Armies and Divisions/Brigades

[Eugene Carr]

Corps creation for the CSA army in Oct/Nov 1862 seems reasonable.

I think that represents Corps structures being made formal, they were in operation prior to this, I would suggest Lee's 'Wings' formed in June/July 1862 as a model starting date ( the Shiloh Corps organisation seems to have been a bit chaotic)

If this new command restricts formation of corps before a given thats just wonderful!

[Coregonas]

Beware with this proposal.

The real POWER division & corps add to the combat engine can unbalance the game if those are made in different datas for CSA & USA. I feel this can be too prone to extremely gamey tricks.

A full corps made of divisions cuts as butter a similar sized non corps command made of brigades, also without proper trenchs, as a maximum 3 value can be expected before 62.

In order to avoid unbalance, I strongly propose both sides be able to create corps and divisions in the same data.

However, I agree than, as now it is, the game can be a lot more fast & furious than the real war was.

[Maqver]

Also, I don't really care about the semantics of the names (Wings or Corps), but am mainly interested in the actual implementation of that type of command structure and when it was introduced to the Civil War.

Yeah, agreed. Just pointing out that even though it was called the Holy Roman Empire, it wasn't any of the three. First they were called corps but weren't, then they were called wings but were in fact nascent corps.

Anyway, it seems like the Union began corps building in spring of '62 and the CSA in the summer. Coregonas could be right about game balance however, I don't know. The Union player could be more aggressive than McCellan, though the Union generals still may not activate. Who knows? That is why you make the big money.

[soundoff]

Just been testing using the July 61 campaign. Moved all of Joes forces to Manassas. Created divisions for any combination of Jackson, Bonham, Bee and Smith. Put the divisions into PGT Beauregards Army and with him active marched off to Alexandria to assault McDowell.

It works everytime Beauregard is active.

Going to see whether it works the same for the Union. Might take some time waiting for McDowell to become active. Still only takes one time.

[Coregonas]

I believe some patches ago the code changed, to allow lone ARMY HQs to be able to ATTACK.

but only if no other CORPS were present.

[aryaman]

I believe some patches ago the code changed, to allow lone ARMY HQs to be able to ATTACK.

but only if no other CORPS were present.

I can confirm that, as I asked that same question about a year ago or so, and since then I have attacked and assulted cities many times with army stacks as long as the leader is activated.

[soundoff]

I believe some patches ago the code changed, to allow lone ARMY HQs to be able to ATTACK.

but only if no other CORPS were present.

Now did some further testing this time creating a Corp with J Johnston (also in Manassas) Beauregard is still on attack and still goes in. Difference is that when there is no Corp its a stunning Confederate victory. With a Corp in the same region the Army attack still takes place but it automatically attempts to retreat before battle. The battle then occurs which turns out to be a stunning defeat.

My but I've suddenly learnt something extremely important.

[bigus]

The Command "SetCombiUnits 0|0|10" Might be the answer. I believe the structure is supposed to go #of ... Armies |Corps|Divisions. I have used the Division limit in the Kentucky scenario. you have a certain limit and once this is reached you can't build any more. I don't think the Army and Corps variables are working but if you can get them to work then you could go

April 61...... 1|0|10 for 1 army 0 corps and 10 divisions. Then change it by script in March 62 to 5|10|10. (this is an example).

Just a thought.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[aryaman]

Yeah, agreed. Just pointing out that even though it was called the Holy Roman Empire, it wasn't any of the three. First they were called corps but weren't, then they were called wings but were in fact nascent corps.

Anyway, it seems like the Union began corps building in spring of '62 and the CSA in the summer. Coregonas could be right about game balance however, I don't know. The Union player could be more aggressive than McCellan, though the Union generals still may not activate. Who knows? That is why you make the big money.

If we forget about denominations and we center into operative units, we find that for the whole of 1861 the basic unit is the brigade, and that all other denominations, being armies, divisions, corps, wings, departments, whatever, are no more than a number of brigades attached to a given HQ. Early in 1862, when forces grow larger and more experienced, there is the first evolution, we can see it in the Western Theater, as it was more active in that period, armies had too many grigades to be attached to a single HQ, so intermediate HQs are created, those HQs are called sometimes divisions, sometimes Corps, but still there is no complete hierarchical structure, that is why Grant commanded Divisions but no Corps at Shiloh, while the CSA forces were organized into Corps either divided into divisions or directly into brigades.
I am testing with Daxil some House rules, basically they delay the creation of Corps to January 1862, and divisions to May 1862 (with the provision that a maximum of 5 divisions can be created by turn to make for a transitional period). My idea is to protray the transition first using Corps, because in the game a Corps/Army stack with brigades and no divisions is less efective that an army stack with Divisions, and no Corps structure and can simulate better the early commands of the war that were really neither divisions nor corps, but a number brigades commanded by a HQ.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted