If there will be ever new patch for CW2 (past 1.06.03) I would like to see few changes:
1) South. A few generals/staff/HQs with trait for instance training militia or whatever up to Infantry. South needs that, because with less troops/resources it should not send untrained units into fray. Would it be "historical"? I don't know and don't care. It could be an option like in WON (scripts with possibility to have better Napoleonic fleet). There is Options/Scripts in CW2, but it's empty right now.
2) All. Stockade/outpost RGD should not use men/conscripts to be built. It is built with wood I suppose. So maybe like redoubt it will use war supplies and money. Would be more sensible.
3) All. Partisans RGD should need conscripts to use, not only VP. Would be more sensible.
4) All. As always (in most Ageod games) lowest level generals should be able to command divisions independently. Now division costs 4 CP and general has 2 CP (if out chain of command). So I edit it myself to 8 CP per lowest rank (so he can have 4 CP with 50% penalty if out chain of command) and to balance things out I give second rank general 10 CP (it is 8 CP normally). I would like to reduce 50% penalty if out chain of command for lowest generals only, but there is no option for it.
But isn't it natural, that first level (divisional) general *CAN* command his division?
Unfortunately in most Ageod's games he can not.
[Good opposite example is To End All Wars with setting CommandMaximaRank1= 24]
A few things to consider / wishlist
Meteoryt-like user. Strikes and disappears.
-
Captain_Orso
- Posts: 5766
- Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
- Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Re: A few things to consider / wishlist
Whether there will be a new patch sometime in the future I'd rather not speculate. IMHO the realities of AGEOD producing marketable games (ie products they can sell to earn money and stay profitable and earn a living) in a niche gaming field presses them to spend their time doing that, and not going back to tweak old products, for which they earn no money.
1. I find the current way Training Officer's work to be less than satisfactory, and would rather fix that, than propagate it further. Some points I believe to be factual on the subject:
One of the major issues with fresh troops was simply that they had never experienced being in a military environment, and probably had zero contact with it previously. In contrast to the present day society, in which through TV, films, and news media, practically everybody had at least an inkling of what it means to be in the military, at the outset of the CW nearly nobody had any idea of what discipline meant, why it had any meaning, nor what a lack of it had for consequences (individually as well as organizationally), on and off the field of battle.
Many of the officers had little to no experience with the professional military either, and not only had to learn military-way themselves, but instill it into their troops at the same time. This is why officers who had been to military institutes were such a premium.
The only officers I know of having read about their efforts to specifically train their troops are McClellan and Bragg. In general, troops were very often trained (practically in any time available for it). But one of the most important things an army had to learn, was to maneuver in large formations. You could train a regiment alone to maneuver as a regiment. But as soon as you had to maneuver a brigade of regiments, other maneuvers were required, and these had to be trained as well, and only the higher up commanders could allow for this training.
The game has no concept of troops being well trained on a regimental level, but not above that, and this is where the Training Officer ability should come into play. I also don't expect this to ever be implemented, because A) it would require a major change to the game engine (see my first paragraph), and B) it would make the game that much more complex, at a time where gaming is moving away from such complexities, toward a more simple Drag-n-Drop™ approach to make things work--at least from what I've been told.
All that being said, my One-Size-Fits-All™ solution would be to give all professional officers, and all officers with a minimum of 1 or 2 Experience Level (EL) the Training Officer ability, but to have this ability be to increase eXperience Points (XP) at a greater pace, if the commanding a formation, and the formation doesn't. IE the formation (Army, Corps, Division, Brigade) has time to train as a formation. The game already had the mechanics to upgrade elements using each element's XP as a parameter to increase the probability of upgrading (from Volunteers to Line Infantry) each turn.
2. Stockades cost CC's because they have the ability to spontaneously generate a garrison when attacked. This garrison is abstractly considered to always be there, but if it is not generated in an attack, is considered to have retreated or have been surprised and/or overwhelmed by the attack.
3. CC's are manpower conscripted into military service. Partisans are civilian organizations, generally independent of the military, the opposite of conscripts.
4, I can think of no compelling reason to allow a lone Brig. Gen. to lead a division without any assistance. The only reason I can think of for wanting to do this, would be to enhance the ability of divisions to operate alone, which was outside the paradigm of operations of the time.
1. I find the current way Training Officer's work to be less than satisfactory, and would rather fix that, than propagate it further. Some points I believe to be factual on the subject:
One of the major issues with fresh troops was simply that they had never experienced being in a military environment, and probably had zero contact with it previously. In contrast to the present day society, in which through TV, films, and news media, practically everybody had at least an inkling of what it means to be in the military, at the outset of the CW nearly nobody had any idea of what discipline meant, why it had any meaning, nor what a lack of it had for consequences (individually as well as organizationally), on and off the field of battle.
Many of the officers had little to no experience with the professional military either, and not only had to learn military-way themselves, but instill it into their troops at the same time. This is why officers who had been to military institutes were such a premium.
The only officers I know of having read about their efforts to specifically train their troops are McClellan and Bragg. In general, troops were very often trained (practically in any time available for it). But one of the most important things an army had to learn, was to maneuver in large formations. You could train a regiment alone to maneuver as a regiment. But as soon as you had to maneuver a brigade of regiments, other maneuvers were required, and these had to be trained as well, and only the higher up commanders could allow for this training.
The game has no concept of troops being well trained on a regimental level, but not above that, and this is where the Training Officer ability should come into play. I also don't expect this to ever be implemented, because A) it would require a major change to the game engine (see my first paragraph), and B) it would make the game that much more complex, at a time where gaming is moving away from such complexities, toward a more simple Drag-n-Drop™ approach to make things work--at least from what I've been told.
All that being said, my One-Size-Fits-All™ solution would be to give all professional officers, and all officers with a minimum of 1 or 2 Experience Level (EL) the Training Officer ability, but to have this ability be to increase eXperience Points (XP) at a greater pace, if the commanding a formation, and the formation doesn't. IE the formation (Army, Corps, Division, Brigade) has time to train as a formation. The game already had the mechanics to upgrade elements using each element's XP as a parameter to increase the probability of upgrading (from Volunteers to Line Infantry) each turn.
2. Stockades cost CC's because they have the ability to spontaneously generate a garrison when attacked. This garrison is abstractly considered to always be there, but if it is not generated in an attack, is considered to have retreated or have been surprised and/or overwhelmed by the attack.
3. CC's are manpower conscripted into military service. Partisans are civilian organizations, generally independent of the military, the opposite of conscripts.
4, I can think of no compelling reason to allow a lone Brig. Gen. to lead a division without any assistance. The only reason I can think of for wanting to do this, would be to enhance the ability of divisions to operate alone, which was outside the paradigm of operations of the time.
Re: A few things to consider / wishlist
Khanti – Some interesting observations. I mostly agree with Captain_Orso's reflections, but had a few additional thoughts on the subjects you raise.
I hear you, you do not care if it is historical or not, but nevertheless, militia units in the South belonged to the states and states were very reluctant to allow the national government to touch these men who were usually protected from war much as the National Guard protected many sons of politically connected families in the American phase of the Vietnam War. That is, these militia were untrained because the men were mostly at home drinking mint juleps and supervising the family business.
It is important to note that partisans, per se, were not enlisted into national forces. Only rarely did an organized force go guerrilla and this is already represented in the game.
One spectacular attribute of all AGEOD games is the representation of chain of command. In eras previous to the development of general staff and subordinate corps, the armies are represented as you say with many more independent commands. With the advent of armies with subordinate corps, as in the game you are discussing, an independent division would not exist. There might be smaller armies detached for separate duty, but these would be assigned a general of appropriate competence to the command assigned.
I hear you, you do not care if it is historical or not, but nevertheless, militia units in the South belonged to the states and states were very reluctant to allow the national government to touch these men who were usually protected from war much as the National Guard protected many sons of politically connected families in the American phase of the Vietnam War. That is, these militia were untrained because the men were mostly at home drinking mint juleps and supervising the family business.
It is important to note that partisans, per se, were not enlisted into national forces. Only rarely did an organized force go guerrilla and this is already represented in the game.
One spectacular attribute of all AGEOD games is the representation of chain of command. In eras previous to the development of general staff and subordinate corps, the armies are represented as you say with many more independent commands. With the advent of armies with subordinate corps, as in the game you are discussing, an independent division would not exist. There might be smaller armies detached for separate duty, but these would be assigned a general of appropriate competence to the command assigned.
Re: A few things to consider / wishlist
1- Bragg and Hardee have trainer traits. Put them out of the way somewhere with a bunch of militia, and let them train. I put Bragg in NO with all the LA and MS militia, and Hardee in Springfield/Fayetteville with all the MO militia. By '62, those militia start becoming regulars. And as always, recruit those army headquarters as soon as they become available.
1b- I agree the problem is balance. I think the "solution" is the opposite. Sigel should NOT be a trainer. He should be a recruiter. In real life, he was a crappy general whose presence as a general helped recruit ethnic Germans to the North. He was never known for discipline or training. If anything, he should have the "recruiter" trait, NOT the trainer trait.
2- What Captain Orso said. There's a garrison there.
3- Agree. While Captain Orso is correct that Partisans are civilians and not military, by civilians going into something that is not military, less civilians are available to get conscripted into the military. Shouldn't be many conscripts, partisan units were typically only a couple dozen guys
4- Put a second general in the stack. Or one of those special units. This is working as designed, and should not be changed.
1b- I agree the problem is balance. I think the "solution" is the opposite. Sigel should NOT be a trainer. He should be a recruiter. In real life, he was a crappy general whose presence as a general helped recruit ethnic Germans to the North. He was never known for discipline or training. If anything, he should have the "recruiter" trait, NOT the trainer trait.
2- What Captain Orso said. There's a garrison there.
3- Agree. While Captain Orso is correct that Partisans are civilians and not military, by civilians going into something that is not military, less civilians are available to get conscripted into the military. Shouldn't be many conscripts, partisan units were typically only a couple dozen guys
4- Put a second general in the stack. Or one of those special units. This is working as designed, and should not be changed.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests