Division Cap

[W.Barksdale]

I know this has been brought up numerous times,by me and others, but I just need to release some frustration. If your not interested stop reading now. I don't mean any offense to anyone.

The division cap just makes things much more tedious for players. By early 1863 in most games both sides have reached this cap and then things just start to get tedious.

Hundreds of stacks of little tiny brigades, if you can even call them brigades, and a few stacks of larger bdes here and there, just gets the player bogged down in micromanagement.

Sure there may be a 'historical' basis for having a cap at 60\30. However, as this poll shows, people want the game to "recreate the historical conditions that determined the actions of the historical actors" and not be constrained by historical limits.

So if we have the leaders to make divisions, if we have the troops to make divisions, if we have artillery to make divisions, why the bloodclot is there a cap?

It is tedious, uncessary, stupid. Thanks for listening. Once again no offense to anyone.

[DarthMath]

I strongly agree with that, despite I understand the fact that, in long term,
this rule was done to simulate the North's manpower advantage.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Rafiki]

Feel free to post a new thread with a howto on how to mod a division cap, but I see no point in cutting this discussion short right here, right now. That everyone so far seems to agree about it doesn't mean that everyone will, y'know

(And yes, it is a discussion that has been raised before, but people may have gained new insights or views and there are also numerous people that haven't participated in prior instances of this particular debate )

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[W.Barksdale]

I understand the fact that, in long term,
this rule was done to simulate the North's manpower advantage.

I sure hope not! This is an awful way to model this! I think the greater number of conscripts USA receives covers the manpower issue just fine.

I should also add that it's one of Pocus' strongest opposition stances, so in a sense, I'm echoing Pocus' position on the subject.

Indeed? Please tell us the 'official' reason for having a division cap?! Please!!

If I have a bunch of lone regiments, some artillery, and a leader, I just don't see the point of not forming them into a division.

"General Lee, why have you not appointed a commander to form these forces into a division?"
"Well, President Davis, suh, I have reached the 30 division cap"

I could be missing something very simple...so please enlighten me!!!

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Rondor]

It's good enough that it can be modded. This makes everyone happy.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Franciscus]

It's good enough that it can be modded. This makes everyone happy.

I also have stated before that I do not like the divison cap. It has been increased since the beginning, but even so I tend to mod it to increase it. I also fail to see why it is implemented as is. Just to aproximate the game to the historical reality is not needed, as stated by Barksdale. The main consequence, to me, seems to cripple a bit (more) the CSA.

So, I would rather prefer to see the cap at 99/99, and anyone who likes the cap could mod it

[Big Ideas]

I voice my vote for an increase in the division limit as well. It is very restrictive. Most people want to play the vanilla version without modding things like this. Otherwise there would be hundreds a little versions and harder to find people of a similar standard.

BI

[soundoff]

I voice my vote for an increase in the division limit as well. It is very restrictive. Most people want to play the vanilla version without modding things like this. Otherwise there would be hundreds a little versions and harder to find people of a similar standard.

BI

+1

[Pocus]

We have adopted since quite some time the idea, PhilThib and I, that force pool were a good things to keep more historicity into games. So you have force pool on units, and a limit on number of armies and divisions. This is a design decision, a vision, which is not better or worse than another, but it is our.

There is perhaps the possibility to provide one single, ready to use, event, to please people though... I need to talk to Michael before...

[RELee]

Interesting.

Having originated from the Paradox forums, particularly the Victoria forum, I am used to hearing folks complain about the lack of historic accuracy (along with their complaints about the insane ineptness of the AI, but that's another argument). Anyway, the complaints rose until players rose up and developed their own mod to increase and enforce historic accuracy in the game.

Then, over here on AGEod, we have the developers leaning towards historic accuracy in their games to a point where some of the players are rising up and possibly looking to develop a mod to increase the "what if" factor in the game of AACW.

I suppose there is no middle ground to be had on this point.

Personally, I'm glad that Arne did not move this thread over to the mods subforum yet. I've not gotten as engrossed in this game as I did Victoria, so I'm not one to go browsing over there.

Perhaps a poll is in order. Just a suggestion. It would be interesting where players' inclinations lean over here. Are players more interested in a more historical game experience when playing, or would they prefer a more free-wheeling game where they can choose more "what-if" decisions. A recent poll indicated that a majority of players choose to play VIP over the vanilla Victoria:Revolutions game, but this may be due to players looking for that new experience with a game that has little to no hope of ever seeing a another major or incremental version release.

Well, just curiosity on my part.

(edit - I'm more than content with the developer's design decisions in this game. I think a mod for players who want equality between the two sides is adequate, assuming there is a player with enough of a drive to work on such a mod. That's just my opinion.)

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[RELee]

I wasn't suggesting that AGEod develop their games by poll. Sorry if you got that impression. I was just interested in what the opinions of other players would be. Trying to develop games by polling results would result in games that pleased no one. Yukky. Bland and uninspired. I would never suggest such an abomination. Don't even imply that I would recommend such a thing.

I think you got the opposite impression of what I was trying to state in my post. There are various reasons why I have been unable to immerse myself into the AACW experience. Disagreeing with the design philosophy is certainly not one of them. More like a lack of time to sit down and really learn a complicated game. I learned how to play Victoria when I had a lot more spare time. I was not implying that Paradox has a better game philosophy or that I approve of their games over AGEod. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I'm currently in the process of slowly acclimating myself to AGEod games. I tried jumping into AACW and pretty much got in over my head. I've recently purchased BoA and am learning that game. Much simpler, but the roots of which I have seen in AACW. Once I'm comfortable with BoA, I'll be moving back to AACW, and VGN is just around the corner.

And, as I said in my first post, I agree that a mod is what is in order for those who want a greater "what-if" experience in AACW. I said that.

To reiterate, I thoroughly approve and agree with the AGEod game design philosophy.

I just wanted a poll for the fun of it.

Shalom!

[Colonel Dreux]

I'm a new player, but I'm in total agreement with William Barksdale (sorry you were killed at Gettysburg... you did well though). There are too many division leaders and not enough divisions for the South. You can easily create way more troops than you organize, which doesn't make much sense. There can be too much historical accuracy with issues like this. The bottom line is that if you can build it, you should be able to organize it.

Perhaps having more division leaders killed (although it was mostly the brigade commanders like Barksdale who got it... Charles S. Winder (who is in the game) was killed as a brigade commander I think in the Valley Campaign -- a cannonball tore his left arm off and took out part of his left torso). A number of the Corps commanders in the game were killed, like Jackson, A.P. Hill, J.E.B. Stuart, Phil Kearny and Reynolds. Others were grievously wounded and put out of action for months, Ewell and Hood. Others like Sterling Price and Nathaniel Lyon were killed as well. You guys know this though.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Franciscus]

Just a reminder that a (similar) poll already exists and it is recent:
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=14117

Interesting read, BTW

[W.Barksdale]

We have adopted since quite some time the idea, PhilThib and I, that force pool were a good things to keep more historicity into games. So you have force pool on units, and a limit on number of armies and divisions. This is a design decision, a vision, which is not better or worse than another, but it is our.

I complately understand force pools and limits on armies! But divisions? I just can't see the logic here! Thank you for the official response though!

The bottom line is that if you can build it, you should be able to organize it.

Couldn't have said it better.

There are too many division leaders.

Not enough leaders! But this is another debate entirely!
Anyway, when all you need is a brigade, fine! Set your brigadier up with a brigade. No problem here.

[Franciscus]

The bottom line is that if you can build it, you should be able to organize it.

+1
Yep, my thoughts exactly, also.
The limits should be on the force pools and generals available (which are already in game) and not in the way we can organize them. In game, we should be able to reach a "natural" limit related to our available manpower and generals. The only reason that I can think of for the division cap is to try to simulate history and "force" the creation of smaller USA divisions and larger CSA divisons; I do not feel this as necessary, though.
Why, may I ask, were there only 30, or 42 divisions, or whatever, actually created in the CSA armies?? Surely it was not pre-ordained, but it was due to lack of sufficiently available and organized manpower, lack of suitable generals, etc.

BTW - are you planning to "cap" the number of corps/divisons available to be created in the forthcoming VGN ??

[Rondor]

" You can please all of the people some of the time..."

This is exactly why developers create modable software.

[W.Barksdale]

" You can please all of the people some of the time..."
This is exactly why developers create modable software.

Thanks for your insightful contribution to the discussion.

Someone has already posted this but I'll repost for people like our friend Rondor here.

Most people want to play the vanilla version without modding things like this. Otherwise there would be hundreds a little versions and harder to find people of a similar standard.

PBEM is the onyl decent way to get a challenging game. I don't want to have to ensure every new opponent I have has the same mod as me.

I just can't wrap my head around limiting the number of divisions. As was said a few times now...if you let us build regiments and brigades..why not let us organise them into divisions?

Ahh well..still the best Strategic level game I've ever played regardless!

[DarthMath]

I was thinking of a possible thing to do to increase the CSA's division capacity without modding the game : to trigger the foreign intervention event !! 8 or 9 free divisions in your hands !!

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

The limits should be on the force pools and generals available (which are already in game) and not in the way we can organize them. In game, we should be able to reach a "natural" limit related to our available manpower and generals.

This "grabs me" as being the right idea.

Maybe the cap is due to a shortage of competent division-level staff officers. [This is an attempt at humor; don't take this theory seriously.]

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Rondor]

Thanks for your insightful contribution to the discussion.

Someone has already posted this but I'll repost for people like our friend Rondor here.



PBEM is the onyl decent way to get a challenging game. I don't want to have to ensure every new opponent I have has the same mod as me.

I just can't wrap my head around limiting the number of divisions. As was said a few times now...if you let us build regiments and brigades..why not let us organise them into divisions?

Ahh well..still the best Strategic level game I've ever played regardless!

Barksdale: The designer has made it quite clear regarding where the company stands on this specific point. Given this fact and that modding is so easily done I think my point was and still is valid. I apologize if that offended you. We are complete agreement regarding how great a strategic game this truly is.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[W.Barksdale]

Okay cool so cap on armies, and divisions, with a set force pool for historical accuracy. Yeah now Union players won't be able to make lots of smaller divisions...but hey restrictions are good right?

To keep consistency with historical accuracy philoophy I think there should put a cap on the number of corps too. I mean, there were only so many corps right? We should limit players to the historical number of corps!

[soloswolf]

Why is this such a big deal? Is this ruining the game?

I'm not saying you should always just listen to the developers and just eat whatever they say, but this conversation is not going anywhere.

The game is great, we all agree. Countless improvements have been made to make it the way it is, and perhaps a few more could be made. But it seems like the point we are at is this: Find a source with better historical figures, or let it rest.