* sides were using corps on the field in June/July 1862, and they were then still not very well structured or co-ordinated. Perhaps from Late July 1862 both sides should have access to corps?