Leader Activation

[Hobbes]

Hi chaps, I'm still a bit worried about the way leaders activate in the game.
If your Army or Corps commander is inactive you can split off Divisions with a commander that is active at least to be able to attack smaller objectives or assault towns garrisoned with militia. Maybe this is OK and works quite well though?

The Army and Corps leader inactivation stops major offensives which is the main thought behind it I assume but allows some minor offensive action.

I've just talked myself into thinking there is no problem here!

I'd like to hear any thoughts you may have though. Could it be considered almost to be cheating to pull active divisions out of inactive Corps stacks to be used in an offensive manor?

And then there is the case where you move divisions under an inactive Corps leader to an active Corps leader in the same region to enable offensive actions.
Cheers, Chris

[Le Ricain]

Hi chaps, I'm still a bit worried about the way leaders activate in the game.
If your Army or Corps commander is inactive you can split off Divisions with a commander that is active at least to be able to attack smaller objectives or assault towns garrisoned with militia. Maybe this is OK and works quite well though?

The Army and Corps leader inactivation stops major offensives which is the main thought behind it I assume but allows some minor offensive action.

I've just talked myself into thinking there is no problem here!

I'd like to hear any thoughts you may have though. Could it be considered almost to be cheating to pull active divisions out of inactive Corps stacks to be used in an offensive manor?

And then there is the case where you move divisions under an inactive Corps leader to an active Corps leader in the same region to enable offensive actions.
Cheers, Chris

IMHO, pulling divisions out of an inactive corps in order to be able to initiate an attack is cheating. By doing so, one is subverting the reason for having inactive/active states.

Pulling divisions out of inactive corps to place into active corps would, I think, be OK. However, I never have used this tactic.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[AndrewKurtz]

IMHO, pulling divisions out of an inactive corps in order to be able to initiate an attack is cheating. By doing so, one is subverting the reason for having inactive/active states.

Pulling divisions out of inactive corps to place into active corps would, I think, be OK. However, I never have used this tactic.

I don't see a difference between the two but...

My opinion (I believe stated in a thread a year or so ago ) is that, if in an army and the Army is Active, all linked Corps/Divisions should be active. If the Army is inactive, all should be inactive. The Corp or division should only be calculated for activation if independant.

But since the game designers did not design it that way, I don't see using active divisions as cheating. It it was, why isn't it cheating to use an active Corp if the Army is inactive?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Hobbes]

I don't see a difference between the two but...

My opinion (I believe stated in a thread a year or so ago ) is that, if in an army and the Army is Active, all linked Corps/Divisions should be active. If the Army is inactive, all should be inactive. The Corp or division should only be calculated for activation if independant.

But since the game designers did not design it that way, I don't see using active divisions as cheating. It it was, why isn't it cheating to use an active Corp if the Army is inactive?

Making all units in the Army or Corps inactive if the commander in charge is inactive is a possibility but it would lead players to use independent units for offensive actions.

My own personal feel is that it works pretty well as is and a player should be able to move units around if he feels the need unless an agreement has been made by PBEM players to use house rules to prevent this. (If you are playing the AI then it's up to you and Athena to come to a consensus :sourcil

The overall effect whatever you do (as early Union for example) is still to slow down your offensive action.

Cheers, Chris

[ltr213]

Pulling Active Division Cdrs out of Inactive Corps is totally legal but the Active Divisions are immediately assessed an Out of Command penalty for being an Independent Force. This effectively halves the number of Command Points a Division commander generates which precludes you from loading up an active Division cdr which additional units.

Now you 'could' for example, launch an attack with a number of Active Divisions that you pulled out of an Inactive Corps but the problem then becomes that the Divisions launch their attack individually instead of one mass multi-Divisional attack. Remember there is a delay in committing individual Forces to battle.

You might create an instance where the first Division gets commited and beaten, then the next Division arrives and gets beaten... and so on.

Tough call.

[Hobbes]

An example might be useful here.

The reason I mentioned this is that I have an inactive commander in McDowell camped outside Fredericksburg in 1861. Fredericksburg is held by
1 militia unit and I really need the depot there to increase my supply. I find it hard to believe that even McDowell would not have made an attack on an almost undefended town under these circumstances.

Maybe the game should allow an inactive commander to make an aggressive move in the region he is in without penalty when in a position such as this. Moving aggresively into other regions no - but OK to try and take a town in a region where he has 20,000 men and the opposition 500.

At least by moving an active division and a supporting commander out of the stack this attack can be made.

I say allow inactive leaders to make attacks in the region they are already in without penalty.
Cheers, Chris

[AndrewKurtz]

An example might be useful here.

The reason I mentioned this is that I have an inactive commander in McDowell camped outside Fredericksburg in 1861. Fredericksburg is held by
1 militia unit and I really need the depot there to increase my supply. I find it hard to believe that even McDowell would not have made an attack on an almost undefended town under these circumstances.

Maybe the game should allow an inactive commander to make an aggressive move in the region he is in without penalty when in a position such as this. Moving aggresively into other regions no - but OK to try and take a town in a region where he has 20,000 men and the opposition 500.

At least by moving an active division and a supporting commander out of the stack this attack can be made.

I say allow inactive leaders to make attacks in the region they are already in without penalty.
Cheers, Chris

In my mind, McDowell would have told a Single division to go take the city. I see nothing wrong with doing it.

EDIT - Look at it this way. McDowell is trying to determine the proper foces to take Fredricksburg. He evaluates his divisions and determines that the most prepared division is x.

As commander, if you donhave enough active division to accomplish the task, then your army isn't ready for the task at hand. But once enough are ready, you launch.

[runyan99]

Hi chaps, I'm still a bit worried about the way leaders activate in the game.
If your Army or Corps commander is inactive you can split off Divisions with a commander that is active at least to be able to attack smaller objectives or assault towns garrisoned with militia. Maybe this is OK and works quite well though?

The Army and Corps leader inactivation stops major offensives which is the main thought behind it I assume but allows some minor offensive action.

I think it's okay and works quite well for AACW. I still want locked stacks for inactive leaders in BOA though, so the player cannot just take regiments from Howe and give them to Clinton.

[tagwyn]

McDowell would have called time-out to enjoy a big meal and a hearty draught!!! LOL

[Coffee Sergeant]

Yeah another work around especially since you typically have alot of idle 2* generals floating around is to move them with the rest of your corps, outside of the stack. Chances are at least a couple are going to be active in any given turn. You can keep forming ad hoc corps this way, since there is no penalty for continually forming and dismissing corps.

[lodilefty]

McDowell would have called time-out to enjoy a big meal and a hearty draught!!! LOL

and a giant piece of watermelon...

mighty fine! mighty fine!

[Hobbes]

Yeah another work around especially since you typically have alot of idle 2* generals floating around is to move them with the rest of your corps, outside of the stack. Chances are at least a couple are going to be active in any given turn. You can keep forming ad hoc corps this way, since there is no penalty for continually forming and dismissing corps.

Maybe Corps commanders should suffer a penalty the turn they are attached
to an army.

[Rafiki]

Could work just the same as how division commanders are penalized when they become such? Sounds like a good idea to me

[Hobbes]

A lot of posts on this thread until I gave the example. Does anyone think detaching a Division to attack a town under such circumstances could be bad form?

The Army and Corps commanders are still inactive so the Union forces are still pretty much unable to make large scale advances into enemy territory yet small garrisons should in my opinion be able to be taken by extracting Divisional size forces where required.

It works well I think.

Coffee Sergeant's thoughts about carrying spare Corps commanders are somewhat more worrying to me though. I would like to see the change where Corps commanders suffer the same penalty as Divisional commanders when taking up a new command.

I think Pocus has less time to post these days but I assume he still reads all the threads?

Cheers, Chris

[AndrewKurtz]

A lot of posts on this thread until I gave the example. Does anyone think detaching a Division to attack a town under such circumstances could be bad form?

I think it is perfectly legitimate.

[DirkX]

Coffee Sergeant's thoughts about carrying spare Corps commanders are somewhat more worrying to me though. I would like to see the change where Corps commanders suffer the same penalty as Divisional commanders when taking up a new command.

I

extra corps commanders are extra gamey, detaching a division is probably not.

but to avoid such things maybe it would be possible to render a detached unit inactive for 1 turn ? not sure if that makes sense anyway.

[Pocus]

I read you yes, most of the time at least.

[chainsaw]

An example might be useful here.

The reason I mentioned this is that I have an inactive commander in McDowell camped outside Fredericksburg in 1861. Fredericksburg is held by
1 militia unit and I really need the depot there to increase my supply. I find it hard to believe that even McDowell would not have made an attack on an almost undefended town under these circumstances.

Didn't Burnside essentially do this in the winter of 1862? Only a few rebs in the town but he sat and waited for his pontoon bridge even though the river was (and is today) easily crossed. By the time the bridge arrived so had Lee and his friends. Sounds like the game reflects historical examples.