Replacements

[bigus]

I'm sure I am not the only one who feels this way. I'm just stating the way I perceive things.

Anyway, if it is not a "work in progess", may I kindly request some member of the beta team to show me where I am going wrong. This is why I started the thread. The only answers I got were "the attrition is working fine" or that I don't know how to play a long game.

Finally, I am sorry that you feel insulted that your beta team can't catch many of the bugs that I am seeing (or think I see if indeed this replacement system works fine). I am sure there is lots of things going on behind the scenes that I am not aware of. Look at the product we have. It's obvious they work extremely hard on it. They can't, however, catch every little thing. This is why I posted about it.

If you want to set a lower priority on my requests, ( and for the record I am 100% certain that all players want replacements with attrition working), then by all means, be my guest. Heck don't implement them at all.

First off let me state that petty bickering is useless to the cause.
Secondly.The Beta team as it is now are not perfect nor do we know all about the game. The developers do. If an issue surfaces like it seems to have now with replacements then they will step in as they always have. As Gray is now responding then you can be sure this will be addressed.

Bigus

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Coregonas]

Severely depleted units, due to battle casualties OR attrition OR whatever, are not receiving the replacements ordered when inside a depot\big city on passive. The replacement chips are being used up but are not following the supposed unit priority code.

Hi.

You can check what is the part of the problem (ATTRITION or REPLACEMENT) turning off Realistic Attrition.

Try turning it off, do Replacements go to the correct place? I feel YES, it works!

The problem is a "NEVERENDING STORY" -> i.e all second (and front also) line troops lose a x% monthly (a 2%? of 200.000 men is 4.000 ->40 conscripts / turn?)...

Then, replacements go to the same units that are lost again and again... There is not time to the troops to refill.

I believe a troop 80% strength (or something so) should have NO ATTRITION at all (except cohesion & weather), and should not receive REPLACEMENTS at all to solve this "neverending bucle"...

[Daxil]

Has nothing to do with grognards, AGEOD stated goal is to produce games that are historically accurate. If they were to "balance" all the games they produce, most of the NCP and WIA scenarios would be completely ridiculous. They are not in the business of producing balanced "toys". They are in the business of providing historically accurate game simulations of various conflicts throughout the time periods depicted and as a gamer you try to vary the outcome with something of the same advantages or disadvantages.

I'm just bolding those because the difference between a toy and a game is very minute. You can call what I play with a toy if it makes you feel more grown-up, and yours is a game, but bottom line is we both want the same thing: an enjoyable experience from our toys and games. Enjoyment comes in the form of balance for me. Knowing I have an equal shot at this. I'm cognizent of the CSA's disadvantage historically, but wasn't the point system implemented to balance that out a bit? I guess you'd replace balance with vary the outcome with something of the same advantages or disadvantages, but anyways.

Threads like this exist because some people do not feel the game is 100%, absolutely, positively enjoyable based on the varied outcomes and/or balance, and my point was please pay attention to these legitimate claims instead of just throwing up the dark, dank dreary wall of history.

[Eugene Carr]

If I'm reading the wiki correctly http://ageod.nsen.ch/aacwwiki/Manual:Losses_and_replacements then even in a depot you only get 20% of full complement per turn (half of this if union) this must leave plenty of replacements available to go to 2nd line units where their not really needed.

Jabbers/Coregonas idea of an upper strength limit/percentage would at least keep them in the pool for subsequent turns to go to the priority units.

[W.Barksdale]

My apologies to the lot.

I have thoroughly tested the passilve priority for replacements and it DOES work adequately. Units in passive posture in a depot DID receive replacements before units in offensive. However, at first they are going somewhere else. Locked units maybe? I am not sure.

Below I have the most relevant posts (up to now), from the "Replacements" thread. I think they may help provide a solution to the replacement trap problem.

Maybe the game could raise regts. to set levels until the number of replacements bought is reached.
Like all regts raised to 100 then all regts. raised to 200 then 300 and so forth until the replacement level is reached.

