Replacements issue.

[melvi]

Hello:

I have started a new grand campaign with patch 1.02 installed, union side. I am a bit surprised to find that the union main army in Alexandria hasnt "filled" with replacements. None of his brigades is at full strength after the turns they stay fixed.

[ATTACH]26261[/ATTACH]


I have next to me the CSA army of the Potomac with 1365 power and my brigades added to McDowell army alltogether sum 743 power. I still have 20 inf replacements ( more artillery and cavalry) and 314 inf. hits to refill. All my stacks have stayed all turns they stay fixed inside Alexandria and with the passive posture (since they appeared in map). Dunno if i had had "bad luck" or anything else happens. Any ideas?

Regards:

Melvi

[Ol' Choctaw]

Make sure you have the replacements in the replacement pool.

The are not on a depot, that helps.

[Z74]

Make sure you have the replacements in the replacement pool.

The are not on a depot, that helps.

I don't think this is the case.
I don't remember right now if Alexandria is a big town or not (big towns receive replacements even if they have no depot) but as far as I can remember from AACW, McDo's army is being filled by fresh units that get to 100% numbers by scenario settings and not in need of any replacements.

I just got the game so I am in the re-learning phase and I am in the same situation as described by the OP.
I don't know whether to attack or not, I'd like to know what's going on with these replacements too.

EDIT: Alexandria fully qualifies for replacements having a depot and being a big town at the same time. I bought the replacements and they actually got to the Army. So I think those units need replacements (scenario is not refilling them). Maybe the OP got confused with the settings on AI-assisted replacements?

[Ol' Choctaw]

At the beginning so many units are not filled. You can quickly run out of replacements. It may also be that the game only fills X elements per turn. I have found some units much slower to fill than others but it also seem random.

[Z74]

But I am right, don't you think?
Those units do get to full numbers only through replacements. The scenario is not refilling them to 100%... the player has to. Right?

[Ace]

yes

[Le Ricain]

I would add that the replacing needs to started as soon as the Union army appears in Alexandria. In the example given above, the Union units have been activated, but are at only half strength. This means that the Confederate army is also activated, but should be a full strength. I do not envy the Union player in the coming turns.

[melvi]

Hello,

Of course i started buying replacements as soon as the army in Alexandria appeared, i play ever with the AI replacements setting disabled. Thats why i ended having 20 inf replacements ( but still 314 hits to refill), i think you cant buy 20 inf replacements in the same turn ( money and/or war supplies and/or men issues). At the end i was "lucky", i left the army holding in Alexandria and in couple more turns all units were filled while the CSA Potomac army went to Fort Monroe to make couple disastrous attakcs ( for them). It is early october and i still hold Fort Monroe ( dunno if that will last longer though, the Army of the Potomac is besieging it with 1100 power units and the defenders are only 350 power) and my main army units are filled and ready to fight....
Thinking about what could had happen to the Army in Alexandria i have remembered i had the divisions in different stacks "locked" ( the padlock icon activated) inside Alexandria and with pasive posture. Dunno if the "locked" settting prevented them to gain replacements maybe?

Regards:

Melvi

[Le Ricain]

No, the locked setting does not affect replacements. Ideally, when the army unlocks, it should be at full strength. That was the basis of my comment. The Union army had unlocked, but was only at half strength. With 314 hits to fill, you should need 31 replacements. I do not think that you can buy 31 replacements in a turn. You do not have enough conscripts, money or WS. Fortunately, you do not need to build your army in one turn, but can take several turns.

[Z74]

What eludes my reasoning is the fact that Mc Dowell's Army figures with 5 stacks named Divisions when divisional command is not active yet.

Note: Division 3 has a (u) <-- I have no idea what this means, anyone?

Second note: I don't doubt it's possible to defeat Beuregard but how can McDowell be helped with that huge penalty and without divisional command active?

[Ace]

They are named divisions for flavor purposes only.

(u) has no meaning - name of the stacks are flavor only

US should reinforce McDowel. Starting McDowell stack cannot defeat starting Beauregard stack defending in Manassas.

[melvi]

No, the locked setting does not affect replacements. Ideally, when the army unlocks, it should be at full strength. That was the basis of my comment. The Union army had unlocked, but was only at half strength. With 314 hits to fill, you should need 31 replacements. I do not think that you can buy 31 replacements in a turn. You do not have enough conscripts, money or WS. Fortunately, you do not need to build your army in one turn, but can take several turns.

