Creating divisions

[Major Tom]

Incorrect. A unit is permanently defined when it's placed in the database and used to generate the .uni files which you can look at in the ...ACW/GameData/Units/... folder. These individual .uni files are indivisible once formed and also cannot be altered in their makeup/definition. The multi-element brigades that you can buy in the reinforcement screen are predefined by exactly one of these .uni files. It would actually be possible to predefine a huge single .uni file brigade made up of a dozen units or even more, but the makeup of that unit is "locked" and unalterable during the game, since it would be a distinct predefined .uni file which is read into the game's data during game initializaion. Not only are these "whatever sized" units locked and unalterable, they are not able to be combined into another larger single .uni defined brigade during game run time.

Okay, so I've missed a whole level of reality! I was looking at the Units database as the foundation of reality, but it's only a mirror of a deeper reality -- the .uni files! My head explodes.

[Major Tom]

The point is you can't change the number of elements to a specified max. and then proceed to fill in the blanks so to speak. All pre-defined brigades are completely designated as a specifically designed "unit" made up of a "collection" of specific individual model types. These predefined units are then assigned to the Reinforcement Box and cannot be directly altered thereafter, except by the roundabout element replacement routine for those previously pre-defined models that have been completely destroyed in combat. In other words in the current game design, you can't build "units" on-the-fly, which in a sense is what the larger brigades are (a single unit). Units are predefined and indivisible except for combat losses which are then replaced on an exact match to the missing element model.

But, some of the preset brigades come with empty slots that allow more elements to be added. That's where Redeemer was coming up with his 5-element militia brigade idea. Replacment elements are part of the definition of a unit, and in some cases units are defined as starting with fewer units than what can be filled into them.(e.g., the militia brigade that can add another militia element). And in one case, a unit is defined with fewer replacement elements than what it starts with (the PA sharpshooter brigades which start with 2 inf elements but can only fill one as a replacement). This pesky .uni file concept has me confused now, but based on just looking at the Units database file, it seems like you should be able to specify that a unit can take in more elements that it stats with, but because the command cost is also set at the unit level not the element level, this may not be desirable, since the added elements wont add to the command cost.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Redeemer]

There's no such thing as "empty" slots on units built from the Reinforcement Box. They come with their defined complement of models, whether that definition includes, 1 model, 4 models, 7 models, or whatever.

This is where you lose me. Maybe I am getting confused with the models, units, definitions etc. The militia units you buy from the reinforcement screen are not "full", you can add another militia unit to them.

[Major Tom]

This is where you lose me. Maybe I am getting confused with the models, units, definitions etc. The militia units you buy from the reinforcement screen are not "full", you can add another militia unit to them.

Also, the 1 inf + 1 militia brigades the Union can buy in Kansas and Missouri can have a second militia element added. Somehow I left this brigade type off the spreadsheet I posted yesterday showing command costs. This extra capacity is shown in the "Family Type" columns in the units database file.

[Redeemer]

Plus the Marine and Naval brigades that can combine with a regular US Inf.

[Clovis]

The consequencies of such a modification should be huge: on the gameplay, on the AI, on the gfx too

And I'm not certain it will add so much. In the current state you have several brigade types. What's the goal? You can create divisions with as much individual artillery and cavalry regiments you want.

How the non endivisioned brigades will be created? Is it so much important to get a brigade with 2 artillery units for garrisoning to avoid a 5% penalty when level 6 entrenchment will give a tremendous defensive boost? Why to give player possibility to create more combined arms brigades when the trend for both sides was to go to homogenuous infantry, cavalry and artillery brigades.

I feeel all this like a derive toward the micromanagement hell. For nothing.

[Redeemer]

Why to give player possibility to create more combined arms brigades when the trend for both sides was to go to homogenuous infantry, cavalry and artillery brigades.

I feeel all this like a derive toward the micromanagement hell. For nothing.

I don't want the combined arms brigades, I don't think they are realistic. I want the all inf, cav, or art brigades that were more historic. You've done some similar with your SVF mod. Historically brigades were made up of whatever regiments were on hand. 3, 4, 5 or more regiments. I am trying to remember where I've seen mixed brigades in the histories, I'm sure they exsisted, but they were rare and not the norm.

I realize you can make these by forming divisions, but then you need a leader (an active one at that) and the resources to pay for it. That doesn't represent the historic brigade in my book. Brigades had very little infrastructure, sometimes only led by the senior colonel. If I am going to pay for a division and assign it a leader, then it had better be a real division, not a work around for something else.

And I am not whinning, I love this game, I am only trying to make it better. This one issue though, I think is pretty important. The regiment was the basic building block of both sides fighting forces. All other larger units were adhoc and flexible.

[Clovis]

I don't want the combined arms brigades, I don't think they are realistic. I want the all inf, cav, or art brigades that were more historic. You've done some similar with your SVF mod. Historically brigades were made up of whatever regiments were on hand. 3, 4, 5 or more regiments. I am trying to remember where I've seen mixed brigades in the histories, I'm sure they exsisted, but they were rare and not the norm.

I realize you can make these by forming divisions, but then you need a leader (an active one at that) and the resources to pay for it. That doesn't represent the historic brigade in my book. Brigades had very little infrastructure, sometimes only led by the senior colonel. If I am going to pay for a division and assign it a leader, then it had better be a real division, not a work around for something else.

And I am not whinning, I love this game, I am only trying to make it better. This one issue though, I think is pretty important. The regiment was the basic building block of both sides fighting forces. All other larger units were adhoc and flexible.

You can form adhoc forces combinig several units. You just have to let them without leader. If you place a leader, form a division. The rule is simple, easily understandable, adapted to AI thinking and in the whole rather realistic in the sense your leader are destined to the more important forces.

Moreover, why CSA took much pain to form brigades by State origin? Why Brigades on both sides got a nickname if they were so unorganized.

I presume your idea comes from the "All for the regiment"book about the Army of Ohio in 1861-62. The thesis is interesting but I can't forget it's a study of the first years and on a theater and with an army who suffered from several distinct factors ( Buell's leadership, lack of staff more pronounced than in the East) . Not sure a study of the Tennesse army or the Potomac one at gettysburg would draw the same conclusions...

Your idea is just killing the game. I say it calmly but firmly. I'm toying with AACW since July 2007 and that's why I'm afraid to be right on this.

The new player will have a lot more micromagement and the manual will not be adapted, by a lack of ressources.

The AI will face a human player tailoring at will independent forces to lower CP penalties. The AI will not. AI will be weaker and a computer wargame with a poor AI isn't a good wargame.

Like any new level of details, new loopholes in the comabat rules will maybe be reveled, because of some unhistorical forces giving great results in what will remain an abstracted combat model.

And once again, where's the benefit? I may yet create a force with one brigade, 2 cavalry rgts and one artillery; I've just to avoid to put a leader. Now, if the goal is to create this with a leader without CP to garrison Port Hudson, which will have in several trun a huge defensive fortification advantage,I just don't see the point.

In wargaming, the real challenge is to always remeber more details or more control doesn't mind more historicity or better gameplay. If brigades were created, it was to ease gameplay, help AI to get some combined arms brigades and divisions, prohibit unhistorical formations and let players sufficient choices in unit composition. It works. Your proposal add nothing and threatens much.

Last, combined brigades were much used until 1865, not in the primaries armies but in secondary ones and garrsion tasks. You could take a look to the Wilmington CSA OOB for 1865 in Fonvielle for example.

[Redeemer]

Then why did you change the brigades in your mod?

And to say I am talking about this to avoid a CP penalty is insulting. The CP should be relavent to the unit size, no matter what size the unit. I realize there are issues with this, but they are the same issues with the current brigades in game and should be fixed regardless.

[Clovis]

Then why did you change the brigades in your mod?

And to say I am talking about this to avoid a CP penalty is insulting. The CP should be relavent to the unit size, no matter what size the unit. I realize there are issues with this, but they are the same issues with the current brigades in game and should be fixed regardless.

I don't see where the insult is? I just don't see any other advantage to your proposal. Maybe I'm missing the boat.

I changed because I wanted larger brigades for CSA. All regular brigades in my mod have a 4 pts CP cost. Union has an advantage in Army HQ and leaders number as in vanilla. This gives CSA AI building larger divisions, which is rather close to the reality.

if you're make CP cost relative to the unit size, you're just adding one more challenge to the CSA side and peculiarly the CSA AI one, with less leaders, less HQs and larger brigades which will have greater CP penalties. And larger brigades are necessary because of the lower number of leaders.

And in SVF from 1862, brigade TOE will be homogeeous, except for a few destined to independent use.

This system isn't perfect, but working

[Redeemer]

I don't see where the insult is? I just don't see any other advantage to your proposal. Maybe I'm missing the boat.

You post insinuated that my proposal was simply to gain an advantage in the game. The advantage is to represent how units were formed historically.

I changed because I wanted larger brigades for CSA. All regular brigades in my mod have a 4 pts CP cost. Union has an advantage in Army HQ and leaders number as in vanilla. This gives CSA AI building larger divisions, which is rather close to the reality.

if you're make CP cost relative to the unit size, you're just adding one more challenge to the CSA side and peculiarly the CSA AI one, with less leaders, less HQs and larger brigades which will have greater CP penalties. And larger brigades are necessary because of the lower number of leaders.

Reread my post #20 in this thread. I proposed the same thing and I do not disagree, the CSA should have larger units with lower CP.

And in SVF from 1862, brigade TOE will be homogeeous, except for a few destined to independent use.

This system isn't perfect, but working

I haven't gotten that far in your game, explaination??

[Clovis]

You post insinuated that my proposal was simply to gain an advantage in the game. The advantage is to represent how units were formed historically.

Reread my post #20 in this thread. I proposed the same thing and I do not disagree, the CSA should have larger units with lower CP.

I haven't gotten that far in your game, explaination??

You should tune down your tone a bit. If discussing frankly means for you insulting, you're just on the wrong forum. AGEOD board is pretty civilized and such epidermic reaction to contradiction rather rare.

About brigades: how do you get with the new system larger birgades with less CP, if built with individual rgt? Let's say 7 rgts in a Brigade for CSA costing 4 CP.: 4 rgts costing 1 CP and 3 0? If some rgts costs 0 CP, I place a leader on top of a stack only constitued of such rgts: I've now a full division, without any CP penaltiy when my opponent with a normally formed division acting independantly will get a CP penalty...



Just modifying brigades and CP cost can be made ( I made it) but putting brigades CP cost above 4 would give strange results with one star leaders having 4 CP.....

For SVF: event in 1862 replacing brigades in reinforcment pools with new ones.

[Redeemer]

[quote="Clovis"]
About brigades: how do you get with the new system larger birgades with less CP, if built with individual rgt? Let's say 7 rgts in a Brigade for CSA costing 4 CP.: 4 rgts costing 1 CP and 3 0? If some rgts costs 0 CP, I place a leader on top of a stack only constitued of such rgts: I've now a full division, without any CP penaltiy when my opponent with a normally formed division acting independantly will get a CP penalty...
[quote]
The expandable brigade with the first regiment in it that you would purchase would cost 4CP and be the constant, no matter how many regiments you add. All other regiments would have 1CP, but combined with this brigade the brigade still has 4CP. Like the militia regiments now, alone 1CP, combined with another regiment, still 1CP.

[quote="Clovis"]
Just modifying brigades and CP cost can be made ( I made it) but putting brigades CP cost above 4 would give strange results with one star leaders having 4 CP.....
[quote]
Then make it 4CP, my numbers were only suggestions.

[Clovis]

About brigades: how do you get with the new system larger birgades with less CP, if built with individual rgt? Let's say 7 rgts in a Brigade for CSA costing 4 CP.: 4 rgts costing 1 CP and 3 0? If some rgts costs 0 CP, I place a leader on top of a stack only constitued of such rgts: I've now a full division, without any CP penaltiy when my opponent with a normally formed division acting independantly will get a CP penalty...

The expandable brigade with the first regiment in it that you would purchase would cost 4CP and be the constant, no matter how many regiments you add. All other regiments would have 1CP, but combined with this brigade the brigade still has 4CP. Like the militia regiments now, alone 1CP, combined with another regiment, still 1CP.

Just modifying brigades and CP cost can be made ( I made it) but putting brigades CP cost above 4 would give strange results with one star leaders having 4 CP.....

Then make it 4CP, my numbers were only suggestions.

So it's simpler to create predefined brigade models costing each 4 CPs like in SVF....And with your system, if possible, how the player will know this type of brigades will accept at most 2 artillery, or 3 cavalry and not or 1? And if no limit are created, how to avoid unhistorical brigades exploiting loopholes in the combat system?

Then, if your brigade remains limited to one rgt, by lack of troops, it will cost 4 CPs? Where is the realism here?

Frankly, the simpler the better. Let player concentrate on strategy and operational rather than on a brigade sandbox when the current brigade system, tailored, can offer both easiness and reasonable variety to players

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[cobraII]

to my knowledge milita men have always been able to be combined together in groups of two it actualy helps the south in places like arkansa and missour where you might not want solely make regular brigades. I can see redeemers point in needing the option to form brigades, however it will not kill me if you cannot do that

[Redeemer]

So it's simpler to create predefined brigade models costing each 4 CPs like in SVF....And with your system, if possible, how the player will know this type of brigades will accept at most 2 artillery, or 3 cavalry and not or 1?

The same way you know now.

And if no limit are created, how to avoid unhistorical brigades exploiting loopholes in the combat system?

Why would there be no limit? and there are unhistorical brigades now, so you confused me with this one.

Then, if your brigade remains limited to one rgt, by lack of troops, it will cost 4 CPs? Where is the realism here?

Not real, but it is the way the game works now with brigades you recieve that aren't full and with brigades that have regiments destroyed, but I am open to other solutions for this or can you fix this flaw in the game?

Frankly, the simpler the better. Let player concentrate on strategy and operational rather than on a brigade sandbox when the current brigade system, tailored, can offer both easiness and reasonable variety to players

I don't believe it is any harder than what is there currently. There are Army sandbox's, Corps sandbox's, Division sandbox's, why not Brigade sandbox's but, Grays post above pretty much sums it up.

[Redeemer]

One thing I don't like about the large multi-element "brigades" currently in the game, is the mixture of unit types. My opinion, there should not have been a mixing of Cavalry and/or Artillery elements into the multi-element brigades. It just makes for a what I perceive to be a small non-historic quasi-division unit that doesn't meet the definition of "brigade".

Thanks for looking into it Gray. This statement pretty much sums up my feelings on the subject, I was only trying to discuss a alternate solution to get the brigades more historical.

[Clovis]

For some reason or other, individual Militia units are allowed to combine into 2 element units. I'm not exactly sure why this exception, it might have something specifically to do with providing the AI an extra tool, but I'm only guessing. Beyond, this exception, you're beating a dead horse with this argument. My statements earlier were directed towards being able to have more single element units to allow for more "fine tuning" of Divisions which can be combined and broken up by the player.

One thing I don't like about the large multi-element "brigades" currently in the game, is the mixture of unit types. My opinion, there should not have been a mixing of Cavalry and/or Artillery elements into the multi-element brigades. It just makes for a what I perceive to be a small non-historic quasi-division unit that doesn't meet the definition of "brigade".

also...



