---> AACW Public Beta Patch 1.09c

[Jabberwock]

With the original files, yes. As I found only 10% of losses on battlefield came from artillery fires, I reduced their hit values... So I guess it will be more notable in my own version than in vanilla.

You're reasoning here in pure game terms. I doubt historically failure of the light division was due to artillery problem.

I was reasoning in pure game terms; so now I'll make a historical argument instead. Sending in unsupported infantry was a quick way to get a whole lot of dead infantry.

[lodilefty]

How is the actual playtesting of this patch?

Theory is nice, but show me the beef.... unmodded beef....

[Clovis]

Oh yes it will be Clovis. To take your own example if the CSA want to fight a 'realistic' Gettysburg then the Infantry will have to outstrip the Artillery in pace...not arrive at the same time. Otherwise they move at the slower artillery speed and allow the Union forces to become entrenched in position.

Similarly, AACW does not represent the equivalent of a WW2 armoured division with one counter...that really is the whole point. In order to make the equivalent of the WW2 armoured division the player has to join units together. If you are going to use that as a suggestion then lets only have divisions from the start....and not components of them.

I still see where you are coming from...but I totally disagree with your premises as you do with mine....thats the trouble with wargaming in any medium...you can argue for hours

Whatever your army is broken into regimental subunits, it remains one abstraction counter - much more detailed than in a boardgame, of course, but an abstraction. An abstraction full of details, but nothing having the pretention to be a tactical simulator based on reality mimetism, aprat genral principles ( range, chance to hit, losses, chesion losses, rout or retreat, genral's leadership...) manned in sketching traits.

Frankly, I would have prefered an implementation for tactical side of something simulating counterbattery fire, or a procedure describing a possible hole in a line with all his consequencies, like a flank attack These points are IMHO much more needed than a rule of movement being as abstract than the former and aggravating a general slowiness in operational matter.

[Clovis]

I was reasoning in pure game terms; so now I'll make a historical argument instead. Sending in unsupported infantry was a quick way to get a whole lot of dead infantry.

against prepared positions or a non moving army. Much more skeptical about meeting engagment.

And except bad command, yet simulated by the general ratings in the engine, an army attacking one unmoving would first join artillery to the battleline. In such a case, the real gain of the new system is the battle will strat on the 6th day rather than the 7th. Given the fact much battles will not last more than 3 days, I really don't see what real progress the engine has made.

March to the gun are really much more made for battles like meeting engagments. Here the new rule is certainly not much more realistic than the old. And in any case, I doubt artillery of both sides to have had the same impact on losses than in defensive fire from prepared positions. That can be simulated by reducing the hit chance of artillery, peculiarly on offensive.

[soundoff]

How is the actual playtesting of this patch?

Theory is nice, but show me the beef.... unmodded beef....

Ah now theres the rub. I reckon that as Runyan99 has said more than once this change is going to impact on movement, cohesion and attrition and any tweak of one is likely to throw one of the others out of kilter. So I for one will be surprised if it plays well from startup

[Clovis]

How is the actual playtesting of this patch?

Theory is nice, but show me the beef.... unmodded beef....

Theory is sometimes sufficient: you have a movement system which is a little slow. You change it to be much slower. I don't even need to test ...except if miracles really work

[runyan99]

If divisons now move too slow because of the artillery, and they probably do, the artillery speed needs adjusted until historical results are plausible. It doesn't mean that the 'slowest element' fix was bad. It means more work needs to be done.

[arsan]

Testing?? who need testing when we can debate to no end and no profit??
But yes, it will be cool is somebody did some testing.
Cool and useful, besides!
But now its time to go to bed on this side of the world, and tomorrow i will have to work till late in the afternoon so... it wont be me
Regards!

[Clovis]

If divisons now move too slow because of the artillery, and they probably do, the artillery speed needs adjusted until historical results are plausible. It doesn't mean that the 'slowest element' fix was bad. It means more work needs to be done.

Oh, I do...just finished that. But it only adress one part of the problem, the second being AI against Human player, as this new rule has its side effect.

[GrudgeBringer]

WOW, I really do hand it to you guys!!!

I have been playing war games from the original 'Risk' (with wooden pieces for armies I might add) and the Avalon Hill games that we had Pads and pads of paper to figure out the battles.

And we used to make up rules that would limit things here and there so noone could take advantage of a loop hole (that was bound to be in every game).

