|
dude -> RE: Corps (5/22/2007 10:04:28 PM)
|
From strictly an organizational/operational standpoint I find corps very useful. I’ll frequently form an army with two corps and as it marches I can quickly dispatch a corps for temporarily assignment nearby. For example, I’ve had plenty of times as I’m marching down the Mississippi River (playing as the USA) or deep into Georgia… the need to dispatch a corps from my main army to chase down a nearby CSA force then reform after the threat is eliminated.
I’ll generally keep the forces needed for sieges with the army while I can detach a corps with a good offensive structure to keep my siege force safe. Then if there’s no threat I can reform the army to give it more firepower in the sieges or use the full army to really crush a nearby threat.
It also allows me to get better use out of some of my generals. There are guys who have mediocre initiative ratings but decent other ratings. I don’t like to use them as army commanders. I’ll put a great commander with initiative in charge of the Army (Grant, Sherman, Thomas…) and a good commander with lower initiative in charge of a corps (Rosecrans, Hancock, Meade,…) within that army. That way the Army commander is likely to move the army but I still get the benefits of the corps commander. I just have to make sure that the corps I use for independent operations have decent initiative commanders too.
I must admit that I did mod my scenarios so that there are fewer “armys” at the start. Both sides only start with one, while the other “armies” I converted to Corps. I like the way this plays better. There were just way too many four stars running around within the first month of the game.
Dude
|
|
|
|
