AGEOD Forums

I'm just curious as to other players thoughts on the recent increased CP costs for a lone bde. Personally, I find that I am using many many times less independent bde's because of the limitation.

Granted, due to the generic promotions, there are available more ** and *** generals, however, this doesn't change the fact that independent forces have a maximum CP supplied of 8. This is ever so quickly taken up by only 8 elements.

Does the change make sense to you? Comments are appreciated!

I voted 'yes', but I do think there should be a limit to it. I do not feel that 1 cp per element makes sense with the larger brigades. A formation of that size will have an internal command structure to run itself more efficiently.

Maybe 1/two elements + 1/each type representation? (Inf, Arty, Cav)

I agree with solowolf. For larger brigades there should be some CP discount. Overall I'm pretty content with the current situation. It eases my mind to know that my opponent is facing the same struggles as far as CP penalties go.

Provided the division limit is expanded to keep pace with strategic flexibility needs, I don't think it's an issue.

The only thing I can think of being a concern is maybe it being more of a disadvantage for the Confederacy then the Union. Signal units and division activation costs are pretty irrelevant for the Union, but may weigh more heavily for the Confederacy.

I voted yes, because I agree that larger brigades should cost more than they did (I actually can't remember what they used to cost). How much more they cost could be a point of contention. It does seem excessive, but remember: in that time, staffs for units below division size really didn't exist, so having one colonel or brigadier general command six or seven regiments would be difficult. If it really is that much of a problem, couldn't you just use your huge brigades for divisions and use your smaller ones as auxiliaries?

deleted

Gray_Lensman wrote:No vote here...

I have no preference one way or the other at this point.

Likewise...no vote here.

Interesting responses so far! Keep them coming! So far I'm seeing alot of yes, buts...and regarding the larger bde's... To me this seems odd because it's almost only the larger bde's which are effected in the first place

Gray_Lensman wrote:
Before the changes there were single (one) element brigades AND two element units that cost 2 CmdCost (yes, you read that right... A single element brigade that cost 2 CmdCost), yet the super large 7 element brigade only cost 4 CmdCost. There was something wrong in that disparity so it was rationalized out to make more equal sense. Now the 7 element brigade cost 6 CmdCost. I have no preference one way or the other at this point.

Gray, I don't recall a single element bde in the reinforcement screen costing 2 CPs, could you refresh my memory, what was it?! >Was it a Zouave regiment?

Just wanted to throw this around: I suggest CP cost = #elements\2, rounding up to the nearest whole. This ends up being much closer to the .5 CP\element that you were going for.

So 1 element =1. 2 elements=1. 3 elements=2. 4 elements=2. 5 elements=3. 6 elements=3. 7 elements = 4

Seems I have dug up on old debate here ... still, since just today I've started wondering about the CP cost for brigades being so high (and doing a search for "CP" and "brigades" this came up), here is my take--if the CP cost is even close to 1 CP per regiment in the brigade, what's the point about having a brigade level in the game at all? Afterall, you have a chain-of-command so you *don't* have to send orders to every unit in your command. In game terms, this translates into a reduction of command costs. Thus the whole idea of a brigade is lost if it doesn't significantly reduce the command cost of the sum of the regiments in it. -- Or at least then it's *only* a container for recruiting units (and I have always wondered why we can't recruit directly in regiments).

deleted