This is another reason I don't like the multi-unit brigades... If you lose elements, say for example 3 elements out of 4 are destroyed in combat, that particular unit still cost the original CP cost, for example 4 CP points. This is a really crappy side-effect of predesigned multi-element brigades, so there is no realism inherent in the current pre-designed multi-element brigades anyhow. I perceive these multi-element brigades to have been placed in the game database as some form of a design shortcut, which works rather half-heartedly and introduces just as many problems as it saves.

1) these coombined arms units existed in the firt years. The real problem is the impossibility to dissolve them.

2) As it was much discussed in 2007, the combat model was leading toward huge destruction o frgts, which wasn't the case during the Civil War. A new combat model had been introduced since and SVF had its own , both mimiting drastically the number of rgts destroyed. then it seems to me part of a destroyed brigades can ve reformed with replacement. And the brigade design isn't just introducing many problems. As I exposed, it solves many things. Your move is just would just introducing too much problems than it solves, for no more historicity. Look really at the intrication about AI, interface, micromagement, loopholes. I will repeat once again, it just will kill the game.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Clovis]

It would be a monumental task to break everything down into single element units, not to mention the micromanagement requirements, so I'm not really considering that option. However, I am seriously considering removing the cavalry and or artillery elements from the multi-element combination units. I was considering that work initially to separate out the "sharpshooters". Of course, once separated, I would have to adjust the Reinforcement Pools to provide for the building of the removed elements as a separately defined unit.

I alos think the recently introduced auto-retreat code helps out quite a bit in reducing the total destruction of regiments.

my own solution is in svf to let player to choose/ I've blended combined arms and homogeneous brigades in 1861 and in the replacement events I've created for 1862 and beyond/ I just changed the proportions

[Redeemer]

Gray,

How does the system tell the difference between units that have had elements destroyed and thus need replaced and the units that can be combined with other unit. ie, how does it know not to replace a militia unit that only has one regiment.

[Major Tom]

It would be a monumental task to break everything down into single element units, not to mention the micromanagement requirements, so I'm not really considering that option. However, I am seriously considering removing the cavalry and or artillery elements from the multi-element combination units. I was considering that work initially to separate out the "sharpshooters". Of course, once separated, I would have to adjust the Reinforcement Pools to provide for the building of the removed elements as a separately defined unit.

Between Clovis and Gray, I am convinced. I enjoy having more control over unit organization, but as Clovis says, it would be a micromanagement nightmare to make other brigade types accept more elements the way militia do.

Gray is probably right about the desirability of getting rid of the combined arms brigades, although they certainly are convenient to use, and without them we're back to some micromanaging with having to stack cav and artillery elements with the infantry brigades.

[Banks6060]

Back on the issue of restricting division formation to only after Late Oct. 1861. As far as I know this wouldn't necessarily be accurate in the North's case. They used divisions in 1st Bull Run.

[Redeemer]

They were formed into divisions, but McDowell issued orders directly and committed them by brigades They fought as brigades, so I don't have a problem with the way it is portrayed in game.

[Clovis]

Back on the issue of restricting division formation to only after Late Oct. 1861. As far as I know this wouldn't necessarily be accurate in the North's case. They used divisions in 1st Bull Run.

administratively you're right. from a military point of view, lack of trained staffand McDowell micromagement reduced their command function to 0. ANy account of First Bull Run is symptomatic by studying battle events friom the Brigade level.

[Clovis]

Between Clovis and Gray, I am convinced. I enjoy having more control over unit organization, but as Clovis says, it would be a micromanagement nightmare to make other brigade types accept more elements the way militia do.

Gray is probably right about the desirability of getting rid of the combined arms brigades, although they certainly are convenient to use, and without them we're back to some micromanaging with having to stack cav and artillery elements with the infantry brigades.

Choice i've made is to let player choose between both. A combined brigade can be useful for small task forces but AACW has to reflect too the trend toward more homogenuous brigades after the first months mess...

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted