Brigade Mod Poll

[McNaughton]

I am nearing the end of my modding, but am at a conundrum.

In my mod, I have removed cavalry and sharpshooters from the Brigade ToE. Historically, these units were independent of Infantry (cavalry was quickly removed from command of infantry brigadiers, and sharpshooters were transferred from unit to unit frequently), plus the way the game is now, there were way too many cavalry and sharpshooter units built (if you build them with Infantry brigades, and independently).

I have changed the basic ToE of a Brigade to represent the Union having a fairly uniform number of regiments of infantry (3-4), with the confederates having wilder rates (3-5). Also, each brigade currently has an artillery battery attached (of various guns). I also allow for early construction of pure Cavalry Brigades (in much greater numbers and state origins too).


My conundrum is, hopefully solved through a poll, is if I should do this for artillery as well? Should artillery be wholly independent from brigades (buildable only in the artillery section, not a part of a brigade)?

Historically, artillery was removed from brigade command in early-mid 1862, from then on, artillery became under the control of divisional commanders, and later the corps and army commanders.

So, should I (in no particular preference)...

A) Keep artillery as a part of Infantry Brigades.

Good Points
- Brigades are tougher and will always have artillery support (especially helping the AI, as whatever they build will have artillery support)
- Easy micromanagement (just build a brigade and you get infantry and artillery)

Bad Points
- Historically Inaccurate beyond early 1862
- Brigades are fixed units, and inflexible when it comes to historic scenarios

B) Have units wholly independent in combat arm (infantry separate from cavalry and artillery).

Good Points
- Historically Accurate through the entire game
- You can choose what infantry and artillery to build (want 10-lb, or 12-lb, it is up to you)
- Artillery will always have 'historic names' applied due to the fact that they are now individual elements, not parts of brigades.
- Infantry brigades more 'affordable' (can probably reach historic infantry levels due to decreased financial cost per brigade).
- Infantry brigades will train 'faster', since you no longer have to wait for artillery.

Bad Points
- Don't know if the AI will decide to build and attach artillery to all of their units (or will they be too infantry heavy?). Will require testing and modding of AI build files.
- Brigade variety will be based wholly on infantry type (there are more types of infantry in my mod, which does mitigate this to a point).

[Clovis]

IMHO, 2 points need to be solved before replying....

1) Does battle engine produce different results between 1 brigade with 2 inf regt, one cavalry regt and one artillery unit and the same units in 3 brigades ( one for infantry, one for cavalry, one for artillery)?

2) Does AI be able to recruit new unit types?

Your ideas are very interesting but I prefer currently to stick closer to original design in regards of the 2 above conditions.

[McNaughton]

1) Does battle engine produce different results between 1 brigade with 2 inf regt, one cavalry regt and one artillery unit and the same units in 3 brigades ( one for infantry, one for cavalry, one for artillery)?

I believe that all that matters is what is in a stack. Elements combat against one another regardless on wether or not they are brigaded, or even in a division. The critical reason for divisions is command cost issues (a divison costs 4 CPs, while an element on its own costs 1 CP). Brigades are in place because of micromanagement issues (easier to buy and manoever one brigade than 4 regiments).

So, this will not affect combat at all.

2) Does AI be able to recruit new unit types?

It all depends on AI ratios and cost. The AI is told to look to purchase a particular unit type (Infantry, Irregular, Cavalry, Artillery, Support, etc. as found in the "AICmnGuide.inc" file.

I have looked in the logs, and what the AI does is it goes through a bunch of random choices, based on these ratios. If it selects infantry, it sees what unit it can afford, then buys one, then moves on to the next option (based on ratios it could be infantry again, or possibly Army HQ, etc.). If it cannot afford something, it skips the type, then the process continues until it cannot afford anything else. It may take slight tweaking to get proper rates of artillery, but it isn't

Currently Infantry is at 50, medium artillery is 10, light artillery is 8. It may require changing this to 40 for Infantry in order to change the ratio of brigades to other units, or raise artillery ratios to increase their rate of being bought.

[PBBoeye]

I voted 'independant' but on the caveat that the AI works it correctly and doesn't do super-stupid things with artillery, like create huge artillery corps that go rushing off to attack something.

[McNaughton]

I agree, if the AI cannot handle it, or cannot be 'taught' to use it, then it is 100% out. So, votes should be based on the assumption that the AI will be able to use the new system, and use it just as well as the old system. If it won't work for the AI, it won't be done. I will thoroughly test changes before I would implement such a change to the mod officially.

Also, the vote will be affected by those posting comments, even if the vote passes or fails, and the discussions around it promote the opposite of the vote, I will take it into consideration. So, if the vote passes, yet discussion focussing on supporting the inclusion of artillery with brigades is prevailant (with discussion based on game or effect issues), that will be taken into account on top of the vote.

I personally am leaning toward the historic implementation of separate artillery, cavalry, and infantry, but if there is enough support for 'inclusionary' brigades then I will take that into account.

Basically, it is a matter of attaining a goal by going through different processes. In the end, most divisions had enough artillery to equate 1 battery per brigade, meaning that either way (artillery part of infantry, or on their own) the end goals could be achieved.

Also, to compensate for the loss of artillery units from brigades, I plan to increase the level of independent artillery regiment pools (so you won't have less artillery than before, but probably more after the process is completed).

[PBBoeye]

Interesting rally for the 'keep' option.

[Eugene Carr]

I was the 2nd vote (for splitting the brigades) : but here's my comment.

I would prefer the greater flexibility of seperate arms as well as the more historical feel of individual units, this is even more so with cavalry.

As has been said the AI has to at least make a decent stab at building viable higher formations.

[wiltaz]

2 cents being laid on the table. In my mod that I'm working on the brigades are set with a slot for artillery in the family section of the unit file. Artillery batteries are recruited seperate. If the player wants arty attached, then he just has to merge it with the brigade since it's short an element and it fills the unit out. If the player doesn't want it, then he can assign the batteries independantly whereever he sees fit. My design is based on letting the player control things instead of saying the only way to do things is the absolute historical way. I like recreating the civil war not watching an instant replay. In limited testing I haven't seen issues with the AI yet. But I'm trying to finish a few things before I do some heavy testing to see how the ai fills out it's units. My mod may become human vs human if the ai doesn't fill units when they are missing elements.

[McNaughton]

One supporting factor for removing artillery from Infantry Brigades is 1863 and beyond the US military removed artillery entirely from even divisional command, resulting in regiments being under 'corps' command. Separate units will allow players greater freedom in organizing their forces along historic, or personal lines. Also, it will allow for more infantry to be in a division.

I don't forsee the AI having problems (after slightly modifying) building artillery, nor do I see it having problems using artillery (as not every infantry brigade has artillery attached, yet the AI seems to have artillery amongst its formations as a given rule).

[PBBoeye]

My mod may become human vs human if the ai doesn't fill units when they are missing elements.

That's not a bad idea in itself. I think it would be nice to have some human-only mods that bring a historical flavor that only the human can properly utilize.

That said, it prompts me to ask you this, McNaughton - is it possible to create two versions of your mod so that people can enjoy either artillery route? I don't know all that is exactly entailed in this artillery issue, and whether you've done any work on it thus far. But both possibilities would be great to have, assuming it doesn't put a load of work on you.

[wiltaz]

Well I'm designing my mod around what I want as a player within the limits of the engine. It'll be nice if the AI is able to put up a good game, but I'm not limiting myself because I'd rather have what I want and find a human opponent than to worry about the AI.

[PBBoeye]

"We shall overcome....." (doo-doo-de-deeeeeee)

[McNaughton]

That's not a bad idea in itself. I think it would be nice to have some human-only mods that bring a historical flavor that only the human can properly utilize.

That said, it prompts me to ask you this, McNaughton - is it possible to create two versions of your mod so that people can enjoy either artillery route? I don't know all that is exactly entailed in this artillery issue, and whether you've done any work on it thus far. But both possibilities would be great to have, assuming it doesn't put a load of work on you.

Yes, it would be possible, primarily creating a second set of brigades in the unit files, and apply these brigades to copied scenarios, and change the unit IDs in events. It won't be nearly as hard as starting from scratch (as Scenario order of battles, models, most units, etc., won't be affected). Probably an 'after thought' rather than in the first release.

I will most likely continue working on the premise that artillery will be part of brigades, up to the release, making the change after I have tested if the AI 'works' well without them.

I predict that it should, as I have seen the AI attach and build independent artillery to divisions/corps on their own, and if they are 'told' to buy more artillery, and the cost of infantry is lower (due to artillery being taken out), more artillery could be afforded (thereby more built).

I have not seen the AI do 'odd' things, like an all artillery unit, or an all cavalry unit, etc., as it seems to grab local units, and the end result will be a diverse force (the AI even grabbed a coastal artillery unit into a frontline corps!).

[Chickamauga Chuck]

I voted to keep artillery as part of Brigades, but I wanted to vote for :

Keep artillery as part of Brigades but allow units to be wholly independent in combat arm beyond early 1862.

[Jagger]

Have you considered using the current build selection through 62 and at that time replacing the build selection with your new brigade models of pure infantry, artillery and artillery brigades?

It wouldn't be 100 percent correct but it might be the closest to reality and fairly easy to implement. I know there are new build selections introduced throughout the war. Just substitute yours beginning in 62.

Also have you considered changing the army HQ models? Currently the US HQ army models are composed of a HQ element and a 12pdr artillery battery. I would think a more representative model would include an HQ element plus a cavalry regiment as the HQ guard --also perhaps an additional regiment or two of cavalry as the provost guard.

[PBBoeye]

Mmm... Tasty.

[tagwyn]

Athena should be treated gently and deftly by her creator, Pocus. Until then, Leave IT Alone.

[Pocus]

some info to ponders:

1. units made only of artilleries behave differently in combat. They are called internally group support, ie they have the privilege in combat to target the healthiest opposing unit of the enemy stack, and not a line element in the unit opposed to the unit they are in.

2. The AI has a ratio of external artilleries which is 1 unit for 4 CP of line unit. If you remove all artilleries from brigades, this ratio should be upped considerably (I will have to export this variable for you).

3. indep artillery each cost 1 CP, so your stacks will ask overall for more CP.

4. If you suppress artilleries from initial brigade OOB but still allow the addition of them (thru the database), they will get added by the replacemetn system without a player choice, and this is not what you want.

[Henry D.]

some info to ponders:

1. units made only of artilleries behave differently in combat. They are called internally group support, ie they have the privilege in combat to target the healthiest opposing unit of the enemy stack, and not a line element in the unit opposed to the unit they are in.

Not to hijack a thread, just a small question?

So it would be a good idea to form "grand batteries" (i.e. divisions composed solely of arty, preferably commanded by a leader with the "artillerist" trait) at army or corps level, that will automatically concentrate their fire on the greatest perceived threat? Neat, I didn't know that!

[twes786]

Herr Henry: Just because something may be done, doesn't mean it should be done. Creation of "Grand Batteries" would seem to subvert the essence of the game... I wouldn't want to see it done as a general practice, or as a part of a released mod. Typically, artillery batteries were attached to the various brigades, utilizing an infantry component of the brigade for protection. Calvary could and did rout many a poorly sited battery... "grand batteries" would have to have additional units for security... then you're right back at combined brigades/divisions, etc. It would be interesting though, to follow a "GB" implementation in a run-through to see what might occur.

[Henry D.]

Herr Henry: Just because something may be done, doesn't mean it should be done. Creation of "Grand Batteries" would seem to subvert the essence of the game... I wouldn't want to see it done as a general practice, or as a part of a released mod. Typically, artillery batteries were attached to the various brigades, utilizing an infantry component of the brigade for protection. Calvary could and did rout many a poorly sited battery... "grand batteries" would have to have additional units for security... then you're right back at combined brigades/divisions, etc. It would be interesting though, to follow a "GB" implementation in a run-through to see what might occur.

Mr. twes:

You may know that both the ANV and AotP organised some of their artillery at times into independent support brigades composed solely of arty on corps or even army level (which can only be translated into seperate "divsions" by the current game engine as it does not allow to merge single battery units). And although those usually were used piecemeal as reserves where needed, it was not unheard of to use them concentrated in critical situations. The duel between Longstreets Reserve Artillery under Alexander and the AotP Reserve Artillery under Hunt prior to Pickett's charge at Gettysburg comes to mind.

Not to mention that "grand battery" was a tactic cherished and often used by Napoleon Bonaparte and therefor recommend by Jomini, the main scientific source for officer training prior and during the ACW on both sides.

But, as I said, let us not hijack this poll, If You'd like to discuss the matter further, let's do it in a new thread, please.

Regards, Henry

[Pocus]

Not to hijack a thread, just a small question?

So it would be a good idea to form "grand batteries" (i.e. divisions composed solely of arty, preferably commanded by a leader with the "artillerist" trait) at army or corps level, that will automatically concentrate their fire on the greatest perceived threat? Neat, I didn't know that!

mh yes this could theorically work, not sure it would be much more interesting comparing to doing some support for your engaged units.

[McNaughton]

some info to ponders:

1. units made only of artilleries behave differently in combat. They are called internally group support, ie they have the privilege in combat to target the healthiest opposing unit of the enemy stack, and not a line element in the unit opposed to the unit they are in.

Good to know, I was pondering allowing players to build artillery brigades, but this may cause problems given this possibility (plus I think that more artillery batteries offers more flexibility).

2. The AI has a ratio of external artilleries which is 1 unit for 4 CP of line unit. If you remove all artilleries from brigades, this ratio should be upped considerably (I will have to export this variable for you).

So, I gather that this means the AI will keep 1 artillery element for each division, or 4 CP unit. Does this effect the number of artillery that the AI puts into divisions?

3. indep artillery each cost 1 CP, so your stacks will ask overall for more CP.

I had already pondered this, but was thinking that due to 'command benefits' of a brigade, that 4 regiments would cost 3 CP (in a brigade), thereby a brigade of 4 infantry, and 1 'accompanying' artillery batter would cost 4 CP.

4. If you suppress artilleries from initial brigade OOB but still allow the addition of them (thru the database), they will get added by the replacemetn system without a player choice, and this is not what you want.

Yeah, I was modding the brigade units as well as those in the scenarios (or at least planning to) so there wouldn't be loads of artillery popping up!

Thanks for your input and help! I really appreciate it!

[McNaughton]

As a side note, I have modded the 'unit' graphic for each artillery (so each artillery now has their own graphic) to show which type of gun the battery posesses.



You can see, that each "independent" unit (brigade/regiment) that is attached to a division will appear when you hover your pointer over the unit. With artillery separate from infantry brigades, and with this gun information graphically represented, you can quickly determine what artillery firepower your division posesses (without having to click the unit, and hover over each NATO icon).

I am going to run some tests, by changing build units of brigades (no artillery) changing the rates of units built slightly (to have less infantry, slightly more artillery and cavalry) and see what the AI does with divisional and corps formation in regards to artillery.

[PBBoeye]

Nice. One of my graphics goals is to actually convert the 12lb bronze image into a 6 pounder image. The images are all currently backwards (bronze should be Napoleon/smoothbore and dark should be the Parrotts).

Your addition of the sizes on the image is sharp.

[McNaughton]

Here's a result of a test...



The corps itself contains the 1st division (set up at scenario start), but McClellan's division was created from gathered and built units.

The AI placed 4 brigades of infantry, and 2 batteries of artillery in the creation of his division.

Also, for support, the AI grabbed the 4th US Battery, plus built the 2nd PA and 1st MD batteries, and placed them, as well as Bartlett's Brigade.

The ratio of artillery is fairly good as is, with 3 infantry units (division/brigade) and 3 attached artillery in the Corps.

Also, the AI will attach artillery inside of a division as well.

One problem, decreasing the 'rate' of infantry resulted in a boost of militia being built. So, instead of decreasing infantry, I will increase artillery.

There was a huge stack under McDowell of loads of divisions, independent brigades, commanders, and militia, probalby around 50 000 men!

Anyway, it does look that even without modifying the AI's commands to create formations, it will create 'reasonable forces' with the change.

[McNaughton]

Nice. One of my graphics goals is to actually convert the 12lb bronze image into a 6 pounder image. The images are all currently backwards (bronze should be Napoleon/smoothbore and dark should be the Parrotts).

Your addition of the sizes on the image is sharp.

Thanks, I slightly modified the 10-lb gun to remove the ridges, to make the barrel appear smoother, for the 3-inch ordnance rifle. A slight modification, but provides some visual difference.

The images themselves are mislabeled, but the files grab the 'correct' images (i.e., 10-lb file grabs the 12-lb image...).

[PBBoeye]

ETA, man - ETA.

[McNaughton]

ETA, man - ETA.

Well, I am getting a lot of 'work' done today (started school this week, been very busy), and other than sorting out a few things, (possibly integrating the latest leader optimization verison, finalizing the July 1861 scenario) there isn't much left (after the release I will get back to work on graphics).

ETA = when it is done! But that will be 'sooner' than 'later', unless some big bug creeps up on me!

[McNaughton]

Another big delay, it seems that things are messed up in the Early Force Pool, giving me very odd errors, where units refuse to appear, as well as other odd units showing up (for example, the game has the Union building Confederate brigades, even though there is no command for it in the Force Pool files). Very odd, and probably going to delay the mod for a while...