Divisional HQ

[goodwood]

G'Day Pocus,
Have you a timeframe on when divisional HQs will be moved?
Ron

[Pocus]

good day to you too!

I need to clean something in the AI code structure, then the new order 'relocate unit' will be implemented... and then removal of HQ divs. So perhaps 2 weeks.

[goodwood]

Once the Div HQs are removed, will this mean you will able to stack less elements in a division? eg. a division Hq can contain many elements, and only costs 4 cps to a leader stack. units stacked individually will cost more, how are u going overcome this?

[Rafiki]

It's not a division HQ that contains the many elements, it's the division (of which the HQ is part). Divisions will remain part of the game, you just won't need HQs to form them

[Spruce]

I would like to have Corps HQ's and Army HQ's ? Is that an option - just to change the DIV HQ's to Corps HQ's ?

It will be too easy to have many corps under one big strong General like Grant or Lee. F.e. the ANV with 6 corps ...

[Rafiki]

Forming corps will & should be just as easy/hard in the future as it is today.

Providing my impression of what Pocus has said is correct, bumping the need for HQ's up a notch will just shift the AIs problem of forming proper stacks/units, even if corps are fewer than divisions and therefore should be easier to keep under control for the AI.

IMHO

[Spruce]

even at corps level ? I mean there will be far less units to control or maintain by the AI.

oh well, my (only) motivation originates that this could lead to exploits by the CSA in VA. F.E. having 6 or 8 army corps - all with the excellent bonuses from general Lee. Anyhow, if you build 6 or 8 corps HQ you can still do this ...

rest my case ...

[McNaughton]

Realistically, the number of corps was irrelevant, what counts is number of divisions that a commander (or series of commanders) can effectively command in a single corps.

The Confederates had multiple divisions in a corps, about 2x as many. Before 1863 the ANV had just two corps between it, but each were over 30 000 men. A contemporary Union Corps ranged between 10-20 000 men (max). Take Gettysburg, which was after the change to three corps in the ANV.

Each Union Corps was about 10 000 men, while a Confederate Corps was at 20 000. The three Confederate Corps resulted in 60 000 men, while it took nine Union Corps to surpass them at 90 000.

It was by design that the Confederates had 2-3 Corps in the ANV, and that the Federals had 9 Corps in the AOP. Lee could easily have divided his forces into smaller commands (indeed, during the Peninsula Campaign the 'ANV' was of 4 Corps), but due to the fact he had superb corps commanders who were able to command 20-30 000 men effectively, why dillute their command?

Anyway, I see no problem if a player wants to deviate from the plans of the Confederates (just a few corps) or the Federals (loads of weaker corps).

[Chris0827]

but due to the fact he had superb corps commanders who were able to command 20-30 000 men effectively, why dillute their command?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hill and Ewell were far from superb corps commanders

[jimkehn]

I hate losin Div HQs.

[pasternakski]

I hate losin Div HQs.

ditto

[Conhugeco]

but due to the fact he had superb corps commanders who were able to command 20-30 000 men effectively, why dillute their command?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hill and Ewell were far from superb corps commanders

My understanding is that Lee wanted to reorganize the ANV into three corps sooner, but didn't precisely because he had doubts about Hill, Ewell, etc. The death of Jackson forced his hand.

Dick

[jimkehn]

What is the reason for removing Divisional HQs???

Will we be able to start out the game being able to combine any pair of brigades to form any number of divisions?? Will there need to be a leader to form a division?? I would be more willing to accept the fact that a leader is needed to form a division, but man, this still seems to present too little limitation.

I see the Divisional HQ's as much more than a tent, map table and a couple a pencil pushers. I think the limits they pose reflect political considerations, espirit de corps, training time, tactics development and education, logistics, etc. I just hate to think that we would be able to combine two brigades at will and create divisions, with no limitations. Without having to.....over time....work up to a level of organization that took some time to develop.

[Johnny Canuck]

What is the reason for removing Divisional HQs???

Will we be able to start out the game being able to combine any pair of brigades to form any number of divisions?? Will there need to be a leader to form a division?? I would be more willing to accept the fact that a leader is needed to form a division, but man, this still seems to present too little limitation.

I see the Divisional HQ's as much more than a tent, map table and a couple a pencil pushers. I think the limits they pose reflect political considerations, espirit de corps, training time, tactics development and education, logistics, etc. I just hate to think that we would be able to combine two brigades at will and create divisions, with no limitations. Without having to.....over time....work up to a level of organization that took some time to develop.