Throw in a cap number - replacements just don't go to units that already have more than 60% or 70% of initial strength (after August '61 - still have to fill out the first army). If all candidates for replacements have reached the cap, then the replacements stay in the pool.

At first glance I believe 40% or 50% will work. This will also fix the inflated troop number problem (when using attrition).

[Coregonas]

If a 50% cap (as 500 men regiments) is decided, now another problem arises:

In a battle, as NOW it is defined, is it too easy one side loses a LOT of "complete" elements. This overflows if a battle REAL involved elements are more than 2 to 1... i.e. 90 elements versus 45 or less.

This is due to cohesion avoiding rout, to a too high DAMAGE / COHESION ratio of losses, and some other questions. Some MODs seem to solve partially at least this.

However... If REGIMENTS had 10 hits instead of 20 (as a TOP replacement value)... I feel this is going to be even more a problem.
---
For Jabber analysis & conclusions... In the GC battles, we have had brutal (70% elements involved lost) massacres, due to REAL involved units were in a 2.5 vs 1 ratio, in all main battles involved. Nearly all of them were "FULL" 800-1000 men regiments, well fed, full cohesion, high trench, no CP maluses, and so on all stats were "perfect" (Exception no divisions, just brigade style commands).

The last Battle showed 51 vs 40 elements, but half of them never saw the fight and ended as new as the turn started. MTSG did not functioned this time, as Banks cleverly said once and again... Is something like a gamble.

These loses had nothing to do with the Replacement /Attrition affairs. They were lost due to the 2,5 ratio... I feel it overflows somewere in the road.

---
So: If a cap is to be decided, it is needed ALSO to review the high RATIO of loses in battles.

[W.Barksdale]

Assume no cap. Then all reg'ts raised to 100, 200,...1000 as Eugene Carr suggested. That with the passive priority may be a good system. In effect, giving the player control of a floating cap, so to speak.

[bigus]

If a 50% cap (as 500 men regiments) is decided, now another problem arises:

In a battle, as NOW it is defined, is it too easy one side loses a LOT of "complete" elements. This overflows if a battle REAL involved elements are more than 2 to 1... i.e. 90 elements versus 45 or less.

This is due to cohesion avoiding rout, to a too high DAMAGE / COHESION ratio of losses, and some other questions. Some MODs seem to solve partially at least this.

However... If REGIMENTS had 10 hits instead of 20 (as a TOP replacement value)... I feel this is going to be even more a problem.
---
For Jabber analysis & conclusions... In the GC battles, we have had brutal (70% elements involved lost) massacres, due to REAL involved units were in a 2.5 vs 1 ratio, in all main battles involved. Nearly all of them were "FULL" 800-1000 men regiments, well fed, full cohesion, high trench, no CP maluses, and so on all stats were "perfect" (Exception no divisions, just brigade style commands).

The last Battle showed 51 vs 40 elements, but half of them never saw the fight and ended as new as the turn started. MTSG did not functioned this time, as Banks cleverly said once and again... Is something like a gamble.

These loses had nothing to do with the Replacement /Attrition affairs. They were lost due to the 2,5 ratio... I feel it overflows somewere in the road.

---
So: If a cap is to be decided, it is needed ALSO to review the high RATIO of loses in battles.

I think you'll like the new Beta patch that just came out then......

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=10830

Bigus

[squarian]

I think you'll like the new Beta patch that just came out then......

I don't understand - does this refer to 1.11b? If so, I see nothing in the notes Pocus posted relating to this combat-losses issue.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[squarian]

The v1.11b game executable engine has some fixes in it that seems to have reduced the rather drastic losses that were occuring quite frequently in earlier patches...Also, the current flavor numbers were reduced to a level identical with similar changes made within WIA. These numbers may or may not be perfect and might need to be further tweaked in, but it is kinda hard to find the "perfect" solution, since the various scenarios are at different time windows during the Civil War. In this endeavor, we can only hope to find a reasonable compromise, not a perfect solution.

Great news - I hope both changes work right, because so far these are the only serious blemishes I can see in two months' playing this excellent game. (Improving the "naval game" is still on my wish list, but that issue is news to no one here and I gather its on the agenda also, so I'm content)

Thanks for the work.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[bigus]

I don't understand - does this refer to 1.11b? If so, I see nothing in the notes Pocus posted relating to this combat-losses issue.

.........Check out the new Beta .....

The v1.11b game executable engine has some fixes in it that seem to have reduced the rather drastic losses that were occuring quite frequently in earlier patches. I say "seem", because the beta team itself did not have the time to totally confirm this, but it's effect was observed enough for us to suspend work on what was then a "data" change regarding Troop Quality and Evasion ratings, preferring instead to let the new game executable be released first to see if any further work with the "data" was warranted.

Also, the current flavor numbers were reduced to a level identical with similar changes made within WIA. These numbers may or may not be perfect and might need to be further tweaked in, but it is kinda hard to find the "perfect" solution, since the various scenarios are at different time windows during the Civil War. In this endeavor, we can only hope to find a reasonable compromise, not a perfect solution.

Edit:TY Gray. I started to edit this post last night and got sidetracked with something else and never finished it.

bigus

[Daxil]

edit> Balance adjustments, in so far as is practical, can be achieved by judicious manipulation of the following AI options:

1.) Difficulty Level
2.) Activation Bonus
3.) AI Detect Bonus
4.) Aggressiveness

Yeah, but I'm not playing the ai. I'm playing a human in a very competitive match.

I guess my frustration is partly because I was a newb when this game started when the CSA supposedly has its main advantages and the guy I'm playing against had a year's worth of play experience on me. Now two months later of playtime I finally have a grasp of the mechanics, and frankly hjave caught up with him in game knowledge, but the Union has all the advantages in game. I personally think some of those advantages go above and beyond what took place historically. I'm in 100% agreement that it's too easy for a Union player to roll over the CSA into Richmond without any strategy by 1863, and that of course is ahistorical. The 60-30 divisional balance does not bug me, but the attrittion issues brought up in this thread have merit imo.

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

I'm in 100% agreement that it's too easy for a Union player to roll over the CSA into Richmond without any strategy by 1863.

I am in agreement with this, per my Athena creates Verdun thread.

[MrTFehr]

It is my impression from playing that the replacements work fine, or at least they work as I am under the impression they are supposed to.

I do think attrition needs a little re-working, and I think there were/are a lot of good ideas to look further into.

Finally, I think the effort put into this game by both the designers (programmers) and the beta testers is great, and it really shows in the game I think. Keep up the good work.

[runyan99]

Lately I've been having quite a few problems keeping any kind of serious rebel army in the field after 1862. It's got to be due to historical attrition / replacements. I buy replacements to bring back troops to units that are seriously depleted by combat, but they generally seem to go to keeping other units topped off with full companies, which then lose troops again due to attrition, etc. So I buy just one of each, so I can build new units, but I can't even afford that because it gets sucked up and spit out in the form of drunken bounty-jumping deserters. There really doesn't seem to be a point in buying them, anymore. It happens if I start a late-war scenario, because there are already so many troops in the field. The replacements pool just gets sucked dry almost immediately.

It's not a problem for me if I play an early war scenario against Athena, because I can beat Athena before I hit the out-of-replacements wall. It's not a problem as the union, because the rebels hit that wall first, and I can certainly afford replacements long enough to win.

I'm thinking that with historical attrition on, replacements don't need to be going to line regiments with over 600 troops at all. They don't need to go to volunteers with over 450 at all. Maybe somebody has a better suggestion for how to fix this. Maybe somebody who helped design the current historical attrition system can give the rest of us pointers on what we are doing wrong. It feels like* a large portion of the beta team got done with this debate and then headed for greener pastures (other games).

I had probably more to do with the attrition design than anyone, and if anyone has been missing, it has been me.

Trying to model how Civil War regiments depleted over time is fairly complicated, and I gave it my best effort. I don't know if the results were perfect.

That said, I'd agree that there is little point in trying to keep regiments much over 600 troops. That's by design, as that was pretty normal manpower for a regiment during the real war. It was impossible to keep a full strength unit in the field as men would invariably desert or get sick on a regular basis.

Attrition is designed to decrease as the size of the regiment decreases, which I'm sure you know if you have read the beta threads. If the attrition feature is preventing the CSA from fielding any armies in 1863, even if the CSA player isn't wasting manpower trying to keep units up to 100% strength, that is an issue I am not familiar with. Had I gotten the formulas grossly wrong, I would suspect the hue and cry on the forums would have been much louder before now. I know JW that you are an extremely active player, and it may be that the frequency with which you move units means you sustain more attrition than the average player.

If replacements are going to the wrong places, that is to well manned units rather than 100 man regiments, then the replacement priority is a seperate issue from the attrition modeling.

[Jabberwock]

That said, I'd agree that there is little point in trying to keep regiments much over 600 troops. That's by design, as that was pretty normal manpower for a regiment during the real war. It was impossible to keep a full strength unit in the field as men would invariably desert or get sick on a regular basis.

Agreed. This is historical. I'd even argue for 500 as the historical mean.

Attrition is designed to decrease as the size of the regiment decreases, which I'm sure you know if you have read the beta threads. If the attrition feature is preventing the CSA from fielding any armies in 1863, even if the CSA player isn't wasting manpower trying to keep units up to 100% strength, that is an issue I am not familiar with. Had I gotten the formulas grossly wrong, I would suspect the hue and cry on the forums would have been much louder before now. I know JW that you are an extremely active player, and it may be that the frequency with which you move units means you sustain more attrition than the average player.

I don't think the formulas are grossly wrong at the upper levels for green units. I think that attrition doesn't decrease enough once regiments reach 600 troops or less, because AFAIK, the formula is based on a straight percentage. Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.

I do tend to play a fairly active strategy, and push some units hard in less than optimal weather. I've toned that down since last we played, possibly not enough. On the other hand, I also tend to keep more units stationary while building entrenchments than many players. I haven't noticed the problems so much with cavalry as with infantry, if that helps diagnose.

If replacements are going to the wrong places, that is to well manned units rather than 100 man regiments, then the replacement priority is a seperate issue from the attrition modeling.

Agreed that this is probably the crux of the issue. However, I believe the two seperate issues are causing one problem effect.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[runyan99]

Yes that's correct.

[Daxil]

If the attrition feature is preventing the CSA from fielding any armies in 1863, even if the CSA player isn't wasting manpower trying to keep units up to 100% strength, that is an issue I am not familiar with. Had I gotten the formulas grossly wrong, I would suspect the hue and cry on the forums would have been much louder before now. I know JW that you are an extremely active player, and it may be that the frequency with which you move units means you sustain more attrition than the average player.

I've definitely noticed it, but... I've hardly taken any permanent casualties. Historically the CSA lost, what, 20, 30,000 troops at Donnelson? Probably more elsewhere? Subtract 3, 4 divisions from my permamently maintained army and I thinkl replacements hold stable deep into 1863. Walla, historical results. I think replacements could possibly need some tweaking, but it may be that it has been somewhat blown out of proportion.

[Jabberwock]

I've definitely noticed it, but... I've hardly taken any permanent casualties. Historically the CSA lost, what, 20, 30,000 troops at Donnelson? Probably more elsewhere? Subtract 3, 4 divisions from my permamently maintained army and I thinkl replacements hold stable deep into 1863. Walla, historical results. I think replacements could possibly need some tweaking, but it may be that it has been somewhat blown out of proportion.

Estimates differ for Donelson, probably under 15,000. Another 15,000 at Vicksburg. I don't think the south should be automatically penalized for performing better than it did historically.

[ohms_law]

Agreed. Same with the Union, for that matter.