AGEOD Forums

It's early July, 1863 in my current pbem. I've hit the division cap months ago and I am counting 70 brigades in the force pool. I will not be able to organise them into divisions.

Not only do I have 30 divisions but I have numerous small stacks of brigade and division sized forces in independant commands all over the map.

First, if your sticking with the division cap I'm telling you that there are way too many units in the force pool. This game is grand enough. Please don't make it anymore tedious then it has to be.

Second, if you cap armies and divisions, why have you skipped corps? Historically only so many corps were formed and so as this is your philosophy you should cap them too.

Looks like historically there was about 43 Union corps so the cap should be set at that for the Federals. I'll look for another source for confirmation when I have mroe time.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/armyorganization.htm
(They get their info from The Official Records)

Also, they claim 16 Union armies and 23 Confederate armies. I'll try to verify this as this means that there is definately not enough Army HQ's to stick with historical numbers.

Absolutely agree! Division cap and no corps cap is absurd to say the least. The only reason, I think is an engine limitation regarding how streamlined corps formation is

I am inclined to agree too -- but I won't get too worked up about it since it is pretty difficult to get multiple corps in this game, that are eligible to become one, to true "corps size"...especially for the CSA.

As for your link -- I would be curious as to what that site classifies an "army" in the Civil War. As I see it, both sides had under 10 "Armies" apiece.

By all means, Barksdale, you seem to be on something of a crusade here. What lies behind it all, I can only speculate about *shrug*

There is, however, a limit to how many corps you can have. Since there is a limit to how many corps you can have for each army and there is a limit to how many armies you can have, there by extension is a limit to how many corps you can have.

I don't know what your goal here is, but I do think you are taking the wrong approach to achieving it

deleted

W.Barksdale is correct in that there were 43 union Corp,16 Union armies and 23 Confederate armies created during the civil war.Though one must remember they were not all operational at one time.Some off the Confederate armies were an army in name only, an example being Sibly's Army of New Mexico, which upon creation had a peak strength of only about 3700. Of those 43 Union corp many were not created until 1864 onwards. Others were disbanded as the war went on ,an example being Sickle's 3rd corp after Gettysburg. As for the number of divisions at any one time, its a pretty hard figure to put a handle on, but a couple of things to keep in mind.Divisions did not usually operate alone,they were for the most part put in Corp or armies.Seeing that at the mid-point of the Civil War the main rebel army {ANV} had 9 divisions, a cap of 30 really to me, does not seem that low.Remember for game purposes you can assign as many brigades as you want to any leader,they just won't get the divisional bonus.This in game terms, to me also seems fairly historical.There were only a limited number of general officers that were competent at leading division size units.So if there's going to be an increase in divisions,for my 2 cents,I wouldn't make it any more than 10 per side.

W.Barksdale wrote:Looks like historically there was about 43 Union corps so the cap should be set at that for the Federals. I'll look for another source for confirmation when I have mroe time.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/armyorganization.htm
(They get their info from The Official Records).

Working the numbers backwards, if (1) there were 43 corps and (2) there were a minimum of 2 divisions per corps, then (3) there should be a minimum of 86 divisions allowed for the Union.

[Disclaimer: I am not on a crusade, etc. I just kinda enjoy theoretical give and take.]

W.Barksdale wrote:Looks like historically there was about 43 Union corps so the cap should be set at that for the Federals. I'll look for another source for confirmation when I have mroe time.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/armyorganization.htm
(They get their info from The Official Records)

Also, they claim 16 Union armies and 23 Confederate armies. I'll try to verify this as this means that there is definately not enough Army HQ's to stick with historical numbers.

Actually, if you read the quote from the "Official Records"

[color="DarkRed"]A major general commanded each of the 43 corps that were established in the Union army before the end of the war. Each corps was designated by a number, I to [color="Black"]XXV[/color][/color]

In addition to the 25 infantry corps there were two cav corps, one in the east, one in the west. Keep in mind however, that not all these corps were in the field at one time, some were consolidated to form others or disbanded and not reformed at all and then another corp formed from fresh divisions, etc. Other things to consider is the number of units in the corps, these were fluid formations (as were divisions) at times having 2 divisions, the average being 3 divisions (in the east), and a few even had 4 divisions. So, while "43" corps may have been established during the war, several were established more than once and there was never more than 27 at one time. The number is actually less than that, but it would take me a lot of time to figure out when the max number of active corps occurred.

So say you had a historical max of 27 corps averaging 3 division each (a high average, I would say an average of 2.5 would be more accurate, but I can't back it up), gives you a max possible of 81 division. I doubt anything close to this was ever actually achieved.

Rafiki wrote:By all means, Barksdale, you seem to be on something of a crusade here. What lies behind it all, I can only speculate about *shrug*

There is, however, a limit to how many corps you can have. Since there is a limit to how many corps you can have for each army and there is a limit to how many armies you can have, there by extension is a limit to how many corps you can have.

I don't know what your goal here is, but I do think you are taking the wrong approach to achieving it

Hello Rafiki.

