Corp Sub Commander Question and Observations

Corp Sub Commander Question and Observations (Full Version)

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

Message

jcrohio -> Corp Sub Commander Question and Observations (7/31/2008 1:12:15 PM)
I am currently playing my first game using the Corp Sub Commander option. I have a couple of questions. 1. What are you looking for in CSC's? Reading the manual I was initially looking at their specialty skill rating mostly along with their rank. These seem to be the only attributes the manual dwells on. Eventually however I was using any commander that I could find to satisfy the corp commanders needs for CSC's. You are correct, skill rating and rank is what matters most. I think the Command Rating of the CSC might help slightly with committing units to battle, but I'm not 100% sure of this. 2. I have noticed a lot of leader casulties - at the same time I started using the CSC rule I jumped to the Challenging level - according to the manaul Challenging has no effect on leader casulties - common sense leads to the conclusion more leaders more casulties - but I was not prepared for the amount of casulties - in my first try at this level I lost 10-12 leaders in a couple of months - I tried a second start and the results have not been quite so dramatic but still a lot of leaders killed and wounded. CSC's are much more likely to be hit in combat (as in real life where division commanders are much more vulnerable than corps commanders). Your 10-12 in a few months sounds especially unlucky, but you will see many more times the losses in leaders. 3. The AI has a huge advantage when using this rule as they have 100's of leaders to use as CSC's - the player with his limited activations does not - I (as the Confederacy) have never had enough leaders to coomand all my units and fill all the roles as CSC's. Yes, that's true. Of course, the AI needs the help. Thanks for any help Jack

dakjck -> RE: Corp Sub Commander Question and Observations (7/31/2008 4:06:57 PM)
I am curious about this as well. I am usually scouring for good commanders to command my corps, resulting in my putting anyone available to command divisions. Do you create an uber corps if you put in division commanders all with an infantry rating of 3 or greater? Is it worth it since it will mean some corps will be commanded by leaders with a 2 infantry rating?

madgamer2 -> RE: Corp Sub Commander Question and Observations (7/31/2008 7:09:14 PM)
I have to admit when I was younger I wanted all the chrome, all the hard rules and such. I am old now and it is my observation that the corps rules are just not worth it. It is a great idea but it strikes me that it might have been added after the combat rules were in place. I liked the way it was done in FoF. Madgamer

willgamer -> RE: Corp Sub Commander Question and Observations (7/31/2008 7:53:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: madgamer I have to admit when I was younger I wanted all the chrome, all the hard rules and such. I am old now and it is my observation that the corps rules are just not worth it. It is a great idea but it strikes me that it might have been added after the combat rules were in place. I liked the way it was done in FoF. Madgamer Just chiming in to say that I also must be too elderly to want to use corps rules either.[:o] If there is some decision making or strategy that hinges on this, I'd like to know what it is. What am I missing? Looks like us xGAMER's are sticking together on this one.[:D][:D][:D]

jcrohio -> RE: Corp Sub Commander Question and Observations (7/31/2008 8:37:08 PM)
Thanks for all the replies "I am curious about this as well. I am usually scouring for good commanders to command my corps, resulting in my putting anyone available to command divisions. Do you create an uber corps if you put in division commanders all with an infantry rating of 3 or greater? Is it worth it since it will mean some corps will be commanded by leaders with a 2 infantry rating? " dakjck - this was kinda of my original plan - create one great army with all my best commanders and then other more mediocre armies - but with leader casulties and growth of my armies all I ended up doing was just trying to keep up with each corp commanders divisional requirements mad gamer and willgamer - I am not sure if I like this optional rule or not - I too have some age (first TV was a black and white, huge box, little screen, and rabbit ear antenna) and after this game will evaluate if the rule brings any enjoyment to the game or just unnecessarily complicates the game. Jack

Berkut -> RE: Corp Sub Commander Question and Observations (8/1/2008 2:41:22 PM)
Heh, me and Habs were talking about this, and I think we came to a similar conclusion. When playing with CSCs, the net effect is that you take all those dozens of crappy leaders, and toss them into Corps and forget about them. They might as well just disappear, because they have almost no visibility anymore. The other issue I have with the rule is that the large number of increased activation makes the tough choice of how to spend your two per turn activations moot. You really need a new, good Corps commander in the East, but you only have a 40% chance of getting the 3-3-4 guy, and a 60% chance of getting some 2-2-2 loser...and you HAVE to get that artillery commander as well? Tough decision, what to do! Not with CSCs! You get a ton of activations, and if you "miss" going after AP Hill, no big deal, just try again. And Again. And again. You will get him eventually, and the crappy "misses" get shoved in as CSCs, no harm done, since you needed them anyway. The 10,000ft. view of the CSC concept looks pretty good, but the implementation is not quite right somehow.

Erik Rutins -> RE: Corp Sub Commander Question and Observations (8/1/2008 2:47:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Berkut The other issue I have with the rule is that the large number of increased activation makes the tough choice of how to spend your two per turn activations moot. You really need a new, good Corps commander in the East, but you only have a 40% chance of getting the 3-3-4 guy, and a 60% chance of getting some 2-2-2 loser...and you HAVE to get that artillery commander as well? Tough decision, what to do! Not with CSCs! You get a ton of activations, and if you "miss" going after AP Hill, no big deal, just try again. And Again. And again. You will get him eventually, and the crappy "misses" get shoved in as CSCs, no harm done, since you needed them anyway. I disagree with that. I find that even with the increased activations, you never have more than you need. In the non-CSC game, you may go through the war without some historical Corps Commanders (or get them very late) due to the limited activations. In the CSC game you're going to get all the important historical guys close to or about when they actually arrived but you'll also have to fill those divisional commander slots and with casualties that can require a lot of activations. You'll rarely have more than you need though, at least if you've got a large army to command. I prefer the CSC option, because I like to have all the "important" guys at the right time, I like showing the effects of the corps system and I don't mind dealing with the additional guys management-wise. Regards, - Erik

Berkut -> RE: Corp Sub Commander Question and Observations (8/1/2008 3:00:48 PM)
I didn't say there were too many activations, just that it removed the difficult choice on activations, and having to deal with not getting the guy you need. When I am ready to make a new Corps in an active army, and need a decent commander for it, and there is only 1 guy available under the normal system, I may end up with some chump instead, and have to deal with that. With CSCs, I do not - getting the chump is fine, I need chumps anyway to fill out my divisional commands, so the activation is not wasted. It isn't a matter of having more than you need, it is a matter of dealing with having LESS than you need. :P

WarHunter -> RE: Corp Sub Commander Question and Observations (8/1/2008 7:48:03 PM)
The sub-commander option is a good rule. But lacks just one thing to make it better. A fair distribution of picks for the North and the South. Currently both sides are given an even number of picks, 5. Based on my experience with the rule, played from both sides, pbem and solo, i would reccommend a simple change of 4 to the Confederates and 6 for the Republic. Maybe a simple slider to allow a range of picks from 3-6 for the South and 4-7 for the North. This would address the larger force of arms the Union player is capable of fielding and the historical backdrop of the general officer pools of both sides. (see below) The effect of making the Rebel player choose abit more wisely, while the Northern player could invest in the Naval picks, at not so great a risk to the land forces is not a bad thing. I just feel the 5 picks allowed per side currently rates it as pro-Confederate. imho Anyone else want to chime in? U.S.Grant said, " quote: Seeing these officers who had been educated for the profession of arms, both at school and in actual war, which is a far more efficient training, impressed me with the great advantage the South possessed over the North at the beginning of the rebellion. They had from thirty to forty per cent. of the educated soldiers of the Nation. They had no standing army and, consequently, these trained soldiers had to find employment with the troops from their own States. In this way what there was of military education and training was distributed throughout their whole army. The whole loaf was leavened. The North had a great number of educated and trained soldiers, but the bulk of them were still in the army and were retained, generally with their old commands and rank, until the war had lasted many months. In the Army of the Potomac there was what was known as the "regular brigade," in which, from the commanding officer down to the youngest second lieutenant, every one was educated to his profession. So, too, with many of the batteries; all the officers, generally four in number to each, were men educated for their profession. Some of these went into battle at the beginning under division commanders who were entirely without military training. ".

