Forming Divisions/Corps/Armies needs to be reworked.

[Copper Head]

This current game procedure to create divisions is a really poor design feature.
A lot more thought needs to go into this to make it more intuative to the player - the sheer amount of questions regarding this process backs up this claim.

Why does an Army require a staff to form but a corp doesn't? Why does a divison require war materials, money and troops to form but an Army doesn't?

The same "process or steps" should be used to form Divisions, Corps and Armies as these are logically the same thing - a Division is a grouping of brigades, a Corp is a grouping of divisions and an Army is a grouping of Corps.

Having three separate distinct ways to form these is confusing a lot of people.

Just my two cents...

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Rafiki]

An army costs money, conscripts and war supplies, but you pay it when you buy the Army HQ unit, rather than when forming the Army itself. Armies also differ because the Army HQ has integrated artillery.

I wouldn't mind seeing corps-forming work like division-forming, though I have to admit that I don't know how that corresponds to how things worked during the ACW.

[Copper Head]

I'm coming from the point of view that game mechanics should be intuative to the user. A designer shouldn't force the user to consult the manual in order to find out how to the most simple things.

Dont get me wrong, I love this game and think overall its a great design but certain areas do need a re-visit...maybe in ACW2

[arsan]

You can hardly expect to have a good understanding of a complex war simulation like this game without bothering to look at the manual.
Tutorials explain most of the interface and give an introduction to game systme but can't include all.

Force organization is one of the core concepts of the game, important and complex not "the most simple thing".
But it is really not that difficult to make a division... if you read the short manual section about it.
And i would advise you to pay attention to the very informative tooltips the game offers on every button of the interface. They have a wealth of info.

Regards

[Copper Head]

Sorry but I totally disagree.

"Force organization is one of the core concepts of the game, important and complex not "the most simple thing".

Forming a division should be easy! All you're doing in collecting a group of units under a leader.....thats it....nothing more.

The steps and checks you need to go through for this are totally out of proportion to the task you're trying to achieve.

[soloswolf]

1) Click on special order tab.

2) Click on activated general.

3) Click Create Division button.

4) While holding control, click on all elements you wish to add to the division. (up to a maximum of 17)

5) Click '+' button.

It's a computer game. Sometimes you have to push buttons.

[Jabberwock]

Actually, I agree with Copper Head. It should be more intuitive.

First step: The cost of forming a division needs to be reworked to a pay as you go system.

[soloswolf]

As far as the payment... Do you mean make it the same as buying units, etc as opposed to costing it out at turn resolution?

Because while I have no issue with the current system, I would be fine with that change.

[arsan]

Sorry but I totally disagree.

"Force organization is one of the core concepts of the game, important and complex not "the most simple thing".

Forming a division should be easy! All you're doing in collecting a group of units under a leader.....thats it....nothing more.

Thats what you do to form an independent force. Divisions are a more structured force group that need a little more effort.

As solowolf says...
For this, you "only" need to select your division commander, push one clearely labeled button and select the troops you want with the old and reliable "Ctrl+click" everybody knows form the windows interface. And then, push a big + labelled button on the interface.

The porcedure is fairly easy and besides, is not something you need to do 50 times per turn... hell, you can only have 24 divisions on the 100 turns whole campaign as the CSA.

The only additinal things you have to learn about it (reading the manual section just once) is that you need to have the cost of the division ready to pay for it and that the leader selected have to be active that turn.

Jabberwock idea would be fine, but its not something that important IMHO. Most of the time you dont end the turn so short of $ and WS as to note the diference, specially as the USA.

Cheers!

[Copper Head]

Here's a concept...

Remove the costs and checks for creating divisions, corps and armies. Let the player create these units at anytime.

The limiting factor would be the generals you have available.

Have 4 ranks of generals...

Rank........................Can Form
General.....................Army
Lieutenant General......Corp
Major General.............Division
Brigadier General.........Brigade

Put the 'cost' into the promotion of a leader. For example, it could cost 25 war supplies to promote a Brigadier General to a Major General, 75 war supplies to promote a Major General to Lieutenant General, etc.

This way, the 'cost' and 'mechanics' are simplied and uniform in process (easy for Mr Casual to understand and grasp) and it still keeps the number of divisons, corps to a realistic number.

[arsan]

Here's a concept...

Remove the costs and checks for creating divisions, corps and armies. Let the player create these units at anytime.

The limiting factor would be the generals you have available.

Have 4 ranks of generals...

Rank........................Can Form
General.....................Army
Lieutenant General......Corp
Major General.............Division
Brigadier General.........Brigade

Put the 'cost' into the promotion of a leader. For example, it could cost 25 war supplies to promote a Brigadier General to a Major General, 75 war supplies to promote a Major General to Lieutenant General, etc.

This way, the 'cost' and 'mechanics' are simplied and uniform in process (easy for Mr Casual to understand and grasp) and it still keeps the number of divisons, corps to a realistic number.

...and then, for example, you will have "Mr ACW fan" ranting about why the hell promoting a general would cost him more WS than building a couple of ironcalds if "a promotion" is just a "piece of paper"

A rule is rule is a rule... and its not more difficult to undestand and remember that building a division takes 10 money, 1 conscript and 5 WS that promotig a leader to X rank cost 25, 75 or whatever WS...
And besides, the first option have some reality simulation reasons behind when the latter has none...
Regards

[samwise]

On a related item, what is the historical context for limiting the number of divisions that either side can have at one time? I am not disputing it, just curious as to the historical context. Thanks.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Copper Head]

"...and then, for example, you will have "Mr ACW fan" ranting about why the hell promoting a general would cost him more WS than building a couple of ironcalds if "a promotion" is just a "piece of paper" "

I agree, but the cost could be viewed as the expense of gathering/creating the divison staff, the various sub units associated with a division, etc. The cost doesn't have to be war supplies, it was just an example, but some penalty/cost would need to be inplace to limit promotions.


"A rule is rule is a rule... and its not more difficult to undestand and remember that building a division takes 10 money, 1 conscript and 5 WS that promotig a leader to X rank cost 25, 75 or whatever WS...
And besides, the first option have some reality simulation reasons behind when the latter has none... "

But the benefit here would be that the procedure to create divisons, corps and armies could then be the same gameplay mechanic as they wouldn't be any divisional/corp/army specific rules in place. Therefore making the whole process a lot more easier to understand.


easier to understand rules and gameplay = easy access to the game from Mr Casual = more sales

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[samwise]

Seems like the 24 division limit is a game type requirement, rather than replicating any sort of historical limitation. Off the top of my head, I can not think of a reason why any country would be limited to a certain number of divisions, other than manpower, which is already simulated in the game. Thanks.

[Copper Head]

"I wouldn't want the cost to be built into the promotion of a leader because you might want to promote him when he's eligible but wait to assign him a command at a later date in a different theatre. "

If you were to implement the the above suggestion then they wouldn't be any need for the 'eligible for promotion' icon. You could promote anyone at anytime, the limiting factor been : are you able to afford the 'cost' of the promotion?

[arsan]

"...and then, for example, you will have "Mr ACW fan" ranting about why the hell promoting a general would cost him more WS than building a couple of ironcalds if "a promotion" is just a "piece of paper" "

I agree, but the cost could be viewed as the expense of gathering/creating the divison staff, the various sub units associated with a division, etc. The cost doesn't have to be war supplies, it was just an example, but some penalty/cost would need to be inplace to limit promotions.


"A rule is rule is a rule... and its not more difficult to undestand and remember that building a division takes 10 money, 1 conscript and 5 WS that promotig a leader to X rank cost 25, 75 or whatever WS...
And besides, the first option have some reality simulation reasons behind when the latter has none... "

But the benefit here would be that the procedure to create divisons, corps and armies could then be the same gameplay mechanic as they wouldn't be any divisional/corp/army specific rules in place. Therefore making the whole process a lot more easier to understand.


easier to understand rules and gameplay = easy access to the game from Mr Casual = more sales

The problem is that both armies and corps are stacks while divisions are a special kind of unit which can have another units inside. Thats why the procedure can't be the same unless you change the whole interafce and game system.
IMHO, thats the thing that makes division creation a little difficult to understand to new players until they realize this distintion.
The cost, activation checks... are secondary on this.

Anyhow, this process is a liitle difficult until you manage to do it for the first time. Then, you understand it and ther is no more problems.

I don't think it makes any sense to change half the game and dumb down all the system because a few new players have 5 minutes of the first time they try to make a division... mostly because they have not read the apropiate section of the manual.

Regards

[arsan]

"I wouldn't want the cost to be built into the promotion of a leader because you might want to promote him when he's eligible but wait to assign him a command at a later date in a different theatre. "

If you were to implement the the above suggestion then they wouldn't be any need for the 'eligible for promotion' icon. You could promote anyone at anytime, the limiting factor been : are you able to afford the 'cost' of the promotion?

And then you thow out the window the wonderful promotion system of the game that takes into account seniority, political cost, battle record, history... and force you the face the same problems Lincoln or Davis had with their generals on history.
With this you will have a boring, generic and shallow system that has nothing of the wonderfull historic flavour and simulation that AACW has... leure:
You must be kidding... :

[johnnycai]

If you were to implement the the above suggestion then they wouldn't be any need for the 'eligible for promotion' icon. You could promote anyone at anytime, the limiting factor been : are you able to afford the 'cost' of the promotion?

This solution would be unhistorical. This game is more of a simulation than fantasy strategic wargame. You cant just pay to gain the generals ability to form armies. Generals have always been either politically promoted or promoted via their successes.
Your suggestions so far would not actually simplify the process as you still need to gather the elements and select them to form your div/corps/army.


Regarding CSA's 24div limit, this is, in my opinion, always been a cap to mirror the actual number of divisions the South had operating during the war. In the game, it also helps game balance as the US needs the additional divs. to implement its offensive strategy.

regards,
John

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Copper Head]

' I don't think it makes any sense to change half the game and dumb down all the system because a few new players have 5 minutes of the first time they try to make a division'

It's not dumbing the game down. Its streamlining an overtly complex and illogical system for something that makes sense.

'The problem is that both armies and corps are stacks while divisions are a special kind of unit which can have another units inside. Thats why the procedure can't be the same unless you change the whole interafce and game system.'

Totally agree hopefully Ageod will make ACW2 sometime and take some of these points onboard

And yes, a further extension of the forming divs, corps & armies solution would be the way these units are viewed. You should be able to assign a leader to a brigade and then form these brigades under a divisional leader. That way, you wouldn't have 50 unassigned generals sitting around doing nothing in Washington/Richmond - they would be acting as brigade leaders in divisions, gaining xp etc.

[Franciscus]

Just to add my thoughts to this discussion, let's not forget what were the rules before this "new" way of making divisions, and the real reason WHY they changed. Back then apy: you had to buy/build division HQ in order to make a division, the same also for armies, but it was never so for corps (that, by the way, to me was and is still incongruous - I mean why there is no some similar cost to form a corps, but that's another and old discussion).

Now, the MAIN (sole ?) reason to streamline the making of divisions was to facilitate the task of AI, because the AI simply could not manage properly the building of adequate number of HQ divisions, which, in top of that, allways appeared in the capitals. So, the AI armies had severe penalties due to large numbers of elements "out-of-command", which was somewhat corrected with this new division "rule".

But, I must say also that for future iterations of the engine I would also look gladly to a more coherent way of organizing your armies.

just my 2 cents

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Copper Head]

'And then you thow out the window the wonderful promotion system of the game that takes into account seniority, political cost, battle record, history... and force you the face the same problems Lincoln or Davis had with their generals on history.
With this you will have a boring, generic and shallow system that has nothing of the wonderfull historic flavour and simulation that AACW has...
You must be kidding... '

Well some of us want to play a game where the gameplay empowers the player so he has total control of his side, he isnt shackled down by 'house' rules to enforce him down a specific path of history. Thats the whole point in playing isn't it? To see if you can change the course of the war from the same starting position as your historical counterpart.

[soloswolf]

Its streamlining an overtly complex and illogical system for something that makes sense.

An overtly complex and illogical system? It works great! It is perfectly sensical.

And if you are asking for commanders for each individual brigade, that is a ridiculous amount of people to try to add to the system. Why not your favorite Colonel that took over when his Brigadier was shot down? Why not go all the way and set up your non-coms the way you like as well?

The point is, the system works. It works well. If you don't like the rationale given, make up your own. Just enjoy the game, man!

[soloswolf]

[I]
Well some of us want to play a game where the gameplay empowers the player so he has total control of his side, he isnt shackled down by 'house' rules to enforce him down a specific path of history. Thats the whole point in playing isn't it? To see if you can change the course of the war from the same starting position as your historical counterpart.

Tell us how you are limited by the current system. Tell us your roadblocks to changing history.

[arsan]

'And then you thow out the window the wonderful promotion system of the game that takes into account seniority, political cost, battle record, history... and force you the face the same problems Lincoln or Davis had with their generals on history.
With this you will have a boring, generic and shallow system that has nothing of the wonderfull historic flavour and simulation that AACW has...
You must be kidding... '

Well some of us want to play a game where the gameplay empowers the player so he has total control of his side, he isnt shackled down by 'house' rules to enforce him down a specific path of history. Thats the whole point in playing isn't it? To see if you can change the course of the war from the same starting position as your historical counterpart.

Well, there are different kind of games to different kind of gamers.
Hopefully AGEod makes the ones i like to play: "historical wargames" not "generic strategy games with a pseudohistorical setting".

By the way, if you would have "total control of your side" as you say, you would not be on the "same starting position of your historical counterpart" AT ALL
If we could, it would be great to ask Lincoln or Davis about it
Regards

[Copper Head]

'An overtly complex and illogical system? It works great! It is perfectly sensical.'

No it isn't.

You have three different rules/processes for creating divisions, corps and armies for what is in essence the same thing - grouping units under a leader.

Therefore, if you agree to this then you must agree that the gameplay mechanic for creating these grouping should be the same.