I appreciate your concern, and your masterful guidance of this forums is probably the main reason why it is so good to hang in here. I have said it before and will say it again .
Yet, some dissent, discussion, and, I dare say, even one or two good old flame wars now and then , are GOOD, IMHO. They reflect an active and participative community. We are discussing, some times a little heatedly, a game released 2 years ago. To me, this is one of the better games that I have played in my life. Many others feel this way. But the devs have read it many times, and do not need to read it again. On the contrary, discussion about game rules, implementation, etc, is probably more useful, specially to the future of AGEOD.

I would not mind if AGEOD had already found the development of AACW finished for good. Current 1.13b official version is stable, balanced and has no game-breaking problems, after all. But yet, development continues, with a current RC14 beta 1.14 patch, dealing with minutiae like depot burning by raiders, allways striving to improve a stellar game. The "Help to improve AACW" sub-forum has not been closed. So, why not question also the division cap rule ?
Thinking a bit, I think that I know the "real" reason why the cap exists. In fact, all the players know that the potentially available manpower to both sides permits the creation of unhistorically huge field armies; this is specially true, I suspect, in PBEM games, and more so for the USA player. Maybe the whole force pool is not exagerately large, but human players tend not to do what happened in the real civil war, where large militia forces where kept, specially by the North, stationed faraway from the front line. The human (specially USA) player tends on the contrary to make the largest possible field amies, and this has been recognized eons ago as a PBEM problem (IIRC, in the now historic Manstein vs Fremen AAR, this was mentioned bitterly by Fremen). The divisional cap was probably a (flawed) workaround to try to correct a deeper flaw - the abnormally large manpower available to field armies by the players. It is not game-breaking, OC. It is just annoying, illogical and bit detracting to the fantastic "immersiveness" of AACW as a gaming experience. Maybe something to correct in future - VGN, NCP 2, AACW2 ??

Nevertheless, I here rest my case and will not talk more about this. Enough has been said, I think.

Best regards

deleted

For those who really find the division limit and the manpower abundance a major problem, may I suggest using the historical attrition option. I know a constant manpower drain makes most players uncomfortable, but it is more realistic than not. You will be forced to play with a smaller number of full strength formations, or a larger number of understrength formations (as happened in real life).

Or possibly a game rule where players are required to station garrison troops within a set of to-be-determined "rear" locations of value, otherwise they lose x amount of VP/NM (again, TBD) per turn if they are not.

I think this would solve more than one "problem" our AACW community seems to have. Obviously, it addresses the too many troops at the front vs. IRL issues, but it also would solve the long-standing issues concerning deep cavalry raids that capture Chicago, etc. I think if one is honest, you know there is absolutely no chance of the capture of these targets. Burn a few depots and supply dumps? Yes.
It would turn cavalry raids into the nail-biting escapades they should be, instead of rides in the country. The likelihood of getting caught and surrounded would be high, and only increase with time spent behind enemy lines.

If we can come up with the Union Drive on Richmond events, why not something like this?

Just food for thought...

deleted

deleted

Franciscus wrote:Hello Rafiki.

I appreciate your concern, and your masterful guidance of this forums is probably the main reason why it is so good to hang in here. I have said it before and will say it again .
Yet, some dissent, discussion, and, I dare say, even one or two good old flame wars now and then , are GOOD, IMHO. They reflect an active and participative community. We are discussing, some times a little heatedly, a game released 2 years ago. To me, this is one of the better games that I have played in my life. Many others feel this way. But the devs have read it many times, and do not need to read it again. On the contrary, discussion about game rules, implementation, etc, is probably more useful, specially to the future of AGEOD.

I would not mind if AGEOD had already found the development of AACW finished for good. Current 1.13b official version is stable, balanced and has no game-breaking problems, after all. But yet, development continues, with a current RC14 beta 1.14 patch, dealing with minutiae like depot burning by raiders, allways striving to improve a stellar game. The "Help to improve AACW" sub-forum has not been closed. So, why not question also the division cap rule ?
Thinking a bit, I think that I know the "real" reason why the cap exists. In fact, all the players know that the potentially available manpower to both sides permits the creation of unhistorically huge field armies; this is specially true, I suspect, in PBEM games, and more so for the USA player. Maybe the whole force pool is not exagerately large, but human players tend not to do what happened in the real civil war, where large militia forces where kept, specially by the North, stationed faraway from the front line. The human (specially USA) player tends on the contrary to make the largest possible field amies, and this has been recognized eons ago as a PBEM problem (IIRC, in the now historic Manstein vs Fremen AAR, this was mentioned bitterly by Fremen). The divisional cap was probably a (flawed) workaround to try to correct a deeper flaw - the abnormally large manpower available to field armies by the players. It is not game-breaking, OC. It is just annoying, illogical and bit detracting to the fantastic "immersiveness" of AACW as a gaming experience. Maybe something to correct in future - VGN, NCP 2, AACW2 ??

Nevertheless, I here rest my case and will not talk more about this. Enough has been said, I think.

Best regards

I agree. Dissent and discussion are a good thing.

Colonel Dreux wrote:Dissent and discussion are a good thing.

I've never said it wasn't (quite the contrary, actually). I'm just very much in favour of the kind of dissent and discussions that lead somewhere instead of standing still, spinning in its own tracks