Administrative costs

[GlobalExplorer]

Even though I run the risk of repeating something.

Basically what I already wanted to know in the 'I need money thread':

- What is the administrative cost of a division?

- How much money does a division cost at the beginning / end of turn?

- Is it a viable strategy to remove divisional command for inactive units if I need more money (in some cases I can't even do it, like with the Polar Bear Division).

[ Yes, I also CTRL-F searched the manual for the words "administrative" and "cost", but it did not answer my question ]

[barbu]

To answer your 2nd and 3rd questions, I may be wrong, but divisions don't cost money to maintain. There's just a financial cost - and also a cost in supply, WSU (war supply) and recruits for creating them, but I don't know it.

[GlobalExplorer]

I don't know it either. I am confused, that's all.

Sometimes I got a message "7th division is only partly operational because you could not pay the administrative cost". Hm.

I also think my money gets less every turn, even if I don't do anything.

[Flop]

I don't know it either. I am confused, that's all.

Sometimes I got a message "7th division is only partly operational because you could not pay the administrative cost". Hm.

I'm pretty sure that they only cost money when you create them. If you can't pay during that turn, then the cost will be paid in the next turn (or the turn after that, if you still can't pay), but the division will only be partly operational, untill you pay the cost to create it.

[GlobalExplorer]

Yes.

I checked it and enabling divisional command is 10 money, 1 conscript.

Since this is paid only at the end of the turn, I think I know now where my money ended up

Somehow I managed to survive several AGE games without understanding this !!

But it makes me wonder, why should I ever EVER remove divisional command? 10 money & 1 conscript is almost the equivalent of a full militia unit!!

I think I got it now, so I will now always leave divisional intact, and give one "alibi" regiment to the lesser commanders.

And it also means my strategy of removing division command from any but the front units and then giving it back when needed was actually counterproductive!! I think this explains why I ran out of money.

[Flop]

I think you can break up a division, and reform it without paying any additional cost. This is useful if you want to remove just one or two units from a division.

[caranorn]

I think you can break up a division, and reform it without paying any additional cost. This is useful if you want to remove just one or two units from a division.

Yes, within the same turn...

[Clovis]

Yes, within the same turn...

But if you select a leader to create a division, then cancel in the same turn, you will pay the cost whatever...

[barbu]

But it makes me wonder, why should I ever EVER remove divisional command? 10 money & 1 conscript is almost the equivalent of a full militia unit!!.

There are two reasons for removing divisions other than the one Flop mentioned:

1. A division "appears" in the game, and it's very small. If you want to add more units to it, you have to "re-build" it by removing divisional command and building a new division. In RUS we don't have resources or time for this this is Mother Russia in Civil War, not Prussia in the 1760s.

2. You want to form a corps with a 2-star general who leads a division or an army with a 3-star general who leads a division. I think that in RUS, just like in other AGEOD games, the general has to be first removed from the division, which eliminates it and turns into its component units.

[OneArmedMexican]

But if you select a leader to create a division, then cancel in the same turn, you will pay the cost whatever...

That one sounds confusing? - Don't you mean to say: as long as you don't end the turn you can always take back the creation of a new division without any cost.

GlobalExplorer, I am not sure the idea of alibi divisions is always a solution:
It is if you can use them to garnision key cities.
On the other hand, keeping these divisions in combat armies might backfire: these weak and unbalanced divisions without artillery might get badly mauled.
Moreover, infantry is a rare commodity for the Southern White - keeping them behind just to keep alibi divisions in existance???

[Clovis]

That one sounds confusing? - Don't you mean to say: as long as you don't end the turn you can always take back the creation of a new division without any cost.

No, no, that's exactly the contrary. As much I remember, it was to avoid some gamey tactics in AACW but I d'ont remember exactly details of these cheats...

details here, back to 2007

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=4551&highlight=administrative+cost+division

[Bertram]

[quote="OneArmedMexican"]That one sounds confusing? - Don't you mean to say: as long as you don't end the turn you can always take back the creation of a new division without any cost.

No, you pay the cost once you design the a General as division commander (you assign him a staff). Even if you decide not to build the division at all (or build it and disband it in the same turn), the cost for the "division HQ" is still paid.

Only the division HQ (attached to the General) "disbands" at the end of the turn if the General is not actually commanding a division. So a General that has been enabled to command a division, but ends up on his own at the end of the turn, looses that ability, and has to be enabled again next turn (and the costs for this have to be paid again).

In the first version of AACW there were actual divisional HQ units you had to buy to form a division - just like there are army HQ's even now in that game. But with the number of divisions build and disbanded, they really cluttered up the map - and made difficulties for Athena.

[Bertram]

You can keep the "divisional HQ" by keeping one or two units under the general in question - but don't forget that when the stack enters combat, the combat is resolved by matching each (combined) unit against another unit. If you have a lot of smaller divisions, they will each be matched against a larger division of the enemy - a recipe for trouble...

[GlobalExplorer]

Only the division HQ (attached to the General) "disbands" at the end of the turn if the General is not actually commanding a division. So a General that has been enabled to command a division, but ends up on his own at the end of the turn, looses that ability, and has to be enabled again next turn (and the costs for this have to be paid again).

I begin to understand. Is this really necessary? Why can't a general keep is division headquarters? If it costs 10 money and 1 conscript, there is no reason it would disband (and the staff going to hell in a handbasket) even if he has no division!

[Alexor]

You can keep the "divisional HQ" by keeping one or two units under the general in question - but don't forget that when the stack enters combat, the combat is resolved by matching each (combined) unit against another unit. If you have a lot of smaller divisions, they will each be matched against a larger division of the enemy - a recipe for trouble...

yes, very good point, in a battle only a few divisions will face each other during each round. Better have fewer powerful div than many weak ones for sure!

[GlobalExplorer]

Yes, that's why I put 15.000 or so cossacks, under the man in your signature, General Vrangel.

[caranorn]

But if you select a leader to create a division, then cancel in the same turn, you will pay the cost whatever...

Ouch, that's new to me (though I rarelly do that, just on occasion when I have to form a new division and decide to a) wait a turn or two or b) another commander will do a better job leading the division)...

Maybe you could consider "fixing" that as it doesn't really fit the plan your turn then (only) execute (and pay)...

Edit: I just looked at Pocus' post http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=4551&highlight=administrative+cost+division back in 2007, he seems to clearly state you can form and disband (unclicking the division buttton) in the same turn without incuring a cost. So what I'd been assuming (or remembering) all this time...

[caranorn]

Yes, that's why I put 15.000 or so cossacks, under the man in your signature, General Vrangel.

<sniff> Mine died of starvation trying to take Astrakhan...

I also always amalgamate my weak divisions as soon as possible, though like another poster I retain the old HQ's with one or more attached units for garrison duties. Tht'as particularly handy in RUS where you might have to expand a garrison rapidly into a fighting force when a revolt starts in your rear...