IIRC, the primary reason for the elimination of divisional HQs is that the AI has problems building divisions with the requirement to have a division HQ in the stack, which leads to AI stacks having severe command penalties which tilts the game in favour of the human player. By eliminating the requirement to have a division HQ in the stack, the AI will be able to form divisions more consistently & thus pose a greater challenge to the human player.

[jimkehn]

OK....I'm buyin that answer. Still...I wish they weren't going away.

[pasternakski]

I am hoping for a thorough, manual-like document that explains not only the new system, but the specific nature of the changes as they affect game play.

Right now, I feel like I don't even have enough information to ask intelligent questions.

For example, what happens to the current limit on numbers of divisions? Will there still be a limit of 18 elements per division? What changes are being made to the interface (particularly them nifty li'l buttons that either light up or grey out as conditions warrant)? Stupid questions. Questions an idiot might ask if he wasn't afraid he would show himself to be such a moron.

See, I spent a h*ll of a lot of time trying to learn how to play this game well (with indifferent success), and a lot of the learning was of the "oops, I screwed THAT up, time to start over and apply another lesson learned the hard way" variety. I thought of the command rules as one of the primary strengths of the game -and its most difficult feature - and took some pride in having come to grips with them and finally understood how they work - and how to work them.

I sure don't want to start over...

hot diggety dog, I just made 'er back up to light colonel ... the man I came to despise most in life was a light colonel...

[hattrick]

WHat I would like to know is, of the people who wanted the HQ's out, how many still want them removed after playing with them all this time?

Maybe another poll?

[McNaughton]

but due to the fact he had superb corps commanders who were able to command 20-30 000 men effectively, why dillute their command?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hill and Ewell were far from superb corps commanders

Which was why after Jackson's death he had the ANV deploy 3 corps instead of 2 corps.

[Zoetermeer]

IIRC, the primary reason for the elimination of divisional HQs is that the AI has problems building divisions with the requirement to have a division HQ in the stack, which leads to AI stacks having severe command penalties which tilts the game in favour of the human player. By eliminating the requirement to have a division HQ in the stack, the AI will be able to form divisions more consistently & thus pose a greater challenge to the human player.

Sounds like a Band-Aid for a much larger problem IMO. You shouldn't remove a game feature just because your AI isn't sophisticated enough to handle it (at least not after you've already released).

But I'm kind of in favor of removing division HQ's, because it seems a little ridiculous that you can't organize a collection of brigades and a leader into a division without having to "build" an HQ and send it down from Richmond. I guess this is supposed to be somewhat analogous to assigning a staff to a leader of a unit. In my games, I'm always ending up with extra commanders that pop up and have to sit idle or tag along with a larger unit doing nothing, until i've had time to build a new HQ and send it out to them. Maybe I should be planning better, but I don't see the removal of this cumbersome step detracting from my experience.

[pasternakski]

Your generals can always lead troops. They just don't do it as effectively when outside an organized army-corps-division chain of command.

I will not get into the whole thing again except to say that the poll split just about evenly between pro and con. It turned out to be a designer decision in the final analysis, so I am ready to accept it and move on.

I'm gonna miss the little buggers, though. I think that a huge piece of important historicity is being subtracted from the game, but nobody is interested in listening to what I have to say about it.

Let's just add that command during this era was "cumbersome." The game reflected that. I don't know how the brave new game will pan out, but I think I am destined to like it less.

[pasternakski]

Which was why after Jackson's death he had the ANV deploy 3 corps instead of 2 corps.

This is not entirely so. Lee saw the Army of the Potomac getting bigger and bigger. His own army was, by necessity, increasing in size, as well. He knew that, sooner or later, a two-corps structure would be insufficient for managing the beast.

His great successes in the early war came, in large measure, from his ability to use Jackson as his "hammer" against Longstreet as his "anvil." The Army of Northern Virginia was not as capable under Lee's leadership after Antietam as it had been before. Yes, the loss of Jackson was a terrible blow, but the three-corps command structure - and Lee's inability to manipulate it to maximum effect -was primarily to blame.

He learned and gave Grant a h*ll of a time, but the "magic" was irretrievably gone.

[jimwinsor]

If I recall, under the new system you'll NEED a leader to form a division. Leaders won't be optional anymore.

Which means Div HQ staffs are *really* not out of the game. In effect, they are still there...

They've just been merged with the leaders.

And to me, when you look at it that way, it makes perfect sense. It's a nicely logical streamlining; they are STILL THERE, it just that they are part and parcel of the leader unit now.

This change improves the elegance of the design too, in that it brings the situation in accord with how corps are created (ie, need a leader, not an HQ). So, I'm optimistic it's going to work out well.

[jimkehn]

Jim, I don't entirely agree. But I might if I knew more. I see this as ahistorical in the sense that if you have a leader you can form a division. In the current infrastructure, how many divisions do I have as CSA and how many leaders?? I can tell you I have about 5-8 times the number of leaders as divisions. (Blame me for the way I've played). I just think being limited on the number of divisions you are able to build represents so much more than just having the staff and pitchin a tent and movin a desk and table in. I think it represents the trial and error learn as ya go. As the armies of the period developed more advanced tactics, refined logistics, built political capital, the organization of the armies became more advanced. This took time. Like it now takes time to build and transport HQ's. I think this is what it represents to me. The effort and investment it takes to build the organization that makes an effective fighting force. Now...having said that....if there is some built in limitation to the number of divisions each side might have at any one time, with that number increasing through out the war, then I am good with it.

[Queeg]

Now...having said that....if there is some built in limitation to the number of divisions each side might have at any one time, with that number increasing through out the war, then I am good with it.

I think Pocus has said there will be limits on the number of available divisions. This from the Poll thread:

Divisions HQs will be removed. Because they are numerous, and this add micromanaging. You will need a general, you will have a maximum limit of divisions at a given time, that can be increased by events. The leader will pay the formation of a division by having reduced stats during one turn. This will cost you war supplies. If the leader is removed for any reason, the division is dismissed and the brigades reappears.

[Johnny Canuck]

Now...having said that....if there is some built in limitation to the number of divisions each side might have at any one time, with that number increasing through out the war, then I am good with it.

According to what Pocus said here, the current limits on the number of divisions for each side (48 for USA, 24 for CSA) will remain.

EDIT: Just saw that Queeg beat me by a minute. Both quotes are from the same thread.

[Queeg]

So I guess he's said it at least twice. I really don't think this is a big deal for the human player. It essentially just means that divisions will be handled by a button rather than a counter.

[pasternakski]

Jim, I don't entirely agree. But I might if I knew more.

Well, like everyone else, I am trying to be optimistic, though it's not in my nature (my old man's philosophy was to expect the worst, so that he could say, "I told you so," and, if anything better than that happened, he could be pleasantly surprised).

There is so much in that Pocus quote that worries me ... war supply cost for forming a division? Reduced leader capabilities for a turn? These are immense departures from the original system and are bound to work massive changes in how the player needs to approach command organization.

The whole "if I knew more" thing is what makes me think I need to shut up about this until we see what we get in the sandwich we are handed - ham and cheese or SPAM and greeze...

heavy sigh ... gee, I love this game the way it is...

[Queeg]

There is so much in that Pocus quote that worries me ... war supply cost for forming a division? Reduced leader capabilities for a turn? These are immense departures from the original system and are bound to work massive changes in how the player needs to approach command organization.

Divisions already have a war supply cost. Always have.

Divisions already have an operational delay when first built. Always have.

I guess I just don't see where the seismic shift is in all this. There obviously are details that need to be ironed out, but the basic change, as Pocus has described it, essentially just means (a) that you will create divisions using a button instead of a counter (like corps are presently) and (b) you won't have to move the HQ to find a general (again like corps are at present).

[pasternakski]

You miss my points.

Divisions do not currently have a cost. Division HQ units do. This entails more than an expenditure of war supplies. You have to "spend" manpower and money, as well. It comes into your turn-by-turn consideration of what you need and what you can afford. The new "system" seems to me to destroy this neat dynamic that keeps your attention on what you need to plan for. Instead, it appears that you will be able to haphazardly make a decision through the orders interface you get at the bottom of the map rather than through the various strategic planning and roster screens. This, as I said, is a major change and can have significant consequences for game play (and, I think, opens up possible "cheat" avenues, as well). At the very least, I see it as a step away from organization and toward chaos.

The current delay in division HQ units becoming active was one of the best things about the original design. Merely screwing the commander on command capabilities (however that is going to be handled in specific game terms) is far from being the same thing. As Chief Lodgeskins said to Little Big Man about his dream that Little Big Man was going to have sex with three squaws in one night and Little Big Man saying, "But, Grandfather, the Human Beings are monogamous," "I know. It worries me."

Again, I have said what I have had to say on this and have no interest in arguing about it. I am just thankful for my victories and for my defeats.

[Jacek]

Strange I used HQ divisions a lot in my earlier games but now I don't use them that much and stick with independent or corps as I shift from eastern- meat-grinder-in-Virginia type of game to more stealthy,raid approach. Strange how HQ divisons became obsolete if you don't want to beat the Union in great battles.