HQ and Support

[veji1]

Seems that we can agree on many things then..

[marecone]

I have posted new thread where we can post our campaign results. After we collect some number of data then this discussion about HQ's will make more sense.
We will see if we need to slow down or speed up the game. Something like preventing rebs winning in 1862 or similar.
Just my two cents

[veji1]

Well we shouldn't prevent the Rebs from winning in 1862, since this is the only moment when they "could" have won, ie, say they crush the union army during the seven days campaign as they could have and force McClellan to surrender with 50 or 60 000 soldiers, or say lost orders don't get lost and they manage to cut of Washington from the rest of the country, etc...

Obviously it would have to be almost impossible, but some form of victory should be possible...

[NewAgeNapolean]

If I may interject a few thoughts here.

That said, I see the creation of new army HQs at the nation's capital as a convenient "shorthand" for what that army actually is: the most powerful immediate exertion of the national leadership's war effort. Formation of an army should be a matter of grave concern and significant difficulty (and when one considers the bother of creating its support units and subordinate structures, then melding them into an effective whole, the game is at its best in making achievement of competent organization a big pain in the butt).

I agree with you in theory here Pasternakski, but isn't this "effort" better reflected by the exorbitant price of HQ's and support units. It would seem to me that by paying the high cost for these units (both in money and materials) to have already expressed your gov.'s concern and difficulty.

What do you consider a "remote location"? (Colorado was pretty remote --- yet it was full of engineers!) New Orleans? Cincinnati? Nashville? St Louis? These were burgeoning cities in 1860. Besides, I consider the 3 - turn delay an "organizational period" in which the required personnel/equipment are pulled in from all over the area. A month-and-a-half is plenty of time to round up what you need, where you need it.

Have to agree with el_gato one one point. The delay period involved in actually activating these units, to me fairly represents the issuing of orders and shuffling of personel to create such a unit any where on the map (possibly could be a turn longer). Surely the appropriate people would say "make it so here" and then their orders would be carried out? It works for combat formations. Why not command units? That being said, I do think that choosing where to deploy them is a bit over the top. Perhaps, as someone else mentioned, a good solution would be regional "command centers" where these units could be deployed.

Just some thoughts. And by the way Pasternakski, why is everytime you or someone else mentions that old VG game, I get a smile on my face and little tingles go up my spine Keep those "small, fat" posts' a'cummin'!

[caranorn]

Caranorn, you dawg, you're an old-time player of VG's Civil War, aren't you?

Is it that obvious? ;-) Yep of course.

Now to the topic at hand. I think we should not confuse true Armies that were able to field large forces and the smaller Armies formed in specific departments (I could add one more to the confederates, the Army of department of the Indian Territory under Ben McCulloch, but in reality that was a very large division). In game terms I believe Armies are indeed just the huge forces like the Army of the Potomac, the Army of Tennessee etc. The others are just forces, corps or divisions.

Though last night I had an idea to do away with Headquarters entirely (or rather to make them pure support units and not mandatory). Let players and the ai (mostly to the benefit of the ai I believe) form Armies, Corps and Divisions anytime they have an appropriately ranked leader (Army requiring a 3 or 4 star, Corps a 2 or 3 star, Division a 1 or 2 star). Use only the Force leader's command capacity, modified for being in command or for having certain support units. Divisions could hold a number of units depending on their Army leader's (or if not part of an Army their Force leader's) skill (something like <(Str. + Off. + def.) * 3> never bellow 9 and never beyond 21, giving an average of 15 (slightly less then now), if you attach an optional Division HQ you gain another 3 points beyond the cap (min. of 12, max. of 24)). If necessary have a game year modifier to this division size (to reflect early war organisation) etc. A Force's Command limit would be determined by its own commander (per star as now) and be modified for a possible superior Army leader, HQ and aide de camp (with the Army, not the Force) and possible support units in the Force itself. The main advantage of having additional leaders beyond the commander in a Force is now to serve as Division Commanders, they don't add Command Points but the units attached to them cost a maximum of 4 Command (maximum as they could also command just a brigade, in which case the brigade's original command rating woudl be used). An example of this system; The Union Army of Northeast Virginia, June 1861, McDowell is commanding, Hooker is aide de camp (actually attach the aide de camp to the Army leader along with any headquarter), the Army has a HQ, so the Army itself has a Command capacity of 12 (McDowell as 3 star) +1 for the aide de camp, +1 for the HQ for a total of 14 Command Points, the Army directly commands Tyler, Turner, Heinzelman, Runyon and Mansfield (forgot actual commanders, but I know these are all in the area in game terms), each with his own division with a maximal strength of 12 (McDowell's combined ratings are 5, -1 for Union 1861, no Divisional HQ's all multiplied by 3) (lets assume they can fit their entire commands), that would still give a Command Penalty of 35%, if the divisions were to act in part independently (detach two of them to their own forces, each with a penalty of 10%) this could be reduced to 0%, alternatively have Hunter form a Corps under the Army (10 Command capacity for Hunter's rank, the Army HQ and aide de camp) with those two divisions (his own included, a 2 star being able to lead both at once) which would give 0% penalty for both Corps and Army...

Though of course all the above is pure theory, I'm not sure the game engine could handle such a system. Though it would probably make matters simpler for the ai which would no longer have to ship headquarters around (it still could to slightly improve sizes and decrease penalties...). It would also make creation of larger Forces likely out West, at the same time preventing the huge stacks on 1 star leaders and instead lead to many separate 1 star lead divisions until a 2 star or 3 star leader was sent to organise the lot into a Corps or Army.

Note that even if something like this was implementable it would have to be fine tweaked and fully thought out (versus my sleepless night's grumbling without a notebook).

[el_Gato]

Now to the topic at hand. I think we should not confuse true Armies that were able to field large forces and the smaller Armies formed in specific departments (I could add one more to the confederates, the Army of department of the Indian Territory under Ben McCulloch, but in reality that was a very large division). In game terms I believe Armies are indeed just the huge forces like the Army of the Potomac, the Army of Tennessee etc. The others are just forces, corps or divisions.

Oh, certainly. Most Reb armies are that in name only. My point being that, no matter what the size (army, corps, division --- brigade even), they still require a command structure to operate effectively.

However, most people here seem to be laboring under the assumption that these higher organizations are built from the top down. It's from the bottom up. Armies are built after the prerequisite corps are already in place; Corps from divisions, etc. As such, the command elements should already be pretty much in place locally before you even begin to form a new command.

And really, as much as I like the added flavor of the support units in the game, with the exception of balloons and naval engineers, most of them would already be present as integral parts of the command organization.

Really, I like yr idea of doing away with HQ's altogether, and just rolling it into the officer units themselves, but with a limit on how many armies can actually be on the map at any one time. Maybe throw in a time delay on forming corps until 1862. I'd add a delay period when forming a higher organization: Maybe one or two turns locked in place as the new command structure gets shaken down...

PS: I played the hell out of VG's Civil War myself. Still consider it one of the best treatments on the subject.

[Spharv2]

Though last night I had an idea to do away with Headquarters entirely (or rather to make them pure support units and not mandatory).

You've come to much the same conclusion that the devs and betas are currently discussing. Though it's not so much a matter of helping the players as it is helping the AI deal with the command issues it's working through. Nice write-up though, I'm sure they'll be looking it over since we're about to get to the point where Pocus can start working on issues other than fixes, since most of the stability/bug issues seem to be getting ironed out.

[McNaughton]

I still think regional HQs makes more sense.

What composed of a HQ in the mid 19th Century?

Runners, Dispatch, Escort and Command Staff. Really, nothing that I would see as overly expensive, or restrictive to capitols.

One idea I was floating in my head, was that you created HQ units to arrive for specific commanders. Army HQs are assigned to a commander once you built it, and are formed around them. You can then change leadership afterward, but, the formation of a HQ is based on that leader (wherever they are). It represents things more realistically, as HQs tended to be formed on the spot from existing staffs, just getting more support from local forces.

To limit over expansion in specific areas, we could have regional numbers, so that the East gets more Divisions than the West, unless you manually shift forces.

I really don't know how well the AI does at shifting forces from theare to theatre. Does it move divisional HQs from East to West, or does it just stick them in large units that are close by? May be a problem, resulting in the AI never using Divisions out west!

[LAVA]

Though last night I had an idea to do away with Headquarters entirely (or rather to make them pure support units and not mandatory).

Well...

Best to think this one out very carefully.

By taking away the HQs, you will make a very fundamental change to how this game is played. Now, a few folks are chatting about how an "HQ" is a general and a couple couriers and therefore nothing special. I don't view an HQ that way, in a physical sense. I view it as a strategic planning decision. You just don't throw formations together simply because you have a general around. For example, who is going to command the army? That kind of decision, in the real world, takes literally months to determine. Take away the HQs and you allow ad hoc throwing together of forces, whenever it is to the benefit of the player to do so in reaction to his enemy, which is completely unrealistic and takes out a huge chunk of the "strategy" of what is supposed to be a strategy game for the player. It sounds to me like a bad idea.

Athena, on the other hand, is a totally different subject. It is probably almost impossible for her to be able to conceptualize what her forces will look like in a years time and prepare the corresponding components to make that happen. I have no problem what-so-ever, in making it easy for Athena to build formations which allow her to enjoy the command and control benefits of higher level formations, as long as there are some limitations.

The goal here, and the problem that I have seen playing the game, is placing Athena on at least an even playing field with the player. If that means bending or even changing the rules for Athena, I have no problem with that, in fact, I encourage it. Allowing the player to throw together higher formations together whenever he pleases, without a moments worth of forethought, however, is something different, and it is not called strategy.

Ray (aka LAVA)

[McNaughton]

Check my thread called "Divisions". It appears that the AI knows how to use divisions, and will use them, just has problems building them, assigning leaders, using regular over militia, and deploying them to fronts far from the area of construciton.

The AI uses units at fronts closest to where they build them. Units built out East fight out East. Units built out West fight out West.

The AI does need some help. Events are a quick fix (an event that gives them 12 HQs definitely does the trick, I am thinking of reducing it to 8), but I think that the AI isn't far from using divisions, and Army HQs, as effectively as a player.

[pasternakski]

There were at least 16 Union and 23 Confederate "operational organizations" known officially (or unofficially) as an Army.

But, see, that's exactly what I was saying. All those ad hoc organizations passed off as field armies were nothing of the kind. I say again, an ACW army, as properly seen, was a gigantic, unwieldy thing that demanded constant care, attention, and support, kind of like my two children who, although chronologically adults, are still as needy as they were when "kiddies."

What, having yr HQ's sit for three turns as they draw personnel, and then wasting another 2-3 turns moving across country is "charming"? I call it unesscessarily time-consuming and a-historical.

Well, maybe "charming" is a word I use too often in the rather ironic tone the British often use it. "Osama bin Laden? What a charming man."

In any event, the thrust of my remarks was that a constraint needs to be imposed on the ease of army formation, and I was trying to discuss this within the framework of the game as currently constituted. I agree wholeheartedly with the theater-specific limitation proposed by caranorn.

We need to be aware that there will likely be no wholesale rewrites of the game system that will change the basic nature of AACW, despite the Sterling efforts of our comrade, "Pocus the patch bot."

What do you consider a "remote location"? (Colorado was pretty remote --- yet it was full of engineers!) New Orleans? Cincinnati? Nashville? St Louis? These were burgeoning cities in 1860. Besides, I consider the 3 - turn delay an "organizational period" in which the required personnel/equipment are pulled in from all over the area. A month-and-a-half is plenty of time to round up what you need, where you need it.

Well, as I tried to indicate, there's more to it than just "rounding up what you need." Consider all those Colorado engineers (who were they, by the way?). An entire military structure has to be built, including officers and support personnel, otherwise, all you've got is a bunch of guys who were used to timbering mines and laying track running around with their transits with no idea what the engineering needs of the army are, how to realize them, or even how to support the effort logistically.

It was a real problem. The game needs to reflect the difficulty involved, and I say again that the current game system pretty much reflects that difficulty with both the operational delay for new support units (including medical and the rest) and by creating them in major Eastern population centers where, the administrative structure of the unit would have to have been created, then dispatched to the location or army where the unit would actually be put into action (I realize the bustling, growing nature of the cities you mention, of course, but that, as I have tried to indicate in this post, is not the point). I simply have no complaints on this score with the game as currently designed in this regard.

[pasternakski]

Just some thoughts. And by the way Pasternakski, why is everytime you or someone else mentions that old VG game, I get a smile on my face and little tingles go up my spine Keep those "small, fat" posts' a'cummin'!

I, too, think el gato's ideas well taken. One of the many reasons I enjoy these forums so much, and appreciate how the thoughtful, courteous dialogue adds to my "fun" with the game. It's the greatest. I have never seen its like elsewhere.

Ah, VG's Civil War. I just cannot say enough about it (the manual alone is a study in how it should be done).

In the wargame club to which I belonged before I moved away, we wore out two copies of this magnum opus and there were still two ongoing games set up on the library tables in the gaming room.

Tell me, what kind of feeling did you get when reaching into the cup to draw new leaders from the "pool?" When you looked and saw Bobby Lee in the palm of your hand, did you hop around exulting with a mighty "yee-HAW"?

I did once. Everybody thought I was nuts (and don't tell me how time has proved them exactly right).

[LAVA]

Check my thread called "Divisions".

A very interesting experiment with equally interesting results.

The fact that the AI uses the HQ's when given them is good news. It would support more scripting to balance the game, rather than scraping the system for creating armies.

The fact that it doesn't transfer from one theater to another may explain why it has trouble holding out against a determined yankee human who marches on Richmond.

As an aside, in my latest game which is on very hard, I have seen far less activity by the rebs in the Trans-Mississippi area and a far greater buildup in the east and west. Not sure if that is related to difficulty level or the last patch (perhaps a bit of both).

Ray (aka LAVA)

[hattrick]

I like the way the HQ system works and having the army & Div HQ's form out of the two capitals.

Please if you are going to make drastic changes, is it possible for you to put them under options?

[marecone]

I like the way the HQ system works and having the army & Div HQ's form out of the two capitals.

Please if you are going to make drastic changes, is it possible for you to put them under options?

Well said. I too am afraid that we are fixing something that is not broken .
BTW, nice discussion.

[veji1]

Yep,,, Keep the HQs, there part of the fun... I am fine with "cheats" for the AI, (make the Generals attached with there HQs for example when the AI plays, etc...) but I like to organize my structure...