AGEOD Forums

is it possable to get rid of generals you never use, I have tons of 1 star generals I never use and they end up cluttering my main towns and make it a pain to manage the armys. Which I am still trying to master. I have played about 30 turns and was doing quite well till the last 10 or so turns at which point my once strong CSA is now falling apart and it is like all of a sudden the North trippeled in power. Looks like yet anoter restart lol

You could exile them all to Ft DeSoto (the anachronistic fort at Tampa Bay) using ferry boats. You may have to herd them (redo the orders) for a couple turns to get them there. A favorite gulag for the other side seems to be Ft Laramie.

I personally use the extras as scouts (put them on passive and send them towards objectives or enemy formations). I used to surround the enemy capital with 2-1-1s, and and yell "come out with your hands up" at the screen, until I realized that my PBEM opponents couldn't see them most of the time anyway.

I used to surround the enemy capital with 2-1-1s, and and yell "come out with your hands up" at the screen, until I realized that my PBEM opponents couldn't see them most of the time anyway.

I like that idea...lol

Groove74 wrote:is it possable to get rid of generals you never use, I have tons of 1 star generals I never use and they end up cluttering my main towns and make it a pain to manage the armys. Which I am still trying to master. I have played about 30 turns and was doing quite well till the last 10 or so turns at which point my once strong CSA is now falling apart and it is like all of a sudden the North trippeled in power. Looks like yet anoter restart lol

Regarding extra Commanders:

First, send them to key ports and forts to bolster the command of the garrisons stationed there.

Second, I believe it's also a good idea to keep a few decent Generals in each state in order to quickly organize divisions as soon as their elements are ready.

Lastly, they can be used to command a scratch force of militia and whatever extra units you have in the area to oppose large scale raids or unexpected amphibious invasions.

I have never used them as scouts. Personally I would rather have cavalry for scouting and reconnaissance so as to be able to take advantage of any oppurtunities that arise.

W.Barksdale wrote:Regarding extra Commanders:

First, send them to key ports and forts to bolster the command of the garrisons stationed there.

Second, I believe it's also a good idea to keep a few decent Generals in each state in order to quickly organize divisions as soon as their elements are ready.

Lastly, they can be used to command a scratch force of militia and whatever extra units you have in the area to oppose large scale raids or unexpected amphibious invasions.

All very good suggestions.

W.Barksdale wrote:I have never used them as scouts. Personally I would rather have cavalry for scouting and reconnaissance so as to be able to take advantage of any oppurtunities that arise.

One of my own personal innovations. In most cases, I would rather use cavalry. The generals have less chance than cavalry or irregulars of getting caught when set to passive/evade. Cavalry is great for scouting where the enemy isn't - *2-1-1s are decent for scouting him where he is.

Besides - sending Floyd straight into the hands of a firing squad is just my idea of a good time.

I always find a use use for them as in second in command of independent forces or garrison leaders.

Coffee Sergeant wrote:I always find a use use for them as in second in command of independent forces or garrison leaders.

Indeed, having a second in command can add those extra few command points for garrisons. Once I have run out of divisions to form they are also essential for independent forces to fight effectively and without penalty.

This brings up an issue I`ve been thinking about. Why is there a cap on the amount of divisions a country can field? Maybe this represents lack of administrative abilities while the country is at war? Any thoughts?

W.Barksdale wrote:Indeed, having a second in command can add those extra few command points for garrisons. Once I have run out of divisions to form they are also essential for independent forces to fight effectively and without penalty.

This brings up an issue I`ve been thinking about. Why is there a cap on the amount of divisions a country can field? Maybe this represents lack of administrative abilities while the country is at war? Any thoughts?

Hmmm... i think it probably have both: history simulation reasons and play balance reasons.
Some of the mods eliminate this limits or (mostly) increase the numbers.

Regards

Off the top of my head, I don't recall how many divisions the Johnnies were able to field once the nation was fully mobilized.
In v. 1.09 the confederates are able muster 24 divisions. I believe this is a decent estimate, however in game terms, if the rebels are doing well, this makes no sense.
Any commander would rather have forces organised into divisions for the simple fact that they are so much easier to manage. If a player can still recruit brigades, why should they not be able to form into a division?
I don't think a cap on the number of divisions adds anything to play, other than an increase in micromanagement, which I believed we were trying to keep to a minimum.

W.Barksdale wrote:Off the top of my head, I don't recall how many divisions the Johnnies were able to field once the nation was fully mobilized.
In v. 1.09 the confederates are able muster 24 divisions. I believe this is a decent estimate, however in game terms, if the rebels are doing well, this makes no sense.
Any commander would rather have forces organised into divisions for the simple fact that they are so much easier to manage. If a player can still recruit brigades, why should they not be able to form into a division?
I don't think a cap on the number of divisions adds anything to play, other than an increase in micromanagement, which I believed we were trying to keep to a minimum.

That raises an interesting idea. What if additional brigades were somehow awarded if you capture key victory locations? Let me explain, if I'm playing CSA and doing well - pushing the yanks back to, say, NY - and I'm at my cap of divs. But, if I capture Washington, DC and I get, in addition to victory points, the ability to create 5 more divisions that would allow me to continue my offense with an organized force. It would also give me an added incentive to hold onto that location as I could lose those divs if Washington was retaken by the Union.

I have no idea how this could be implemented, but it may help the player stay focused on key locations during the game.

W.Barksdale wrote:In v. 1.09 the confederates are able muster 24 divisions. I believe this is a decent estimate, however in game terms, if the rebels are doing well, this makes no sense.

I tried to count historical Confederate divisions for 1863 once, and got close to 24, but I'm not sure that included cavalry divisions. I agree it does not make sense for better than historical CSA performance. I would raise the cap by at least 6 to 30. The leader mod doubles the cap to 48, which pretty much removes any restriction in practice.

I concur.
Perhaps a division cap should be dynamic and tied to the number of key cities in possession at a given time?

W.Barksdale wrote:I concur.
Perhaps a division cap should be dynamic and tied to the number of key cities in possession at a given time?

No, that doesn't really make much sense.

runyan99 wrote:No, that doesn't really make much sense.

In what way? A direct effect of increased resources would be a greater ability to muster and organize troops, specifically divisions.

There really should be no restriction. The number of divisions in the field should be nothing more than a factor of how many men are under arms. In any case, you cannot make a direct correlation between cities and divisions. Losing Atlanta does not suddenly mean that three divisions have to break up.

runyan99 wrote:There really should be no restriction. The number of divisions in the field should be nothing more than a factor of how many men are under arms. In any case, you cannot make a direct correlation between cities and divisions. Losing Atlanta does not suddenly mean that three divisions have to break up.

I agree that there should be no cap on divisions in a stanard no-mod game.
I was just tossing some suggestions around.
However, in your example of Atlanta. It's not that any divisions would have to break up. They are already formed. I do believe that the loss of a manufacturing centre like Atlanta, would have a serious detrimental effect on the ability to create organize brand new divisions and keep them fielded.

Probably so, but if losing a hub like Atlanta means that three divisions cannot resupply, or draw replacements, that is something that has to play out naturally over time. It isn't well modeled with an artificial cap.

runyan99 wrote:Probably so, but if losing a hub like Atlanta means that three divisions cannot resupply, or draw replacements, that is something that has to play out naturally over time. It isn't well modeled with an artificial cap.

Agreed.
I return to a former point:
A division cap adds little to the game except increased micromanagement of units. Perhaps this should be looked at in standard no-mod games.

Pocus mentioned once that he might raise the caps officially, but had not got around to it.

Pubcrawler wrote:That raises an interesting idea. What if additional brigades were somehow awarded if you capture key victory locations? Let me explain, if I'm playing CSA and doing well - pushing the yanks back to, say, NY - and I'm at my cap of divs. But, if I capture Washington, DC and I get, in addition to victory points, the ability to create 5 more divisions that would allow me to continue my offense with an organized force. It would also give me an added incentive to hold onto that location as I could lose those divs if Washington was retaken by the Union.

I have no idea how this could be implemented, but it may help the player stay focused on key locations during the game.

IMHO wouldn't be difficult to write conditional event that triggers when a given objective is captured..... These kind of events already exist to create garrisons when certain forts get captured....

After some observation:

What if a division cap was proportional to the number of ** Generals.
Let X the cap and Y be the **. Then I define X=4Y for all X, Y > 0.

I think a logical conclusion to draw is that the divisions will represent the organisation capacity of your armed forces. When your Generals get better and more numerous so do your divisions.

Thoughts and Comments please.

deleted

W.Barksdale wrote:What if a division cap was proportional to the number of ** Generals.
Let X the cap and Y be the **. Then I define X=4Y for all X, Y > 0.

I think a logical conclusion to draw is that the divisions will represent the organisation capacity of your armed forces. When your Generals get better and more numerous so do your divisions.

Thoughts and Comments please.

You seem to have an affinity for complex solutions to simple problems. A higher cap solves all management issues without any algebra. There is no reason for the cap to float.

runyan99 wrote:You seem to have an affinity for complex solutions to simple problems. A higher cap solves all management issues without any algebra. There is no reason for the cap to float.

Maybe simple algebra is a little too complex for you, however, I believe you missed the point of my whole argument.

If the solution is so simple why has a concensus not been reached? Either have a limit or don't. Standard v.109 has a limit and I my aim was to spark debate about how this limit could be determined. And if one exists, as in
v.109, at least give it some meaning.

I don't know why AGEOD implemented a cap at all. They have never really explained their reasoning on the issue.

I imagine that the division cap is meant to express the difficulties and inexperience the two sides had at getting large formations/numbers of units to work efficiently together. By having a cap (and a small one at start), the player has to makes decisions about where he wishes to be able to concentrate forces while facing less command penalties.

Though it adds to the micromanagement, I also thinks it adds to the game, since it lets the player make fairly straight-forward (at least when you're familiar with the division system) decisisions that have impact on the player's strategy.

For those looking at a "complex" solution:

W = # of VPs/turn from cities
X = # of **
Y = division cap (over this # more can't be built, but none will be removed.)

For the Union:
Let Y = (4X + W)/2

For the Rebs:
Let Y = (4X + W/2)/2

Add another level:
V = # of *
W = # of VPs/turn
X = # of **
Y = division cap

USA: Let Y = (4X + W + V)/3

CSA: Let Y = (4X + W/2 + V)/3

or to satisfy (or annoy) both sides:

X = # of *

Let Y = X

I'm glad it is at least moddable

*sigh*

I think we should implement that, and then every time a new player asks why the number of divisions keeps changing, Jabberwock should be required to explain it to each person who asks on the forum.

Which mythological figure had to roll a rock up a hill for eternity?