I don't see any reason for a major overhaul of the current system. The ONLY two issues I see are:
1. The hassle of moving HQs around the map. (A minor annoyance for me.)
2. The apparent inability of the AI to handle the current model effectively. (The only major issue for me.)
We can all think off ways to change the system, to graft on all sorts of restrictions and other bells and whistles. But that may only make it even harder for the AI.
I'm for whatever helps the AI.
-
McNaughton
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
Stonewall wrote:Its not ahistorical to see divisions outside of their Corps formations. There were no Corps sized formations on the Confederate side until after the 7-Days battles outside Richmond. It took an Act of Congress to implement Corps sized commands in the Union army starting in early 1862. There were no Corps commanders in 1861, yet divisions were still there roaming the countryside.
At Shiloh, the Confederate Army began using a modified Corps command structure. Independant commands from the Western theater were styled "corps." At Shiloh, the Union army did nor have a Corps structure. It was Grant and Buell's armies made up of divisional commands.
Divisions also in the rear areas, serving as part of a Department. There was no Corps organization, per se.
The idea that divisional commands did not operate independant of Corps is not supported by the historical record. Additionally, if there is a concern about too many divisions running around independant of one another, isn't there still a 24 division limit? I never have a problem finding generals or soldiers for the 24 divisions I'm allowed to field as the CSA.
Ultimately, every one of the generals included in the game commanded division sized formations during the war. That seems like the criteria for their inclusion into the game and the exclusion of some famous brigadiers who never held divisional command. If the generals included were capable of commanding a division, why not let them. Divisions cost 4 points to command. A leader with no bonuses generates 2 command points. There is an automatic 10% penalty for divisional commands to start with. Plus, a division not assigned to a Corps that is assigned to an army has additional penalties for independant command.
I think this is sufficient to encourage divisions within Corps sized formations without taking away some of the flexibility a game of this scale needs.
The usage of 'corps' was one that was developed during the early stages of the Civil War. While they dated to pre-Napoleonic warfare, the Corps Command was almost unheard of in North American Warfare (due to the small sizes of commands in previous wars). All Divisons operated under command, the command of an Army. During this early era, Corps were foregone in place of the Army HQ having direct command over their Divisions, basically the Army Command itself becoming one large corps.
These divisions were not 'independent', as in free to roam around the countryside, but, operated like a 6 Division Corps, a singular unit. After the early defeats and operational headaches, corps were initiated to alleviate the command stress on the Army commander. It is easier to command 2 corps than 6 divisions at one time.
So, it does stand that a Division should be under the direct command of either a Corps or an Army unit. They should be fairly locked to the command, and only transferrable either through disbanding the force, moving it to a new corps, and reforming the division there, or, directly transferring between one corps and the other in the same territory. Rarely would a division wander from its 'home' corps, unless there was a major army restructuring.
In order to form a division, the following needs to happen...
A) The command is either an Army or Corps
B) There is a leader in the stack
C) There are combat units in the stack, of at least one infantry or cavalry
When the division forms, it takes its deisgnation either from the commander (Confederate), or from the Corps number (Union), representing historic Divisional names.
You will end up with "Jackson's Division" for the Confederates, and "1st Division, III Corps" for the Union (If "1st Division is taken, it looks to the "2nd Division", and so on).
I figure that the maximum command should be 4 Divisions / Corps, 6 Divisions / Army, to historically represent command sizes.
In order to represent things better, there should probably be a reduction of **Generals, representing the gradual development of Corps commands. Increase their rank via events in 1862 to get them back to their proper ranks, or do so via merit, but there currently are too many high ranking commanders to easily field a large number of corps, thereby large numbers of divisions (if Divisions are tied to Corps/Army commands).
I think on the one hand - practical reasons decided for armies to form corps-division structure. An army general trusts his corps commanders (Jackson = hammer, Longstreet = anvil), which also delegates part of the responsibilty to a lower tier level to keep oversight. How to organise - look how households are organising themselves.
The same goes for corps commanders.
Eventually "manageable" forces are created.
But on the other hand - where playing a game - not a simulation. We should draw the line somewhere - and I don't think we need division HQ's.
However we do need corps and army HQ's - and they should be created either East/West for keeping micromanagement to a minimum.
The same goes for corps commanders.
Eventually "manageable" forces are created.
But on the other hand - where playing a game - not a simulation. We should draw the line somewhere - and I don't think we need division HQ's.
However we do need corps and army HQ's - and they should be created either East/West for keeping micromanagement to a minimum.
McNaughton wrote:The usage of 'corps' was one that was developed during the early stages of the Civil War. While they dated to pre-Napoleonic warfare, the Corps Command was almost unheard of in North American Warfare (due to the small sizes of commands in previous wars). All Divisons operated under command, the command of an Army. During this early era, Corps were foregone in place of the Army HQ having direct command over their Divisions, basically the Army Command itself becoming one large corps.
These divisions were not 'independent', as in free to roam around the countryside, but, operated like a 6 Division Corps, a singular unit. After the early defeats and operational headaches, corps were initiated to alleviate the command stress on the Army commander. It is easier to command 2 corps than 6 divisions at one time.
So, it does stand that a Division should be under the direct command of either a Corps or an Army unit. They should be fairly locked to the command, and only transferrable either through disbanding the force, moving it to a new corps, and reforming the division there, or, directly transferring between one corps and the other in the same territory. Rarely would a division wander from its 'home' corps, unless there was a major army restructuring.
In order to form a division, the following needs to happen...
A) The command is either an Army or Corps
B) There is a leader in the stack
C) There are combat units in the stack, of at least one infantry or cavalry
When the division forms, it takes its deisgnation either from the commander (Confederate), or from the Corps number (Union), representing historic Divisional names.
You will end up with "Jackson's Division" for the Confederates, and "1st Division, III Corps" for the Union (If "1st Division is taken, it looks to the "2nd Division", and so on).
I figure that the maximum command should be 4 Divisions / Corps, 6 Divisions / Army, to historically represent command sizes.
In order to represent things better, there should probably be a reduction of **Generals, representing the gradual development of Corps commands. Increase their rank via events in 1862 to get them back to their proper ranks, or do so via merit, but there currently are too many high ranking commanders to easily field a large number of corps, thereby large numbers of divisions (if Divisions are tied to Corps/Army commands).
I respectfully disagree. That may be how it worked with the front line field armies, but it is not how it worked behind the scenes in the less "flashy" areas of the conflict. On the Confederate side, and this is most evident in the Trans-Mississippi, there were no Army Corps attached to the Department. There was an army command and divisional commands stationed throughout the region. Occasionally there was a concentration of forces for battle. For the msot part, however, the 3 small divisions assigned to that department were working more than 100 miles apart at any given time. These divisions were not part of "an army stack" or a "corps stack." They were fairly independent in terms of closeness of supervision.
This is also true for most of the Deep South and Southeast. Confederacy was divided into departments (armies if you will) and the divisions were assigned to important outposts along the coast. Not operating in a corps like structure, and too far apart to be deemed under the operational control of the department commander.
You can see the same thing in many of the smaller Union naval operations. Division sized forces, operating independently of a Corps or Army formation, landing on the coast and seizing key ports.
So, by independent, I do not mean, completely independent of any form of command structure. I mean, operationally independant not answerable immediately to a Corps or Army level commander. In game terms, this means a division operating on its own as enither a part of a Corps or Army container stack.
I think that the command penalties sufferred by independent divisions combined with the limited number of available divisions is sufficient to prevent an exploit of this feature and gives incentive to use the Corps formations, where they are not subject to the command penalties.
I agree that there is a place for Divisions not part of a Corps structure. The Corps structure was principally the result of larger armies that appeared in the main theaters. In the early months of the war in the main theaters, and for the entire war elsewhere, Divisions frequently operated independently of Corps.
Which is why I think the current Div/Corp/Army setup is basically fine. The game correctly simulates the whole range of possible structures, but rewards more sophisticated command structure.
Which is why I think the current Div/Corp/Army setup is basically fine. The game correctly simulates the whole range of possible structures, but rewards more sophisticated command structure.
jimwinsor wrote:With the new system requiring a general to form a division, the number of leaders also forms a theorical limit on divisions.
So, for example, for the CSA it will be 24 or the number of generals on the map, whichever is less.
But with the possibility of leaders dieing and no way to generate new ones, it may constitute a significant problem.
It is a consideration for whatever system is put in place that replaces the current one.
-
jimwinsor
- General of the Army
- Posts: 631
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:07 am
- Location: San Diego, CA USA
denisonh wrote:But with the possibility of leaders dieing and no way to generate new ones, it may constitute a significant problem.
It is a consideration for whatever system is put in place that replaces the current one.
That is indeed true.
It might not be a bad idea to code in generic 3-1-1 *'s to enter upon a leader loss, if possible (?)
-
pasternakski
- Colonel
- Posts: 341
- Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:50 pm
jimwinsor wrote:That is indeed true.
It might not be a bad idea to code in generic 3-1-1 *'s to enter upon a leader loss, if possible (?)
I dunno, Jim. As important as leadership is, maybe combat losses of generals ought to count for something.
Besides, 3-1-1 is pretty good. Also, what's he gonna look like? I have no interest in any more Aunt Jemima faces, much less "Jubilation T. Generic" names...
Well you could have generic leaders, with a pool of names of historic colonels or brigadiers that never got to division command, whose characteristics are randomly created in a way that you are quite lucky to get a 3-1-1 leader and more probably will end up with a 2-1-0, 3-0-1 or 1-1-1 or Maybe the occasionnal and odd 2-1-2 or 2-2-1... say for these random generic leaders the game picks randomly a stat out of :
3-1-1; 3-0-1; 3-1-0; 2-1-1; 2-1-0; 2-0-1; 1-1-1; 1-1-0; 1-0-1; 2-2-1; 2-1-2; 1-1-2. Here you have 12 possibilities, with 4 being acceptable and 8 being bad... I think such a generation of random leader to take over a division after a battle if the leader dies would be fairly acceptable.
3-1-1; 3-0-1; 3-1-0; 2-1-1; 2-1-0; 2-0-1; 1-1-1; 1-1-0; 1-0-1; 2-2-1; 2-1-2; 1-1-2. Here you have 12 possibilities, with 4 being acceptable and 8 being bad... I think such a generation of random leader to take over a division after a battle if the leader dies would be fairly acceptable.
-
McNaughton
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
-
McNaughton
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
Rafiki wrote:I take it you mostly play CSA?`I usually play USA, and I have no problems finding work for the generals that pop up (especially the non-imbeciles)
Actually, USA Primarily. I haven't found too many situations where I am in need of new generals, however, maybe I am not forming as many divisions as I should be.
WOW!
Though frustrating, the forming of the HQs in the Capitols abstracts a very real frustration of the war - the micro-management often seen from above; both National Leaders did this - and so did Army Commanders - they just didn't let people create Divisions and Corps willy-nilly.
1. Army HQs must still exist as is - and be distributed from central locations to represent civilian oversight at that level. Events might be created to put exceptions in other areas, like the Army of the West in St. Louis, etc.
2. Corps Formations - it kind of always boggled me how those were so flexible - but I like the fact they can't exist unless near an Army - keep that for sure.
Get rid of them, for all you really need is a 2 star General to represent those, BUT it only gets to be a Corps if it is range of an Army HQ.
3. Division HQs - create them like they are now - but could you have them arrive at Army HQs that the player selects at purchase time?
OR,
Get rid of Div HQs, but make it so that any formation with a one star General can be a container, under the same rules, but while forming the wait is placed on the leader to become a division commander, instead of a separate counter.
Division construction should also be restricted to being under command of superior HQs in range to be created.
Hopefully changing leaders of Divisions won't require an entire new container build if the leaders are now the containers too.
As for the AI - hmmm... perhaps an option for it to ignore the force size rule when leaders of sufficient number are in a hex?
For example, if an avg leader can handle 18 elements in a division, and the avg strat rating is 3, then if 44 units are in a hex with three one star leaders, that means the force is under 5% penealty with 44 combat elements; 42 under Generalship, 2 outside the Strat Value X 6 calculation. Add a two star or better to the stack, and the AI gets the benefit of being a Corps without having to form one 'manually' if in range (or not) of an Army HQ.
-----------
Seriously, the Command/Control rules of this game are simply real gems; they are perhaps a little rough, but I definitely think the restrictions in command are most welcome for this wargamer.
The difficulty of getting the AI to use these rules is understandable, but perhaps the ideas of the option for the AI above (Simple Command Rules) might work to help balance the game for the AI.
This might be an option for the player to help compensate for the lack of the AI ability to go through HQ creation.
