Support Units

[Clovis]

I believe this to be false. If the seperate artillery stack was ordered to move with the infantry during the turn they would arrive given the movement of artillery. The infantry will arrive first.

Yes but not as part of a division. That's the point.

[Clovis]

Now that the issue is pointed I agree that something should be done, because the first reason it was done this way was because of a computation constraint on the pathfinding algorithm, a constraint which has diminished some months ago, with a tweak done to it (accelerating much the game). This was not done purposely with a gameplay idea in mind (and the AI argument was secondary at this time).

I say that just to indicate that the game was not a perfect jewel at start and revising rules are sometime necessary, despite what people think .

I don't think AACW to be perfect jewel . I just think about that point it's not the most important shortcoming. Now if it can be adressed quickly and SIMPLY with no harm for the AI, great.

About multi-units, I'm not sure any multi-brigades units in 1864 to be the equivalent in game terms of a division with all the afferent advantages. But as that is moddable, it's not a real problem

[Evren]

Clovis, what's in your mind? You wanna change the structure of divisions?

Well, according to me, creating divisions (11 infantry+1ss+4art) is gamey, since it gives all the advantages of those units to the player at the same time without any organizational penalties. I think organizing and commanding a brigade from a certain state was so much easier than trying to organize a division with different kind of units from different states. But in the game, as long as you create divisions as mention, you have the upper hand (unlike the history, confederate generals made miracles gamewise then). But it has one big advantage, creating divisions is easy, so you know what to do; collect the necessary troops, create the division, and add them to corps.

So, if i'm not wrong, what you say is this feature is moddable, but i really wonder how. If you don't want it to be a secret, can you share your opinions with us? You think it is possible to decrease the efficiency of such divisions, so it is possible to have a good game with brigades only?

[arsan]

Hi

The solution of adjusting (somewhat slowing) the divisions with arty speed as Pocus proposes and limiting some of the more outrageous units you can put on a division (siege guns, fort batteries and the like) will be a reasonable compormise. IMHO
But i will add another limitation to be fairer regarding the irreal speed advantage a division can get over a a simple stack with the same units inside.

That would be only allowing inside divisions light and standard artillery units (i means, 6 pd, 12 pd 10 lb parrots...). Which are the same kind of guns many brigades already have included.
Then, if you want heavier support guns (rodmans, columbiads, 20 lb parrots) they should be put outside the division and used as corps/stack level support batteries, slowing down the stack.
This way divisions with arty and independent brigades units with arty will stand on equal terms, because i understand a brigade with an arty unit inside does not get slowed either... only independent arty units slow stacks... i´m i right?
Want do you think?

Regards

[Jabberwock]

But i will add another limitation to be fairer regarding the irreal speed advantage a division can get over a a simple stack with the same units inside.

That would be only allowing inside divisions light and standard artillery units (i means, 6 pd, 12 pd 10 lb parrots...). Which are the same kind of guns many brigades already have included.
Then, if you want heavier support guns (rodmans, columbiads, 20 lb parrots) they should be put outside the division and used as corps/stack level support batteries, slowing down the stack.

I agree, with the reservation that 20 lb Parrotts were field guns, occasionally (about 1/3) used as divisional artillery, and should be allowed.

[Pocus]

I don't think AACW to be perfect jewel . I just think about that point it's not the most important shortcoming. Now if it can be adressed quickly and SIMPLY with no harm for the AI, great.

About multi-units, I'm not sure any multi-brigades units in 1864 to be the equivalent in game terms of a division with all the afferent advantages. But as that is moddable, it's not a real problem

Neither do I. But you know (this is great but false in the end), some people out there don't like any changes to a game once it is released, because they think we did right from the start, and that every decision, down to the most minute detail, has been purposely done like that, with enough time and debates and discussions to find the perfect answer.

I have to say this is entirely false. As all companies, we always lack time. Sometime we must code or design work-around. As this pathfinding constraint.
So there are ALWAYS room for improvements and change is the nature of games ... or life

[Clovis]

Clovis, what's in your mind? You wanna change the structure of divisions?

