best use of sub commanders (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States



Message

jcjordan -> best use of sub commanders (7/7/2008 4:52:38 AM)

What is the most effective way to form "corps" to make up an army? Should I use the inf leaders to only have inf under them & use art ldrs to have only art under them then when a battle comes along move all including the AC into the region or take the 2 star leaders then put the inf & art under them along w/ other inf/art ldrs?



heroldje -> RE: best use of sub commanders (7/7/2008 5:02:05 AM)

i asked a similar question and never got a satisfactory answer.  what exactly is the benefit?  would it be worthwhile to attach like 10 subcommanders?  Nowhere in the documentation does it say anything about how this function works other than attaching subcommanders 'help'



PyleDriver -> RE: best use of sub commanders (7/7/2008 5:07:07 AM)

JC, first of all, as a newbee, drop the sub-commanders it is advanced learning. Corps are your desire, attach Art to leaders with 2+ abilities. So guys like Longstreet they handle both well, and the rest is up to you...

[8D]
Jon



JanSorensen -> RE: best use of sub commanders (7/7/2008 7:25:44 AM)

In my opinion the answers depends on the number of decent INF leaders you have.
If you simply dont have enough good inf leaders to handle all your inf otherwise - then go with artilerry in seperate corps.
If you do have enough decent inf leaders to handle both inf and art units then do that. The way commitment works (art is very "cheap" to commit compared to inf) you will probably get the best result that way. Just remember never to lower the movement of a corps by attaching artillery - so dont attach arty to an inf leader with 3 inf 1 art stats.

As for the question heroldje asks - no, there is no additional befinit to adding more sub-commanders to a corps than there are units to be commanded - you wont get a double divisional command bonus and CP (commitment points) are not really an issue for sub-commanders. I dont know with full certainty what does happen if you have excess sub-commanders but I believe the allocation is random so you would have been (slightly) better off just having the better sub-commanders attached.



heroldje -> RE: best use of sub commanders (7/8/2008 1:39:47 AM)

i apologize, and im not trying to be a pain... but i have read and reread both answers, and dont feel like i have any better understanding of how the system works.  what benefit do subcommanders give?  Is it better to have poor subcommander or no subcommanders?  What is the optimal number to have in a corps?  Why?  The way this whole system works is a total mystery to me. 



tedhealy -> RE: best use of sub commanders (7/8/2008 1:52:25 AM)

18.3

Infantry CSCs (corps sub commanders) may only
assist  Infantry/Militia units, Artillery CSCs may only assist artillery/heavy artillery units, Cavalry
CSCs may only assist Cavalry/Mounted units, and naval CSCs may only assist naval combat units.
The number of units that a CSC may assist in combat is equal to the CSCs rank plus one (Colonel
=1, 1 Star General =2, etc.). CSCs use their appropriate specialty skill rating (infantry, cavalry or
artillery) to assist units in committing to battle and fring and defending in battle. There is no limit to
the number of CSCs that may be attached to another leader, however no more than 25 items (units
and/or leaders) may be attached to any leader.

Benefit: They help committing units to battle and firing and defending in battle.  Seems like it's better to have a poor CSC over no CSC.  Optimal number?  Seems like enough CSC's to cover as many units as possible.



hgilmer -> RE: best use of sub commanders (7/8/2008 2:19:26 AM)

    I believe another good reason is if you win (and sometimes even if you lose) their command rating has a chance to increase. So, the more in there, the more trained up and capable leaders you have?



JanSorensen -> RE: best use of sub commanders (7/8/2008 7:53:01 AM)

tedhealy is correct.

Any CSC is better than none - and once you have enough CSC to cover all the troops in the corps more are of no use.

CSC do not help with: Initiative or movement.
CSC do help with commitment, combat, scouting, raiding, blocading.

I dont 100% remember if CSC help with training or entrenching - but I do not believe so. 



WarHunter -> RE: best use of sub commanders (7/8/2008 8:18:43 AM)

I have noticed if your leader fits the parameters of being a Corp commander, and you have no subcommanders, there is a -# equal to the lack of sub commander assistance.

If you have a Leader which is not able to command a corp, and it has a full complement of units, it has no adverse affect that i have seen.

Artillery early in the game have few leaders, and i find myself not attaching arty leaders to Infantry corps, but allow them to be seperate units. That 1star general with 3/4/5/6CP's as an indiviual leader seems more useful with 3/4/5/6 artillery attached, than as a subcommander helping only 2 units.

Maybe as the activations are used it gets better over time, but with attrition, i never seem to have enough artillery leaders.

Lately i've been sorting and stacking the corp commander's with sub commanders who have the same specialty rating. Seems to be working ok.



tran505 -> RE: best use of sub commanders (7/8/2008 11:29:13 PM)


My assumption is that the Corps commander helps his subordinates no matter what the type. So even an "infantry" corps commmander will help an artillery formation and its leader. So I would think that overall even good artillery leaders are made better by being placed in with a good corps commander, even if the artillery leaders cannot command as many units within the corps, as they could as an independent formation.

This is just an assumption -- let me know if I am wrong!!

- P



heroldje -> RE: best use of sub commanders (7/9/2008 1:03:34 AM)

thanks, that is exactly the answer i was looking for

i dont know how i missed it in the manual since i searched for it thoroughly



madgamer2 -> RE: best use of sub commanders (7/9/2008 4:37:42 AM)

I love it when you talk this way. I wish I could understand what you are saying LOL. I have read the manual several times and still have a bit of a mental gap...must be old age...I have to get used to the basic leadership first then perhaps I will give it a try.

Madgamer



WarHunter -> RE: best use of sub commanders (7/9/2008 4:11:13 PM)

One of my favorite moments in the game, when using Sub-commanders, Promotion time. [sm=happy0005.gif]

Having a sub commander get his 2rd Star or 3rdStar, now outranking his Corp commander. Breaking up the corp and sometimes forcing a drastic change in leadership.

Another aspect of the Sub-commander rule, increased Leader casualties. In just 1 month we have seen 13 leaders KIA and WIA. While in March of 1863 AC Halleck was mortally wounded.

And i love it...[sm=Christo_pull_hair.gif]



Berkut -> RE: best use of sub commanders (7/9/2008 4:17:06 PM)

Does anyone else start thinking about the Hunley when they see this thread title?

Where is Lt. Payne????



Massattack -> RE: best use of sub commanders (7/9/2008 4:23:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Berkut

Does anyone else start thinking about the Hunley when they see this thread title?

Where is Lt. Payne????



I was going to post a smartass reply referring the OP to the Silent Hunter 3 or 4 forums for further info. Ooops, sorry...!



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.953125