AGEOD Forums

I'm puzzled by an apparent limitation in the game engine.

I'm trying to develop an "historical" army organization, along the lines of http://www.nps.gov/archive/gett/getttour/armorg.htm, where the key feature is:

• Armies (commanded by a 3- or 4-* General) contain Corps
• Corps (commanded by a 3-*) contain Divisions
• Divisions (commanded by a 2-*) contain Brigades (and other attached units)
• Brigades (commanded by a 1-*) contain "elements" (Regiments, Batteries, Cavalry Squadrons etc.)

According to http://www.ageod.net/aacwwiki/Manual:Army_organization#Command_Chain, this seems allowed -- even necessary.

However, when I place a general in charge of a Brigade, that Brigade can not be included in a Division.

The confusing part is that Army/Corps/Division generals can each exist, but a general commanding a Brigade has to be independent of a Division.

Intentional, or a design oversight?

Yeah it's a game engine limitation. You can't put brigades commanded by a brigadier inside a division...only uncommanded units can "join" the division.
Quite silly but it's the way they designed it!

This is one is on my wishlist for AACW 2!

If I understand the game engine correctly however you wouldn't derive any actual benefit from commanded Brigades being put inside a Division would you? Other then perhaps historical flavor.

Do I have this wrong? If so please give me details (i'm pretty new)

MikeV wrote:

• Armies (commanded by a 3- or 4-* General) contain Corps
• Corps (commanded by a 3-*) contain Divisions
• Divisions (commanded by a 2-*) contain Brigades (and other attached units)
• Brigades (commanded by a 1-*) contain "elements" (Regiments, Batteries, Cavalry Squadrons etc.)

Except that 1-star generals in the game aren't necessarily brigadier generals, etc. The stars refer to command rather than actual rank; after all, divisions, corps, and armies were usually commanded by major generals.

deleted

As we can all testify the AGEOD team is quite imaginative so we never know what kind of goodies they may put into an AACW2 (if there is one, God willing!)

In any case I can always hope!

deleted

W.Barksdale wrote:As we can all testify the AGEOD team is quite imaginative so we never know what kind of goodies they may put into an AACW2 (if there is one, God willing!)

In any case I can always hope!

How about an "E=MC2 TROOPER", or "Pepperoni pizza"?

(if anyone knows what those are....)

One of the things to consider is that the Army never really had the command levels as they say they should be, even to this day, a brigade is commanded by a colonel versus a brigadier general.

Regards,
CptCav

deleted

Bobmbx wrote:How about an "E=MC2 TROOPER", or "Pepperoni pizza"?

(if anyone knows what those are....)

Yes but i was good enough to need not to cheat

Gray_Lensman wrote:Unlike today, more often than not in the Civil War, brigades were commanded by Brig. Generals and Regiments were commanded by Colonels.

I have to disagree with you somewhat about the brigades being commanded more often than not by a brigadier general.

For example:
(1) The Union army at Manassas had every single brigade commanded by a colonel.
(2) The Union army at Antietam had 2 brigades command by majors! Both were US Regulars. And 25 brigades commanded by colonels versus 26 commanded by brigadier generals.
(3) The Union army at Gettysburg had 32 brigades commanded by a colonel versus 27 commanded by a brigadier general.

I am sure that their are also examples of other battles where the brigades were commanded by more brigadiers (I just didn't look at more than the three); so, I would just say a brigade was commanded by either a colonel or brigadier general. Whereas divisions were normally commanded by brigadier generals and corps by major generals unlike modern day.

Regards,
CptCav

cptcav wrote:Whereas divisions were normally commanded by brigadier generals and corps by major generals unlike modern day.

Regards,
CptCav

Divisions may have normally been commanded by brigadiers, but some were commanded by major generals, especially Southern divisions. The Northern congress was a bit more stingy with ranks. Major generals commanded divisions, corps, and armies, and both Halleck and McClellan were major generals when they were made generals-in-chief.

The game has to apply a uniform command structure wheras in RL there were 2 different ones.

It does this by dealing in command assignments rather than grade.
ie * is a division or lower commander regardless whether Col, BG, or MG.
** = Corps or lower commander
*** = Army or lower commander


Grierson, Streight and Wilder come into the game as * in RL they were Colonels
which should be reflected in a lower seniority.

In reverse Couch and Newton were ex Corps commanders leading divisions - in game terms * rather than **.


S! EC

deleted

Gray_Lensman wrote:Some things are part of the same overall game engine that run thru all the games that use it. This is one of them. One Leader to a combined unit whether it's a brigade or a division.

OK, so that's the design for all systems based on this engine. Got it.

Gray_Lensman wrote:Why? Because Leaders have their own specific abilities that the game engine must work with. To have 2 leaders in the same combined unit would entail huge amounts of exception work for all the individual parts of the code that would have to distinguish between which leader is being used and which is along for the ride. The end result would be a lot of extra code for no purpose other than to allow a secondary leader to tag along in a division, a real waste of programmer resources.

I'm not sure I get your point. The engine already has logic to flow down effects from Army commander to Corps. And there's already the situation of a "Command," where the senior-most general commands and the others are "along for the ride."

Wouldn't it make sense for any leaders in the "Command Chain" to add in their bonuses, even if the depth was 4 instead of 3?

deleted

Divisions should be the same format as corps to allow for bde commanders IMO :P. Bde's should be a similar format to the current division setup.

deleted

LOL Gray calm down...Let me wish for AACW2!

deleted

enf91 wrote:Divisions may have normally been commanded by brigadiers, but some were commanded by major generals, especially Southern divisions. The Northern congress was a bit more stingy with ranks. Major generals commanded divisions, corps, and armies, and both Halleck and McClellan were major generals when they were made generals-in-chief.

Wasn't it 1863 before Congress created the Lt General Rank...specifically for Grant? if true, suprising....not sure why you would want major generals all fighting about date of promotion when trying to figure out whose in charge.

deleted

Gray_Lensman wrote:A brand new game understandably has teething issues and bugs to iron out, but AACW1 is beginning to seriously wear on me with the bug issues. I enjoy the hell out of working with the database itself, but NO MORE STINKING BUGS for AACW1.

I agree. Hey that's why I voted to drop the support once all the abilities were working correctly.

Gray_Lensman wrote:It's time to quit redesigning AACW, fix the bugs that are currently in the game engine and allow AACW to be improved as it is exclusively with the database.

+1