I can tell you everything you ever wanted to know about Ancient Formations, Arms, Tactics ect (as I have a degree in Culturel Anthropology) but this post is really making me think.

I have never givin much thought to how deep this (and I suppose other) games are when being realistic as they NEVER are when you play the Ancient Genre.

You just learn to live with it and make the best out of whatever the programmers give you to work with.

I applaud ALL of you for making this game something that not a lot of us have had a chance to play.

A thinking mans game that simulates the ACTUAL conditions and the Trials and Tribulations of an Army that is still using tactics from the previous century with updated weapons ). It just scares the hell out of me how these lads stood there and took all that fire in a line without flinching for the most part.

Please keep up the modifacations AND the discussions on them as they are not only good for the game but they also are making this old gamer get back into some of his reference material and rethink HOW I want to play this game.

Whether to play it and accept the flaws or put restrictions on myself.

I just wanted to put my Two cents in (more like a quarter as it turns out).

My hats off to all as I feel I am just on the ride with some very Strategic minded (not to mention intelligent) people.

Well done

[Franciscus]

With the original files, yes. As I found only 10% of losses on battlefield came from artillery fires, I reduced their hit values... So I guess it will be more notable in my own version than in vanilla.

You're reasoning here in pure game terms. I doubt historically failure of the light division was due to artillery problem.

Wading in dangerous waters here , but here it goes:

Do not get me wrong, Clovis, but maybe the main reason you are against it is that you are afraid of some inbalances created by this change on your mod ? (ducks for cover)

Now, I think that the main arguments for this change are strong:
1. Against the AI, I am pretty sure it will not make matters worst, as in my own experience Athena almost allways fight with penalties - meaning unorganized stacks, already encumbred by the slowest moving unit, among other penalties
2. Against other human player, we get rid of a gamey exploit

If we find that the moving times are too slow, it is the moving times that should then be tweaked, IMHO (but let me say that precisely as AACW works in a tactical abstraction level trying to replicate the timings of specific campaigns might just be... a lost cause ? )

[Clovis]

Wading in dangerous waters here , but here it goes:

Do not get me wrong, Clovis, but maybe the main reason you are against it is that you are afraid of some inbalances created by this change on your mod ? (ducks for cover)

Now, I think that the main arguments for this change are strong:
1. Against the AI, I am pretty sure it will not make matters worst, as in my own experience Athena almost allways fight with penalties - meaning unorganized stacks, already encumbred by the slowest moving unit, among other penalties
2. Against other human player, we get rid of a gamey exploit

If we find that the moving times are too slow, it is the moving times that should then be tweaked, IMHO (but let me say that precisely as AACW works in a tactical abstraction level trying to replicate the timings of specific campaigns might just be... a lost cause ? )

No, my mod is sufficiently solid . Seriously, I will adapt move rates to the new situation as in the original version it will be needed.

About AI, I suspect part of the problem is the ratio between units and divisions max number. In the original version it seems to me too easy in unit creation ( very high WSU, abundant money, conscript everywhere), so AI is certainly stacking units without possibility to organize all. And AI is unfortunatly able to kepp 6 unorganized units with 2 divisions under the same leader, creating penalized stack.

This point isn't addressed by this change and I would have prefered AI teaching to not put siege artillery in cavalry formation to solve it, for example.

IN PBEM? I feel some new gameys will appear. I agree the old to disappear but I would have prefered a solution without side effect AND the need to recompute all movement allowances...

Timing of specfic campaigns: I don't believe we will have to recreate the tempo of the move inside a region ( what I would call tactical moves). But if you can't reproduce some operational movements ( ie in several regions) when AACW is a an strategic/operational game, it would signify the engine to be flawed....which is not the case fortunatly as tweaking can be done, even with bad solution

[Franciscus]

And now for something completely different
A tiny bug: The icon for Campbell's brigade does not show on the "new units raised" list (see attached), and so can not be accessed directly from the list (although no other problems with that brigade are present.
The same thing happened to me a few days ago with Mahone's brigade, in 1.09

Some good news: I applied 1.09c to an ongoing campaign as CSA and everything seems to be working OK.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Eoghammer]

My advice about this question is that the artillery didn't move faster than his ammo (so the best speed for artillery is limited by the speed of his own supply train) so even horse artillery can't exceed this pace.
In fact, i presume that horse artillery unit move a little faster than normal artillery only as they use lighter artillery because any artillery have the same problems : they are wheeled, they can't easily move in mountainous aera, they are moved by horses (even the heavier not-naval and not-static gun).

[tagwyn]

Pocus/Phil: Help sort out this Gordian Knot!! T

[Pocus]

Heavy artilleries will never be combined into divisions for the next patch.

The AI never make full cav divisions, on purpose, because it is very rare to have enough cav elements around to make a good enough cav div (for Athena, for a player, you can plan enough so that you muster cavalries in the right place).

In effect, Athena only want to try mixed infantry-field art divisions now. Good enough for an AI, knowing that you have specialized brigades around if you need a special task to be done.

[Pocus]

Perhaps the mud effect (or how common the weather is) should be lessened, for wheeled type at least.

[soundoff]

My advice about this question is that the artillery didn't move faster than his ammo (so the best speed for artillery is limited by the speed of his own supply train) so even horse artillery can't exceed this pace.
In fact, i presume that horse artillery unit move a little faster than normal artillery only as they use lighter artillery because any artillery have the same problems : they are wheeled, they can't easily move in mountainous aera, they are moved by horses (even the heavier not-naval and not-static gun).

Not true. The whole concept of horse artillery was to support cavalry. The idea being that the artillery crews 'rode' into battle on horses, wagons or on limbers and all batteries carried a limited supply of shells, cannister etc in much the same way as foot sloggers carried some ammunition. My knowledge of American horse artillery is not as strong as it should be but during the US-Mexican war I thought they (horse artillery) were nicknamed 'Flying Artillery' or am I mistaken? Similarly did not the Army of the Potomac have a Horse Artillery Brigade?

Provided movement rates are tweaked and cohesion loss in not increased all should be well

[Eugene Carr]

Maybe give field artillery a cohesion bonus ability similar to "strong morale" on a unit basis - would this encourage AI to include batteries within divisions?

[Jabberwock]

Not true. The whole concept of horse artillery was to support cavalry. The idea being that the artillery crews 'rode' into battle on horses, wagons or on limbers and all batteries carried a limited supply of shells, cannister etc in much the same way as foot sloggers carried some ammunition. My knowledge of American horse artillery is not as strong as it should be but during the US-Mexican war I thought they (horse artillery) were nicknamed 'Flying Artillery' or am I mistaken? Similarly did not the Army of the Potomac have a Horse Artillery Brigade?

Provided movement rates are tweaked and cohesion loss in not increased all should be well

I believe you are correct on all counts. ACW horse artillery was generally 3-inch rifled guns, with two extra horses per weapon for the purpose of carrying some crew and equipment. Slightly slower than cavalry, but much faster than wagons.

[lodilefty]

Heavy artilleries will never be combined into divisions for the next patch.

The AI never make full cav divisions, on purpose, because it is very rare to have enough cav elements around to make a good enough cav div (for Athena, for a player, you can plan enough so that you muster cavalries in the right place).

In effect, Athena only want to try mixed infantry-field art divisions now. Good enough for an AI, knowing that you have specialized brigades around if you need a special task to be done.

What logic does Athena use to choose units for a 'group'? I notice she doesn't rty to put support units into Divisions. Is it to resolve Command Points [lower] or to optimize movement? If she's going for lower CP, is there any thought of lower [or 0] CP required for the 'heavy guns]?

[veji1]

To me this is all about the actual speed rating of elements. It is logical to have a unit or stack move at the pace of its slowest element. if you want to move faster, split it.

Now I believe as well that overall speed is to low and needs to be adjusted accross the board for each element regarding land type and weather (Infantry and cavalry shouldn't be too penalised by mud, but Artillery a lot, etc..).

Now taking the 2 examples of Bragg and Sherman we need to think in game terms how to emulate them, but make them very difficult to achieve as they represent extreme cases. We want average movement to be faster then now but not too fast.

In Bragg's case : You need to be able to emulate that speed in conditions where weather is good (it was very dry) and where the army is actually moving in territories that are friendly and not strongly controlled by the ennemy. The Idea here is to have the loyalty rating play a role in movement speed and have the control percentage's role limited whenever the force passing through is big : If 30 000 guys cross a county, they don't give a damn if there are a few mounted patrols here and there, if its a 4000 force of infantry they have to be more carefull, ie they are slowed down...

