AGEOD Forums

My spreadsheet is very angry...

The 43rd to 49th Division names are missing from the faction files for the USA and the CSA.

Did these historically exist?

I don't know if they historically existed or not. I just assumed that since both sides are missing the same numbers that is was an error.

Division nomenclature during the American Civil War would be impossible to replicate with the simple numbering system needed for game purposes. Union armies might have numbered divisions, but the numbers were rarely used and duplication between armies and theaters would be common. Instead the division was known by its commander's name or the name of a former commander. The Confederate armies only called divisions after the commander or former commander. Numbering in the American Civil War was mostly limited to State and National regiments, and corps.
Divisions did not have the permanence we ;have come to associate with divisions; instead, they were ad hoc or campaign focused organizations.
So, to make a spreadsheet most accurately reflect how divisions were named, you should populate your spreadsheet with the names of the current commander of the divisions.

How tricky would it be to program the game to call a Division 'Jackson's Division' instead of 8th Division?

95% would work out-of-the-box: Name + 's Division = D. H. Hill's Division. To do it correctly it would have to recognize that names ending in "s" only have an apostrophe added so Keyes would get Keyes' Division.

MarkCSA wrote:How tricky would it be to program the game to call a Division 'Jackson's Division' instead of 8th Division?

I think that would be great to see in game.

In game terms, not for the tech savvy, divisions are already, de facto, named after their leaders. That is how merely mortal players view their divisions in the game interface.

Division nomenclature is actually quite a bit more complicated than I represented in my first post on this thread. Then I was simply pointing out how the division commander was a common division name. While up until 1863 a commander's name could be used as the anchor for a division's name, if the goal is historical accuracy, it would then be necessary to introduce division numbers to the Army of the Potomac in 1863, and then to other Union armies. In the Army of the Potomac from the time of Hooker's assumption of command, each corps had badges colored to match the division's number or the corps badge. Of course this meant each corps had a 1st division, 2nd division and so on.

So Union division names beginning in 1863 would be corps number plus division number, such as II/2.
For the CSA, divisions often retained the name of the former commander if the commander was killed or promoted to corps command. So a legacy roll for winning division commanders promoted to corps commander ought to be a factor in divisions holding on to the name of a former commander.

Captain_Orso wrote:95% would work out-of-the-box: Name + 's Division = D. H. Hill's Division. To do it correctly it would have to recognize that names ending in "s" only have an apostrophe added so Keyes would get Keyes' Division.

Actually, the floating apostrophe only applies when the preceding noun is plural. Thus the division of Gen Keyes would be Keyes's division. Although a division led by a bunch of door keys would be the keys' division. Because English...

How do you rate door keys? Are they better on offense or defense?

Offensive, if the door is locked and you lose the key, it's the same thing

To show the further absurdity of English and to muddy the waters: an apostrophe shows possession. So if a division belonged to one door key, it would be the door key's division. But, if a division belonged to a group of door keys, it would be the door keys' division.

Oh, yes, English is a bastard language. Not because it's a bitch to learn, but because during the first millennia and somewhat after everybody and their brother invaded and took over some part of the British Isles for some time, leaving the remnants of their languages, along with a bunch of bastar... um, children born out of wedlock--probably didn't hurt the Brit's gene-pool when the Norsemen were... visiting, though I bet the Brit-women would have gladly had other circumstances, "oh christy, he's a posh squeeze, isn't he".

Back on subject, if you think you've got key's and keys' down, then you can jump the the possessive pronouns. His, hers, and its part with the apostrophe--just to f*ck with the Russians? Maybe to make room for the it's abbreviation?

I know exactly why I went into an IT carrier

Don't some people have the division's name often pop up as so-and-so's division from time to time? Mansfield seems to do that a lot to me

Seeing this reminded me that I tracked down the parameter

In this link Link