Addressing the unit headcounts, getting them lowered

[arsan]

Hi Injun
It was probably was the case in history, but i'm sure Lincoln and Davis should not personally direct each regiment merge... while directing also each military, economic and political facet of the war.
I have enough tedious work at the office. Really, i don't need no more boring and mechanic stuff while playing.
Give me interesting strategic decisions!
The problem with what you propose is that it would not be an option to the players as you say. If we eliminate/heavily limit replacements, we will force every guy to micromanage to death if they want to have anything but an skeleton force on the front. And that is not optional. This is a wargame, so you must have armies on the front to fight with.
Just my 2 cents (form the back row of the SUV too )
Cheers!

[soundoff]

This is a big issue with the battle scenarios (which maybe you don't play). It's disconcerting to see a 200,000+ AoP in the Gettysburg scenario, and Sherman having twice the men he had historically (nearly 200,000) in the Atlanta scenario, just to give two examples. I expect that this issue rears its ugly head in the later-war full-campaign scenarios, too.

If I played the senarios (which I don't) I would certainly share your frustration Berto.

What I'm uneasy about though is transferring too many conditions from senarios into grand campaigns or viz a versa. It seems to me that the grand campaigns should be 'open ended' at least in the respect that if players wish to march Sherman with 200,000 they should be free to do so....provided they have the manpower and can afford the costs. Particularly as recruitment, replacement and economics are such key features of the campaign game.

I am much happier leaving Ahistorical force numbers in the later years of the full campaign if players can achieve it though to make it harder to attain I'd increase the purchase cost of new units specifically money and weapons considerably and reduce the number of conscripts that can be raised.

[berto]

If I played the senarios (which I don't) I would certainly share your frustration Berto.

Although I haven't verified it, I suspect that ahistorically high force levels pertain to the later-war (1862, 1863, 1864), all-theater campaign scenarios, too, not just the so-called "battle scenarios."

[arsan]

Hi

Guys, I think it would be good to precise what you are talking about...
1- High forces on the sense of too high number or units...
2- High forces on the sense of a too high "headcounts" per unit.

1- Could be improved tweaking the resource numbers (Posus stated some time ago he would like to reduce WS numbers a 30%). But if fell that ,as soundoff says, we only can aim to make thing reasonable. Not mimic historic numbers, as the real war and "our war" (long campaign) will sure have very different developments, which will make impossible (and inadvisable IMHO) to try to maintaining historic troop level through the years.

2- What i think is being discussed here. Only a cosmetic issue with no effect on the game play that can be tweaked (or not) so it juts "feels real" on battle reports and the like.

Cheers!

[berto]

For me, it's #2, the "cosmetic" issue of the battle reports (but also when you press the Ctrl key and see the force numbers for corps, etc.).

Not saying that "cosmetic" means "unimportant". A made-up woman looks a heck of a sight prettier with her cosmetics on than without.

I would still think something is quite wrong, and more than just cosmetic, if (apart from historical setups, far into any campaign game) we started marching 200K and 300K armies around the map. Given that the largest army ever fielded in the ACW was Hooker's 140K AoP at Chancellorsville, it would seem mighty strange to see 200K+ armies as a matter of routine.

[arsan]

For me, it's #2, the "cosmetic" issue of the battle reports (but also when you press the Ctrl key and see the force numbers for corps, etc.).
Not saying that "cosmetic" means "unimportant".

+1!
About the 200.000 men armies... to see if a current game version army of this size is hirtorical or not we shoudl look at the regimets/brigades/divisions numbers forming it.
As those 200.000 men figures are just "cosmetic" men which could be converted on 100.000 or 130.000 men just making a "cosmetic" change on the numbers of men per hit.
A very good example are the armies at the Gettysburg scenario. I'm no expert, but i would bet the OOB is pretty realist and that 90%or more of the real battle regiments, brigades and divisions are there.
Still the inflated men per regiments produces a a historical 200.000 "cosmetical" men Army of the Potomac.

Cheers!

[soundoff]

Hi


1- Could be improved tweaking the resource numbers (Posus stated some time ago he would like to reduce WS numbers a 30%).


Cheers!

I'm not sure that tweaking the WS numbers is the right way to go Arsan. I personally reckon that if a player has spent his money, recruits and war supplies on new units only to find them disappear because they do not have the war supplies to support them will be very hard for the casual gamer to accept. If it were just an issue of looking at how much you produce in total against how much is needed in total that would be different but supply is so much more complicated in game than that. Anyway thats a different issue and another thread.

This has been an interesting debate though that I've followed closely and shows, to good effect IMO, the richness and diversity of the views of the player base. Its also a credit to AGEod's game that we are all concerned to ensure that the game continues to develop. Even if we have differing opinions as to the routes I'm pretty certain that for most the destination would be the same.

[Rafiki]

soundoff, you use war supplies to create/purchase units and replacements as well as build river/RR transport. War supplies have no role in supplying troops in the field; you are thinking of "general supply" and "ammunition", which are totally different things

[soundoff]

soundoff, you use war supplies to create/purchase units and replacements as well as build river/RR transport. War supplies have no role in supplying troops in the field; you are thinking of "general supply" and "ammunition", which are totally different things

Just shows you something else I'd gotten wrong around my neck. Another lightbulb turned on. Many thanks Rafiki

[Rafiki]

No worries

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[arsan]

Hi Gray !

I think the set health thing would be pretty useless for long campaigns (and even medium length scenarios).
If you have replacements, one or two of turns or resting on a depot or city will put everybody close to 100% strength =i nflated numbers again.

Using a permanent/non recoverable set health command would be pretty similar to lowering the standard men/hit numbers, but IMHO, it would be worst as i bet we will have tons of people asking why their elements are always in the red
Besides, the set health has an additional effect: it reduces the combat power of the unit, as it is not anymore at100% health. Here we enter on the real game play rules (not cosmetic) and unbalances can be created.
Probably, if you put everybody at, lets say, 70% set healths, everybody will be equally understrength and no unbalances will come.
But really, i don't find any advantage to the use of set health parameter over fixing the regiment numbers at 600 or 700 instead of the ideal but hardly real 1.000 men
It's not a perfect solution but it would make the numbers look much more real, its easy to do, and with no side effects on game play as (here comes my favourite word its just "cosmetic"

Cheers!

[lodilefty]

From my experiences: SetHealth is absolutely 'temporary', in that units will regain strength eventually. As you state, OK for short term [although I saw units regain strength in only 2 turns ], but will not 'fix' this in campaigns.

AFAIK, the only way to truly fix this is adjusting 'men per hit' in the models. Other means could be adjusting 'hits' per model, but that could screw up the game balance.

We did a lot of digging and debating in WIA to determine 'men per hit', to get where it is......

[squarian]

If a newbie can comment - the cosmetic manpower totals are annoying, sure, but not nearly as annoying to me as the high casualty rate in vanilla AACW. If it comes down to a choice between fixing one or the other first (i.e. I suppose Pocus & Gray have limited development time), I'd much rather see the meatgrinder battles fixed than see the headcounts made more accurate.

When my first serious grand campaign ended in a late-1862 battle in N. VA which involved approx. 75% casualties on both sides and left the ANV and AOP essentially non-existent, I concluded that this was a really great game with a profound flaw at its heart. Fortunately, I found Clovis' mod which reduces the casualty rates to a more realistic level - perhaps his ideas & methods can be incorporated somehow in vanilla?

I'm not saying the headcounts are fine and shouldn't be fixed - but for me the priority would be casualty rates, because I understand the abstraction of manpower from hits and can make mental allowances, but 75% is still 75%, whether its hits or men.

[arsan]

If a newbie can comment - the cosmetic manpower totals are annoying, sure, but not nearly as annoying to me as the high casualty rate in vanilla AACW. If it comes down to a choice between fixing one or the other first (i.e. I suppose Pocus & Gray have limited development time), I'd much rather see the meatgrinder battles fixed than see the headcounts made more accurate.

When my first serious grand campaign ended in a late-1862 battle in N. VA which involved approx. 75% casualties on both sides and left the ANV and AOP essentially non-existent, I concluded that this was a really great game with a profound flaw at its heart. Fortunately, I found Clovis' mod which reduces the casualty rates to a more realistic level - perhaps his ideas & methods can be incorporated somehow in vanilla?

I'm not saying the headcounts are fine and shouldn't be fixed - but for me the priority would be casualty rates, because I understand the abstraction of manpower from hits and can make mental allowances, but 75% is still 75%, whether its hits or men.

I completely agree this is more important than the cosmetic headcount
But don't worry, no need to have to chose one or the other
Gray and the betas are working hard on the battle casualties since some time ago. I hope soon we will see the results.
Besides, in 1.11 patch there is a fix that solves a bug that seems to be one of the main causes of the high loses/fanatical fighting.

Regards

[Gray_Lensman]

I completely agree this is more important than the cosmetic headcount
But don't worry, no need to have to chose one or the other
Gray and the betas are working hard on the battle casualties since some time ago. I hope soon we will see the results.
Besides, in 1.11 patch there is a fix that solves a bug that seems to be one of the main causes of the high loses/fanatical fighting.

Regards

True, we're having to retest everything with vanilla v1.11a to ascertain how much remains to be reworked in regards to total battle casualties themselves. It's very hard to come up with a fix, when something unexpected changes the test situations. We're actually hoping that the worst of the excessive battle results have been taken care of with the patch code itself. Anybody else posting about excessively high battle casualties from this point on should only do so if the problem is observed in vanilla v1.11 or v1.11a.

[berto]

If a newbie can comment - the cosmetic manpower totals are annoying, sure, but not nearly as annoying to me as the high casualty rate in vanilla AACW. If it comes down to a choice between fixing one or the other first (i.e. I suppose Pocus & Gray have limited development time), I'd much rather see the meatgrinder battles fixed than see the headcounts made more accurate.

We've been working on the battle casualties issue for several months now. We've also recently begun work on the force levels problem.

I totally agree that both issues are serious, and that the battle casualties issue is the more serious of the two.