Well, according to me, creating divisions (11 infantry+1ss+4art) is gamey, since it gives all the advantages of those units to the player at the same time without any organizational penalties. I think organizing and commanding a brigade from a certain state was so much easier than trying to organize a division with different kind of units from different states. But in the game, as long as you create divisions as mention, you have the upper hand (unlike the history, confederate generals made miracles gamewise then). But it has one big advantage, creating divisions is easy, so you know what to do; collect the necessary troops, create the division, and add them to corps.

So, if i'm not wrong, what you say is this feature is moddable, but i really wonder how. If you don't want it to be a secret, can you share your opinions with us? You think it is possible to decrease the efficiency of such divisions, so it is possible to have a good game with brigades only?

The max number of divisions by side is moddable. So if yoy want force a player to think twie before creating a division, it suffices to lower the maximum number of divisions.

In the first game iteration, HQ had to be formed to have a divisional HQ. This unit type has been removed since ( and it was a good move) But I remain convinced a division insn't one leader and some units only but some rare ressources too which are needed to give the divisional advantages, like the Army HQ is needed to get the army ones.

[Clovis]

Neither do I. But you know (this is great but false in the end), some people out there don't like any changes to a game once it is released, because they think we did right from the start, and that every decision, down to the most minute detail, has been purposely done like that, with enough time and debates and discussions to find the perfect answer.

I have to say this is entirely false. As all companies, we always lack time. Sometime we must code or design work-around. As this pathfinding constraint.
So there are ALWAYS room for improvements and change is the nature of games ... or life

Let Pas... remain in peace somewhere out on the Net

[arsan]

I agree, with the reservation that 20 lb Parrotts were field guns, occasionally (about 1/3) used as divisional artillery, and should be allowed.

Hi
I was thinking more in game terms than in historical use.
My idea was allowing on divisions the standard guns already included on some brigades make ups and not allowing the higher caliber ones, only recruitable as independent batteries.
It seems 20 lb parrots fall somewhere in between standard field guns and heavier guns used mostly on army/corps support level.
Anyway as i´m not (by far!) one of the most knowledgeable persons around here what you ACW buffs says will be OK with me!
Regards!

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[W.Barksdale]

The max number of divisions by side is moddable. So if yoy want force a player to think twie before creating a division, it suffices to lower the maximum number of divisions.

Low division limits only add to the micromanagement. Forcing players to keep more of their artillery in loose stacks just adds to the immense scale of the game. Allowing players to organise on a divisional level really cuts out alot of the tedious work involved with trying to make individual brigades into a fighting unit. The Federals always have more manpower than the Rebels anyway.

For example, say I have 24 divisions together with the equivalent of 6 divisions organised by brigade. The only difference between the above and having 30 formed divisions is that it is so much easier to manage.

Whatever the case, the real goal of this game is to simulate the ACW in a fun, interactive, logical, and historically accurate as can be format. Solving a problem, as fundamental as movement, has nothing to do with the number of divisions. Solving it by forcing players to micromanage an aggregate of independent brigades and batteries makes no sense.

If you need a command smaller than a division fine. If theres no need it is just plain easier to form the loose commands into a division. All this knowing there will be consistency in the movement of whatever mix of commands you choose.

Furthermore, as Gray Lensmen has said earlier division limits do not solve the root of the problem. These limits only remind you that you are not the President and that you really are playing a game. It's time consuming and pointless fiddling with organisational issue's. We are supposed to be Commander in Chief and not the Chief of Staff of an army.

[Jabberwock]

Whatever the case, the real goal of this game is to simulate the ACW in a fun, interactive, logical, and historically accurate as can be format. Solving a problem, as fundamental as movement, has nothing to do with the number of divisions. Solving it by forcing players to micromanage an aggregate of independent brigades and batteries makes no sense.

If you need a command smaller than a division fine. If theres no need it is just plain easier to form the loose commands into a division. All this knowing there will be consistency in the movement of whatever mix of commands you choose.

Furthermore, as Gray Lensmen has said earlier division limits do not solve the root of the problem. These limits only remind you that you are not the President and that you really are playing a game. It's time consuming and pointless fiddling with organisational issue's. We are supposed to be Commander in Chief and not the Chief of Staff of an army.

I think Arsan's suggestion - not allowing "Rodman" guns, siege artillery, coastal artillery, or fort batteries into a division solves half the problem without micromanagement. If I am playing as the Union, by late '62 I am putting loose reserve artillery into my major corps ... 3 or 4 big batteries sitting out next to the supply units. By that time the support units are starting to come out of the divisions as well, because I have the manpower to keep them filled up with fresh infantry. I don't know if that is how others do it, but it seems logical. The South has less resources to buy any of those units, I don't think most reb players would notice the change.

Throw in my earlier suggestion (this), that would give us the consistent division speeds, or at least get us "close enough", the other half of the problem.

If anything I think the combination would reduce micromanagement.

The reduced artillery for moving stacks option could add more realism without any micromanagement at all.

[Clovis]

Low division limits only add to the micromanagement. Forcing players to keep more of their artillery in loose stacks just adds to the immense scale of the game. Allowing players to organise on a divisional level really cuts out alot of the tedious work involved with trying to make individual brigades into a fighting unit. The Federals always have more manpower than the Rebels anyway.

For example, say I have 24 divisions together with the equivalent of 6 divisions organised by brigade. The only difference between the above and having 30 formed divisions is that it is so much easier to manage.

Whatever the case, the real goal of this game is to simulate the ACW in a fun, interactive, logical, and historically accurate as can be format. Solving a problem, as fundamental as movement, has nothing to do with the number of divisions. Solving it by forcing players to micromanage an aggregate of independent brigades and batteries makes no sense.

If you need a command smaller than a division fine. If theres no need it is just plain easier to form the loose commands into a division. All this knowing there will be consistency in the movement of whatever mix of commands you choose.

Furthermore, as Gray Lensmen has said earlier division limits do not solve the root of the problem. These limits only remind you that you are not the President and that you really are playing a game. It's time consuming and pointless fiddling with organisational issue's. We are supposed to be Commander in Chief and not the Chief of Staff of an army.

your point, not mine.
Letting players form as much divisions as they want is just lowering the difficulty, give an advantage for human player over Ai which is less good at forming divisions, distorting the reality by giving players a total liberty over real constraints both camps faced in the armies build-up, adding a much more facility to organize efficiently both sides never fully had as their military build started almost from scratch.

All these is for me much more important to simulation of the Civil War than the fact to know if division A should enter region X the 4rd day or the 7th . A question of taste certainly but I guess both Lincoln and Davis were more musing with organizational problems, like who to lead one division than to survey if the 8th artillery battalion of the 6th division was 5 kilometers behind the 3rd Brigade...

And AACW isn't totally centered about Commander in chief role. Less than the old Hunter's From Sumter to Appomatow game where your order to generals were...never fully executed...

And that's why AACW is a real success, because game engine , if centering players on Commander-in-chief role, is yet letting them hold a grasp about operational and even some kind of tactical decisions.

You may call this micromanagement. I will name that P. Thibault design. After all, he should have his own idea when he implemented such limitation in the engine in spite of the more restraint way to form divisions which needed too HQ construction.

I will remain convinced a good strategy game is based not on the abundance but on the rarity , as rarity is forcing players to make choices: choices between leaders, choices where putting divisions, choices about divisions size.

Currently, the vanilla version, with its huge industrial production and relative easiness to get money has just made industrial and financial money almost a no-brainer. That's certainly necessary to reduce the learning curve and attract the casual wargamer ( no irony there, as I consider wargames must remain accessible to the largest part). But going too strongly in this way can produce totally uninteresting games because the real game isn't about winning against AI ( very boring after the 3rd time, see Paradox). The real game is doing choices ( Sid Meier's Civilization genius, based on the perfect blend of an impression of endless possibilities and in the first 100 turnns a real paucity of means - few money, crucial units like settlers very long to produce and sometimes destroyed in one instant, choice to do in the technology tree).

To put it simply, I'm convinced a game where you have to do cruel choices about divisions will be more interesting than the one proponing the best formula to simulate the move of a division based on disparate elements...simply because I guess most of the players will never notice the difference between 2 movement formulas.

Regards,

Clovis.

[Clovis]

This would ruin any sort of "brigade" MOD, of which there is at least one if not more. The pre-built brigades are rather arbitrary and subjective in design and makeup anyway, which is the reason for some players wanting the capability to MOD these for themselves. I think it would be sufficient to "block" out certain artillery types from having the capability to merge. This would effectively block "ridiculous" mergers, yet allow independent player "brigade" MODs to still be utilized.

indeed.

[Jabberwock]

OMG Clovis - did we just agree on something? Most players will never notice the difference ...

[Evren]

Low division limits only add to the micromanagement. Forcing players to keep more of their artillery in loose stacks just adds to the immense scale of the game. Allowing players to organise on a divisional level really cuts out alot of the tedious work involved with trying to make individual brigades into a fighting unit. The Federals always have more manpower than the Rebels anyway.

For example, say I have 24 divisions together with the equivalent of 6 divisions organised by brigade. The only difference between the above and having 30 formed divisions is that it is so much easier to manage.

Whatever the case, the real goal of this game is to simulate the ACW in a fun, interactive, logical, and historically accurate as can be format. Solving a problem, as fundamental as movement, has nothing to do with the number of divisions. Solving it by forcing players to micromanage an aggregate of independent brigades and batteries makes no sense.

If you need a command smaller than a division fine. If theres no need it is just plain easier to form the loose commands into a division. All this knowing there will be consistency in the movement of whatever mix of commands you choose.

Furthermore, as Gray Lensmen has said earlier division limits do not solve the root of the problem. These limits only remind you that you are not the President and that you really are playing a game. It's time consuming and pointless fiddling with organisational issue's. We are supposed to be Commander in Chief and not the Chief of Staff of an army.

Yes W. Barksdale, you are right. "The real goal of this game is to simulate the ACW in a fun, interactive, logical, and historically accurate as can be format". And the game is so much easier to manage with the divisions. But we don't even need divisional organisations to have fun. The designers should just let us make superstacks so there won't be any need for micromanagement also. Why do we need divisions anyway?

Actually the fun level goes down significantly when the A.I. cannot simply do anything against you. Everytime i tried to start a new game against the A.I., giving her the best possible advantages, the game doesn't go beyond a year. It is not because the Athena is stupid or something, it is because i know what to do exactly right from the start, knowing all the weak points of the side i play and hers, and acting accordingly, simply giving her no chance. Even in most PBEM games it is like that, creating divisions fastest with the mostest rules. I prefer a game to be hard enough to make me think all the time, and revise my decisions often to have fun. If i preferred it to be easier, i would be playing any other real-time "so called" strategy games. If it takes more micromanagement to handle to have a more challenging time, i can take that.

Some gamers like Jagger, Clovis and Lensmann know all those exploits really well, and all their purposes in creating their mods are more or less the same: making the game more realistic and challenging. Yes, removal of the divisional HQs maybe made the game pretty easier to handle as many believe, but changes like increasing the division number cap (or any other changes that gives the player more advantages than more options) doesn't improve the quality of the game.

Edit: Sorry Clovis, i was just writing about the same thing when you posted your note.

[arsan]

This would ruin any sort of "brigade" MOD, of which there is at least one if not more. The pre-built brigades are rather arbitrary and subjective in design and makeup anyway, which is the reason for some players wanting the capability to MOD these for themselves. I think it would be sufficient to "block" out certain artillery types from having the capability to merge. This would effectively block "ridiculous" mergers, yet allow independent player "brigade" MODs to still be utilized.

Hi!
Gray,
I think you has misunderstood my idea. leure:
I´m not proposing to ban out of the divisions all independent batteries and allowing only the ones inside brigades. Not at all!
I´m only proposing to ban the high caliber batteries (siege, fort, rodman, columbiad, maybe even 20 lb parrots) that are always independent batteries.

This way, the banning would not affect any of the current brigade make ups (as no brigade type has a big gun element) and i don't think it will upset any brigade mod as big guns inside brigades are very ahistorical and not probably to be modded.

So, to make it clearer, independent batteries of 12 pounders, 10 lb parrots, 6 pounders, horse arty and maybe 20 lb parrots would be permitted inside divisions. But not bigger guns.
In the end i think both of us are proposing the same

Regards!

[Clovis]

OMG Clovis - did we just agree on something? Most players will never notice the difference ...

And most players never noticed the problem itself... I suppose almost all never tried to put a Columbiad in a cavalry division

[Clovis]

Edit: Sorry Clovis, i was just writing about the same thing when you posted your note.

When I'm right, I'm ready to fight alone. But it's much better to get a help

[Jabberwock]

And most players never noticed the problem itself... I suppose almost all never tried to put a Columbiad in a cavalry division

What problem?

[Jabberwock]

Seriously, for the players who do notice, it is a BIG problem.

My impression is the division cap is somewhat redundant, unless we start seeing lots more generals appearing in the db. Of course, I always play with randomized generals and a sufficient number of "duds" will never be given divisional command even without a cap. Not everyone plays that way.

[Clovis]

What problem?

The possibility to put a heavy gun in a cavalry division without suffering any move penalty

[Jabberwock]

The possibility to put a heavy gun in a cavalry division without suffering any move penalty

You can do that? And you got a problem with that?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Clovis]

You can do that? And you got a problem with that?

See the first page of the thread

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jabberwock]

I like this idea of a compromise as long as the resulting speed is halfway or less towards the slower unit's movement rate. You need a reasonable penalty to make this work effectively. This penalty also should be evenly applied to "Merged" units or "stacked" units.

I did read that sometimes in MUD conditions, it was not unusual to double team the artillery to help haul it along. This can be the justification of the merged artillery battery moving somewhat quicker than an individual artillery battery, which can be thought of as not having such easy access to other units' horses, etc.

For most mixes I think it would even out in the long run (over the course of about 15 days).

1. Wheeled vehicles getting held up by infantry formations on good roads.
2. Keeping enough of the artillery near the vanguard for support, slowing down the units behind them.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jabberwock]

I don't think AACW to be perfect jewel . I just think about that point it's not the most important shortcoming. Now if it can be adressed quickly and SIMPLY with no harm for the AI, great.

I think I should revisit this.

For Barksdale, soundoff, and several others this is the most important shortcoming.
For Clovis it is Athena's inability to plan ahead or perform large-scale amphibious assaults.
For me it is the inability of the navy to interact realistically with land units.

We give our opinions; AGEod has to set priorities, based from opinions (ours and theirs) and do-ability. This issue is getting a lot of noise, it seems to be doable, and Pocus has rightfully given it a high priority.

Clovis, I think your pet issues are hitting a wall at do-ability, so they will get addressed later than this one.

My pet issue, I think hits two walls. One is the Iwo Jima backlash. The other is the wall of education. It doesn't get as much noise, because most players (or reporters, or historians, or educators) have never understood how important it was to both tactics and strategy. So (even though I find it frustrating at times that other people have other priorities) my latest approach is posting links to good research material, and settling in for the long haul.

So yes, as much as I enjoy the status quo on this issue, as much as I publicly and jokingly deny the existence of any issue, I think we need to give it a high priority and work with AGEod to get it fixed to the satisfaction of those that are disturbed by it.