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).
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.
pasternakski wrote:Caranorn, you dawg, you're an old-time player of VG's Civil War, aren't you?
caranorn wrote: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.
caranorn wrote:Though last night I had an idea to do away with Headquarters entirely (or rather to make them pure support units and not mandatory).
caranorn wrote:
Though last night I had an idea to do away with Headquarters entirely (or rather to make them pure support units and not mandatory).
el_Gato wrote:There were at least 16 Union and 23 Confederate "operational organizations" known officially (or unofficially) as an Army.
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.
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.
NewAgeNapolean wrote: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 spineKeep those "small, fat" posts' a'cummin'!
McNaughton wrote:Check my thread called "Divisions".
hattrick wrote: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?
Return to “Help to improve AACW!”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests