Just a plug for the new division rules--I like 'em and they've revived my interest in AACW. Though my desire is in playing the '62, '63 and '64 campaigns, I can appreciate how the new division rules may create some historical imbalances for the start of the war. Any changes I hope would be along the lines of an option toggle similar to the newer naval rules.
Best
-
McNaughton
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
I initially wrote what can best be described as a novel, but will take forever to read. So, here's a reduced version.
What we must look at here is the effectiveness of the forces to fight. Corps increase the effective ability for a commander to lead troops. The question is, did the Confederate forces in the East experience significant command and control problems to really rate their forces as AGEOD 'commands' rather than 'corps' (with their command bonus').
I cannot find consistent examples to show that the individual Confederate forces in early 1862 were sufficiently disorganized to be rates as Commands, over that of Corps. Take Macgruder for example. He led 15 000 men in the Peninsula brilliantly. Jackson led his force in the Valley so well he cleared the entire region of Federal troops. Huger also set up an efficient and effective defense of Norfolk. They fought effectively and efficiently, thereby should not have command penalties.
Where the forces did suffer, was when they were put under army command. Jackson, Macgruder, etc. didn't perform as well under army command during this same timeframe as they did independnetly.
The problem has nothing to do with their ability to command their own troops, but rather their ability to follow orders and directions of their superior commander (indeed, one of Grant's division commanders faced such problems during Shiloh, effectively taking his troops out of the battle on the first day). These troops were ineffective because their 'corps/wing' commander was ineffective at commanding them under someone else's plan. On their own, they could fight brilliantly, but in the Penninsula, they weren't effective yet.
Things really didn't have anything to do with the command structure of the Army of Northern Virginia, as in 'official corps' fought better than 'wings'. Lee's greatest victory was at 2nd Bull Run, and one of his greatest defeats a few weeks later at Antietam. Another brilliant victory was Chancellorsville, tied on to his devestating defeat at Gettysburg. 'Corps' commanders performed well, or they didn't. Independently, during the Antietam Campaign, the 'wing' commanders fought brilliantly (Harpers Ferry for example), but when combined at Antietam, they fought well, but not 'brilliantly'.
So, when it comes down to things, the 'wings' used by both the Federals and Confederates were basically functioning as Corps. Troops were generally as effective under corps command, or under wing command, with teething problems faced under both commands (take Gettysburg, where an entire Union Corps went out of position due to the commander's false thinking that he is moving to better positions). So, I cannot honestly say that there was a significant difference between Lee's Wing organization, and later Corps organization, enough of which to change things in game.
What we must look at here is the effectiveness of the forces to fight. Corps increase the effective ability for a commander to lead troops. The question is, did the Confederate forces in the East experience significant command and control problems to really rate their forces as AGEOD 'commands' rather than 'corps' (with their command bonus').
I cannot find consistent examples to show that the individual Confederate forces in early 1862 were sufficiently disorganized to be rates as Commands, over that of Corps. Take Macgruder for example. He led 15 000 men in the Peninsula brilliantly. Jackson led his force in the Valley so well he cleared the entire region of Federal troops. Huger also set up an efficient and effective defense of Norfolk. They fought effectively and efficiently, thereby should not have command penalties.
Where the forces did suffer, was when they were put under army command. Jackson, Macgruder, etc. didn't perform as well under army command during this same timeframe as they did independnetly.
The problem has nothing to do with their ability to command their own troops, but rather their ability to follow orders and directions of their superior commander (indeed, one of Grant's division commanders faced such problems during Shiloh, effectively taking his troops out of the battle on the first day). These troops were ineffective because their 'corps/wing' commander was ineffective at commanding them under someone else's plan. On their own, they could fight brilliantly, but in the Penninsula, they weren't effective yet.
Things really didn't have anything to do with the command structure of the Army of Northern Virginia, as in 'official corps' fought better than 'wings'. Lee's greatest victory was at 2nd Bull Run, and one of his greatest defeats a few weeks later at Antietam. Another brilliant victory was Chancellorsville, tied on to his devestating defeat at Gettysburg. 'Corps' commanders performed well, or they didn't. Independently, during the Antietam Campaign, the 'wing' commanders fought brilliantly (Harpers Ferry for example), but when combined at Antietam, they fought well, but not 'brilliantly'.
So, when it comes down to things, the 'wings' used by both the Federals and Confederates were basically functioning as Corps. Troops were generally as effective under corps command, or under wing command, with teething problems faced under both commands (take Gettysburg, where an entire Union Corps went out of position due to the commander's false thinking that he is moving to better positions). So, I cannot honestly say that there was a significant difference between Lee's Wing organization, and later Corps organization, enough of which to change things in game.
You get the penalty on commander only on the first turn, except if you are unable to pay the administrative cost of forming a division, in this case it stays until you can (this is the famous message 124 that should be translated correctly now)
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Complete list of all changes
Hi Pocus,
Jusy getting back into AACW. Is there a comprehensive list of all changes/updates to date? I see allot of good things over the last month.
My "Readme file" doesn't seem to be working.
thanks in advance.
Jusy getting back into AACW. Is there a comprehensive list of all changes/updates to date? I see allot of good things over the last month.
My "Readme file" doesn't seem to be working.
thanks in advance.
-
Primasprit
- Posts: 1614
- Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 7:44 pm
- Location: Germany
kgsan wrote:I agree. When units stacked with a leader vanish when he is removed by events, that sounds like a bug.If the game engine won't allow the event to be fixed (or it's simply not worth the time and effort to fix with other things to work on) then all such events should probaby just be dropped/deactivated.
Is there any intention to change the way this works in a future patch?
We are wondering whether to start a PBEM or wait and hope for a fix to this.
Cheers, Chris
No dice. All these refer to http://ageoddl.telechargement.fr/latest/AACW_Patch.zip, which is invaluable in providing the very last patch no matter how old a thread you look at (which is good for everybody), but every time a new patch comes, it renders the previous patch(es) "overwritten" (which is bad in situations like mine).
Rafiki wrote:No dice. All these refer to http://ageoddl.telechargement.fr/latest/AACW_Patch.zip, which is invaluable in providing the very last patch no matter how old a thread you look at (which is good for everybody), but every time a new patch comes, it renders the previous patch(es) "overwritten" (which is bad in situations like mine).
I think the intent was to list the readme information for those various patches.
Marc aka Caran...
-
Primasprit
- Posts: 1614
- Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 7:44 pm
- Location: Germany
-
Franciscus
- Posts: 4571
- Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:31 pm
- Location: Portugal
Pocus wrote:You get the penalty on commander only on the first turn, except if you are unable to pay the administrative cost of forming a division, in this case it stays until you can (this is the famous message 124 that should be translated correctly now)
I gather from this post that this "bug" was corrected in 1.05b. But in an April Campaign, as CSA (started with 1.05a, but patched to 1.05b), I am still getting the (in)famous event 124 message. Is it necessary to start anew ??
-
richfed
- Posts: 902
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 9:50 pm
- Location: Marion, North Carolina, USA
- Contact: Website
Here are some issues I have noticed with the 1.05 patch - currently using the latest [b] update.
All of these are in the full campaign and I am playing as the CSA - several restarts.
1 - Huger and Polk do not seem to be promotable any longer.
2 - The St. Louis Massacre never occurs; hence no Stirling Price.
3 - All coastal forts containing naval batteries cannot have garrisons inside. I put them there, and they are outside the fort next turn.
4 - Installation of each new 1.05 patch takes about 20 minutes for some reason.
5 - Love the division rule, but like I said in another thread, it would be nice to have an identifier on the map piece ... i.e: Armies have a star, Corps have a diamond. The gray stripe is useful in formation and when looking at the units in a stack, but as one looks at the map, there is no way to identify a lone unit as a division.
Other than that, all seems well from where I sit!
All of these are in the full campaign and I am playing as the CSA - several restarts.
1 - Huger and Polk do not seem to be promotable any longer.
2 - The St. Louis Massacre never occurs; hence no Stirling Price.
3 - All coastal forts containing naval batteries cannot have garrisons inside. I put them there, and they are outside the fort next turn.
4 - Installation of each new 1.05 patch takes about 20 minutes for some reason.
5 - Love the division rule, but like I said in another thread, it would be nice to have an identifier on the map piece ... i.e: Armies have a star, Corps have a diamond. The gray stripe is useful in formation and when looking at the units in a stack, but as one looks at the map, there is no way to identify a lone unit as a division.
Other than that, all seems well from where I sit!
-
jimwinsor
- General of the Army
- Posts: 631
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:07 am
- Location: San Diego, CA USA
richfed wrote:Here are some issues I have noticed with the 1.05 patch - currently using the latest [b] update.
All of these are in the full campaign and I am playing as the CSA - several restarts.
1 - Huger and Polk do not seem to be promotable any longer.
2 - The St. Louis Massacre never occurs; hence no Stirling Price.
3 - All coastal forts containing naval batteries cannot have garrisons inside. I put them there, and they are outside the fort next turn.
4 - Installation of each new 1.05 patch takes about 20 minutes for some reason.
5 - Love the division rule, but like I said in another thread, it would be nice to have an identifier on the map piece ... i.e: Armies have a star, Corps have a diamond. The gray stripe is useful in formation and when looking at the units in a stack, but as one looks at the map, there is no way to identify a lone unit as a division.
Other than that, all seems well from where I sit!
#5 is a good idea...I suggest a triangle symbol on the base to represent a division.
[CENTER][SIGPIC][/SIGPIC][/CENTER]
[CENTER][SIZE="1"](Click HERE for AAR)[/size][/CENTER]
[CENTER][SIZE="1"](Click HERE for AAR)[/size][/CENTER]
Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests