Replacement model

[James D Burns]

I would suggest a change to the replacement engine. Given how poor most powers are in this game, it is very difficult to buy enough replacements to help your units stay topped off, and I have found it almost impossible to ever buy any new units at all. But what makes the current model completely untenable is the system that pulls a chit\element from the pool to drop it into a unit’s empty slot (something players can’t see or know of the need for beforehand unless they know the OOB very well ahead of time).

What is needed is to keep the current chit model for replacements to rebuild damaged units and add a new production only model where players can buy individual elements to be used to plop into units if they want them. If this change can’t be added, then I suggest the priority for chit use be reversed so no unit may pull a chit for itself until all replacement calculations for the current turn have been done first.

I would also suggest each power receive a minimal 1 chit of inf and 1 of militia each turn automatically and 1 cav chit every other turn automatically. With attrition so brutal in game, there is simply no way to keep your armies alive with such small incomes that currently exist in game. The free chits would help to keep your units from disappearing completely and not change game balance for the strategic options by adding new income into the game.

Jim

[Chief Rudiger]

This system worked well enough in BOA/WIA but the unit count has rocketted since then! I must say though, that the engine does now do a good job of saving units from a fight before they are totally destroyed (I think this first happenned with AACW) so seeing devestated units is a good thing in my opinion!

[McNaughton]

One of the biggest misconceptions of wargaming is that people expect that their units will be at top strength per average. Rarely was a unit ever at top establishment even during peacetime (where the majority of men were not active). When war is declared, depending on the infrastructure of mobilization, this is pretty much the time when your forces would be near close to their established force.

However, almost immediately attrition would whittle down your forces to below that of establishment. In the American Civil War, for example, regiments began mobilization at 1000 men, but were on average campaigning with around 300 men.

The Russian Civil War was such a conflict where you faced such chaos in your administration and command that forces should pretty much always be expected to be much below established strength.

I would hardly imagine that any element would be anywhere close to their established strength at any time during this conflict. Expect your units to melt away even without conflict, given the diseases (killing men and generals at a horrendous rate) and environment they had to fight through.

[James D Burns]

Right, but when you save up for several turns to buy a single chit to give your armies a chance to rebuild a bit and then see that chit get plopped into a unit you didn’t know needed an element and no rebuilding gets done, it screams that a change is needed. It’s not the system that is bad, on the contrary it’s great. But the poor countries represented in this particular game make the system almost unusable due to the fact players have no control over where to focus their very limited resources.

Jim

[McNaughton]

Right, but when you save up for several turns to buy a single chit to give your armies a chance to rebuild a bit and then see that chit get plopped into a unit you didn’t know needed an element and no rebuilding gets done, it screams that a change is needed. It’s not the system that is bad, on the contrary it’s great. But the poor countries represented in this particular game make the system almost unusable due to the fact players have no control over where to focus their very limited resources.

Jim

That pretty much was the situation of the war. All sides of this conflict were under such extreme strain that nobody could ever build up a large and strong enough force to decisively turn the tide quickly, it was a long slogging match, where nobody could get a large cohesive force together to give a knockout punch.

[James D Burns]

I think you’re misunderstanding what I mean. I’m talking about the inability of command to decide if the limited manpower they can build goes into replacements or into building of new units. It wasn’t beyond the scope of any of the powers represented to say ok send the men into the replacement pool or just build a new formation instead. Players can’t say that one way or the other right now.

With such poor countries, it is pretty much guaranteed that all chits end up going into units right now as individual elements and no rebuilding at all gets done. I’m fine with that to some extent, but I’d like the option to say no don’t build new elements in that unit stuck in some backwater, drop the men into replacing lost on map strength instead.

I have no illusions about ever being able to rebuild the armies, but I’d at least like the option to rebuild some stuff. And if you think losing half an army in 15 days just moving two areas is realistic attrition… let’s just say they went a bit overboard on things and leave it at that.

Napoleon entered Russia with about 700,000 men and still mustered close to 400,000 men in Russia several months into the campaign. Attrition was bad yes, but right now it’s simply too brutal too quickly. I’d recommend units not be allowed to lose more than 10% of their strength in a single turns attriton. That’ll still add up to a lot of death, but it’ll take a few months to add up instead of just a turn or two like happens now.

Jim

Edit: That reminds me, one other thing I’d love to see implemented. Please make it so a cloudburst or storm graphic or something hovers over an area experiencing severe weather on a given turn. It can be a brutal surprise in your next turn if you fail to mouse over every single area along a move path for every formation each turn.

[OneArmedMexican]

I believe the problem is not so much the replacement system but rather the shortage of ressources (Money for the Reds, money and conscripty for the Southern Whites). The developpers have already announced on this forum that they will change that in their first patch.
In my opinion more radical (and code altering) changes to the replacement system are not needed.

One of the biggest misconceptions of wargaming is that people expect that their units will be at top strength per average. Rarely was a unit ever at top establishment even during peacetime (where the majority of men were not active). When war is declared, depending on the infrastructure of mobilization, this is pretty much the time when your forces would be near close to their established force.

Very true. However that is not the end of the story: Hits effect the NM in this game and depleted units are easy targets. Therefore, a certain level of replacements must be available otherwise other game mechanics crash.

Edit: That reminds me, one other thing I’d love to see implemented. Please make it so a cloudburst or storm graphic or something hovers over an area experiencing severe weather on a given turn. It can be a brutal surprise in your next turn if you fail to mouse over every single area along a move path for every formation each turn.

Excellent idea. I second that motion.

[Rasputin's Own Bear]

I share the threadstarter's pain. The model itself is quite fine, but being totally unable to decide which units get replacements is a real problem. RCW was chaos, true, but not to the point of high command being unable to direct new recruits to certain regiments and sending them to random ones instead.

IMHO, the problem is relatively easy to solve: just implement the simple checkbox on division level - reinforce\do not reinforce. Works nicely in HOI games and makes perfect sense. And no need to alter the model in any way.

[Clovis]

I share the threadstarter's pain. The model itself is quite fine, but being totally unable to decide which units get replacements is a real problem. RCW was chaos, true, but not to the point of high command being unable to direct new recruits to certain regiments and sending them to random ones instead.

IMHO, the problem is relatively easy to solve: just implement the simple checkbox on division level - reinforce\do not reinforce. Works nicely in HOI games and makes perfect sense. And no need to alter the model in any way.

We're not playing HOI. This sytem is working good, reflects well many underlying realities about conscripts repartition, and at last AI is able to cope with. HOI overcontrol on anything is just totally unrealistic. Do you really think Cossacks were fully obeying to White orders? Red units had some local basis for some which made difficult to decide arbitrarly to place men in other divisions, and so on.

[Rasputin's Own Bear]

Do you really think Cossacks were fully obeying to White orders?

Well, no. But in reality by mid-1919 most organised white units had rear batallions traning conscripts directly for them. Coloured divisions even have these batallions in their OOBs. I'm just saying that having no control at all is a bit unrealistic. I mean, why should replacements go to Ekaterinodar reserve cavalry when there's bloody action going around Orel?

[Clovis]

Well, no. But in reality by mid-1919 most organised white units had rear batallions traning conscripts directly for them. Coloured divisions even have these batallions in their OOBs. I'm just saying that having no control at all is a bit unrealistic. I mean, why should replacements go to Ekaterinodar reserve cavalry when there's bloody action going around Orel?

most organized White units = not all. Do you want to change period and army: let's take German Army during WW2? Do you know German North Group Army had in 1944 a proportion of replacements superior to the Central and South groups, where fight was much more intense? And this was just the consequence of the German Army replacement system, favouring goegraphical cohesoin of units on regional basis...I let you imagine what may be under glimpse of organization of training battalions, what was the real control on conscription in a Civil War by 2 sides despised by most of the population, relunctant conscripts deserting in mass and so on.

Of course, I know players want generally to control anything. I'm sure real leaders would have loved to have just as much power about these things...

[Alexor]

Can we have a high level lawful-good clerics cast massive heals on the front troops ? That would be awesome !

[Rasputin's Own Bear]

Of course, I know players want generally to control anything. I'm sure most real leader would have loved to have just as much power about these things...

Not anything: just the most general direction of conscript flow. Ok, I totally see your point. How replacement was handled is an interesting question, really. I think I'll try and look the subject up in Russian sources - Denikin, for a start.
Sorry if I sounded too bossy, I didn't mean to.

[Василеостровск]

Can we have a high level lawful-good clerics cast massive heals on the front troops ? That would be awesome !

I'd rather just recruit St. Alexander Nevsky and have Boris and Gleb bless my troops.

As to point of thread, I like not having direct control of things, sometimes I find it incredibly frustrating though.

[Andriko]

One of the biggest misconceptions of wargaming is that people expect that their units will be at top strength per average. Rarely was a unit ever at top establishment even during peacetime (where the majority of men were not active). When war is declared, depending on the infrastructure of mobilization, this is pretty much the time when your forces would be near close to their established force.

I would suspect even at the declaration the armuy never actually gets that well stocked. For example, I believe on paper an average 20th C British platoon should be made up of 4 squads of 9, in reality it would be something like 4 (based on readings of late WW1).

Also, the engine models well why one should not keep moving troops around needlessly, and fighting every battle one comes across - it costs alot of manpower!

[GlobalExplorer]

It’s not the system that is bad, on the contrary it’s great. But the poor countries represented in this particular game make the system almost unusable due to the fact players have no control over where to focus their very limited resources.

Very true. I also think that the limited replacements in principle are not at all a problem. But that does not justify the cumbersome and confusing requisition process and in particular, the tiny interface elements.

For me, it is simply not fun to juggle with so many slots ( I now reached a point where the number of nations even requires side scrolling ). In previous AGE games the system was never a problem for me.

I don't want to create the impression that Ageod needs to act immediately on this matter. But perhaps it's time that this part of the interface is reviewed, and we discuss what actually are the alternatives. At least I see room for improvement here.

[Rasputin's Own Bear]

I don't want to create the impression that Ageod needs to act immediately on this matter. But perhaps it's time that this part of the interface is reviewed, and we discuss what actually are the alternatives. At least I see room for improvement here.

This.

[GlobalExplorer]

Here a few suggestions:

1. Order replacement companies by importance, top most important to the left.

2. colors
green background for replacements that are in high demand and available (>0).
red background for those in high demand but not available (0).

grey for replacements that are in low demand
no background for replacement that are not needed.

3. [SIZE="4"]Larger fonts.[/size]

[Chief Rudiger]

Why not have a general infantry replacement element you can order as a replacement that can be used by any infantry unit understrength. Ditto for Cav, Arty, Navy and Support.

These simple unit types might be in addition to the specific reinforcment types (light inf, elite inf etc.). This would reduce the micromanagement.

[GlobalExplorer]

- perhaps - there could be an option in the main menu, 'unified' replacements or something. Of course this would make the game unrealistically easy. But all the same, the current system will cost lots of sales! Many testers and demo users will decide 'shoot, too much micromanagement', and it will leak through in reviews and forum posts.

Of course, from the experienced players, no one should say this is a bad system, and I think I'm already getting used to it.

So in the end making it optional is perhaps the best solution. At least my 2c.

[Chief Rudiger]

- perhaps - there could be an option in the main menu, 'unified' replacements or something. Of course this would make the game unrealistically easy. But all the same, the current system will cost lots of sales! Many testers and demo users will decide 'shoot, too much micromanagement', and it will leak through in reviews and forum posts.

Of course, from the experienced players, no one should say this is a bad system, and I think I'm already getting used to it.

So in the end making it optional is perhaps the best solution. At least my 2c.

I wouldn't say its a bad system, just one that suited the original BOA game scale but which has become overburdened by the increasing scale and complexity of the conflicts it is being used to model. I never took to AACW for this reason. Similarly, i didn't take to NCP because the scale was just too huge and the artwork was so generic and unengaging.

I loved the simplicity of the WIA system of purchasable additional reinforcements as this allowed the player just enough choice in strategy (do i order replacements, cannon or incite the indians) without slowing the game down. Then again the F&IW and AWI were neither modern total wars or even the focus of the British government so one didn't expect to have much say on recruitment or reinforcement allocation, so it worked. At the current scale i don't like that the player must fight with such complex formations yet be bothered with such minutia as recruiting single battalions. If this is a game of nations why slow it down with such petty irrelevance. Was it not Stalin who said great men as i cannot be trifled with the fate of mere millions?

Some parts of the engine have been developed (some quite well) to make these larger wars possible but the series is starting to loose what made it so good to begin with. Without fundamental revisions i don't think another one of these grand campaigns (at two week time scales!) will work very well