Addressing the unit headcounts, getting them lowered

[Copper Head]

Guys,

Just checking out the 'Thunder at the Crossroads' scenario and noticed playing the Union that the 2nd Division of Second Corps has a divisional HQ unit. Is this a new unit or a slip up charting back to the times when they was divisional HQ's?

Plus I had a funny result at Gettyburg where the battle screen showed the Union had 200,000 troops engaged???

[bigus]

Guys,

Just checking out the 'Thunder at the Crossroads' scenario and noticed playing the Union that the 2nd Division of Second Corps has a divisional HQ unit. Is this a new unit or a slip up charting back to the times when they was divisional HQ's?

Plus I had a funny result at Gettyburg where the battle screen showed the Union had 200,000 troops engaged???

Um...I thought I got rid of that Hq. Good eye. Let me check it out and see.
Maybe I sent Gray the wrong file. As for the Army size, The original OOB wasn't touched for either side but we have noticed this and are trying to reduce some units to bring both Armies to their historical strengths. The ratio in Army sizes to one another is O.K I believe.

Bigus

[arsan]

The issue with the 200.000 men Army of the Potomac is just cosmetic. It has no effect on game play or battle resolution.
Probably the OOB of the army is 99.99% historic but on game, each regiment has 1000 men at full strength .
On real ACW that regiments were raised at 1000 men strength but after battles, maches, diseases, desertions... month after month they got reduced to much less. Maybe 500 men average.
Some newly recruited regiments could have 800 or 900 men, but other veteran ones would have 200.
As on game regiments lose and recover men dynamically using replacements is very difficult to reproduce this historical understrength units. If you play with the hardened attrition option enabled it look better.
But luckily, on game everything works OK as both sides have the same inflated numbers. It just looks strange on the battle result screen.

To fix this i would prefer that units had lower full strength men. Let say 600 men per infantry regiment, 500 per militia or 400 per cavalry.
It would not be 100% historical either as a newly recruited regimen should have near to 1000 men (at least until the first hard march), but on general divisions, corps and armies would have more appropriate historical numbers.

Regards

[berto]

The issue with the 200.000 men Army of the Potomac is just cosmetic. It has no effect on game play or battle resolution.

As someone who used to spend hours and hours studying the orders of battle in Battles and Leaders of the Civil War and other history books, I know better, and I find this to be quite annoying. It detracts from the realism and immersiveness. After movement rates (fixed) and battle losses (being fixed), this is maybe the third biggest issue that has irked me about AACW.

To fix this i would prefer that units had lower full strength men. Let say 600 men per infantry regiment, 500 per militia or 400 per cavalry. It would not be 100% historical either as a newly recruited regimen should have near to 1000 men (at least until the first hard march), but on general divisions, corps and armies would have more appropriate historical numbers.

Would there be an easy way to mod something like this (maybe with embellishments)? I'd apply such a mod in an instant, and keep applying it from patch to patch if the mod never went "official".

[arsan]

As someone who used to spend hours and hours studying the orders of battle in Battles and Leaders of the Civil War and other history books, I know better, and I find this to be quite annoying. It detracts from the realism and immersiveness. After movement rates (fixed) and battle losses (being fixed), this is maybe the third biggest issue that has irked me about AACW.


Would there be an easy way to mod something like this (maybe with embellishments)? I'd apply such a mod in an instant, and keep applying it from patch to patch if the mod never went "official".

Yes, i agree its annoying... cosmetic but annoying at the same time
By cosmetic i mean it have no effect on the battle system itself.
The numbers of men/horses/cannon are only "aesthetic". For usa the players to see and cherish (i love this feature :coeurs
But the game engine does not even know they are there. The engine works with hits.
About modding this, i'm no modder but i think it will need to "just" change the numbers of men per hit on all the models.
But before, grognards and betas would need to agree about this being the best solution...
Regards

[berto]

Yes, i agree its annoying... cosmetic but annoying at the same time
By cosmetic i mean it have no effect on the battle system itself.

One could argue that generals' names, place names, etc. have no practical effect on the game either, but people get all worked up and distraught (rightly so) over misspellings, misnamings, misplaced railroads and towns, missing leader portraits, etc.

I've never quite understood why people care about these other "cosmetic" issues more than they care about, IMO, more basic, core issues such as movement rates, battle loss percentages, force levels, etc.

I mean to say, from my perspective, saying that the AoP was 200,000 strong at Gettysburg and suffered 50,000 casualties is as bad or worse than saying that President Lincoon lived in the Black House at Worchestershire, DC.

[arsan]

I mean to say, from my perspective, saying that the AoP was 200,000 strong at Gettysburg and suffered 50,000 casualties is as bad or worse than saying that President Lincoon lived in the Black House at Worchestershire, DC.

Didn't he??
Joking aside, I agree and would love to see this "super annoying cosmetic issue" looked at

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[arsan]

Arsan, I couldn't agree more, however, until we get done with the Battle Results testing, I don't want to "touch" the flavor numbers. I have to have that issue corrected before I work on the "flavor" issue. In other words, one builds on the other.

Sounds like a good plan to me, Gray.
Thanks!

[W.Barksdale]

I really don't think there is an issue anymore with the flavour man counts. With historical attrition you will get regiments with two or three hundred heads.

If you tweak the numbers down to 50% or 60% of the starting size you are going to have regiments many units with less than 100 men really fast. At least in the grand campaign. But who plays the battle scenarios anyways....

[berto]

I really don't think there is an issue anymore with the flavour man counts. With historical attrition you will get regiments with two or three hundred heads.

This is a big issue with the battle scenarios (which maybe you don't play). It's disconcerting to see a 200,000+ AoP in the Gettysburg scenario, and Sherman having twice the men he had historically in the Atlanta scenario (nearly 200,000), just to give two examples. I expect that this issue rears its ugly head in the later-war full-campaign scenarios, too.

[arsan]

I really don't think there is an issue anymore with the flavour man counts. With historical attrition you will get regiments with two or three hundred heads.

If you tweak the numbers down to 50% or 60% of the starting size you are going to have regiments many units with less than 100 men really fast. At least in the grand campaign. But who plays the battle scenarios anyways....

I have limited experience with the main campaign with the hard attrition enabled, so probably you know better...
But my impression is that as you say, you lost quite a few men because of attrition, but also that the losses recovred very fast (if you have replacements, of course) once you rested on a city or depot.
1 or 2 turns on a city or depot and all the regiments were at 1000 strength again

[Rafiki]

[color="Blue"]Split the headcount discussion of here, since it has little to do with the patch as such.[/color]

[Injun]

I have limited experience with the main campaign with the hard attrition enabled, so probably you know better...
But my impression is that as you say, you lost quite a few men because of attrition, but also that the losses recovred very fast (if you have replacements, of course) once you rested on a city or depot.
1 or 2 turns on a city or depot and all the regiments were at 1000 strength again

Arsan and others,
The key to this problem is most likely the replacement screen. To reflect historical numbers, I see one or two solutions. One increase cost of replacements in money, men and war supplies.

Two would be be restrict replacements to Army HQ, supply wagons, ships, artillery, service units and lighten up the attrition rate. Historically army regiments did not recive replacements. Regiments just dwindled away to attrication and battle losses, new units were rasied. They may start out a 1000 men strong, like the 20th Maine, By the time of Gettysburg another regiment was folded into the 20th to give it a strenght of only 250 to 300 men at the most.

This would reflect in the game those correct numbers historical players want.

[Jabberwock]

By the time of Gettysburg another regiment was folded into the 20th

A new item for the wishlist!

[W.Barksdale]

Quite honestly I never use replacements. However, I still imagine you will get realistic numbers of soldiers after a few months.

[arsan]

Arsan and others,
The key to this problem is most likely the replacement screen. To reflect historical numbers, I see one or two solutions. One increase cost of replacements in money, men and war supplies.

Two would be be restrict replacements to Army HQ, supply wagons, ships, artillery, service units and lighten up the attrition rate. Historically army regiments did not recive replacements. Regiments just dwindled away to attrication and battle losses, new units were raised. They may start out a 1000 men strong, like the 20th Maine, By the time of Gettysburg another regiment was folded into the 20th to give it a strength of only 250 to 300 men at the most.