I think going back to the BoA level of command is NOT the answer for this game.
However, gioing that ability to the AI as an option for the player to choose might solve your problem of the AI not knowing what to do with the CnC system.
-------------------------------------
AGEOD, we appreciate you letting us input on this.
Can we avoid it for another patch or two and then see how the idea evolves?
Though frustrating, the forming of the HQs in the Capitols abstracts a very real frustration of the war - the micro-management often seen from above; both National Leaders did this - and so did Army Commanders - they just didn't let people create Divisions and Corps willy-nilly.
1. Army HQs must still exist as is - and be distributed from central locations to represent civilian oversight at that level. Events might be created to put exceptions in other areas, like the Army of the West in St. Louis, etc.
2. Corps Formations - it kind of always boggled me how those were so flexible - but I like the fact they can't exist unless near an Army - keep that for sure.
Get rid of them, for all you really need is a 2 star General to represent those, BUT it only gets to be a Corps if it is range of an Army HQ.
3. Division HQs - create them like they are now - but could you have them arrive at Army HQs that the player selects at purchase time?
OR,
Get rid of Div HQs, but make it so that any formation with a one star General can be a container, under the same rules, but while forming the wait is placed on the leader to become a division commander, instead of a separate counter.
Division construction should also be restricted to being under command of superior HQs in range to be created.
Hopefully changing leaders of Divisions won't require an entire new container build if the leaders are now the containers too.
As for the AI - hmmm... perhaps an option for it to ignore the force size rule when leaders of sufficient number are in a hex?
For example, if an avg leader can handle 18 elements in a division, and the avg strat rating is 3, then if 44 units are in a hex with three one star leaders, that means the force is under 5% penealty with 44 combat elements; 42 under Generalship, 2 outside the Strat Value X 6 calculation. Add a two star or better to the stack, and the AI gets the benefit of being a Corps without having to form one 'manually' if in range (or not) of an Army HQ.
-----------
Seriously, the Command/Control rules of this game are simply real gems; they are perhaps a little rough, but I definitely think the restrictions in command are most welcome for this wargamer.
The difficulty of getting the AI to use these rules is understandable, but perhaps the ideas of the option for the AI above (Simple Command Rules) might work to help balance the game for the AI.
This might be an option for the player to help compensate for the lack of the AI ability to go through HQ creation.
I think going back to the BoA level of command is NOT the answer for this game.
However, gioing that ability to the AI as an option for the player to choose might solve your problem of the AI not knowing what to do with the CnC system.
-------------------------------------
AGEOD, we appreciate you letting us input on this.
Can we avoid it for another patch or two and then see how the idea evolves?
Divisions
As a long time ACW fan and admirer of this game, please do not remove the divsion units!
Is there a way to simulate the effectcs of division units on the AI without removing the division units themselves? Can we not code a system something along the ways of what Wilhammer has proposed? That should be relatively simple.
Removing details like this is just going to spoil what is probably the best ACW game to date. Please find an AI fix for this problem.
Is there a way to simulate the effectcs of division units on the AI without removing the division units themselves? Can we not code a system something along the ways of what Wilhammer has proposed? That should be relatively simple.
Removing details like this is just going to spoil what is probably the best ACW game to date. Please find an AI fix for this problem.
-
pasternakski
- Colonel
- Posts: 341
- Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:50 pm
pasternakski wrote:The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'.
So sayeth the Dylan man. Youre not really that old are you?
Any possibility to have an on/off switch for removing division units? for us "old guys"?
-
Dunhill_BKK
- Sergeant
- Posts: 86
- Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 11:55 pm
-
pasternakski
- Colonel
- Posts: 341
- Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:50 pm
You know, it never ceases to amaze me what great, well-considered ideas you young whippersnappers come up with. There's some really excellent thinking going on out there among the pre-geriatric crowd (and don't kid yourselves, I am your future).
In any event, messieurs, I think we've got to wait this one out and see what kind of brain our fiendish, semi-human assistant brings back from the graveyard before we apply the lightning bolts and declare the creature "alive."
In any event, messieurs, I think we've got to wait this one out and see what kind of brain our fiendish, semi-human assistant brings back from the graveyard before we apply the lightning bolts and declare the creature "alive."
Return to “Help to improve AACW!”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests