AGEOD Forums

I've noticed a sort of unbalance between reinforcements and replacements...it's sure a very obvious thing but i would like to understand why it was done like it is.

In my conception, a reinforcement is a recruiting-training-equipping process while replacement is a mere equipping-delivering process of pre-assembled battallions or green conscripts sent speedily into combat units at the front and merged on the spot with regular troops.
The whole process of recruiting-training-equipping is much more elaborate (hence expensive) than filling the ranks of depleted troops with green troops...yet i see in the game a sort of disequation between the 2 processes both in the costs and in the working method.

HVY ARTY (AL), for example, costs 38 2 12. How can the replacements for this unit-type cost 44 2 14, which is more than the buying price of the whole unit?

This kind of relationship between the two types makes sense when each replacement you buy equalizes the losses of 1 fully depleted unit but it doesn't look like it's working like this.

If 38 2 12 = 150 men and 5 mortars then 44 2 14 should mean 100 men and 5 mortars too (to be equally distributed among all requiring units according to stance priorities in all available locations).

Let's forget the deeper analysis on would 5 mortars need 12t of war supplies exactly as 2 whole brigs would need 12t too? unimportant now.

Look Company-wise: 2 <- reinforcements/replacements -> 2

If i have 5 HVY ARTY (150x5=750 men) and each of my 5 units loses 50 men (250), i would still need a little more than ONE replacement (which gives me 2 companies) to refill completely all 5 units.

That's what should happen, when modelled correctly, imho.

GShock wrote:I've noticed a sort of unbalance between reinforcements and replacements...it's sure a very obvious thing but i would like to understand why it was done like it is.

In my conception, a reinforcement is a recruiting-training-equipping process while replacement is a mere equipping-delivering process of pre-assembled battallions or green conscripts sent speedily into combat units at the front and merged on the spot with regular troops.
The whole process of recruiting-training-equipping is much more elaborate (hence expensive) than filling the ranks of depleted troops with green troops...yet i see in the game a sort of disequation between the 2 processes both in the costs and in the working method.

HVY ARTY (AL), for example, costs 38 2 12. How can the replacements for this unit-type cost 44 2 14, which is more than the buying price of the whole unit?

This kind of relationship between the two types makes sense when each replacement you buy equalizes the losses of 1 fully depleted unit but it doesn't look like it's working like this.

If 38 2 12 = 150 men and 5 mortars then 44 2 14 should mean 100 men and 5 mortars too (to be equally distributed among all requiring units according to stance priorities in all available locations).

Let's forget the deeper analysis on would 5 mortars need 12t of war supplies exactly as 2 whole brigs would need 12t too? unimportant now.

Look Company-wise: 2 <- reinforcements/replacements -> 2

If i have 5 HVY ARTY (150x5=750 men) and each of my 5 units loses 50 men (250), i would still need a little more than ONE replacement (which gives me 2 companies) to refill completely all 5 units.

That's what should happen, when modelled correctly, imho.

You are forgetting that Seacoast Artillery is Heavy Artillery as well. The replacement system works by taking all of the unit types of that class (i.e., all of the heavy artillery), and averages out the costs. What you end up with is a cost that is cheaper than the most expensive unit, but more expensive than the cheapest unit.

That is why your Mortar groups cost a lot to replace, because if you look at the cost of Coastal Artillery you see that they cost a lot more (this is what drives up the replacement cost).

It is the best way as is, and my one suggestion would be to make the cost of all unit types closer to one another, so the disparity between replacement and new build is not as great. However, the only real problem that I have noticed is in regards to Heavy Artillery (due to the drastic difference in cost between siege and seacoast artillery).

The issue is not about prices you see...if a supply wagon has lost 1/10th of its strenght you should be paying 2k$ to have it refilled. Instead you pay 20k$ to have it refilled. You got me this time?

In addition, a single replacement potentially can replace multiple lost elements.

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe a replacement provides replacements over and over again until a random chance is achieved which eliminates the replacement point. So a single replacement can provide potentially multiple replacements.

I don't believe a single replacement replaces lost elements on a one to one basis followed by removal. Because they can represent a substantial number of replaced elements, they should cost more than one element.

