Replacements and reinforcements

[ohms_law]

I wanted to join the chorus asking for some more transparency in the Replacement and Reinforcement systems. I think it was Jabberwock who had the perfect description the other day: The replacement system (and, to a lesser extent, the reinforcement system) as currently implemented is too opaque.

So, I wanted to get a discussion going about some possible easy fixes. The main idea being to come up with some improvements that do not involve real interface redesigns, since such requests generally aren't realistic.

So, to get the ball rolling, here are a couple of suggestions:

• Place lines in the Message Log about precisely which elements receive replacements. Yes, probably it's going to be a lot of text, but that text is easily ignored if the user desires to do so.
• On the replacements screen, It would be nice to see how many replacements were used up, if any, during the previous turn. This could be added to the tool tip that already exists. That would make purchasing them easier to manage.
• On the replacements screen, It would also be nice to see how many active elements are in need of replacements. You see the total number of elements in the unit box and on the tool tip, but you sort of need to guess how many you really need currently.
• Show the build location for reinforcements in a tool tip on the reinforcement screen. Adding this would make it slightly easier to plan things. It might be nice to be able to see in the tool tip where units that are already on the map are located as well.

[Franciscus]

Good suggestions.

[Gray_Lensman]

I wanted to join the chorus asking for some more transparency in the Replacement and Reinforcement systems. I think it was Jabberwock who had the perfect description the other day: The replacement system (and, to a lesser extent, the reinforcement system) as currently implemented is too opaque.

So, I wanted to get a discussion going about some possible easy fixes. The main idea being to come up with some improvements that do not involve real interface redesigns, since such requests generally aren't realistic.

So, to get the ball rolling, here are a couple of suggestions:

• Place lines in the Message Log about precisely which elements receive replacements. Yes, probably it's going to be a lot of text, but that text is easily ignored if the user desires to do so.
• On the replacements screen, It would be nice to see how many replacements were used up, if any, during the previous turn. This could be added to the tool tip that already exists. That would make purchasing them easier to manage.
• On the replacements screen, It would also be nice to see how many active elements are in need of replacements. You see the total number of elements in the unit box and on the tool tip, but you sort of need to guess how many you really need currently.
• Show the build location for reinforcements in a tool tip on the reinforcement screen. Adding this would make it slightly easier to plan things. It might be nice to be able to see in the tool tip where units that are already on the map are located as well.

I hate to rain on your parade since you have such a great list of suggestions here, but for the time being even these suggestions are not realistic for AACW itself. The problem is that you just can't add text lines to the LocalStrings_ACW.csv file and expect it to immediately show up as new items to be displayed in tooltips. Every item mentioned above has to have new supporting routines in the main executable code in order to utilize the text lines and fill in the necessary variable information. This would involve a lot of programmer/developer man-hours which cannot be made available at this time for a game that is well over a year old. Currently, the most that can be expected of them is to continue to support the AACW game with timely patches and occasional updates.

These suggestions are interesting enough that AGEod might add them to the new games that they are working on and then possibly at some time off in the future backfit them into AACW itself, but I would not expect it anytime soon.

[Pocus]

Good suggestions, we just need to find time doing them

[ohms_law]

Isn't that always the problem?

[Pocus]

90% of the time yes.

[Coregonas]

I want to say I ve not had real problems with this Replacement affair until moved to the HISTORICAL ATTRITION option.

Although a lot of players ask for more control over replacements, I believe it should be better to try to improve (I believe it should go a bit down, depending on the cases) the RATE of ATTRITION in the game.

I am testing this while playing, and I feel as attrition rates .. while moving own land / static are somewhat high.

As an example... a militia element (750 men) moving pasive pasive, mostly by Railroad for 9 turns (4,5 months) has lost a minimum of 150 men to attrition, even without firing a single shot for 9 turns. (I can not assure if more men were lost, due to new recruits added constantly) Of course... as replacements are available, 750 men are nearly always on the element.

THAT is a loss of 20% in 4 months -> i.e more than 100% seems could be lost in 2 years leure:

Are these rates realistic?

[ohms_law]

Are these rates realistic?

Yes. Honestly.
As a matter of fact, the rates are rather low...

Let's keep the attrition arguments to their own thread(s) though. Please?


What I really wanted to reply to is this:

Although a lot of players ask for more control over replacements

I know that personally, I don't have a problem with the lack of control, I actually think that the lack of control is a good thing. My only problem is being required to guess what replacemtnets I really need and whats happening with the replacements that I have purchased. I think that the suggestions in the first post are probably a realistic solution to those problems.

[Pocus]

More feedback would be good yes. No promises here, but we will try to find some time (in january 2009 perhaps?)

[ohms_law]

Thanks for the consideration!

[Heldenkaiser]

My only beef (really) with the reinforcements screen is that support assets other than supply trains aren't theatre-specific -- or if they are, I haven't found out how to order them for a specific theatre. My experience is that 90% of my balloons, hospitals, engineers and so on turn up in Washington, DC, whereas I tend to need a lot west of the mountains. Sometimes they show up in New Orleans, which is cool if you have a real army down there, as I have. But I have yet to see one show up in Cairo or Nashville where you probably always have an army. I guess it's really huge cities only? But anyway, they tend to be where you don't need them, and that somewhat unpredictably too. Any particular reason why I can't choose where I want them built? Even if it's only three places on the map, that's better than the present situation, as I see it.

[Pocus]

Interface constraints and simplicity, if every kind of units had at least 3 recruitments centers to choose form, you would have to browse far too many categories.

[Ayeshteni]

I know that personally, I don't have a problem with the lack of control, I actually think that the lack of control is a good thing. My only problem is being required to guess what replacemtnets I really need and whats happening with the replacements that I have purchased. I think that the suggestions in the first post are probably a realistic solution to those problems.

Oh indeed. I could never figure out what the numbers on the replacement screen does. It has a roll-over tooltip which is nice but there isn't anything to link it with what is happening with your armies.

It was only after reading somewhere on this forum (or was it the wiki?) that you should have the first number at around 10% of the second number.

That has helped me a lot, but I don't know if its 'overkill', as I read in an AAR that that is excessive. Sometimes the first numbers drop a bit and I assume that means they are being used by those elements that need it, but there is nothing to say whether there are elements that are needing replacements.

Its all a little vague to me.

And then I read somewhere that replacements can be used to add elements to some units?

I like the suggestion of adding the number of elements of a certain type in need of replacements. That alone would clarify and ease replacement use tenfold, though I understand the constraints the developers are under.

Ayeshteni

[tagwyn]

Heaven blesses Pocus!!! What a good person! apy:

[Zebedee]

And then I read somewhere that replacements can be used to add elements to some units?

Hi Ayesh, good to see you

If you hover the mouse over a 'stack' then you'll get a tooltip to appear which gives the combat strength of every brigade etc within that stack. Something like 24/24 for eg a single CSA cavalry regiment. If the actual strength (the first number) is far less than the potential strength (the second number), that's usually a good hint that the unit has regiments etc which need to come into play via leaving the brigade at a depot and letting it pull it from the replacement pool.

All the units (afaik) which require this are created by event or are in game at start of play. Have a look at the infantry brigade under Polk's command at game start in the April 1861 full campaign as a good example of a unit which needs filling out in this way. As far as I can tell, such units will only add one sub-unit per turn at best, and sometimes not at all. You'll see when it happens in the message log for the turn when it reports XXXX brigade has received a new sub-unit.

[Jarkko]

All the units (afaik) which require this are created by event or are in game at start of play.

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't also the brigades who have lost elements "refill" like this? At least that has been my understanding.

[Rafiki]

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't also the brigades who have lost elements "refill" like this? At least that has been my understanding.

Yup, quite correct

Any unit that lacks elements from its TO&E can get them replaced, be that they entered the game without the elements in question or that they lost them in battle.

[ohms_law]

Could units lacking elements be made to still show them, but show them completely red or something? The text could be changed to be red...

[Jarkko]

Could units lacking elements be made to still show them, but show them completely red or something? The text could be changed to be red...

I think it is pretty easy to see which brigades lack elements (their strength is not at full) already now IMO (at least for me). If it was as easy to see how deeply brigades are dug* in (so that I could rotate the engineers more effectively from stack to stack) I would whoop in joy




*OT to this thread, but I still haven't figured out where I can see the exact entrechment number for a stack. I can see that a unit is dug in from the "man-in-fox-hole" icon, and I can see they are dug pretty deeply if the base shows a stockade with a cannon, but for the life of me I can't figure out where the "zig zag figure with number" is... Thus I tend to rotate engineers to next area after I see the entrechment has reached the "cannon level", hoping that they are decently well protected.

[arsan]

I think it is pretty easy to see which brigades lack elements (their strength is not at full) already now IMO (at least for me). If it was as easy to see how deeply brigades are dug* in (so that I could rotate the engineers more effectively from stack to stack) I would whoop in joy




*OT to this thread, but I still haven't figured out where I can see the exact entrechment number for a stack. I can see that a unit is dug in from the "man-in-fox-hole" icon, and I can see they are dug pretty deeply if the base shows a stockade with a cannon, but for the life of me I can't figure out where the "zig zag figure with number" is... Thus I tend to rotate engineers to next area after I see the entrechment has reached the "cannon level", hoping that they are decently well protected.

The zigzag line icon is just over the uints panel, on the right side. By the supply, ammunitions, activation etc icons.
The entrench icon will only show if the selected satck has at least level 1 entrench.
Cheers!

EDIT: Jarkko, check the two first map screenshots of your AAR and you will see Lyons force show the zigzag with level 2 entrench icon by the supply icons over the units panel.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jarkko]

You can start Whooping anytime now!

Ooooooh... I so very much hate it when people hide things in plain sight and obvious places, because I never look there


Anyway, WHOPEEE!


EDIT: And thanks Gray and Arsan (again)

[ohms_law]

I think it is pretty easy to see which brigades lack elements (their strength is not at full)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if an element of a unit is completly dies then the "100%" strength level is reset to the strength of the remaining elements. Therefore, there's nothing to tell you that the unit is "missing" elements in terms of replacements.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jarkko]

So the above strength indication does not mean the Brigade is two regiments short of full strength? The lone regiment of the brigade in the screen-shot is at full cohesion (85/85) and as you can see the element has not taken hits.

It's strength rises to full 70/70 only after it has recieved the two "missing" elements (a cavalry element and an infantry element are added to the brigade in the coming turns as long as it is sitting in a depot area). Thus I have been believing the notification means the brigade is short of elements, but that is not the case then?


EDIT: Also, I think I am understanding the red colouring, and in fact I have never mentioned any confusion with that colour code, so I am not entirely sure what Gray is refering to when he thinks I believe the colour code to mean something it doesn't

[ohms_law]

Now that's an interesting screenshot. I've never noticed the disparity in values between the unit display and the tool tip before...

I don't know. Is that how you're supposed to know that the unit is missing an element?
Even if it is, it doesn't tell you what elements it needs. As you mentioned, I happen to know that a full strength Hampton's SC is 2 infantry and one cav, but do you see that information anywhere in the interface?

[Jarkko]

Is that how you're supposed to know that the unit is missing an element?

Well, I have been thinking that is the reason because it makes logical sense to me, but I don't of course *know* if that is the case

Even if it is, it doesn't tell you what elements it needs.

True that. But in the little experience I have in this game most brigades that recieve additional elements get a cavalry regiment, artillery regiment and/or 1-2 infantry regiments.

[Rafiki]

Jarkko's right, again

[ohms_law]

Well, I have been thinking that is the reason because it makes logical sense to me, but I don't of course *know* if that is the case

It makes sense to me as well, but...

True that. But in the little experience I have in this game most brigades that recieve additional elements get a cavalry regiment, artillery regiment and/or 1-2 infantry regiments.

There's no argument there. The main point behind this thread though is to address the opacity of the current replacements system, and this is one point that adds to that opacity. It'd simply be nice to know (or at least be able to figure out) "OK, I need to replace 2 whole cavalry elements, 4 infantry, and 1 artillery".
More important is an issue that Grey touched on above. If you form an 18 element division, it would be nice to easily see if one of the units in the division could receive a replacement.

[Jarkko]

If you form an 18 element division, it would be nice to easily see if one of the units in the division could receive a replacement.

Just hower your mouse over the stack and check if any brigade has "room" (as in my screenshot above). At least I tend to do that regularily

While I don't argue that it would be nice to exactly the number of elements in need of a certain replacement type, I do not as such have problems with a bit "foggy" system. Early on you will need relatively more cavalry and artillery, later on just take note of what type of elements get annihilated (I suppose it doesn't happen too regularily, altough I have to admit I haven't ventured into the grand campaign in later years) and give a priority to that type of replacements. And it is always (IMO) a good idea to have Line Infantry replacements available