QUESTION ABOUT MCCLELLAN

[XLegion]

I know that General McClellan has one of the best abilities for training troops but how can I utilize him if he starts as an army commander in the July 1861 scenario? You can't attach troops to an Army Commander or Theatre commander.

How do I take advantage of McClellan's training ability?

Again I say, terrific game and simulation.

[tedhealy]

Unattached units will train with the highest rated training leader if he has command points available.  One cp per unit and 2 attempts per turn at training.

[TheTomDude]

ORIGINAL: tedhealy

Unattached units will train with the highest rated training leader if he has command points available.  One cp per unit and 2 attempts per turn at training.

No matter where on the map they are ?

[JanSorensen]

They need to be in the same region.

[Erik Rutins]

One of the early Union strategies is to have Winfield Scott (Theater Commander with Command 20 and ITR 3) and McClellan (Army Commander with Command 16 and ITR 4) located in Washington with a large stack of unattached militia. McClellan will be able to attempt to train 8 Militia twice per turn at ITR 4 and Scott will be able to attempt to train 10 Militia twice per turn at ITR 3. It makes for one of the fastest ways to get a lot of trained infantry.

Regards,

- Erik

[Grotius]

So what happens if those militia are attached to a Unit Commander with itr 2? Do McClellan and Scott still conduct the training efforts, assuming they have the Command Points to do so? Or does the Unit Commander get priority?

[Erik Rutins]

The unit commander gets priority if they are attached to him.

[willgamer]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

The unit commander gets priority if they are attached to him.

By the way, this also means that it is O'K to attach militia to good training commanders (up to 1/2 their command rating), and use them, e.g. as a reaction force.

[dakjck]

Okay, now I'm confused.  I understand that to train unattached militia, a leader needs unused command points (preferably 2 per unit).  However, what is the relationship between attached militia and their leaders?  Does that leader need unsued command points?  If so, then a "1" command point leader could never train an attached unit.  If you have a 4 command point leader with three militia attached, does he: 1) train 1 attached militia once a turn, 2) train 1 attached militia twice a turn, 3) train all 3 attached militia once a turn or 4) train all 3 attached militia twice a turn? 
 
To look at it anoher way, would a 4 command point leader with 4 militia units attached ever train a militia unit?  If not, would another leader train them if he had available command points (the way I understood the rule, unattached leaders could only train unattached militia, not militia attached to someone else)? 

[JanSorensen]

Leaders with attached units do not need unused CP to train.
Infact, units that are attached train twice per turn.
 
Units that are not attached may train with an AC or TC in the same area with unused CP - using up a CP each time they train.
 
See rule 7.1
Units are trained by a leader acting as a training officer using their applicable infantry or cavalry training rating. If the unit is attached to a leader, the training officer is that unit’s Unit Commander. Units that are not attached to a leader will use as their training officer the leader with the highest training value that still has unused command points and the leader will expend one command point per unit he assists in training (successfully or not). Army and Theatre Commanders will perform this duty for unattached units.

[dakjck]

Thanks.  This means that, from a strictly training point of view, McClellan and Scott would be better not being TC and AC so that they could attach the maximum number of units, thereby doubling their training ability.  (Ingnoring firing and political point considerations).  Is this true?

[PyleDriver]

No, not at all. You have others Buell and McClernand that are great trainers. Scott wont last long, he will die. Don't mess with AC and TC apointments just to train militia...

[8D]
Jon

[dakjck]

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

No, not at all. You have others Buell and McClernand that are great trainers. Scott wont last long, he will die. Don't mess with AC and TC apointments just to train militia...

[8D]
Jon

I was not suggesting this as a good strategy, just to confirm my understanding of the training rules. As I now understand the rules, McClellen could train twice as many attached militita as he can unattached militia, is this correct (not considering whether it is a good idea or not)?

[tran505]

This thread is just getting too good to ignore....