Jagger wrote:In addition, a single replacement potentially can replace multiple lost elements.

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe a replacement provides replacements over and over again until a random chance is achieved which eliminates the replacement point. So a single replacement can provide potentially multiple replacements.

I don't believe a single replacement replaces lost elements on a one to one basis followed by removal. Because they can represent a substantial number of replaced elements, they should cost more than one element.

It appears to be the case though I could be wrong since I haven't looked into it much, just from what I have seen as playing the game and going through things.

I believe each company that is replaced has a 50% chance of using a point from the replacement pool. So for large samples you get 2 companies for every replacement point.

It's not a matter of prices but of modelling and replacements should have nothing to do with chances.

It's a simple issue to fix as you can start from the number of conscripts required to build the unit type from scrap (which are correct).

The concept is: I buy 100 men of this type -> 100 men are added to manpower of all units needing that replacement type and being elegible to receive it.

Staying on the HVY ART example, making it 1/4th of what it is now:

38 2 12 (buying price) and 11 .5 3.5 (replacement price)

Now it *must* take me 4 (0.5x4=2) of these replacements to totally refill a SINGLE HVY ART unit type.

It's this way or wrong way.

GShock wrote:It's not a matter of prices but of modelling and replacements should have nothing to do with chances.

It's a simple issue to fix as you can start from the number of conscripts required to build the unit type from scrap (which are correct).

The concept is: I buy 100 men of this type -> 100 men are added to manpower of all units needing that replacement type and being elegible to receive it.

Staying on the HVY ART example, making it 1/4th of what it is now:

38 2 12 (buying price) and 11 .5 3.5 (replacement price)

Now it *must* take me 4 (0.5x4=2) of these replacements to totally refill a SINGLE HVY ART unit type.

It's this way or wrong way.

Yeah, the numbers are out of wack somehow in your analysis. An entire replacement unit is only used if an element had been destroyed. If a regiment in a brigade is lost, and needs to be rebuilt, then you lose an entire replacement (which is a 1 to 1 exchange). I have not really found that replacements are eaten up at a greater rate than building units, unless you let your forces get savaged by combat or weather attrition (then you could get in trouble).

What you are most likely noticing is the initial damage done to heavy artillery (notably CSA coastal artillery) which appears to suck up all of your artillery replacements with little result. However, looking at the number of guns, and how expensive the replacements are, you cannot buy too many, and this is dispersed from gun to gun (the replacement % is in the rules), so it doesn't appear to do much.

The system is dynamic, required by a dynamic game. Meaning that rules cannot be so strict and absolute as per your description and desired changes. Basically you never get a unit that fits neatly in a percieved loss rate (units have hits, not fractions, of damage). Even by your example you will have 'wastage' (what if your artillery has 2/5 of its hits lost?). I personally have not experienced issues with replacements being too expensive, or not cost-effective.

I believe the problem is perception...

Remember, if you lose 10 000 men in a battle, that is equivalent of 10 regiments, or 10 replacement points (equivalent of 3 or so new brigades). In the original game, losing 10 000 men is easy to do. That is 10 conscript points at a medium sized battle. Sometimes they range to 20 000 or greater. It is a hefty drain of conscripts that 'appears' to be heavier than it is. Remember, in a battle you also get a % of conscripts back based on lightly wounded, so you can have some regain for replacements.

1 replacement should mean one company (1 conscript -> 100 men) for the selected element type...1 company is 100 men in any element-type.

To make it simple: HQ replacement costs 42 7 16.

Please note the HQ element at 100% strenght is composed of 200 men and the replacement already costs 7 companies which is 3 times more than the 100% manpower for this element holds.

My HQ has currently 50 men so it's at 25% capacity.
I should be able to pay 75% of 42 7 16 that is 31.5 5.2 12. And I am not able to do that.

My point is if it was possible to make the unitary replacement be built on the base of 1 company, by buying 3 HQ replacements i would have refilled my original HQ unit to 100% strenght.

This is not a matter of perception...CSA has an advantage in replacement methods but a disadvantage in economic production that increases over time.

This reap-off consistently handicaps CSA. In my case if I don't buy the replacement (when and if it arrives!) i risk being defeated and losing much more. If i buy it...i pay more than i should while USA has much more resources than I.

This is a very serious issue i will document very soon.

GShock wrote:1 replacement should mean one company (1 conscript -> 100 men) for the selected element type...1 company is 100 men in any element-type.

To make it simple: HQ replacement costs 42 7 16.

Please note the HQ element at 100% strenght is composed of 200 men and the replacement already costs 7 companies which is 3 times more than the 100% manpower for this element holds.

My HQ has currently 50 men so it's at 25% capacity.
I should be able to pay 75% of 42 7 16 that is 31.5 5.2 12. And I am not able to do that.

My point is if it was possible to make the unitary replacement be built on the base of 1 company, by buying 3 HQ replacements i would have refilled my original HQ unit to 100% strenght.

This is not a matter of perception...CSA has an advantage in replacement methods but a disadvantage in economic production that increases over time.

This reap-off consistently handicaps CSA. In my case if I don't buy the replacement (when and if it arrives!) i risk being defeated and losing much more. If i buy it...i pay more than i should while USA has much more resources than I.

This is a very serious issue i will document very soon.

I don't think you have the entire picture. Let Pocus fill us in on how replacements work, as I cannot find accurate documentation to state how it is done.

You both have good points.

The replacements are not per company, and we should get more information from Pocus about that.

Also, having to buy the replacements in advance and not as-needed favors the North. This is probably WAD. But we should be able to find out more about that as well, from the prehistoric magic mongoose-rat critter.

The very same fact neither of you Gurus exactly know how it works and need Pocus to solve the puzzle is the reason why the first and only thing i asked in wishlist thread was the omnicomprehensive log pages, divided in mailboxes (exactly as it is now but in total detail).

It stinks to me that Matrix had built those pages...and not because of the competition which surely arises once the matrix game is out but because lacking the exact information on the mechanics, none of us are able to help improving the game.

leave pocus out until NPC is out, then we will see, im sure!

Now the issue with companies not reflecting the exact numbers does not come from replacements but from reinforcements. Look at this:



This is a typical inf bde, composed of 2 Inf regiments (2000 men) and 1 cav regiment (1000 men).



The total number of companies (100 men) required to build it, is 28 while it should be 20, so we presume the extra 8 companies required should be the ones coming from Cavalry regiment. When you go looking for a CAV regiment (i.e. the 10th and 11th Texas Cav) you find out they are composed of single regiment of 1000 men.
Therefore, the cost of such inf bde should be 20+10=30 companies (and not 28)

as i stated before i am completely disregarding $+WSU these are something eventually to recalculate in a later stage.

Let's take a look at the inf replacement now: its cost is 11 10 2. Let's start from the fact, line replacements are the bulk of all infantry and apply to all infantry regiments on map excluding elite/light. This means they don't average with some other element-type and it's constant for all bde types. Regardless bde compositions, this is the price of single infantry replacement.



10 companies = 1000 men, enough to totally refit a whole regiment.
If the aforementioned bde lost 2000 infantrymen, i'd need 2 of these replacements to refill it (2000 men). 2(11$ +2WSU)= 22$ + 4WSU.

Hence, the value of these replacements is 22 20 4to build a bde that is still costing 27$ 28 4WSU brand anew and i remind you, replacement-wise, we're not replacing the annexed CAV regiment (which is included in the buying price of the new unit) but only the infantry regiments.

Let's have a look at the cavs, then:



The cav replacement costs 12 8 2. Already the bell rings. If a cav regiment anew is built with 1000 men, you'd think 800 men in a single replacement are almost enough to totally refill a regiment.

Let's compare buy-replacement prices:

12 8 2 <-----------Buy ///////\\\\\\\ Replacement ---------> 12 8 2
^^^^

Some of my states (NC-VA) produce CAV for 9 8 2 but the question remains even though i've taken the finest example. If i pay 12 8 2 to raise a new regiment (which should cost 12 10 2 in any case) when i buy a replacement for 12 8 2 I'm technically being reaped-off unless this single replacement refills a regiment almost completely...if I'm paing 9 8 2 then i'm paying this replacement more than the whole unit brand anew.

Recap: 22 20 4 (inf) + 12 8 2 (cav) = 34 28 6 <-replacements to rebuild bde

Recap: 27 28 4 <- cost of brand new inf bde

Something ain't right here...see it's not just the hvy arty.

I was about to post on this exact question. I am in the dark how replacements work. I get that if an element is completely destroyed, you will have a replacement assigned from the pool one for one. That I get. What I don't get is what happens when 10 regiments each suffer 250 casualties? What then? Do they replace for "free"? Is it random, as Jagger suggested?

If they don't consume replacements, what is the downside to getting men killed, as long as you don't get an element destroyed?

VP's are awarded only for completely destroyed elements, correct?

No VP's are awarded for killing the enemy, when elements are NOT destroyed, correct?

KillCalvalry wrote:VP's are awarded only for completely destroyed elements, correct?

No VP's are awarded for killing the enemy, when elements are NOT destroyed, correct?

Yes and yes. Sorry I can't provide a more complete answer.

Side-analysis on HQ unit

During my test SP april 61 Campaign (vanilla 1.07f), Beuregard's HQ which started off with 56 men, was finally refilled in the beginning of 1862.

Beuregard camped in defensive stance in Manassas (depot) so far and since he was the only army around till now it is a bit dizzy he took the replacement only a year later (i bought it as soon as i could move him). There were no other priorities (no other armies or hq needing replacements) and the correct requirements to get replacements were met from the beginning of his "unlock" until mid 1862.

The HQ replacement was not depleted.
An interesting mod could arise from the possibility to bind that % factor to the NM. I suppose if NM was low, a replacement could run off rather than join and fight.

Back to the HQ. The replacement cost being basically too high leaves me puzzled on the whereabouts of eventual effectiveness even if it hasn't been depleted.
HQ is not a combat unit, and i guess its only usage is to build a new army. Once this has been built, i suspect there's no need for HQ replacements at all.

The question arises after observing how the corps act : http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=6166

If Armies act the same as corps in a defeat, the utter elimination of the HQ unit, coupled with a ***General wounded (Can't die) without removal of Army Status (exactly as happening with Corps Status) renders HQ replacement totally useless.

GShock wrote:The HQ replacement was not depleted.

That is what several of us have been trying to tell you, that replacing losses in a given element won't necessarily spend a replacement chit; there's a given probability for it happening (the exact calculation of which I don't remember)

GShock wrote:HQ is not a combat unit, and i guess its only usage is to build a new army. Once this has been built, i suspect there's no need for HQ replacements at all.

The question arises after observing how the corps act : http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=6166

If Armies act the same as corps in a defeat, the utter elimination of the HQ unit, coupled with a ***General wounded (Can't die) without removal of Army Status (exactly as happening with Corps Status) renders HQ replacement totally useless.

Army elements can be damaged, though it is an unlikely event since they enjoy "special protection" (for lack of better description). Hence, HQ elements might need replacements too.

Rafiki wrote:That is what several of us have been trying to tell you, that replacing losses in a given element won't necessarily spend a replacement chit; there's a given probability for it happening (the exact calculation of which I don't remember)

This has never applied to CAV/INF i bought bulks of inf/cav/hvy arty and next turn i always saw them entirely depleted.
I think the log shows longstreet bde received cavalry only when a whole element is added but where the other replacements go and what % of the pre-existing element is refilled by a single replacement this is a mistery (it's THE mistery actually).

Rafiki wrote:Army elements can be damaged, though it is an unlikely event since they enjoy "special protection" (for lack of better description). Hence, HQ elements might need replacements too.

I agree with this "invulnerability" rule.
The problem arises when i consider that the HQ unit is only used to assemble a "div" with the *** Leader unit, thus forming an Army and has no other use or affect combat/logistics in any way.

If the HQ is destroyed i don't think the Army status is lost (if the Corps are destroyed, the Corps Commander status isn't lost). So the question remains: why spending all that much on a replacement if my army has already been formed, it can't be disbanded and the HQ strenght gives no modification ????

GShock wrote:This has never applied to CAV/INF i bought bulks of inf/cav/hvy arty and next turn i always saw them entirely depleted.

Yes, if the random chance "hits", an entire chit is used. If your entire pool of replacements has been depleted, then either you've had rotten luck, lots of replacements needed, few replacements in your pool or any combination of the above.