This would reflect in the game those correct numbers historical players want.

Hi

I'm no ACW expert but from what i had read replacements were used, specially by the CSA. But sure it was much more chaotic and ineffective than how it works on the game.
Mayeb something like what you propose would be more realistic but it will be a micromanagement nightmare: constantly having to shuffle regiments to the front armies, merge them with others, reorganize divisions... turn after turn... leure:
Not very interesting IMHO. I think if AACW could use some improvements it would be on the way of reducing micromanagement, not increasing it.

That is why i proposed the reduced men per regiment solution.
Its not ultra realistic but it would feel better than the current 1000 men per regiment setup without redesigning important parts of the game code.
Its an easy solution that would permit seeing 1000-3000 men brigades and 6000-8000 men divisions... numbers that seems more in line with historical reality that the current 5000-6000 men brigades and 12.000-14000 men divisions.
And of course you would not have 200.000 USA soldiers on Gettysburg.

Barksdale
About never using replacements... It's your way of playing, and maybe its more effective. But i don't think is the standard one or the way the game was designed to be played.
A change in the men per regiment should be adjusted to how the game was designed to be played and is played by 99% on the people.

When i proposed 600 men per standard regiment i was thinking on the effects of hardened attrition (when used with replacements of course).
If i'm not mistaken, a typical ACW regiment on campaign would be around 400-500 men strong. Using 600 as full strength number would allow for some attrition losses

Regards

[W.Barksdale]

But i don't think is the standard one or the way the game was designed to be played.
A change in the men per regiment should be adjusted to how the game was designed to be played and is played by 99% on the people.

Hmm anyone playing historical attrition that uses alot of replacements is going to lose. Straight up. It is just not a cost-effective way to put troops in the field.

And the game was designed with historical attrition too. And the headcount is fine with the option enabled. People choosing to play with no attrition will see McClellanized troop numbers.

Anyway, for what it's worth, I vote to leave things the way the are.

[Eugene Carr]

I have modded my game to have regts of 800 , 600 , 400 for conscript, early and late infantry.

When at their full strength overall totals are pretty good but attrition does cut deep and I struggle to raise new brigades to expand my armies because I need to buy replacements to keep units in existence.

[Daxil]

This is a big issue with the battle scenarios (which maybe you don't play). It's disconcerting to see a 200,000+ AoP in the Gettysburg scenario, and Sherman having twice the men he had historically (nearly 200,000) in the Atlanta scenario, just to give two examples. I expect that this issue rears its ugly head in the later-war full-campaign scenarios, too.

I can understand the battle scenarios *maybe* being an issue, but as the point of the game is to create alternate outcomes, a divergence from history in casualty rates, army sizes, etc. really doesn't bug me. All that really matters is: is the game balanced?

[bigus]

Using the "SetHealth" command, I reduced the starting setup figures for the Gettysburg scenario.
The Confederates now start at 73,233 including Stuart.(55% of original)
The Union now start with a nominal strength of 92,333 including Cavalry.(48% of original)
This should be fairly close to historical numbers I figure.

BTW, files were just submitted to Gray with the Union Div HQ taken out and Hoods Division added to Longstreets Corps. (Col Oates would be most pleased)

This is a big issue with the battle scenarios (which maybe you don't play). It's disconcerting to see a 200,000+ AoP in the Gettysburg scenario, and Sherman having twice the men he had historically (nearly 200,000) in the Atlanta scenario, just to give two examples. I expect that this issue rears its ugly head in the later-war full-campaign scenarios, too.

Your right. Since the Atlanta scenario uses the starting 1864 setup for the west. Since the "SetHealth" was only 2 lines in the XLS file it's just a matter of finding the right numbers to bring them down to historical starting numbers as well.
Thats next.


Bigus

[Gray_Lensman]

Using the "SetHealth" command, I reduced the starting setup figures for the Gettysburg scenario.
The Confederates now start at 73,233 including Stuart.(55% of original)
The Union now start with a nominal strength of 92,333 including Cavalry.(48% of original)
This should be fairly close to historical numbers I figure.

BTW, files were just submitted to Gray with the Union Div HQ taken out and Hoods Division added to Longstreets Corps. (Col Oates would be most pleased)



Your right. Since the Atlanta scenario uses the starting 1864 setup for the west. Since the "SetHealth" was only 2 lines in the XLS file it's just a matter of finding the right numbers to bring them down to historical starting numbers as well.
Thats next.


Bigus

I'm not sure if this is a correct approach to the problem, though it could be... I just need to see how it works and what the "replacement" system does with it between turns... Checking it out now. For sure, one problem will be that when we implement a "global" solution, this might have to be undone, so that alone might prevent me from "officializing" it. However, give me time to check it out... Meantime, maybe you can post it as a standalone mod scenario. Though I appreciate the information we can get by discussing the situation, actual proposed solutions should be discussed first in the beta forums in order to reduce confusion to the other gamers.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[arsan]

I can understand the battle scenarios *maybe* being an issue, but as the point of the game is to create alternate outcomes, a divergence from history in casualty rates, army sizes, etc. really doesn't bug me. All that really matters is: is the game balanced?

Hi Daxil
Balance is not a matter here as these numbers are just a cosmetic thing.
It has no effect at all on game mechanics. The game uses only the units "hits" for battle or attrition losses.
The men per hit, horses per hit and guns per hit variables are used then to show to us players those nice men/horse and guns battle results that are great for immersion... but for anything else.
Finding some good inmersive and realistic looking numbers is what is discussed here i think.
But probably is not that easy as the "realistic numbers" can vary depending of how you play the game (hard attrition/no hard attrition, buy replacements/don't buy replacements...)

Regards

[berto]

Nothing personal, Daxil, since others have offered similar opinions before you, you are just the latest to express them:

I can understand the battle scenarios *maybe* being an issue, but as the point of the game is to create alternate outcomes, a divergence from history in casualty rates, army sizes, etc. really doesn't bug me. All that really matters is: is the game balanced?

<sarcasm>

Ahistorical fights to the death, fanatical armies, ACW soldiers as Bushido samurai. ("Never surrender! It's our duty and honor and privilege to die for our Divine Emperor, Jefferson Davis!")

Anachronism, and taking people and their attitudes and motivations and behaviors out of historical context--who cares?

AACW Gettysburg as WWI Battle of the Somme:

The Battle of Gettysburg: A Union Victory!

Union forces: 200,000 men
Battle losses: 150,000 killed, wounded, captured & missing

Confederate forces: 140,000 men
Battle losses: 120,000 killed, wounded, captured & missing

Or how about:

The Battle of Gettysburg: A Union Victory!

Union forces: 930 men, 500 horses, 30 artillery
Battle losses: 32 killed, 145 wounded, 54 captured/missing

Confederate forces: 780 men, 400 horses, 20 artillery
Battle losses: 47 killed 127 wounded, 58 captured/missing

So who's counting?

At the Battle of Midway, the Japanese have eight carriers (instead of their historical four) and the U.S. have six (instead of their historical three) (and likewise all the other ship counts are doubled)? What matters is that the force ratios are still the same! (Or even: what do force ratios matter?)

Apologies to Alfred, Lord Tennyson:

The Charge Of The Two Light Brigades

Half a league half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the twelve hundred:
'Forward, the Light Brigades!
Charge for the guns' he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the twelve hundred...

The 600 Spartans, anyone?

All that really matters is game balance, right?

</sarcasm>



If it's all about game balance, we might just as well go play checkers...

[Daxil]

No, actually I do care about numbers and such, but it's less of an issue for me than you I think. Let me just say: there is a word "grognard" for a reason. We're actually two different types of gamers and hopefully we (in a general sense) can come to a consensus because these games need both our type of gamers support.


In your own words...

As someone who used to spend hours and hours studying the orders of battle in Battles and Leaders of the Civil War and other history books, I know better, and I find this to be quite annoying. It detracts from the realism and immersiveness. After movement rates (fixed) and battle losses (being fixed), this is maybe the third biggest issue that has irked me about AACW.

You don't seem to care about game mechanics as much as me. I wish the ai would not go on suicidal raids, for example, or could coordinate an assault on New Orleans by sea more effectively. That would come before the hard numbers for me and is where the developers should be sticking their nose, IMO. Sorry if it seemed like a persoinal attack. It was a general observation on that dichotomy.

[berto]

No, actually I do care about numbers and such, but it's less of an issue for me than you I think. Let me just say: there is a word "grognard" for a reason. We're actually two different types of gamers and hopefully we (in a general sense) can come to a consensus because these games need both our type of gamers support.

I'm glad to know that, in our different ways, we are both grognards.

I am a life-long numbers freak. Getting the numbers right is innate to who I am.

Permit me an (imperfect) analogy:

Imagine a NASCAR racing sim where: there are 400 cars on the track; the cars can go just 100 miles per hour (160 KPH); have tiny gas tanks (requiring pit stops every 15 minutes or so); crash and burn with regularity.

Pretty decals, witty color commentary, realistic background scenery, perfectly accurate tracks, well-modeled performance handling--all of that aside, what true racing car sim aficionado would take such a game seriously?

At times, AACW has seemed to me much like that fictitious, imagined racing car sim. Like finger nails screeching across a blackboard, at times AACW has made me cringe.

You don't seem to care about game mechanics as much as me. I wish the ai would not go on suicidal raids, for example, or could coordinate an assault on New Orleans by sea more effectively. That would come before the hard numbers for me and is where the developers should be sticking their nose, IMO.

I care about these other things, too. But to me things like movement rates, battle losses, force levels seem to be even more basic. Start from the ground up, IMO.

Sorry if it seemed like a persoinal attack. It was a general observation on that dichotomy.

The game benefits from our having many differing opinions and perspectives.

Nobody has all the answers, not even me.

[Rafiki]

Permit me an (imperfect) analogy:

Imagine a NASCAR racing sim where: there are 400 cars on the track; the cars can go just 100 miles per hour (160 KPH); have tiny gas tanks (requiring pit stops every 15 minutes or so); crash and burn with regularity.

Pretty decals, witty color commentary, realistic background scenery, perfectly accurate tracks, well-modeled performance handling--all of that aside, what true racing car sim aficionado would take such a game seriously?

At times, AACW has seemed to me much like that fictitious, imagined racing car sim. Like finger nails screeching across a blackboard, at times AACW has made me cringe.

Let's not go entirely overboard.

Wouldn't a better analogy for this problem be that each car in the race had 2 (or 3) people in each car rather than just the driver?

[berto]

Wouldn't a better analogy for this problem be that each car in the race had 2 (or 3) people in each car rather than just the driver?

Right you are! SUVs and family station wagons, with kids in the back seats!

[Injun]

Hi

I'm no ACW expert but from what i had read replacements were used, specially by the CSA. But sure it was much more chaotic and ineffective than how it works on the game.
Mayeb something like what you propose would be more realistic but it will be a micromanagement nightmare: constantly having to shuffle regiments to the front armies, merge them with others, reorganize divisions... turn after turn... leure:
Not very interesting IMHO. I think if AACW could use some improvements it would be on the way of reducing micromanagement, not increasing it.

That is why i proposed the reduced men per regiment solution.
Its not ultra realistic but it would feel better than the current 1000 men per regiment setup without redesigning important parts of the game code.
Its an easy solution that would permit seeing 1000-3000 men brigades and 6000-8000 men divisions... numbers that seems more in line with historical reality that the current 5000-6000 men brigades and 12.000-14000 men divisions.
And of course you would not have 200.000 USA soldiers on Gettysburg.

Barksdale
About never using replacements... It's your way of playing, and maybe its more effective. But i don't think is the standard one or the way the game was designed to be played.
A change in the men per regiment should be adjusted to how the game was designed to be played and is played by 99% on the people.

When i proposed 600 men per standard regiment i was thinking on the effects of hardened attrition (when used with replacements of course).
If i'm not mistaken, a typical ACW regiment on campaign would be around 400-500 men strong. Using 600 as full strength number would allow for some attrition losses

Regards

Arsan, The nightmare you talk about is a fact that both armies had to deal with. The micro-management would be a players choice. Of course the units combined must be from the same state.

Just an opinion of one of the backseat drives in this SUV. Guys lets pull over and get some gas and something to eat. What the SUV took up all our cash, no eats! I told you guys we need a VW Bug!