Active/inactive leaders

[beresford]

Not convinced by this mechanism. If I had a large stack with an inactive leader I shuffled it so that an active leader was in charge, if necessary removing the Corps or Army commander and attacking with his sub-units. With a Division, I detached the leader and led the constituent units make the attack. I don't understand why inactive leaders can't form Divisions either ('Don't assign troops to me now, I'm having a nap').

Surely you should just give a leader orders without 'knowing' if he is 'active' or 'inactive' for the next turn. Perhaps then a record should be kept of whether he was 'inactive' so that when you review the turn results you can understand why an order was not carried out.

[Bertram]

I agree with you here, the fact that you can see who is active at the start of the turn leads to some very "gamey" behaviour.
I also would like it better that the active/inactive status of the leader was decided when the orders were processed, and some penalty then was put down (like not moving, moving slower, battle disadvantages, just like now, but the severity random, or dependng on how much the activation die roll is failed).

But I think the developers are afraid the players would get to frustrated, when they order their units around, and the units refusing to follow the orders.

[arsan]

The idea is good and it would be more realistic with unknown activation.
But as Bertarm says the frustration level of the player could be too much.
Bad for playability IMHO. The current activation system already get on the nerves of many players
Besides, there could be other problems like what to do when you order two corps to move together...
what if one does not activate and the other do? Will one move alone? will the active one wait for the inactive? will we need another set of buttons to tell the stacks "wait for other stacks on movement", "don't wait", "wait only if..."

Beresford, maybe you should try the option of hard activation. It's not like you propose, but its more realistic than the standard one and don't let you do gamey unit detachements to avoid unactive leaders.
Wiht this option enabled, the inactive leaders can lock in place all the units under their command at least for operations on enemy territory (the locking depends of the military control of the region).
Regards

[Banks6060]

Yeah, use the option where inactive literally means locked in place.

[Heldenkaiser]

Besides, there could be other problems like what to do when you order two corps to move together...
what if one does not activate and the other do? Will one move alone?

Obviously! Isn't that just what happened all the time in real life? I for one would be absolutely in favor of this change (and have suggested it before).

But then I am a historian and sometimes striving for accuracy is more important for me than ease of gameplay. I do realize I am part of a minority there.

[arsan]

Obviously! Isn't that just what happened all the time in real life? I for one would be absolutely in favor of this change (and have suggested it before).

But then I am a historian and sometimes striving for accuracy is more important for me than ease of gameplay. I do realize I am part of a minority there.

But bear in mind here we are talking of 15 days turns.
Sure in real life ACW there were tons of uncoordinated movements but not for so long. Normally in a day or two one of the corps/stacks will notice that he was going alone and do something abut it (stop, continue, go back... it depends of the situation). On game, this kind of short time coordination problems are taken care of with the delayed commitment on battles.

But with 15 days turns you could not react at all to an inactive stack situation. Two corps supposedly moving together could be 200 miles apart before "noticing" it
It would be like if Lee and Longstreet got all the way to Gettysburg before noticing they had forgotten to take along Hill and Ewell corps which were still "inactive" and entrenched behind the Rappahannock, down in Virginia

Regards

[Evren]

Obviously! Isn't that just what happened all the time in real life? I for one would be absolutely in favor of this change (and have suggested it before).

But then I am a historian and sometimes striving for accuracy is more important for me than ease of gameplay. I do realize I am part of a minority there.

Well, you're not alone.

[beresford]

So if you're doing synchronised movement with several Corps and one is 'inactive', they all move only slower (the 'active' leaders had to keep stopping to find out where the slow guy was).

What do these 'inactive' leaders represent? The real leaders might delay before starting, move slowly, break off an attack early, nag for reinforcements (that isn't in the game), but they wouldn't just not do anything for half a year, and they certainly wouldn't refuse to be put in charge of a Division because they were having a nap.

As for the frustration factor, I've had 'active' leaders not move for several turns, but investigation has often revealed that there was a unit with zero cohesion in there somewhere.

[arsan]

What do these 'inactive' leaders represent? The real leaders might delay before starting, move slowly, break off an attack early, nag for reinforcements (that isn't in the game), but they wouldn't just not do anything for half a year, and they certainly wouldn't refuse to be put in charge of a Division because they were having a nap.

I agree with you about the division formation. It does not make much sense the being active requirement. About what inactive means... well, it try to represent all you said and some more things.
For real historic leaders being inactive form month check McClellan before the Peninsula, Rosecrans after Murfreesboro, Joe Johnston while Vicksburg was being sieged and surrendered etc, etc

[Bertram]

Being inactive isnt doing nothing...it is not traveling or attacking as the player wishes. The general will be sending out scouts to make sure it isnt a trap, mapping the land, waiting for reinforcements, going the wrong way and correcting, visiting his wife (or an other lady).....

At the level we play at it looks like there isnt happening anything, but at the level of the general, he is busy. Just like Mac was busy plotting and planning while his army was waiting....

[Coregonas]

If you want to MOVE or ATTACK while inactive, you CAN.

Just MOVE your UNACTIVE stack to the enemy position. (in defensive position)

And Wait for the Results.
Battle is going to occur (not always), with pathetic results of course.

Try yourself if you wish versus Athena.

[Carnium]

If you want to MOVE or ATTACK while inactive, you CAN.

Just MOVE your UNACTIVE stack to the enemy position. (in defensive position)

And Wait for the Results.
Battle is going to occur (not always), with pathetic results of course.

Try yourself if you wish versus Athena.

You can also besiege cities this way.

[Heldenkaiser]

But bear in mind here we are talking of 15 days turns.
Sure in real life ACW there were tons of uncoordinated movements but not for so long.

Good point, my friend. I agree that my idea would work better for the tactical level.

[Banks6060]

I do not echo the opinion that the activation rules be changed. Within the scope of each turn's timeframe....this is the best way to do it for sure.

and like Coregonas said....just move your stack into 95%+ enemy territory and see what happens. The other thing you can do....and I don't wanna give away too much here....but use your cavalry.

I haven't actually tested it against a human player yet. But if you have a sizeable cavalry division under say....Alfred Pleasanton...move it into a Confederate held region in "Defensive, Retreat if Engaged" Posture....and the "Evade Combat" order....

Doing this SHOULD increase your military control enough so that your army can then, within a few days, move in and maintain its defensive posture without automatically switching over to offensive posture. Now....if J.E.B Stuart is around...you might be in trouble....but if you're lucky and the AI or your opponent don't have anyone in offensive posture...I would think you could find yourself in a very good position within the same region as the enemy, but in a strong defensive stance.

Then it comes down to ZOC points and loyalty as to who eventually takes MC of the region over time. Pocus, correct me if I'm wrong on this particular strategy.

I've found that using your cavalry divisions to secure military control ahead of your army is very useful, especially as the Union player. Although, again, I have not attempted it with an entire enemy army standing in the way.