Rafiki wrote:Yes, if the random chance "hits", an entire chit is used. If your entire pool of replacements has been depleted, then either you've had rotten luck, lots of replacements needed, few replacements in your pool or any combination of the above.

You didn't answer the question: If the HQ strenght gives no combat bonus and in case removed the army status not lost, why would i buy HQ replacement?

As of the luck issue: If CSA has 1$ and use 50c on a "lottery ticket" they are investing 50% of their economic power...if USA has 5€ and uses 50c, they're investing 10%. Who's risking more? CSA of course.

Anyway...i think none of us really knows what goes on with replacements. I believe it's the mother of all questions and i'm sure it's a top subject to wikize

GShock wrote:You didn't answer the question: If the HQ strenght gives no combat bonus and in case removed the army status not lost, why would i buy HQ replacement?

If the army HQ is eliminated, I imagine that you lose your status as an army. You can't compare the situation to corps, since a corps only depends on its commander to become a corps, while an army depends on both the commander and the army HQ.

Rafiki wrote:If the army HQ is eliminated, I imagine that you lose your status as an army.

This is hard to document because Army doesn't start a fight on its own but i think i got attacked by McDowell in VA and saw his HQ destroyed while he retained army status and reattacked next turn (Alexandria).

I was just not smart enough to take an SS, gonna try to reproduce the event and take SS this time....in order for AI to relocate a new HQ a turn must pass (AI plans in our resolution so if i destroy HQ and in my planning phase MCDowell has still Army Status that would be evidence enough).

Since army status depends on an army HQ, I'll place my money on McDowell having relocated to another HQ and reformed his army round it, till proven otherwise

But yeah, if during your planning phase after a turn where the army HQ was destroyed, McDowell still has army status (without being stacked with an army HQ), I'll be tempted to categorize it as a bug.

Eliminating the HQ definitely does remove army status. With the relocate order, a new army HQ could've been moved to McDowell and the army reformed in one turn.

GS - what version are you using?

GShock wrote:As of the luck issue: If CSA has 1$ and use 50c on a "lottery ticket" they are investing 50% of their economic power...if USA has 5€ and uses 50c, they're investing 10%. Who's risking more? CSA of course.

I believe better metaphor would be a home insurance policy, ('use it and lose it' is the chance one takes - at least in the US) but your analysis of the economic risk is accurate. The CSA has to be more careful how it uses its resources in reinforcements and economics as well.

V1.07f

It doesn't seem to me CSA has much of a choice. Replacements are a must or you lose entrenches you built so hardly and then it's a yankee flood from MD to Richmond...the more you get reaped-off, the faster the prevailing USA economy gains the upper hand.

I suspect with the Hvy Arty replacement that the engine tries to replace captured guns and removes this replacement. I was unable so far to identify ANY hvy arty needing a replacement yet this replacement is *always* spent.

As of the HQ it looks like they can be destroyed because they can even be captured (I did capture one). But it's very unlikely (not enough to justify buying a HQ replacement at those costs as when u lose HQ it means u've lost everything else. Replace the first lines, not the last wheel of the cart as when u lose that HQ u've lost the rest of the army already and the HQ doesn't fight!).

The main issue here (and it's the same as with Corps Leader) is that in order to form a Corps or an Army, you don't need troops but only **/*** ranks and (eventually) HQ.
Essentially these were being built to manage large concentrations of troops...

Perhaps this is the right moment to consider putting a troop requisite to hold Corps/Armies together especially since you can exploit very seriously their personal stats through redeploy orders.

1) Form DIV with * and put ** to command the stack.
2) Form Army with *** + HQ.
3) Put 2) into 1)

...And you have an Army with 1 ** and 1 * DIV. If 1) 2) or 3) are broken you lose army status (you can't command empty air) and must rebuild it. Of course, you also lose all Corps Status chained to that Army.

Same procedure with Corps roughly:
4) Form DIV with * and put ** to command the stack.
5) Form this stack into a Corps (Army is required in nearby).

When 4) 5) are broken you lose Corps status.

Hence the real target when destroying an army shouldn't be the HQ but it's troops...But i guess this is material for another thread

bump