Removing HQs

[Pocus]

we have made up our mind now. Why were we asking input in the first place? Because part of the change was motivated by the desire to keep the same historicity and flavor, while rendering simpler for many players the game. Don't forget that the ones who are expressing themselves in this thread are perhaps the more grognards, or at least the most involved in playing the game. For now, the number of voters is only a very small fraction of the buyers... so the result is to be taken with a grain of salt... Anyway it seems that the urge to simplify is not widespread.

Remains the improvement it would do on the AI as the motivation to remove HQs.

So...

Army HQs will remains. Because they are few of them, so keeping them don't add a significant amount of micromanaging. Also, they are not to be created on the fly, just because a 3 stars general desire so.

Divisions HQs will be removed. Because they are numerous, and this add micromanaging. You will need a general, you will have a maximum limit of divisions at a given time, that can be increased by events. The leader will pay the formation of a division by having reduced stats during one turn. This will cost you war supplies. If the leader is removed for any reason, the division is dismissed and the brigades reappears.

The side benefit will be also to be more consistent with the Chain of Command, from a design standpoint. Many people wondered why there was a 'hole' in HQs (no corps HQ, but army and division ones), naturally, with the Div HQ gone, there is no hole to consider
This is also rather historical in our mind, to not have Div HQ. Divisions at these times were organized far more rapidly compared to forming a real Army.

We will also add (and this will be the first thing done) a new special order: 'Relocate'. This order will be restricted to leaders and Army HQs, and will allow them to redeploy instantly within a reasonable range. The number of usage of this order will be set at 3 usages a turn per faction. This order will provide several benefits:

a) the AI will use it to relocate instantly Army HQs where one is needed, thus solving the last part of the problem about synchronizing an HQ with a leader.

b) players complaining how non realistic it is to have a 15 days travel, by train, for a single general, between say Charleston and Richmond will be satisfied here. (and the complaint is valid).


Thanks all for your participation. We can still discuss here the consequences of this decision and the thread is not closed.

To people thinking that it is abnormal to redesign an important part of the game after release... I would like to say that we take, Philippe and I, many decisions during the development of our games very instinctively, and 95% of the time we fall right where we wanted. But we also have to admit that we are not error proof. In this case, we don't feel we are discussing an 'issue' per se. HQs works fine as they are. But we wanted to simplify a bit the rules, because some peoples had trouble with it, and we also wanted to boost the AI expertise. With time and much work, the AI could have understood perfectly well how to position HQ, but we are feeling more important improvements could have been done with the time spared.

[Primasprit]

Great. I am looking forward to these changes.

[jhdeerslayer]

Seems reasonable compromise to me. Now I'm wondering how it might affect my PBEM in process...

[sval06]

OK.
Pocus, do you already know how the system will react for games launched with Div. HQs?

- Will these games still have Div. HQs units or will these units disappear?
And in the last case, what will happen to brigades related to Divs Hqs?

[caranorn]

I expect this will be one of those rare patches to require starting a new game. It's definitely such a big change that I'd do so anyhow even if it were not required.

[ANTONYO]

OK

you will have a maximum limit of divisions at a given time, that can be increased by events.

it will have also maximum limits of Corps?

[PhilThib]

Yes of course...

[LAVA]

Ops...

Was a bit behind the posting.

Go for it AGEOD... looking forward to your future improvements.

Ray (aka LAVA)

[Flashman007]

Sounds reasonable to me. I really don't see this changing gameplay, just reducing a little of the micro management and of course enhancing the AI. I really like that divisions will be tied to a General.

As it is now, the number of corps per army is already limited (I forget how many). My understanding is that will not change.

[caranorn]

Ray (Lava), I think you are confusing concepts of Civil War Command and modern day Command Structures. I can assure you most Civil War Divisions only had a hand full of officers plus some orderlies at their HQ's. To that they might add a depleted Company as Provost Guards. Also those divisions were formed withing days, usually by order of some superior and then a few conferences between the Force's commanders (so not just the few Divisional leaders but also the Brigade and occasional Regiment commanders). There was also little necessity for Division training or any such modern concept. Training (or rather exercise and drill) took place at the Company and Regimental level, very rarely above that.

Err. did you just edit your post? Just thought to look it over again before I submitted my reply... Guess I'm shooting at empty air now:-(

[Jaypea]

Can you make this a selectable option (having Div HQ's for the human player) or is that too much coding?

JP

[denisonh]

One thing about Corps HQs is that they were not involved in the logistics support for the field forces, but focused on the "gran tactical" apsect of getting the divisions to the right place on the battlefield The Brigades were the primarily level supported logisitcally with coordination done by the Division staff and actual support executed by the Army.

The Corps "staff" was generally very small, often smaller than the staff of the Divisions and even some of the Brigades assigned.

Corps organizations command realtionships, while not focused on logistics, could be modified quickly as the logistics issues we handled at Division/Brigade and at Army. They also operated above the "tactical level", so there would not be the same kind of operational impact from a reorganization at Corps as there would be at Division and most certainly at brigade. ACW Warfare 1862 and after was really conducted at the divisional level, so the composition of the Division was important and the most subject to cohesion effects of reorganizing IMO, and not so much at Corps.

I would say you form a division and organize a corps.

I think that the only real HQ requiring any real "physical" presence would be Army. I would even submit that the Army should have an inherent supply capability to represent the quartermaster of a Wagon or two(in addition to an artillery battery, 1-8 supply companies). That was one of the more critical functions at Army level. The distinguishing feature of the larger army HQs from the smaller ones is the logistical support required to support a large number of field forces. That was the most expensive part of creating the army.

[aryaman]

I hope the change is for the better, my concern is that division making could be too easy, allowing some gamey tactics. Div HQs force players to plan ahead, that army building is for me one of the most enjoyable part of the game, I hope that feature is kept in the patch somehow.

[Fouche]

You say "You will need a general, you will have a maximum limit of divisions at a given time, that can be increased by events." Will the CSA still have fewer divisions available throughout the war as opposed to the Union or has that changed. In the game at the moment the CSA has a ceiling of 24 dvisions.
Thank you,

[Chris0827]

10 to 1 is what was the ratio in Vietnam for the US, but I don't have hard facts to back my words (remembering that from previous reading). I would expect that in the ACW this ratio is a lot lot lower.

By 10 to 1 I mean ten combat troops for every one support troop. In Vietnam and in modern high tech armies the ratio is many support troops for each combat soldier.

[denisonh]

I hope the change is for the better, my concern is that division making could be too easy, allowing some gamey tactics. Div HQs force players to plan ahead, that army building is for me one of the most enjoyable part of the game, I hope that feature is kept in the patch somehow.

No disagreement there. Divisions, if not a HQ to "purchase" in the force pool, must restricted to "forming" on a leader.

Ideally it would be limited by the the inherent supply capability in the Army to represent Army and below logisitics. (Something like each supply company in an Army HQ would support the froming of a single division, so two wagons in an Army HQ wuld support 8 Divisions). Just a thought.

[Fouche]

Pocus, I have a feeling by your statment about events increasing the initial number of divisions means that you have some in mind already. Can you give us an idea what they might be?

[Pocus]

things won't changes about max number of divisions, the numbers are 48 for the USA and 24 to the CSA. We can leave that untouched, or start lower and add some by events (as time passes I mean). This is really another matter. I just cited that to show that there will still be a limit on how many Div you can field at a given time.

We won't be able to maintain the Div HQ as an option, as this would lead to many problems, in the code, but also in the setups and events, depending if the option is choosen or not.

[Walloc]

things won't changes about max number of divisions, the numbers are 48 for the USA and 24 to the CSA. We can leave that untouched, or start lower and add some by events (as time passes I mean). This is really another matter. I just cited that to show that there will still be a limit on how many Div you can field at a given time.

We won't be able to maintain the Div HQ as an option, as this would lead to many problems, in the code, but also in the setups and events, depending if the option is choosen or not.

Is there any way with this change also to make alteration for bigger CSA divisions. Keeping in line with historicly CSA divisions tended to be bigger than US one?
Perhapse around 22 24 elements.

Not a big issue just thot i'd bring it up while changes are being made.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Chris0827]

Is there any way with this change also to make alteration for bigger CSA divisions. Keeping in line with historicly CSA divisions tended to be bigger than US one?
Perhapse around 22 24 elements.

Not a big issue just thot i'd bring it up while changes are being made.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

Divisions are already much too big on both sides.

[jimwinsor]

Agreed. Seems to me the way to go would be to reduce division sizes.

Then, for those exceptions like AP Hill's "Light" division...maybe a leader trait that increases the elements a leader can gather into one division?

Another idea would be to give a game incentive for players not to stuff divisions to their theoretical maximum every time...stat bonuses for understuffed divisions, for example.

[Walloc]

Make US smaller then

While i get ur point Jim, doesnt that go straight against the concept of divisions. At leased as I see them in the game. You exactly use divisions because of the lower CP as an incentive, compared too if they had been with out the division.

The incentive as of now is to make big divisions saving CPs. Im no saying its necesarily a bad idea to have smaller divisions and have incentives to do so. Just make sure that the incentives arent counter acting.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[marecone]

Very, very important !
When do you except to provide us with a patch that will require starting a new game?

Thank you Pocus

[Primasprit]

Very, very important !
When do you except to provide us with a patch that will require starting a new game?

Thank you Pocus

I guess when it's done.

[Chris0827]

Regiment size is the reason divisions are too big, however dealing with that may be more trouble than it is worth.

[Spruce]

I'm still having questions on how the army HQ will be handled ?

1) Will it be "merged" with one of it corps ?

2) Can the enemy dislodge it - by defeating it - or is it "undefeatable" ?

3) I also think command radius for high strategy generals is way too high. I think the "area" of play for guys like Grant and Lee is just too much.

4) Does this mean we'll be facing the army of Lee, army of Jackson and army of Forrest after a few turns ? I mean the confederacy has so many good leaders - the confederate player will be tempted to build a high number of armies (unrealistic) to bear the fruits of the command chain umbrella.

[Chris0827]

Forrest can't be an army commander in this game. He can possiblt reach corps command after a lot of combat.

[jimwinsor]

It sounds to me like the current system for Army HQs will remain as is.

[el_Gato]

If you read Pocus' introduction to this thread we are not abandoning the command struture and they are not talking about limitless Armies and Divisions. At least that is the way I read it. I don't think the sky is falling.

As for this voting business- I am not a big believer in democracy, I prefer a benevolent dictatorship.

'zactly.

The formation structure will remain, it's just the seperate unit used to form higher organizations will be removed, and that ability added on to officer units themselves.

It's not a radical change --- merely a streamlining.

[Adlertag]

Another benefit of this new system is maybe to test it to see if it could be applied to next game VGN or any other really...