Umhh, no, no. Lets see, either i didnt explain myself well enought or you misundestood what i said. I was talking about "locked" units ( maybe it would be better call them "locked" tabs or stacks) and i think you are talking about fixed units ( those that cant move either cause they are under recruitment or cause script doesnt want you to be able to move them unless they are attacked or till some number of turns have passed). I was refering to "locked" tabs, thats when you right click on the stack/tab force name and a padlock icon appears, then that stack wont merge with any other in the region ( if you drag and drop it on other stack like we do to merge units usually) and the locked stack wont merge neither with any other stack you drag and drop in another region, same way if you move a non locked stack from another region and you drop it on a locked stack, the moving stack will move till destination but it wont merge with destination locked stack. ( erhh it sounds a bit confusing even for me as i am typing it, i hope you undertand).
My Union main army was splited in some tabs, as they appeared, i only "locked" the tabs thinking in form divisions when i could with that same composition tabs had. I didnt realice i would need to join them in Mcdowells army to stand any attack CSA would launch some turns later. As i realiced they almost didnt refill any hit in first 3 or 4 turns the last one ( the last 2), i removed the "locked" tab setting just in case. Thats why i was wondering if the "locked" tab was related in any way with the situation.

What eludes my reasoning is the fact that Mc Dowell's Army figures with 5 stacks named Divisions when divisional command is not active yet.

Note: Division 3 has a (u) <-- I have no idea what this means, anyone?

Second note: I don't doubt it's possible to defeat Beuregard but how can McDowell be helped with that huge penalty and without divisional command active?

Like someone else said the "division" names you see are only flavor. The union main army appears in 5 or 6 stacks called 1 division, 2 division, 3 division, etc. But they could have been named 1 force, 2 force, or whatever else. You cant form divisions till early october in big campaign. ( On a side note i have no idea what tha "(u)" means, it could be even a typo?)

Regards:

Melvi

[Z74]

They are named divisions for flavor purposes only.

(u) has no meaning - name of the stacks are flavor only

US should reinforce McDowel. Starting McDowell stack cannot defeat starting Beauregard stack defending in Manassas.

I know but for some reason Beauregard left Manassas and I captured it with relative ease. The Union numbers and forces are really overpowering and if CSA moves and loses entrenchments the whole war takes a very bad evolution for CSA.

As I said in the other thread, CSA AI let me go through with sabotaging rails unchecked, Johnston is around Winchester but not prone to support Beuregard. This is a big issue because if you get too close to Richmond the war for CSA AI is lost in very short time.

[Le Ricain]

Umhh, no, no. Lets see, either i didnt explain myself well enought or you misundestood what i said. I was talking about "locked" units ( maybe it would be better call them "locked" tabs or stacks) and i think you are talking about fixed units ( those that cant move either cause they are under recruitment or cause script doesnt want you to be able to move them unless they are attacked or till some number of turns have passed). I was refering to "locked" tabs, thats when you right click on the stack/tab force name and a padlock icon appears, then that stack wont merge with any other in the region ( if you drag and drop it on other stack like we do to merge units usually) and the locked stack wont merge neither with any other stack you drag and drop in another region, same way if you move a non locked stack from another region and you drop it on a locked stack, the moving stack will move till destination but it wont merge with destination locked stack. ( erhh it sounds a bit confusing even for me as i am typing it, i hope you undertand).
My Union main army was splited in some tabs, as they appeared, i only "locked" the tabs thinking in form divisions when i could with that same composition tabs had. I didnt realice i would need to join them in Mcdowells army to stand any attack CSA would launch some turns later. As i realiced they almost didnt refill any hit in first 3 or 4 turns the last one ( the last 2), i removed the "locked" tab setting just in case. Thats why i was wondering if the "locked" tab was related in any way with the situation.





Regards:

Melvi

I now understand what you meant by "locked". Locking the stacks, to prevent merging, should not affect the stacks' replacement ability.

[marquo]

A nuanced question: the manual states, "If you choose the Historical Attrition setting, land Units must be in a friendly Depot to receive replacements." Does this mean in the region with the depot or actually in the structure with the depot? I am getting the feeling that the stack must be physically in the structure, perhaps not....

[Ebbingford]

No, just in the region with a depot will do. This is only necessary for receiving whole elements as replacements. Existing elements that have suffered hits can receive replacements in a region without a depot.

[Q-Ball]

It should be noted that while the Union does have to have replacements to fill out those starting armies, you also get a batch for free at some point early (May, I think). But either way, keep the pools full-up and you should be OK.

Given the starting balance of forces, it's very wise for the Union player to heavily focus 1861 out East.

[Z74]

Given the starting balance of forces, it's very wise for the Union player to heavily focus 1861 out East.

I am under the strong impression that regardless of how Athena plays in 1861, in CW2, differently from AACW, the Union has massive availability of units that, if concentrated in Alexandria, give no chance to CSA. One can literally recruit tens of infantry units in NY and arty in PA, bypassing a REALISTIC management of manpower and war supplies that should be mostly managed at state level and not at side level.

If all those units get sent to Alexandria, there's no way even Beauregard and Johnston can counter a poor Mc Dowell.

Replacements are somehow better represented because they get "scattered" among all the units that can take them, anywhere they may be... but new units... in CW2 you can pick exactly where they come from and this is wrong imo (more or less the same speech can be done about rail/riverine transportation points, managed at national level and not at state level).

The fact you have 180 manpower, for example, doesn't mean you can spend them all in NY. They come from all over the Union, that's what I mean. There has to be a limitation somehow (units being queued perhaps, instead of spawning all together?). This is a huge concern of mine.

[Pocus]

Limitation can also be per region with a 'build weight', i.e how many units can be recruited in parallel within a region. Perhaps we have been too generous with that...

[Z74]

Limitation can also be per region with a 'build weight', i.e how many units can be recruited in parallel within a region. Perhaps we have been too generous with that...

I am sure a history buff here may be of some help or, perhaps, a logical "speculation" may lead to some better balance. The key here is not to allow the Union to overpower CSA in northern VA too soon.

A consistent reduction of riverine/rail points would not allow the Union to amass so many units in just one spot. Those should ALSO be managed at the state (or dept.) level and not a nation-wide solution. The problem is virtually the same. The two things might also be connected. If you must amass a thousand men to build a brigade in NY, those 1000 men would also be transported (recruiting = spending rail/riv points perhaps?).

Alas, this new system of investing in private enterprises & tycoons, so that new factories are built, might also be needing a tweak-down.

We know it takes years to develop something that produces war supply. Since in this simplified system the construction is immediate (and I guess so is the production), maybe each of those factories should pass a check so that only some are built when you take that local option, and you need to buy that option again to further increase production (and make new check for those that were not built at the first time).

I'm sure you'll find a way.

[Ace]

Alas, this new system of investing in private enterprises & tycoons, so that new factories are built, might also be needing a tweak-down.

We know it takes years to develop something that produces war supply. Since in this simplified system the construction is immediate (and I guess so is the production), maybe each of those factories should pass a check so that only some are built when you take that local option, and you need to buy that option again to further increase production (and make new check for those that were not built at the first time).

I'm sure you'll find a way.

Someone pointed out in research that those factories were present before the war. You are paying for their conversion of production to war effort instead to building steel for railroads, or other civilian use.

[Z74]

Someone pointed out in research that those factories were present before the war. You are paying for their conversion of production to war effort instead to building steel for railroads, or other civilian use.

Of course, I'm just saying it's better to make each of them pass an individual check so that they don't develop all together and player may need to pick the same option again to further strenghten the dept where the investment has been previously made. The "stimulus" can't always succeed, that's what I was meaning.

(yet this is another great addition to CW2 that just made the greatest civil war game, AACW even better)

[Le Ricain]

I am under the strong impression that regardless of how Athena plays in 1861, in CW2, differently from AACW, the Union has massive availability of units that, if concentrated in Alexandria, give no chance to CSA. One can literally recruit tens of infantry units in NY and arty in PA, bypassing a REALISTIC management of manpower and war supplies that should be mostly managed at state level and not at side level.

If all those units get sent to Alexandria, there's no way even Beauregard and Johnston can counter a poor Mc Dowell.

Replacements are somehow better represented because they get "scattered" among all the units that can take them, anywhere they may be... but new units... in CW2 you can pick exactly where they come from and this is wrong imo (more or less the same speech can be done about rail/riverine transportation points, managed at national level and not at state level).

The fact you have 180 manpower, for example, doesn't mean you can spend them all in NY. They come from all over the Union, that's what I mean. There has to be a limitation somehow (units being queued perhaps, instead of spawning all together?). This is a huge concern of mine.

Your impression is not supported by history. In 1861, the Union maintained a 2:1 manpower advantage in the Northern Virginia theatre, which included the McDowell's army, the Shenandoah army and the Washington garrison. The CSA achieved their great victory at 1st Bull Run by combining their Virginia and Shenandoah armies against McDowell's sole army. They gained a local advantage.

In CW2, the Union player can, by building every unit that he can in PA and NY as you describe, achieve this historic 2:1 advantage in power and men by November 1861. The advantage does not last as by Spring 1862, the Union advantage in the theatre falls to something like 20%. For the battle in Manassas, in July 1861, the Confederate player does not need to bring his Shenandoah army to Manassas, as his army based there is only about 10% weaker than McDowell's army. This deficit is more than made up by the Confederate higher quality units, better leadership and entrenched status.

The Confederacy may be underpowered in CW2, but it is the Union that is seriously underpowered. As I have noted elsewhere, by June 1862, the Union had achieved the following:

Obtained a 2:1 manpower advantage in Virginia.
Occupied Springfield, MO.
Captured Fort Donelson, TN.
Captured Island No 10.
Captured Fort Macon, NC.
Captured Fort Pulaski, GA.
Captured Forts Jackson and St Philip, LA
Captured New Orleans, LA
Captured Memphis, TN.

Try duplicating these accomplishments in CW2.

[Z74]

Your impression is not supported by history. In 1861, the Union maintained a 2:1 manpower advantage in the Northern Virginia theatre, which included the McDowell's army, the Shenandoah army and the Washington garrison. The CSA achieved their great victory at 1st Bull Run by combining their Virginia and Shenandoah armies against McDowell's sole army. They gained a local advantage.

***A moderator might want to relocate this discussion which is no longer about replacements now***

The problem is that, despite the scripts that reproduce actual historical events, such as the building of that Army (I am limiting this to the LOCAL situation right now), we're still allowed to take most of the decisions, thus replaying and rewriting history.

You probably have missed my other concern about 1st Bull Run with the fact Johnston is hanging between Harper's Ferry and Winchester, far from the upcoming battle and with my Schurtz' cavalry wrecking their rails (which the AI is NOT repairing).

With the AI being passive on patrolling and engaging my raiders and Johnston so far away (unable to use the rail to reinforce Beuregard which is what happened in history), adding the fact the player may use NATIONAL figures (rail, riverine, manpower, war supply) to build units anywhere he likes, it is possible to convey ALL of the Union military power to Alexandria so that even if Johnston and Beuregard were superior in skill and abilities and McDowell was even lower than he actually is (I am on slight randomization right now) the game would be ruined.

That is my concern.

Historically this could not happen at the ratio I am seeing because manpower is a LOCAL issue (you can't use your national figures to build ALL units in NY and have them instantly transferred to Alexandria like ALL your locomotives and cars were ALSO in NY). In the game this can happen and should be addressed.

In my experience I've also witnessed Beuregard actually leaving Manassas (forsaking the entrenchment)... so yes, I am very concerned because I think it's a lot more than just 2:1 advantage. It's something that would cripple the entire game if not addressed but I am too new right now to test it, only concern and impression.

My concern about 1st Bull Run is... built over several things.

[marquo]

"With the AI being passive on patrolling and engaging my raiders and Johnston so far away (unable to use the rail to reinforce Beuregard which is what happened in history), adding the fact the player may use NATIONAL figures (rail, riverine, manpower, war supply) to build units anywhere he likes, it is possible to convey ALL of the Union military power to Alexandria so that even if Johnston and Beuregard were superior in skill and abilities and McDowell was even lower than he actually is (I am on slight randomization right now) the game would be ruined. "


However....if you play a CSA human like MT, you might very well be quickly overwhelmed in Northern Virginia and Maryland, because every conceivable Southern asset can be localized there and this is very complex and difficult for the 1861 USA player to deal with. AI and humans are very different creatures....

Pocus, please do not change the recruiting algorithm too much because against a human it is necessary to direct efforts to counter threats. Athena is nowhere near as challenging as focused human.

My 2 cents...

Marquo

[Z74]

However....if you play a CSA human like MT, you might very well be quickly overwhelmed in Northern Virginia and Maryland, because every conceivable Southern asset can be localized there and this is very complex and difficult for the 1861 USA player to deal with. AI and humans are very different creatures....

It's not the player "type".
Remember that the arrow goes both ways. As Union can concentrate unrealistically because of rail/river/manpower being dealt at national and not at state level, so can CSA.

If things are changed neither Union NOR Csa can deliver unrealistic numbers in production/transfer anymore.

[GraniteStater]

Your impression is not supported by history. In 1861, the Union maintained a 2:1 manpower advantage in the Northern Virginia theatre, which included the McDowell's army, the Shenandoah army and the Washington garrison. The CSA achieved their great victory at 1st Bull Run by combining their Virginia and Shenandoah armies against McDowell's sole army. They gained a local advantage.

In CW2, the Union player can, by building every unit that he can in PA and NY as you describe, achieve this historic 2:1 advantage in power and men by November 1861. The advantage does not last as by Spring 1862, the Union advantage in the theatre falls to something like 20%. For the battle in Manassas, in July 1861, the Confederate player does not need to bring his Shenandoah army to Manassas, as his army based there is only about 10% weaker than McDowell's army. This deficit is more than made up by the Confederate higher quality units, better leadership and entrenched status.

