HQ Support Card

[DaddyRess]

Wondering something. They say they add the ability of training to a stack. Would these help turn militia into trained soldiers? Or is that just reserved for certain generals.

[FightingBuckeye]

There are two kinds of trainers. There are training masters (TMs) and training officers (TOs). The TOs will upgrade up to two elements each turn, so militia to conscripts or regulars. The TO has to be the commanding general of the stack in order to upgrade the units. A TM will give each and every element in a stack 1 experience point per turn and it doesn't matter whether the TM is in command so long as they're part of the stack (doesn't provide experience to generals). This experience point is in addition to to 50% chance each turn that an element has to gain one experience point. Units can also gain experience in battle. It could take as little as 5 experience points for a conscript or as many as 50 experience points for militia before they gain their first star. Once a unit has a star they have a small chance of upgrading each turn.

The HQs at the TM variant and you should always buy up all the HQ units you have in your pool as soon as you can and then put them in the biggest stacks you have. Same goes with putting any TMs you have in your largest stacks, just keep in mind a HQ and general with a TM trait won't stack with each other. Same goes with hospital units and signal units and an HQ unit.

[DaddyRess]

So will an HQ help with training a group of militia up to higher quality?

[FightingBuckeye]

So will an HQ help with training a group of militia up to higher quality?

By militia, do you mean volunteers or militia militia? One only takes 15 points for the first star and the other takes 50 points. But Long term yes .. but it won't have the immediate effect like a TO would. But an HQ can effect thousands more men each turn while a TO is limited to 2 elements a turn. Assuming no gains from battle on average you figure .5 experience gain per turn and a volunteer unit would need 15 experience points to gain their first star. So a volunteer unit would normally need about 30 turns or over a year before gaining their first star. With an HQ unit or TM general, they'll gain 1 exp + 50% to gain another point or about 1.5 points on average. Instead of an average of 15 months to gain their first star a volunteer unit would on average gain their first star in just 5 months with an HQ/TM general.

I think one experience star gives your units a 7% chance of upgrading each turn. So even once a unit gets a star they won't automatically upgrade. But they'll still fight better with a star than without and they will upgrade at some point.

[FightingBuckeye]

This lists the benefits of units with stars
http://www.ageod.net/aacwwiki/Experience

Just goes to show why you want to keep your HQs and TM generals in large stacks, even if you're not trying to upgrade volunteers/conscripts.

[Rod Smart]

So will an HQ help with training a group of militia up to higher quality?

Yes, eventually, but that isn't their main purpose.


If you have a large stack of volunteers somewhere, like garrisoning Richmond or the locked free units in DC, then yes- put a headquarters unit there. But it will take a long time, and the headquarters unit could have been of better use at the frontlines.

[Rod Smart]

I'm also not sure why the HQ unit doesn't add experience points to a general. It seems like it should. And its hardly a gamey tactic- the fourth star requires 300 experience points.

[FightingBuckeye]

I'm also not sure why the HQ unit doesn't add experience points to a general. It seems like it should. And its hardly a gamey tactic- the fourth star requires 300 experience points.

It's probably a game balance issue. Think of how many of the early Union generals are 3-1-1 or even worse all those 3*s that are like 1-0-1 or some such. Even getting 2-3 stars would really help the Union out early on even if the Rebels were also gaining stars. The Union gets a lot more HQ units to take advantage of that change. Plus when you're already at the bottom any increase is noteworthy while any increase when you're already good isn't as significant.

What I would like to see if a more dynamic trait and stat gain for generals. Say I have a 3-1-1 defending and he wins a very large victory and gains two experience points to make him 3-2-2. How did his successful defense cause him to become a better attacking general? There should be some sort of invisible stats that kept track of how successful and how often a general is at defending, attacking, etc. If he successfully defends enough but never successfully attacks, maybe he becomes a 3-0-5 or some such. Force march enough and maybe the general gains the fast mover trait or fail enough and instead he becomes a slow mover. If a regular general with no traits commands cavalry long enough and is successful in leading them, maybe he gains the cavalry or maybe screener trait. Promote someone over others and maybe he gains the arrogant trait or the bypassed general(s) become dispirited. Or maybe a general becomes dispirited after a big loss. Keep your men's cohesion high and keep them in full supply/ammo for so many turns and your general(s) will have a slight chance of gaining the good army administrator trait.

Basically all traits are up for grabs and a general's stats can change for the better or the worse. It'd have to be setup so you can't just try say force marching a bunch of scrub generals leading militia in your rear areas. So like that example, a general would have to successfully force march and then successfully attack or defend at the end of the move to even have a chance of gaining that trait. And some traits would be really hard to come by while others might be easier to attain. And a general could also lose some of their traits. It would also be easier to add or lose a single point in one of your stats than it would be to add multiple points. Kind of like now where the first star can be easy to come by, but the 3rd one might take some doing.

[Rod Smart]

What I would like to see if a more dynamic trait and stat gain for generals.........

That could make sense, and I do enjoy games like that (Total War for example) - but this is a historic game using real people who actually existed. We know the strengths and weaknesses of these real people, because they really existed and there are piles of documentation about how good (or bad) they are.



...that said, I could see gaining experience points for losing. In much of life, you learn more from your failures than your successes.

[FightingBuckeye]

Very true about knowing to some extent the quality of the various generals. But how many generals were killed before they could make their reputations or conversely tarnish it? Or generals who had one bad battle and were removed or put on the sideline before they could prove their true mettle? Take Lee at Gettysburg, if that was the one major battle we had too judge him on how would we view him? Who knows which generals had their 'Gettysburg' early on and then were killed before they could prove they just had an off day? Hood was an excellent brigade and division commander, but was out of his depth when he commanded larger troops. We'd probably see him in a much different light if he'd either been killed or if one of his wounds forced him out of the service while he was still a divisional commander.

What I am proposing is an optional rule set for people who want to try something little different. And you're right, we all have a good idea of the traits each sides' generals have. And that can be a problem. Generally speaking, we all know which generals have which traits and what their stats are. But with a dynamic trait & stat system you can never know for sure what traits your opponents' generals might have picked up. And yea, I guess I'm talking something similar the Total War system, kind of. Same kind of dynamic stat gains. But first a general would have to accrue enough points in a category and then there'd be a small chance that they might gain that trait or not. So you wouldn't be seeing every general or even most generals picking up various traits as the war progressed and generals like Lee, Jackson, and Grant would still be some of your strongest and most important leaders.

[tripax]

I brought dynamic leader abilities up in the general modding forum and it was a no go. Pocus seemed to imply that it is on the wishlist for future games, but it may be very low on the list, who knows.