2 Redeployment bugs

[GShock]

V1.07f2-vanilla.

I accidentally discovered a redeployment bug i am submitting.

CSA -> Civil War scenario

I wanted to redeploy one of the 1861 spawning generals from Richmond to Knoxville and i am posting this immediately so i don't forget

Procedure:
1) Select 1861 general after moving him out of the stack and select Redeploy.
2) Scroll on map, where's Knoxville now? (Tabs still list richmond stacks)
3) Select 1st Reserve Bde tab (Supposedly disengage 1861gen Redeploy)
4) Click somewhere on map
5) Look at 1861 general, Redeploy order greyed out
6) D'oh...1st reserve BDE (still locked!) got redeployed.

If i hadn't such short memory as to where i had wished to redeploy that general, i would have never found this out.
I guess it's then possible to exploit this to redeploy any stack. I didn't check but the aforementioned procedure is correct and if a locked unit could be redeployed, perhaps any stack size can be redeployed with this trick. On the other hand, i noticed (to my expenses) that if i redeploy clicking on region, the redeployment happens but if i click mistakenly on a stack in that region, the redeploy fails while still being burned out (like it had been successful). In small regions where many stacks are present this problem is a killer.

More on Redeployment: I think inactive generals should not be allowed to redeploy at all. Actually, i would LOCK the entire stack of an inactive general so the human player can't exploit the detach-from-inactive and then use all stances of an independent forces which is something the AI can't do (this is a true exploit actually).

On the other hand i agree with the redeployment as a concept. It is currently working with Leaders and with HQ (and thanks to this bug with other unit types basically).

In general it would do with small units and i couldn't see a better extension of this order than the one allowing us to also use it with those units we build in all states.

Specifically:
Eng
Nav Eng
Medic
Signal

These are all administrative/small units that should be allowed to redeploy. It makes sense because just like leaders and HQ they are small-sized units and they are often needed in a completely different place from where they are spawned.

I would also add the Marines. Why?
It doesn't make sense to build them in N.O. when you need them to assault Ft. Monroe. At least with Redeploy you can use them next turn.

[Pocus]

These issues should be fixed, for the next version. Services units can be allowed yes, but no combat troops for now

[GShock]

These issues should be fixed, for the next version. Services units can be allowed yes, but no combat troops for now

I don't see why combat troops should be redeployable but perhaps a leader in a 1-unit division, could.
Most importantly though, this inactivity/redeployment issue pushed the idea into me that inactivity could be better managed.

I can assault a city by taking an inactive leader out of his stack and assault with his newly created independent force. The AI can't and this is ...an exploit.

Idea: When a leader goes inactive, his whole stack should be locked in position or keep following the orders he had before going inactive. He goes Def/Pas, he can't redeploy, he can't be released from his stack. In other words when he goes inactive his whole stack gets that famous lock icon on top of the envelope icon.

It doesn't make much sense to me that i can unstack his units (units under his command) and make him tell them where to go or what to do. As he's unable to do anything but sit, so should his troops until he goes active again. Ideally, the troops under his command could never take initiative or choose to go elsewhere because HE is in charge and he has reasons to be inactive (lack of orders from above for example).

Consequence: the second (less evident) good side of this policy is that such inactivity rule would be in effect only when a leader is not moving (if he is, then he can't be inactive). The cohesion costs (and risks) of moving armies counterbalance the fact AI's troops are always on the move.

[Joseignacio]

It doesn't make much sense to me that i can unstack his units (units under his command) and make him tell them where to go or what to do. As he's unable to do anything but sit, so should his troops until he goes active again.

The division under his command attacks alone, and has noty the aadvantages of belonging to a corps or army. I think it's balanced as it is.

[Pocus]

We are indeed thinking about that for Napoleon, this is to be finalized before anything else though...

[Joseignacio]

It doesn't make much sense to me that i can unstack his units (units under his command) and make him tell them where to go or what to do. As he's unable to do anything but sit, so should his troops until he goes active again.

The division under his command attacks alone, and has not the advantages of belonging to a corps or army. I think it's balanced as it is.

I have now been besieging Richmond for like 8 or 10 turns now because the leaders don't activate, this is handicup enough, cause I won't assault it with individual stacks. I any minor town can be taken with that supposed exploit, it only decreases a little the terrible disadvantages in leaders. Yes, I know the confederates have other handicaps but leaders can move and fight even not activated although with penalizations, but they cannot assault if tehy are not activated.

[GShock]

The division under his command attacks alone, and has not the advantages of belonging to a corps or army. I think it's balanced as it is.

There's got to be a reason the General is inactive: Lack of orders, lack of intelligence, temporary lack of resources, men tired, he judges weather not to be appropriate, He needs to rally the men, ambushers/flankers not in position yet, no reports yet from the scouts...and so on. Plenty of possible reasons.

If in war a Div leader could go against the orders of the general, i think the chain of command wouldn't exist (and neither would the court martial)

[RELee]

I saw this bug last night as well. I didn't understand what you were saying until I saw it for myself.

[Joseignacio]

There's got to be a reason the General is inactive: Lack of orders, lack of intelligence, temporary lack of resources, men tired, he judges weather not to be appropriate, He needs to rally the men, ambushers/flankers not in position yet, no reports yet from the scouts...and so on. Plenty of possible reasons.

If in war a Div leader could go against the orders of the general, i think the chain of command wouldn't exist (and neither would the court martial)

[SIZE="3"][color="Red"]¿Dysentery?[/color][/size] In this case the divisional commanders can do the rest of the work.

He is not going against the order of the commander. You, as the commander inchief, because the commander is not available or healthy or whatever, decide that it will be detached as an individual force.

[GShock]

He is not going against the order of the commander. You, as the commander inchief, because the commander is not available or healthy or whatever, decide that it will be detached as an individual force.

I am the commander and i can't attack. My forces are mine, either we attack or nobody attacks.
(Of course if such rule would be in place the % of a leader going inactive should be reduced.)

The goal is still to disallow an unfair exploit...we can detach forces from an inactive leader and do the offensive/assault ops while the AI can't, That's the point.

[Guru80]

The goal is still to disallow an unfair exploit...we can detach forces from an inactive leader and do the offensive/assault ops while the AI can't, That's the point.

I had never thought of that. However if my General is inactive I just deal with it and don't detach to exploit it. I guess it isn't likely that a General is going to say "Hey guys, I am sick/unable to perform/don't have orders/whatever, so why don't you go and attack while I sit here.

I guess I agree that an entire stack that the General commands should be inactive. If you are going to remove that General from the stack and let a subordinate General take command there should be some sort of huge penalty and consequence. If the Commander of the whole Division/Corps/whatever just had command taken from him there is going to be some sort of consequence (and probably a court martial!)

Then again we are playing the Role of Lincoln or Davis. It could be said that we are forcing his replacement due to his inactivity and it isn't his subordinates taking command (though there should probably be a NM or seniority hit by removing him from his position for a lower senority general). That doesn't resolve the issue of the AI being unable to have the same advantage however and that is why the simplest fix is to make the whole stack inactive for the turn. That way it would more accurately represent a change in command rather than it all happening in one day, it would take time and prevent you from swapping Generals every turn to keep them active.

[GShock]

Correct analysis imho. I proposed locking the stacks of an inactive general. Of course this means fixing a lot of potential armies for low ranking generals. In that case, obviously, the activation % required should be lowered globally.