The Confederacy may be underpowered in CW2, but it is the Union that is seriously underpowered. As I have noted elsewhere, by June 1862, the Union had achieved the following:

Obtained a 2:1 manpower advantage in Virginia.
Occupied Springfield, MO.
Captured Fort Donelson, TN.
Captured Island No 10.
Captured Fort Macon, NC.
Captured Fort Pulaski, GA.
Captured Forts Jackson and St Philip, LA
Captured New Orleans, LA
Captured Memphis, TN.

Try duplicating these accomplishments in CW2.

Try duplicating these accomplishments in CW2.

Oh, good golly, yes, yes, yes.

I've made this observation for quite a while, years actually, ever since I first played AACW. Frankly, it's next to impossible, if not outright the case.

Try, as the Union, by mid-June '62, to have Fts H&D, Nashville, Memphis, #10, and New Orleans in your possession, in any decent strength at every location. I've never even come close. Glad to see someone else noticing how tough, if not, again, impossible, it is to replicate Union achievements in AACW/CW2.

[Ace]

These are all very achievable objectives. Besides some fort busting, all you have to do is capture NO and Memphis, and you have full year to do it. If they are heavily guarded, some other place like Richmond or Charleston isn't. So, do not tell me Union is underpowered. But, I might say above concern how concentrate all East was the best strategy in the patch 1.02 has some validity to it. I am pleased to say this might not be the case in 1.03., with the change in the distribution of Southern resources.

[GraniteStater]

Ace, you ever try to do it, in AACW or CW2?

I'm tellin' ya, at least in AACW, I tried mightily, more than a few times. Not...even...close. I started a thread about it - most folks just said, 'relax, don't feel you need to meet a schedule,' which is good advice, but still...

don't mistake me, the game's modeling should not put the highest priority on being able to Do Things the Way they Were, which may seem heretical to some, but this is a model, not a simulation. The CSA has to have some goosing, otherwise, it's just CSA Loses Every Time.

If you have, in AACW or CW2, been able to take those half-dozen spots by June '62 (in decent strength - and held them against ripostes), then tell me how ya did it, 'cuz I'd be all ears.

There's too much to do, there are other concerns, like keeping TJ outta Mrs. Lincoln's bedroom. Or being flanked at Baltimore. Or reinforcing Monroe and Pickens, in that order. Or building a navy. I'm sure I could think of more. Trying to keep a balance in East, Central & West, without losing St. Loo, Cairo, Louisville, etc., is enough to keep a general right busy. Now, add building an Expeditionary Force for NO into the mix, troops you are withholding from other parts of the East, etc., - I can't do it & I have tried, tried, tried, 'till I'm blue in the buttons. TBH, No, haven't really tried in CW2 yet, still learning the new game. Still...

that's against the AI. Play Pat "SW" Cleburne and see how quickly he'll put a Fort at Paducah (oh yeah, that's fun) or how soon you'll see you ain't takin the Greyhound bus to Fredericksburg anytime soon.

If you've been able to do this, please, I'll bow to your knowledge & experience if you post How.

STARTING NEW THREAD - NEW SUBJECT

[Z74]

The point is not only what you can achieve but how you can achieve it.

The difference between a national and a state manpower/wsu/supply/train/river/recruitment is evident and the possibility of a HUGE improvement in realism, immersion (and, consequently, difficulty) is really at hand.

On the Union side, the strategy of amassing troops on the borders of VA can lead to the spectacular defeats because of CSA superior leadership and entrenchment, despite the odds. That forces the Union to pursue a blockade on resources exactly because CSA can't transfer them easily from one state to another.

On the CSA side, there's an actual interest in raiding the Union supplies to capture them. Again loyalty affecting local manpower pulls both sides into political strategies. The Union should require a heavy interest in political activities on loyalty as troops coming from a particular state where loyalty is low should be heavily affected in their performances, especially at the beginning (I don't want to fight for the darkies!)

Despite getting to its second episode, I think this masterpiece has still a huge room for improvement. That is actually a rare occurrence in videogaming nowadays where 99% of the games get fully exploited and they are total crap at their 10th patch.

I say it's time to build a state environment in place of the global, national environment and this change, coupled with the political choices backing, would solve many problems, including (but not only) the fact that, especially against the computer, the Union player has a quite easy going with this "All-East strategy".

Don't forget the problems in logistics to convey troops and supplies for 50.000+ troops, that also slowed the Union down. No such problems for us and it's nearly impossible to actually build a production of the aforementioned categories that has a solid historical and mathematical backing if it's not built on the state level.