Erik Rutins -> RE: Corp Sub Commander Question and Observations (8/1/2008 8:23:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WarHunter The sub-commander option is a good rule. But lacks just one thing to make it better. A fair distribution of picks for the North and the South. Currently both sides are given an even number of picks, 5. Actually, the Union gets 5 and the Confederacy 4. Are you seeing 5 as the Confederacy? Regards, - Erik

WarHunter -> RE: Corp Sub Commander Question and Observations (8/1/2008 8:35:05 PM)
Eric, What's funny about that is playing the south, i never use all the picks and since the beginning of the game, i've been looking at 5-6 picks since 1862. lol I've got in the habit of keeping extra back for "emergencies". Might seem silly to some, but i really look at the leaders as a critical resource.

vicberg -> RE: Corp Sub Commander Question and Observations (8/1/2008 9:04:50 PM)
Confederates get 4 activations and Union get 5. CSC's are a reflection of the command and control that existed at that time. CSC's add there speciality skill rating to committing units and combat, according to page 156 & 157 of the rules. Army leaders affect corp leaders. Corp leaders affect CSC. So, uber corps can be created. CSC's also reflects the poor and limited leadership that existed throughout the Union. A game without CSC gives a pretty significant advantage to the Union...the Union already has a huge industrial and manpower advantage and they can muster enough solid "divisional" leaders to create an effective army pretty fast. With CSCs, it takes quite a bit of the war before the Union can get it's army organized and combat ready, which is what happened during the actual war. This gives the confederates a real chance (and in my opinion, their only chance...they need to get way ahead in political points before the Union advantages overmatches the confederates). The limited activations and randomness places constraints on building corps. You have to choose and you might have to wait accross turns for more or better leaders. I believe that this reflects the constraints arounds building corps during that time. It's a good abstraction and introduces an element of the unknown. Arty is the greatest challenge. With the CSC rule, I find that arty divisions, which only have the army commander helping, fall apart quickly in combat against corps, which have the army AND the corp leaders helping. I also see MUCH higher leader losses for divisions against corps, which is in the rules also. But, the command points of divisional arty leaders allow for fielding much larger amounts of arty than if they are part of corps and only their rank comes into play. Another tough choice. I highly recommend the CSC rule. Having played many civil war games, this CSC rule is quite solid, and like the rest of this game, runs deeper than it looks.

Berkut -> RE: Corp Sub Commander Question and Observations (8/1/2008 9:30:47 PM)
I think CSC is a significant advantage for the South, actually. First, there is the problem with the Union navy requiring CSCs, but having very few naval leaders who can acutally use CSCs. Second, the South without CSC has better Corps commanders than the North. However, they have lots of places that need commanders, with garrisons and such, so it is hard for them to cover everything that needs to be covered, especially if the very good historical Corps commanders are not coming out with their limited activations. With CSCs, that simply is not an issue. You save a block of ten, and as soon as Ewell or Hill show up in the poool, you get him, because you keep activating until you do. Missed activations are no big deal, you are going to toss them into divisional leader roles anyway. The Union though, doesn't even have those kinds of ledaers in the pool until much later. So yeah, they gets lots of activations so they can activate lots of crummy leaders. The CSC thing would work better if there were two pools to draw from, one divisionsal, and one Corp, and all the "extra" draws came from the divisional pool.

