Forming Divisions/Corps/Armies needs to be reworked.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[soloswolf]

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.

The way you group units under a leader are the same: You drag and drop them into the stacks you want. Of course there are different specifics, they are different entities.

As far as your 'therefores'... I don't agree with you. That's the point.

I feel it is a great game that works superbly in it's current state. And you want a change that will not happen.

Listen, this whole argument is starting to flame up and we should just let it rest. I am not trying to steal the last word here. There is just little point in banging heads like this, we're just not getting anywhere.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[soloswolf]

The only roadblock I see, is the number of allowed divisions seems to be set to low. I would like to see a discussion of what these limits should really be as I am in a position to implement a change in these limits in the vanilla scenarios, if we can reach a reasonable agreement on just what they should be taking into account the AI, gameplay, and historical perspective of the Union being of necessity the "offensive" side.

What's two-times no limit?

I have been playing with Runyan's leader mod and in August of '63 am only at 31 of the CSA's 48 allowed divisions. From my experience, I can't imagine that the 96/48 marks would need to be exceeded.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Copper Head]

Hehe I can see the potential is there for a flame war but I dont think we're at that point yet

Dont get me wrong, I think the game is really good and I do enjoy playing it but its just those little things that I feel if done differently could make a great game even better.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jabberwock]

The only roadblock I see, is the number of allowed divisions seems to be set to low. I would like to see a discussion of what these limits should really be as I am in a position to implement a change in these limits in the vanilla scenarios, if we can reach a reasonable agreement on just what they should be taking into account the AI, gameplay, and historical perspective of the Union being of necessity the "offensive" side.

I have never felt limited by the divisions cap when playing as the North. With the addition of new leaders in the leader mod, I might ... slightly ... if there were only 48 available. I'm sure at least some of those leaders will be added to the 'vanilla' game in the not-too-distant future. When playing as the South, I usually hit the cap by late '62. As was stated in another thread, if the South is performing better than it was historically, there is no reason that it couldn't create more divisions than it had historically. There are three limits - the cost of divisions and the units to make them worthwile, the number of leaders available, and the artificial cap. I see the cap as redundant. As far as affecting Athena, she doesn't ever seem to create lots of new divisions when I play. It may be a concern for some of the late start (63-65) scenarios, if you don't want anyone creating any new divisions. The couple of times I've started an 1864 scenario, I believe I was hitting the division cap by about turn 4. I lost interest quickly.

[Jabberwock]

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.

That is exactly what I mean. Once a new player gets past the "Oh, so that's how I create a division" point, then they start asking:

"Why is my general penalized?"
"What is this cost?"
"How much is it of each resource?"
"I created a whole bunch of divisions, how do I keep track of how many?"

I have trouble remembering how much of each I need to save at the the end of each turn. I can only imagine the frustration of a new-to-intermediate player trying to figure it out. My personal style of play usually has me at the limits of at least two of my resources at the end of each turn. At that point I have to close the ledger, select a unit, click a tab and hover over a button to double-check how many divisions I've built, try to remember the formula (was it 5WS and 1 conscript - or the other way around?), do a quick calculation, then reopen the ledger and readjust my spending. I find that aspect time-consuming and tedious.

[lodilefty]

So, what is the realistic limit on the number of divisions each side can keep supplied? Or keep a network to deliver supply? Or afford conscripts to build brigades to fill a Division?

If Athena needs a limit, set it, but human players should be limited by the economy and manpower....

Has anyone researched a way to set a limit for just the AI? If so, do it, and let human players build what they can.....

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[GrudgeBringer]

WOW I am actually taking part IN a discussion rather than starting one!!!

I think I asked More questions (and some of the same ones numerous times) about how to form Divisions and all the crud that went along with it.

However, once I DID figure it out its not only simple but it also makes you think ahead (as in Real Life) on which generals you want to promote to D leader because THIS turn HE CAN lead troops and be promoted.

You might want to promote 'ol' Bushrod Johnson (Geeez I lovethat name) but your afraid he won't be 'able' to become a Divisional Commander next turn when you need him so you make the choice of doing it this turn.

there was also a comment made about having Generals just sitting around waiting to do something...

Send them to Fl or LA or anywhere while you don't need them. Stick them in a town thats a strategic location and they will help your militia a BUNCH if you get patrols behind your lines. (and you can always bring them back when needed)

The one thing about the number of divisions is that its part of the game...Historical or not its part of the game.

IF you want to play CSA you live with it.

The way its set up now is that for a minimil amount you can make ANY general a Division leader. Use him then demote him and make another General a D leader somewhere else. It works real well.

You just have to kinda smack around the yanks EARLY before you use ALL your 24 D's up in Corps later trying to stem the Blue Hordes Advance.

This game has/is drove me nuts for 2 weeks but as I play and ask questions it is not near as unrealistic as Rome Total war or any of the other generic 'Strategy' games where you have to build a number of buildings to get a certain unit and everyone starts out pretty much the same ect ect.

This game WILL make you think,look ahead, and plan for the future or about turn 34 your in deep s**t and your games history.

But the REAL reason I think it should be left alone.....IS SO THAT I DON'T HAVE TO LEARN THIS D***N THING ALL OVER AGIAN!!!

Just my humble opinion of course.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[W.Barksdale]

I propose to merge this thread with the one below so as to come to an agreement. The discussions are similiar.

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=7710

[Jabberwock]

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

Ageod would lose most of their target market if they did something that the grognards saw as seriously ahistorical. One major thing that I love about them as a company is that it is not all about the money. Any company can dumb down their products for mass appeal. Ageod is on a mission.

[Jabberwock]

I propose to merge this thread with the one below so as to come to an agreement. The discussions are similiar.

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=7710

Yeah, we did kind of hijack that one to use for this topic.

[willgamer]

My $.02...

Divisions are special and different to corps and armies since they uniquely are containers. That is, they merge sub-elements to become a single new element. A corps is just a stack with increased command. An army is just a relationship that increases command. I think this works pretty well. However the UI side could be improved by providing the ability to right click on any element/sub-element and offer a drop down list of choices like: add to division; remove from division, etc...

The division limit, I believe, is a quick fix to a missing concept. Leaders should have some multiplier to their stats at higher levels of command. For example, multiply both good and bad attributes by 2 for commanding a corps and by 4 for an army. This would create a powerful incentive to create command structure at all levels and minimize the incentive for independent divisions.

Cheers!

[Jabberwock]

Then, what is really needed is a button to press that will reserve the amounts of the various resources/funds to prevent you from overspending. That would effectively remove that particular micro-management item. This could be applicable to the new games using the same game engine, something that AGEod might implement.

It doesn't need a button. I build interfaces. If you can do it without a button, do it without a button. This should just be automatic.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[runyan99]

If the cap is going to change, I suggest a 50% increase, so for the CSA that would be 24*1.5=36.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[arsan]

If the cap is going to change, I suggest a 50% increase, so for the CSA that would be 24*1.5=36.

I like it. It's a nice increase but not too drastic.
I fear that no cap could end allowing some gamey/not very historical uses.
Divisions have a cost but its not too high, so given you have money/WS to spare (like the USA) you could spam divisions and make nearly every stack with an * leader a division, effectively getting rid of most of the CP penalties.
I think the divisions cap should not hamper the organization of the main armies but a division should still remain a "special" and valuable tool used mainly under the chain of command (Armies/corps) and as some independent commands.
Not be the standard anywhere else (garrisons, raiding parties, secondary theaters...)
Just my 2 cents

[Jabberwock]

I like it. It's a nice increase but not too drastic.
I fear that no cap could end allowing some gamey/not very historical uses.
Divisions have a cost but its not too high, so given you have money/WS to spare (like the USA) you could spam divisions and make nearly every stack with an * leader a division, effectively getting rid of most of the CP penalties.
I think the divisions cap should not hamper the organization of the main armies but a division should still remain a "special" and valuable tool used mainly under the chain of command (Armies/corps) and as some independent commands.
Not be the standard anywhere else (garrisons, raiding parties, secondary theaters...)
Just my 2 cents

There is no benefit to using them for garrisons or raiding parties, unless you mean big garrisons, in which case it is not gamey. A raiding party in need of a division container is not a raiding party. It is a recon-in-force.

Sorry to repeat myself (unless I said this in another thread), but if a player wants to spend their resources that way, I say let them.

[soloswolf]

If the cap is going to change, I suggest a 50% increase, so for the CSA that would be 24*1.5=36.

I am comfortable with that level.

[Coregonas]

In my (lonely pbem) game i ve achieved my 24th CSA division in the very beggining of 1862.

By mid 62, once drafts arise... I was totally short of CPs...

I believe the game is going well for the USA, and part of the CP problem is due for me trying to build a big-big army.

Perhaps, some extra free promotions should come depending on the total size of the army.

[Jabberwock]

Putting an end to the division cap would logically lead to addressing another issue that eventually needs to be looked at ... super-sized brigades and brigade composition. Another debate for another time ... hopefully.

[arsan]

There is no benefit to using them for garrisons or raiding parties, unless you mean big garrisons, in which case it is not gamey. A raiding party in need of a division container is not a raiding party. It is a recon-in-force.

Sorry to repeat myself (unless I said this in another thread), but if a player wants to spend their resources that way, I say let them.

Yes, i mean important garrisons. But they don't need to be really BIG.
Just with +5 elements would be enough in some cases (1 element milita/arty that cost 1 CP for example).
The same for the "raiding-in-force" A medium stack would be enough to get benefits.
Regards

[Jabberwock]

A medium sized garrison is a big garrison to me, but that's a style thing. Anyway were talking about apples and apples. I think what I said above still applies. Guess you disagree.
Regards

[arsan]

I think what I said above still applies. Guess you disagree.
Regards

Yes, but just a little
Really there is no historical or game play backup on my "better +50% cap than no cap" opinion.
Just that the idea that a "division spam" would be impossible and not only improbable would make me feel more a little more confortable.
But its no big deal. Anyway i'm for a change on the 24/48 cap. Any change...

Maybe the Philippes should told us what they think about it. Perhaps there is a very goo reason behind the restrictive cap
Regards

[lodilefty]

The problem I see with this is that the game engine doesn't distinguish between human players and the AI in this respect. So how would Athena know when to apply the limit and when not to? For instance, you can switch sides if you want to, if that regard, what would Athena do then?

I would write the base scenario with 'unlimited' divisions for both sides, then run event on turn 1 that checks for AI, then adjusts the division limit for the AI side.