My entry in the great training rule lottery:

1) Units who are assigned to a leader use that and only that leader as their "training officer". Said leader does not need to have ANY available CP's and will train each and every militia unit under his command twice per turn.

2) Units who do not have an assigned leader will use ANY leader as their "training officer"; said leader will be the leader with the highest available training value, and may or may not be the Army or Theater commander. Said leader will train that unit twice per turn.

3) Army and Theater commanders are elligible to be "training officers" to unattached units, but will ONLY be assigned as such if and only if no other officer has both i) available command points, and ii) has a higher training value than the AC or TC. AC's and TC's acting as "training officers" train each and every unit under their tutilage twice per turn.

This is what 35 years of rules lawyering does to you guys.... Turn back now before it is too late....

P

[willgamer]

ORIGINAL: tran505


This thread is just getting too good to ignore....

My entry in the great training rule lottery:

1) Units who are assigned to a leader use that and only that leader as their "training officer". Said leader does not need to have ANY available CP's and will train each and every militia unit under his command twice per turn.

2) Units who do not have an assigned leader will use ANY leader as their "training officer"; said leader will be the leader with the highest available training value, and may or may not be the Army or Theater commander. Said leader will train that unit twice per turn.

3) Army and Theater commanders are elligible to be "training officers" to unattached units, but will ONLY be assigned as such if and only if no other officer has both i) available command points, and ii) has a higher training value than the AC or TC. AC's and TC's acting as "training officers" train each and every unit under their tutilage twice per turn.

This is what 35 years of rules lawyering does to you guys.... Turn back now before it is too late....

P

But earlier in the thread Erik said:

One of the early Union strategies is to have Winfield Scott (Theater Commander with Command 20 and ITR 3) and McClellan (Army Commander with Command 16 and ITR 4) located in Washington with a large stack of unattached militia. McClellan will be able to attempt to train 8 Militia twice per turn at ITR 4 and Scott will be able to attempt to train 10 Militia twice per turn at ITR 3. It makes for one of the fastest ways to get a lot of trained infantry.

Isn't one of these correct and the other incorrect. [&:]

Or am I totally confused more than usual and somehow both are saying the same thing! [8|]

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: dakjck

Thanks.  This means that, from a strictly training point of view, McClellan and Scott would be better not being TC and AC so that they could attach the maximum number of units, thereby doubling their training ability.  (Ingnoring firing and political point considerations).  Is this true?

Yes, this is true. Units attached directly to a leader will get trained twice by that leader. Units unattached will be trained by the best training leader with a CP available. So a leader with attached units will actually train more units during the turn (relative to their CP) than a leader training unattached units.

Each unit trained while unattached will cause the leader to expend one CP for each training attempt. Let's say there are 15 unattached units and McClellan with 16 CP and Scott with 20 CP. When the first training round happens, all 15 units will train with McClellan (he has ITR of 4 vs. Scott with a 3), and that will leave McClellan with 1 CP. In the next training round McClellan will train 1 unit, and Scott will then train the other militia units in the area. Since a unit can become an infantry unit during the first training round of the turn, a leader with 16 CP may be able to train more than 8 units in the turn. Let's say there are 10 units in the area and only McClellan. He will attempt to train all 10 in the first round (he will have 6 CP left after this). If 3 of them become infantry, then there will be 7 militia left in the second round of training. Since he has only 6 CP left, in the second training opportunity of the turn McClellan will attempt to train 6 of the 7 remaining militia units.

[Toby42]

Man! Reading all of this talk about training, initiative, building depots, etc, is giving me a headache. Maybe this isn't the game for me? I want to play the game, not try and spend all of my time figuring out the system....and all of it's nuances.

[elmo3]

No reason you can't just play the game and ignore the math.

[Toby42]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

No reason you can't just play the game and ignore the math.

Math is correct. It sounds like you need to be a CPA to get the most from this????

[tedhealy]

Once you get a feel for the game and understand the big picture, you can ignore most of the math.  You may not play as well as the person that knows every stat and how it interacts with others, but you can still have fun and win.