JAMiAM -> RE: Corp Sub Commander Question and Observations (8/1/2008 9:34:33 PM)
Contrary to a couple of other posters, I feel that the CSC rule generally favors the Union, and not the Confederates. There are several reasons for this. To start with, raw numbers, in terms of the amount dumped in Dec 61/Jan 62 turn, as well as the 5:4 ratio each succeeding turn. The general quality of the Union Corps leaders, from mid 1862 onward is better than that of the Confederates, and there seem to be proportionally fewer of them. The Union normally has control of the operational tempo of the game, and can thus dictate which areas will be "hot spots" and which will not. Thus, they can stuff their corps with CSC's where needed, while the Confederates, needing to garrison more, and accomodate shifting axes of attack, will need to penny-packet out their CSC's, resulting in fewer "killer corps". These factors all build upon each other (a synergetic effect) as the active Union leaders will meet with more successes, gaining more command, taking fewer casualties, while the spread out Confederate leaders take more casualties, get overwhelmed and progress less. Just my $0.02.

heroldje -> RE: Corp Sub Commander Question and Observations (8/2/2008 3:59:40 PM)
I love the CSC rule. I actually think the alternative is very gamey and unrealistic. Relying on a random role to see if a certain leader will 'emerge' just seems really out of place. Why not make those commanders available much sooner, if not immediately, but give them very low command points? Then you could stuff badly led corps with good leaders with 1 or 2 cp.. and hopefully they emerge through combat and experience. Isn't that more how it really worked? Just a thought

pfnognoff -> RE: Corp Sub Commander Question and Observations (8/5/2008 1:34:28 AM)
One strange thing I noticed about corps commander's ratings. If I get a 7/7 corps commander and I stack him with arty guy with 2/2 and a couple of infantry one stars that complete the remaining 5/5 spots his corps commander rating (on the mouseover popup) is 0 and that is good. I end my turn and reexamine my above mentioned corps and corps commander rating is -2 and it never saw action and noone has resigned. OK so now I unatach every officer and every unit, and just reatach them again the same way I did a turn before and corps commander rating is back to 0.... Is this working as intended and I need to unatach/reatach every turn or am I missing something? Thanks.

Joel Billings -> RE: Corp Sub Commander Question and Observations (8/6/2008 5:13:26 AM)
Can you send a save to 2by3@2by3games.com and point out which leader has this problem. Sounds like a bug.

pfnognoff -> RE: Corp Sub Commander Question and Observations (8/7/2008 10:17:45 PM)
Sent 2 files with before and after for Longstreet and Jackson in West Virginia going from 0 to -4 just by ending the turn :)

JAMiAM -> RE: Corp Sub Commander Question and Observations (8/7/2008 10:31:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pfnognoff Sent 2 files with before and after for Longstreet and Jackson in West Virginia going from 0 to -4 just by ending the turn :) Did they gain a star, during the reinforcement and production phase? Check your "E" report and see if they had gotten some promotion.

pfnognoff -> RE: Corp Sub Commander Question and Observations (8/8/2008 4:51:54 PM)
Managed to figure it out... It is a combo between my mistake and a little problem with corps commander display. I was first combining troops in divisions and then combining (right clicking) divisions to corps commanders, and if you do it that way then Corps Commander rating in the mouseover popop will not show any nuber. But after end of turn this will become real bonus as it should have been all along. If you add stuff into the corps one unit/leader at the time rating shows correctly immediately and not only after end turn. Now my mistake was in thinking that 7/7 for max number of units allowed for a division commander meant he can support corps commander for 7 units but it turns out he only supports 1, 2 or 3 per his rank. Hance my confusion after attaching a full 7/7 leader to a corps and not seeing real bonus at that time, but only after end of turn. I'm gonna add them one by one now :)

Vorsteher -> RE: Corp Sub Commander Question and Observations (8/17/2008 6:34:40 PM)
What is, when the corps commander died in fight ?Send the AC a new commander ? What make the corps ? I read all threads over subcommanders.I miss must have one exactly rule Which value for example a Corpscommander around the attack value of its units to increase. Its attack value taken on is has retains only 2 and one of one of its Subcommander a value of 3 or 4 . How it then? V.

Vorsteher -> RE: Corp Sub Commander Question and Observations (8/23/2008 8:49:36 AM)
no one has an answer? Weak [:(]

JAMiAM -> RE: Corp Sub Commander Question and Observations (8/23/2008 5:46:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vorsteher no one has an answer? Weak [:(] I'm sure that your English is much better than my German, but I didn't understand what you were asking in your previous post. Perhaps this confusion is why nobody else answered, either?

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.109375