For Sherman the idea is to emulate the ability of his army to continue forward thanks to its effecient supplying : Maybe if there is a sufficient number of supply wagons in a force it gets a bonus in terms of speed that allows it not to go faster but to keep its average by preventing the loss of cohesion below a certain threshold, etc...

[lodilefty]

To me this is all about the actual speed rating of elements. It is logical to have a unit or stack move at the pace of its slowest element. if you want to move faster, split it.

Now I believe as well that overall speed is to low and needs to be adjusted accross the board for each element regarding land type and weather (Infantry and cavalry shouldn't be too penalised by mud, but Artillery a lot, etc..).

Now taking the 2 examples of Bragg and Sherman we need to think in game terms how to emulate them, but make them very difficult to achieve as they represent extreme cases. We want average movement to be faster then now but not too fast.

In Bragg's case : You need to be able to emulate that speed in conditions where weather is good (it was very dry) and where the army is actually moving in territories that are friendly and not strongly controlled by the ennemy. The Idea here is to have the loyalty rating play a role in movement speed and have the control percentage's role limited whenever the force passing through is big : If 30 000 guys cross a county, they don't give a damn if there are a few mounted patrols here and there, if its a 4000 force of infantry they have to be more carefull, ie they are slowed down...

For Sherman the idea is to emulate the ability of his army to continue forward thanks to its effecient supplying : Maybe if there is a sufficient number of supply wagons in a force it gets a bonus in terms of speed that allows it not to go faster but to keep its average by preventing the loss of cohesion below a certain threshold, etc...

...or we could give a few leaders that demonstrated this ability the Very Fast Mover attribute.....

[soundoff]

...or we could give a few leaders that demonstrated this ability the Very Fast Mover attribute.....

A beautiful idea in its simplicity. Love it

[berto]

...or we could give a few leaders that demonstrated this ability the Very Fast Mover attribute.....

Maybe, BUT...

Do we give the Very Fast Mover attribute to all three of Bragg, Smith, & Buell, and all of their subordinate commanders? During Bragg's 1862 Kentucky Campaign, all of the armies--the entirety of the army commands--achieved relatively high fast rates of march.

Lee, too, moved the ANV from Culpeper, VA rapidly northward to southeastern PA during the Gettysburg Campaign. Do we also give the Very Fast Mover attribute to Longstreet, Hill, & Ewell? (During the Gettysburg Campaign, Meade and the AoP had shorter distances to travel and moved more typically slowly.)

Can an army commander pass his mover attributes down the command chain?

Is there a way to make use of a Very Fast Mover attribute a sometime thing, so that Lee, Bragg et al don't use it constantly?

[Franciscus]

...or we could give a few leaders that demonstrated this ability the Very Fast Mover attribute.....

I also love simple ideas, and think that this one is good.
Possible caveats:
1. How to teach Athena to use those leaders effectively (although this is a problem that spans all possible "solutions" )
2. How to agree who should get this ability ? For instance: Stonewall Jackson should have it, IMHO. But what about AP Hill ? As division commander he probably should get it, but maybe not as corps commander, etc.

[veji1]

It might actually be simpler indeed.. Yet normal movement probably needs to be adjusted a bit to the faster end..

[Clovis]

Heavy artilleries will never be combined into divisions for the next patch.

The AI never make full cav divisions, on purpose, because it is very rare to have enough cav elements around to make a good enough cav div (for Athena, for a player, you can plan enough so that you muster cavalries in the right place).

In effect, Athena only want to try mixed infantry-field art divisions now. Good enough for an AI, knowing that you have specialized brigades around if you need a special task to be done.

Should solve part of the problem ( for AI challenge). Now we just have to tweak movement rates to get something closer to history.

hoping though AI will learn in the future to build some cavalry divisions and use it as corps....and make amphibious land....rumbing more isn't necessary.

[Pocus]

Maybe, BUT...

(..)

Can an army commander pass his mover attributes down the command chain?

Is there a way to make use of a Very Fast Mover attribute a sometime thing, so that Lee, Bragg et al don't use it constantly?

1. No, not this class of abilities.

2. there is the new feature of abilities usable only if the leader is active or only if not active, which has yet to be used by the modders.

More generally, you can see a successful force march as a way to reproduce extraordinary movements.