Divisions

[Rafiki]

So you are saying that my total manpower is too high because my attrition is too low?

No, I'm wondering about it; my though being that:

Low attrition => less need for buying replacements => able to buy more reinforcements => more units to put into divisions => larger need for divisions to put them in

I'll be the first to admit that I don't have much to say as for what is the best way to address this, though, or even if the line of thought above is that relevant in this discussion.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Rafiki]

It is a good question, though; what is the purpose of the division limit; what is it supposed to achieve/portray?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Rafiki]

No idea, but to limit the manpower though a division limit rather than by other means (e.g. limiting the generation of conscript points) seems a bit artificial?

[Coregonas]

Actually, it's not as huge a problem as it seems. Just a few months ago, it was 48 USA and 24 CSA and even then most players were having no problems with those limits. At that time it was increased to 60/30 for an incremental step increase and until now, no one has had a real problem with these limits. Are you running out of divisions because you have too many elements? Or is it that you just want to create a bunch of smaller undersized divisions?

Sorry to disagree... The limit hurts still.

I have those problems as early as 1862. Another huge problem for the south is there are too few 2*, and in case USA does not practice a suicide mode combat, very few can promote to add really CPs.

In my first PBEM (without attrition of course) I started 1863 with around 600 elements... I have learned a bit since that, and surely I can upp a few my limit. But I lost, due to not properly lead them as too limited in CPs. I either had no corps nor divisions. Well Some of those (perhaps 120) were fixed garrisons. So minimum 30 divisions were needed for me. Check figure:




This means I had all 24 divisions available, some of my corps were brigade style to increase my CP available, and still had 600 conscription companies bored in the roster without any chance to be useful in any command. 600 conscription can represent a minimum 4 or 5 divisions extra. So 35 were needed in my example...

In my current leadermod-PBEM I have 29 div raised, only a couple of them still understrenght just forming, but just in april 62, around 2 months for volunteers call, and also have a lot of units un-divisioned... Total combat elements is more than 550... (Fortunately, leader mod allows me 48...)

[GShock]

The DIV/CP problem is in the game...

Looks like the game completely disregards promotions given to generals who were needed to command the newly fielded troops (from the war dpt or directly from the president) along with promotions given to seniority.

The only seniority we have, regards who comes first to be promoted or assigned army command, however, age of a general also is a factor to be considered. Again, to increase seniority you must fight...hell of a problem for the Union AI with those inactive generals and hell of a problem with CSA too who's always under strenght.

Maybe an automatic promotion of senior generals during the war would solve the problem of the few high ranking leaders, however do remember that while there are few, they are also invulnerable so, contrary to the history, Johnston can never be killed, die of old age, retire to oversee his plantation reworked, get sick and die, etc. etc.

It's a big limit unfortunately.

[Coregonas]

There are some questions than add to the problem.

1.- Replacement trick (i.e. replacement costs perhaps half as new unit) adds a few more troops. Luckily an extra division can be raised a year by using it. Not too much in fact but it adds a bit. (125 men on average are free per militia element)

One of the problems in my opinion is there are TOO much FREE MILITIA replacements during the early months.

2.- Maxing too much the Volunteers / Mobilization / National Morale bonus can add a lot of divisions.
A full mobilization adds around 5 or 6 divisions a year...
And the difference betwen a minimum free volunteer and a 3k pay can be 4 extra divisions a year!

(I ve never been able to pay so much for them, but some time I ll do )

This can be the most important problem, too much extra units can be raised this way. If you want to down the total division CAP, those figures should be a bit/lot downgraded, instead of limiting the DIV total.

3.- Many USA players dont assault enemy troops, in fact, a lot of times they just advance into void terrain or are extremely cautious, so no battles are done and troops dont die as fast as in the real war.

This is not a problem for me, if few battles, few Kia, so upper limits for little battles is ok. But CSA still gets too low commandments for leading them.

EDIT:
4.- No Attrition of course!
If we want to play no attrition, then surely in the long run a lot more units could be in the field. How many men were lost to attrition ? Dont know...180.000 in the CSA?? This is 18 divisions!

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Mynok]

One of the problems in my opinion is there are TOO much FREE MILITIA replacements during the early months.

I would agree. There really shouldn't be any free replacements.

A related question would be do they even get used? My militia seem to train up to line infantry pretty quickly.

Are replacement points used to fill out understrength, just-received units? If not shouldn't they?

[Shabaka]

I had some time to do a little research on the actual divisions counts during the Civil War.

It looks like the Order of Battle for the AoNV was typically in the 7 to 11 division range:
Gettysburg = 9 Infantry + 1 cav
McClaws, Pickett, Hood, Early, Johnson, Rodes, Anderson, Heth, Pender + Stuart
Wilderness = 8 infantry + 3 cav


AoTN OOB:
Atlanta Campaign = 10 Infantry + 4 cav
Cheatham,Cleburne, Walker, Bate, Hindman, Stevenson, Stewart, Loring, French, Cantey + Martin, Kelly, Humes, Jackson

There were other smaller armies plus detached Corps/divisions
Army of the Valley (1864)
Cedar Creek = 5 infantry + 2 cav
Wharton, Kershaw, Pegram, Ramseur, Gordon + Lomax, Rosser

Pemberton @ Vicksburg (25K to 30K troops)
Gardner @ Port Hudson (6K to 16K depending on point in time during Vicksburg campaign)
Hoke in NC
Taylor with 2 divisions in Red River Campaign
plus various other small detachments, Nathan Bedford Forrest, Morgan, others I cant remember off top of my head.

These are mostly from mid 63 to 64, I know there is some overlap due to movement of divisions (Longstreet sent to Bragg for battle of Chickamauga is the most notable example) so these numbers need to be taken with a grain of salt. However, from a cursory look, it does seem the South could possibly have fielded 30+ divisions at times from mid 1863 on.

After this research, my head hurts, its time for a Sambuca.

[Shabaka]

This research made me remember how bad these 2 generals were. By bottling themselves up in Port Hudson and Vicksburg they threw away ~35K troops and prevented Joe Johnston from the opportunity take his rightful place as the greatest general in the Confederacy

[Coregonas]

Yes those numbers are clarifying.

And...

1.- If you are not playing "historic Attrition"
2.- If there are being fewer battles due to both sides being less aggresive.
3.- If you are performing better than the real history

This means you are going to upgrade your army size a lot. So thats the reason I agree upgrading the top limit a bit.

Again, I did ask some time about upgrading a bit the 2* leaders.

Some mods solve this questions... Yes.

AS another mad idea... I would like for next game generation (i e AACW2) some kind of event .... once a determined number of elements (ie divisions, elements, total conscription points deployed) is achieved, the most senior 1* general gets his 2* rank automatically, apart from those earned form normal promotions.

[GShock]

I am totally supporting the what if philosophy. We can already call for more options than historically done for example: paper money printing, drafting, etc.

Therefore i don't understand this limitation on DIV count.

The best solution, according to me, would be to start with *everything* absolutely historical and then let the player build history on the field, in diplomacy, in economics, in infrastructures (depots/forts) and so on.

Of course without a historical start we'd be in a fantasy game but after the start, and through all historical events, players should be given full freedom on how to handle the war so that they may change the outcome.

[Franciscus]

No idea, but to limit the manpower though a division limit rather than by other means (e.g. limiting the generation of conscript points) seems a bit artificial?

My guess is that you found the reason. I would bet that the limit is somewhat connected to the way the AI behavior is/was coded regarding division formation (maybe to limit her from making lots of small divisions ??). It would be interesting for Pocus to chime in and give us some insight.

As to leaders, I also favor (for the future, or as a mod, maybe... ) more automatic "promotability" of 1* star leaders - meaning, for instance, related to seniority more generals would get promotable, but the decision would remain the player's

My 2 cents (in euros)

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Mynok]

There are still way more leaders than can be used to any effect...at least on the CSA side. Perhaps these could be used in future versions to actually command brigades as their rank suggest they should?

Let me add to that brigades within divisions with some appropriate benefit to fighting abilities if not command and control. I actually think the latter is well done and appropriate as is, but it would still be beneficial to allow brigade commanders within a division to boost fighting abilities.

[W.Barksdale]

Hmm odd. I always run out of leaders. I say there are too few of them.

[Mynok]

Now I'm curious what you use them for. With only 30 divs, you have a bazillion leaders unassigned.

[Jagger]

In my mod, I gradually increased the number of available divisions for both sides. Finally, I gave up and simply set a limit of 100 for both sides. Make as many divisions as available manpower and commanders will support.

IMO, limiting number of divisions limits the power of both sides. Troops outside of divisions are often ineffective unless brigaded with a leader. Even then, brigades are so small, they are not very effective.

When I last checked manpower in the standard scenario, the Union only had a 1.4 manpower advantage over the CSA. With such a slim manpower advantage, the Union advantage in divisions is significant. The CSA has to rely more on brigades while the Union keeps churning out Divisions. Even those there is little manpower difference, the Union manpower is more effectively deployed in divisions than the CSA.

[Coregonas]

Troops outside of divisions are often ineffective unless brigaded with a leader. Even then, brigades are so small, they are not very effective.

When I last checked manpower in the standard scenario, the Union only had a 1.4 manpower advantage over the CSA. With such a slim manpower advantage, the Union advantage in divisions is significant. The CSA has to rely more on brigades while the Union keeps churning out Divisions. Even those there is little manpower difference, the Union manpower is more effectively deployed in divisions than the CSA.

Yes. Also, even if CSA could rely more on brigade - style corps, it is not possible as not enough 2* leaders to lead them.

That difference in Manpower (1.4, 1.5 or whatever) is in fact a lot more as USA is fighting with Fully Army/Corps/Division commanded troops, but CSA has only part of his army leaded that way... Perhaps 15% of the army are by mid 1863 single brigade leaded troops... Totally unuseful.

So that 1.4 turns into a lot more big factor.

I d vote even changing a bit that difference (more manpower to the USA, if it is more real) For instance to 1.6, but allowing CSA to fully command his troops in some way. (I dont know if this should be more "realistic", just more enjoyable, I think)

Reading bits of ACW history, I did not feel as CSA had too much problems organizing commandment, but mainly problems on manpower, transport, ammo, supply...

In all my games the only problems I had were organizing command for them.

[Coregonas]

Now I'm curious what you use them for. With only 30 divs, you have a bazillion leaders unassigned.

I ve never had a single leader unasigned, just hurrying to arrive next command

In what year are you talking? perhaps 1865, with most of the army destroyed?

[Mynok]

I ve never had a single leader unasigned, just hurrying to arrive next command

In what year are you talking? perhaps 1865, with most of the army destroyed?

No it was 1864 and I was well in command of the game. I could have put them into garrisons but it seemed pointless. The garrisons remained under-commanded because they were mostly "trained", single-element militia brigades....units which are utterly useless except when gathered into a division. Brigading leaders with such tiny units.....

I had essentially stopped building brigades because there were no divisions to put them into.

[denisonh]

Here are some issues that may be contributing to the "maxing" out of the divisions (I haven't had a major issue with it)

1. Players push all thier manpower forward.
- Players take risk by not keeping forces in garrisons or in depots as was done historically.
- Players replace strength by taking replacements in the division and continue to build more divisions rather than send individual brigades to a depot for replacement. 1.10a will accelerate this effect.

2. Players naturally gravitate towards divisions rather than a large indepenent brigade with a brigaded leader.
- A 4 CP brigade with INF/CAV/ART with a brigaded leader has the same efficiency penalty as an independent division.
- These "pocket divisions" are good for semi independent operations being 115+ strength points. (Important asset for the USA player in conducting amphibious assaults IMO)
- Non divisional forces represent historical formations not organized as "offical" divisions within a corps construct subject to less "command and control".

3. Less than historical attrition magnifiying level of available units and not burdening the requirement for replacements

4. Less than aggressive play by the USA player
- resulting in fewer battles, especially large ones.
- Fewer amphibious assaults allowing CSA player to concentrate all forces in fewer areas requiring more divisions

I think that overall command and control for forces outside the Army/Corps command strucure is a factor when looking at the number of divisions, as that is where they should primarily be located. Just because there is a command penalty for a "non divisional group" does not mean that there should not be such formations, as there were a fair number of non divisional forces being employed throught the war.

[arsan]

Here are some issues that may be contributing to the "maxing" out of the divisions (I haven't had a major issue with it)

1. Players push all thier manpower forward.
- Players take risk by not keeping forces in garrisons or in depots as was done historically.
- Players replace strength by taking replacements in the division and continue to build more divisions rather than send individual brigades to a depot for replacement. 1.10a will accelerate this effect.

2. Players naturally gravitate towards divisions rather than a large indepenent brigade with a brigaded leader.
- A 4 CP brigade with INF/CAV/ART with a brigaded leader has the same efficiency penalty as an independent division.
- These "pocket divisions" are good for semi independent operations being 115+ strength points. (Important asset for the USA player in conducting amphibious assaults IMO)
- Non divisional forces represent historical formations not organized as "offical" divisions within a corps construct subject to less "command and control".

3. Less than historical attrition magnifiying level of available units and not burdening the requirement for replacements

4. Less than aggressive play by the USA player
- resulting in fewer battles, especially large ones.
- Fewer amphibious assaults allowing CSA player to concentrate all forces in fewer areas requiring more divisions

I think that overall command and control for forces outside the Army/Corps command strucure is a factor when looking at the number of divisions, as that is where they should primarily be located. Just because there is a command penalty for a "non divisional group" does not mean that there should not be such formations, as there were a fair number of non divisional forces being employed throught the war.

I completely agree.
I think the limit in division numbers can help to simulate the differences between first line troops (organised in armies, corps and divisions) and second line troops (state troops, garrisons, rear echelon formations…) as well as less organised formations on secondary fronts (transmississipi, east coast…) which should not be as efficient as the main armies.
I am no expert but I suspect that an important percentage of the soldiers of both armies were not used on the big armies at the front and there where many ad-hoc formations and commands used in secondary roles which could hardly be considered divisions in game terms.
Regards

[Bertram]

I would add
- in the game the penalty for drawing the maximum of men for the war is probably less then it was in reality. The Union didnt use draft until '62, and did so for a reason - it caused riots when they did. In the game it is hardly a choice, everyone always maxes out the manpower. The only question is if you want to pay 2000 or 3000 for the volunteers... (I like the possibility to try other roads to victory, but the choices should be between equal unattractive alternatives)
- in the game there is only the penalty of needing slightly more replacements when you have a multimillion standing army, and even that penalty is slight when you dont move them to much. In reality the states were both limited at how large an army they could keep supplied (both in food and in things as clothes and so) and in how many men they could draw from the economy before it collapsed.

In short: the players tend to go for total war, in a WW1 or WW2 style, and the costs (in game terms) are not high enough to penalize this.

[GShock]

A good analysis but don't forget most of the troops were not committed simply because they didn't arrive in time.

Truth be said, conscription and volounteering were used where we use points to buy units like we were at the market. Letcher had to quell a rebellion in Virginia, the heart of confederacy because of lack of resources for the population. He even mobilized militia ready to order them to shoot on their own people to make them go back home (to starve basically).

When you pull men to the front, as Gray pointed out too, the economy should feel it. There's no men to work and produce and it's again one of those sacrifices that were done in the game to pursue gameplay and hurting the simulation and historical accuracy. Lincoln had problems too...180.000 black troops coming from emancipation were the cherry on the cake but he risked everything in the bordering states, perhaps multi-state secessions.

It's no true matter of micromanagement for this and for other subjects. These games are essentially all about managing something. You don't use a joystick to fly a plane and you don't fight with keyboard and mouse to shoot an enemy soldier... you fight with taking choices.
More history, more management, micro or macro, can only make the game improve further imo.

[denisonh]

The issue with drafting being available too early and not penal enough is one of the best aspects of Clovis' mod, which does a good job keeping the forces in 1861 from getting too big too fast. The substantial penalty for the draft makes it less attractive. I have played his mod for the most part and have not experienced the "maxing out" divisions effect. **Note: Not being able to draft until 1862 is an even bigger factor ****. Keeps forces from getting "out of control" large.

Gshock has a great point about choices. The fact that the player can invest in industrialization, draft, and then build significant numbers of militia all at the same time means you don't have to make a "real" decision between building forces and industrialization. Manpower is not figured in any kind of economic($) or industrial (WS) production.

If there was a total available "draft pool" for each side that in turn effected the economic output/industrialization and maximum available military manpower, it would force the player to consider the trade offs as well as prevent unlimited production of conscript points.

[Shabaka]

and does in fact impact the divisional numbers problem.

However, to get back to the original post about their being to few divisions in game......and in fact there are too few divisions from an historical perspective as well. Please see the following:

In the summer of 1863 this is the divisional breakdowns in the CSA
AoNV = 10
AoTN = 10
AoMS = 7
R. Taylor (Arkansas) = 2
J. Johnston (arguably the best general of the Civil war ) was gathering a force of 31K = 4 to 8 divisions based on manpower to division ratio in other armies.
There were other small forces/divisions on gulf coast and other areas.

This reflects that in real historical terms there were at least 33 to 37 active divisions in CSA (probably more) in the summer of 1863. It is difficult to get a hard fix on this number because divisions were being transferred plus other factors.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted