Creating divisions

[rick6840]

I am new to this game, and maybe I am a little slow, but I cannot create divisions. I can select the General that I want, but I do not know how to select the units and complete forming the division. Who would like to give me the dummy version of how to do this. Thank you.

[77NY]

Hi Rick,

I am relatively new and this was confusing to me also. Until I learned from the forums that generals are subject to an activation check each turn.

If you click on a general's picture at the bottom of the screen and select the middle (tent) tab to the left, you will see whether that particular general is able to form a division that turn. Many cannot, especially on the Union side. Their buttons will be grayed out. If that general can form a division, his division forming button will be illuminated and you can click on it.

Once his division-forming button is activated, click on the general's picture and Ctrl+ left click on the units stacked with him that you wish to add to the division. The good news is that once a division is formed, you can always add new brigades and the leader's activation check will not affect that.

[arsan]

Hi rick! Welcome aboard!

Check this article form the game wiki
It explains division creation step by step and with pictures
http://ageod.nsen.ch/aacwwiki/Division#Creating_divisions

Regards!

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Major Tom]

Please note that you will no longer be able to practice with the "Coming Fury", in the near future, the capability of forming divisions is being delayed until 1861 Early Oct. This is to delay the initial CP benefit until both sides learned from their command mistakes from the earlier battles in the summer of 1861.

Gray, I understand this as a move towards greater historical accuracy, but from a gameplay standpoint, it's going to be a lot less fun having to play the first dozen turns of the April 1861 campaign with such limited organizational control.

To be really historically accurate, if we have no divisions until October, we should be able to form and alter brigades. But I'm guessing that's not possible because it would require a major game engine change.

A lot of people have complained about the fact that we can't make brigades, but I haven't really had a problem with it because you can make plenty of divisions. Now, if you can't make divisions or brigades, you're absolutely stuck with the somewhat arbitrary brigade configurations available in the game. Are those brigades historically accurate? Is it historically accurate to be restricted to just those formations for such a large chunk of the game?

Do you realize that this will give a big advantage to the CSA, since their brigades have much lower CP requirements (about one third lower on average)? Now, I'm not against giving an advantage to the CSA since it's my preferred side, and I know those CP costs could easily be modified (so maybe this isn't such a great argument...).

I think that as long as we are stuck with a limited and ahistorical selection of brigades, the gameplay will suffer if divisions are delayed until Ocotber 1861.

Why not make it an option in the options screen?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Major Tom]

Everyone playing this game is interested in historical accuracy. Without it, the whole thing is pointless. But it's not just a historical simulation, it's also a game, and most players would lose interest very quickly if "historical accuracy" became so strict that virtually all decision making ability is taken away. Just because a certain tactic or strategy was not employed by a certain date in history, does that mean that those actions should not be allowed in the game before the same date? I've heard this debated regarding conscription, among other things. And especially regarding the forced promotion or non-promotability of generals.

Obviously, there's always a trade-off. In each instance where the game allows the player to deviate from actual events, some historical accuracy is sacrificed. Taken to an absurd extreme, the ultimate in historical accuracy would be to eliminate he player altogether.

Regarding divisions, I would only reiterate my concern that restricitng players' army organization to the the ready-made brigades in the game isn't all that historical either -- surely the army commanders had some control over the makeup of their brigades.

Gray, all of us gamers owe a great debt of gratitude to you and the modding community for your continued efforts to improve the game's historical accuracy. I haven't been playing long, but I've read enough old forum posts and the patch notes to know that the game we are playing now is far superior to the one that came "out of the box." I also know from this and other games that today's "controversial change" becomes tomorrow's state of normalcy. I trust that you and AGEod are not going to institute changes that will hurt the game.

I just don't want to lose my divisions

[Clovis]

Most of the changes are the results of AGEOD improvments too.

About brigades, giving players control of their TOE would just be a nightmare to manage and a new weakness for the AI.

Dlaying divisions until October 61 is on the contrary tested since July 2007 in SVF and on this base, I can only say it doesn't hurt the gameplay and it doesn't lower AI quality.

An historical game will always be a trade-off between historicity and gameplay. Until now, AGEOD and GRAY efforts have been really succesful in the choices of what can be added for historicity without hurtting gameplay, and vice-versa.

[soloswolf]

To me, it seems like a concern over having having things all neat and perfect. What specifically are your concerns here? The cp difference is not as big as you claim. Also, what slight difference there is will be offset by raw numbers. The Federals have more brigades, more leaders and should be fine.

The idea here (as previously mentioned) is to reflect the lack of efficient C+C at the start of the war. It's something both sides will be dealing with and it is not a game long change, it is just for the first few months.

My biggest reason to support this is that it will finally even the odds when playing against the ai for the first few months. We all know that the ai frequently has more cp in a stack than it can command and gives itself penalties. Now, you will have to deal with that too for a time.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Major Tom]

The cp difference is not as big as you claim. Also, what slight difference there is will be offset by raw numbers. The Federals have more brigades, more leaders and should be fine.

I don't really want to dispute the division issue any more -- I've made my point, for what it's worth, and I'll withhold further judgment until I play under the new rule. But you're wrong about the CP difference between Union and CSA.

USA brigades cost almost 50% more CP than CSA brigades, on average. The average CP per element of all the CSA brigade types is 0.64. For the Union it's 0.92. The CSA also has an advantage in having some bigger brigades.

The biggest CSA brigades are 6 or 7 elements at a CP of 4. The biggest union brigade is 5 elements for the same CP of 4.

Data from the units database:



The CSA does not have a CP advantage for elite brigades. For both sides, elite brigades have much lower CP cost than normal brigades. Some even have 0 CP cost. Also of course the Union has a big advantage in the quantity of elite brigades, not to mention overall quantity of forces.

[Major Tom]

Similar situations like this have come up several times over the last 18 months and if I had halted progress for each of those few whining individuals, the game would not be anywhere near the state that you're currently professing to enjoy.

I was not "whining." I find that implication insulting. This forum should be a place where reasoned and reasonable opinions can be shared. If you are refering to other whiners, fine.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Redeemer]

I don't really want to dispute the division issue any more -- I've made my point, for what it's worth, and I'll withhold further judgment until I play under the new rule. But you're wrong about the CP difference between Union and CSA.

USA brigades cost almost 50% more CP than CSA brigades, on average. The average CP per element of all the CSA brigade types is 0.64. For the Union it's 0.92. The CSA also has an advantage in having some bigger brigades.

The biggest CSA brigades are 6 or 7 elements at a CP of 4. The biggest union brigade is 5 elements for the same CP of 4.

Data from the units database:

Major Tom,

I agree with your position completely, especially about being able to form your own brigades, by which you can create a more historical mix of forces. I've debated (I guess I was whinning too then) the issue and that function is too hard without a major game change apparently.

However, I have played with the new no division rules from the KY mod and the advantage actually switches to the Union side, simply because of the number of leaders available to both sides at that time.

[tagwyn]

Grey: What is to be done to remove CSA fixation with Butler's forces at Ft. Monroe? t

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Major Tom]

I'm more than a little surprised that posting twice on the same topic is considered "pushy," "repetitive," and "whining," especially when I made my points as respectfully as I could. I've seen other discussions like this go on for much longer without degenerating into name-calling.

[Redeemer]

However, Just in the last few minutes, I have made a very interesting discovery. There are certain infantry models that for all intents and purposes are duplicates in their statistics with the only difference being in the artwork depicted on the unit counter. By going thru the pre-designed brigades for the various states and separating them out and then also eliminating the alternate artwork units for these brigades, I'm able to reduce the requirements by an estimated 14 units, leaving only 30 units needed as an absolute necessity.

I posted that number weeks ago. I thought you said the limiting factor was being able to represent the different types of infantry available, ie militia, volunteers, regular by state. Are you now saying these differences are just "artwork"?

I'm sure you realize that this probably means that smaller individual units can actually be achieved, the only question being the CP cost of the smaller individual units.

Taking this into further detail, if all the individual units were made available separately, the CP cost of each being 1 CP point (lowest value possible), a standard division made up of these individualized units would require 17 CP points to command without penalty. The side effect of this might be to reduce the average max size of divisions able to be efficiently controlled by the various division leaders. We're talking theoretically of course.

Can't I build a division now with 17 individual militia "brigades" and that division still only cost the normal 4 CP? I am confused by this statement. Can you elaborate?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Redeemer]

Each model has a CP cost assigned to it with 1 CP cost being the minimum, so I'm theoretically coming up with 17 CPs needed if you had 17 of these single units placed in a brigade.

Ah, I thought you said division, my bad. I don't think anyone wants a brigade with 17 units in it. I was thinking more along the lines of 5 max for Union, 7 for CSA, unless someone has better historical numbers and make them whatever is typical in the game now, is it 4 CP? This would also simulate more efficient CSA command structure.

Edit, for clarification. If the max brigades size is 5 and 7 respectfully, make the CP cost for either, 4 CP, no matter how many actual units are currently in the brigade.

On a historical note, this would allow for the historical artillery brigades in the union corps among others.

[Gray_Lensman]

The earlier disagreement with Major Tom combined with this new discovery has got me thinking outside the box now. Previously, I was preparing data for a future update that basically had 2 Coming Fury scenarios and 2 April Campaign scenarios. The only difference between the pairs of scenarios was in how Kentucky was being handled. Basically, all other new changes were being applied to both sets.

If you don't know this, the Kentucky Neutral Add-on Mod has the Division formation restrictions all ready in place along with the Corp formation restriction that is present in both pairs of scenarios. I'm thinking of increasing the difference between the 2 sets of scenarios even more, by individualizing the (let's call them regiments instead of brigade) units. Expanding on this idea, I just might revert the Corp formation restriction back and just leave the Corp/Div restrictions in place only in the KY Neutral versions of the 1861 Campaign scenarios. In this way, those who want to play the simplified versions of the Grand Campaign can do so and those who want the full historical enjoyment can opt for the KY versions of those same scenarios.

I have to give this idea more thought because I'm not so sure the individual regiments would give the game any further real enhancement other than possibly a lot more micromanagement.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Redeemer]

I actually was referring to divisions not brigades. (my bad) For your information, the game does not currently allow for individually designed brigades even if I was able to break down all the prebuilt brigades into individual (regiments). The combined brigades that you are able to build are already pre-designed units. On-the-fly brigade design in contrast to on-the fly division design is not currently supported by the game code in any way. Individual leaders that are individually capable of being assigned to brigades are a function of the Leader code and not a function of brigade building.

I thought we might come back to this, so I was thinking. Don't change the mixed brigades available now. Just take the brigades that you can build now with only one type of unit in it (whether is starts with 1, 2, or 3 regiments) and increase the max number of units that can be combined into it.
Like the KS inf Bde for the Union, it has 1 inf and 1 vol (or militia) atm. It's max is probably that now 1 and 1. Change it so you can add up to 3 more inf regiments or militia regiments and 1 shp, so its max would be 5 inf and 1 shp. Do the same for the militia, instead of being able to combine 2 militia, make it 5 or 6. Same for individual cav and art brigades. This way we aren't replacing the units you can purchase, only the max combinable in certain ones.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Redeemer]

The point is you can't change the number of elements to a specified max. and then proceed to fill in the blanks so to speak. All pre-defined brigades are completely designated as a specifically designed "unit" made up of a "collection" of specific individual model types.

You lost me there. You mean you can't take a militia brigade with one militia regiment, which already can be combined with another militia regiment for a max of two and make that instead a max of 5?

These predefined units are then assigned to the Reinforcement Box and cannot be directly altered thereafter, except by the roundabout element replacement routine for those previously pre-defined models that have been completely destroyed in combat. In other words in the current game design, you can't build "units" on-the-fly, which in a sense is what the larger brigades are (a single unit). Units are predefined and indivisible except for combat losses which are then replaced on an exact match to the missing element model.

I don't believe that would need to change unless I am confusing something. Would my above example change reinforcements for that brigade?

[Major Tom]

Where do you come up with name-calling? I referred to some individuals as whining individuals, which is a characterization of the way they post not name-calling. However, since this particular discussion is going nowhere fast, let's just drop it now before it degenerates any further.

I think we can agree on that, at least. We're clearly two thin-skinned individuals. You're thin-skinned regarding your work on the game, of which you are justifiably proud. I'm thin-skinned regarding regarding rudeness in message board discourse. It's probably a generational thing, because I learned what's appropriate in polite adult conversation before the internet came along. Unfortuntely, internet standards of discourse are different. A younger person probably wouldn't have been phased in the least at being called a pushy, repetitive whiner, because they're used to being called worse than that on any message board they visit.

For myself, I'm, not a grudgy kind of guy, and I certainly don't want to get into some BS board-war outside of my wieght class.

[Major Tom]

You lost me there. You mean you can't take a militia brigade with one militia regiment, which already can be combined with another militia regiment for a max of two and make that instead a max of 5?

I don't believe that would need to change unless I am confusing something. Would my above example change reinforcements for that brigade?

Redeemer -- There are two relevant database files, which are part of big zip directory for modder syou can download here: http://ageoddl.telechargement.fr/latest/AACW_DB.zip (look for the "units" and "models" files). One of them defines each "model" - in other words, each possible element in the game -- everything from artwork to stats. The other file defines "units" which are made up of one or more "models".

All of the brigades in the game are defined in the Units database spreadsheet. See my post above for a very condensed set of data from that file. The units file defines all of the brigade types available in the game by specifying how many of each "model" to include. Some "models" are identical in every feature except the artwork -- so for instance there's a basic CSA line infantry "model" and there's a second model that's the same except for alternate artwork. So, Gray's right - there are some pre-set brigades n the Units database where the only difference is that they use models with different artwork.

For each unit in the database, there are fields that define what's in the unit, and a separate set of fields that define what types of replacement or additional elements the unit can take. so, for your question "You mean you can't take a militia brigade with one militia regiment, which already can be combined with another militia regiment for a max of two and make that instead a max of 5?" -- yes, (I think) you could, but that would mean redefining the unit to allow the addition of more elements, and it would apply to all of the same type militia brigades. Do you want every militia brigade set up to allow the addition of 5 more elements? A modder could change the replacement elements for any and all brigade types in a way that allows more elements to be added. But that seems like a pretty clumsy way to get at customizing brigades. Plus, the command cost for each brigade is permantently set in the Units database, and it doesn't change when elements are added. That's why when you combine two militias, the command cost remains 1. You COULD set up each militia brigade to accept 4 more elements, but the command cost would stay at 1, so that doesn't work so well.

Gray has spotted a way to potentially increase the variety of brigades that can be formed -- freeing up space by eliminating redundant units from the database. I had no idea there were as many of those as Gray has identified. Even a few more brigade configurations to choose from would be a significant improvement, especially with early war divisions being eliminated. The only trade-off is the loss of some variety in the unit artwork, which I'm guessing most players would be willing to make.

[Redeemer]

Redeemer -- There are two relevant database files, which are part of big zip directory for modder syou can download here: http://ageoddl.telechargement.fr/latest/AACW_DB.zip (look for the "units" and "models" files). One of them defines each "model" - in other words, each possible element in the game -- everything from artwork to stats. The other file defines "units" which are made up of one or more "models".

All of the brigades in the game are defined in the Units database spreadsheet. See my post above for a very condensed set of data from that file. The units file defines all of the brigade types available in the game by specifying how many of each "model" to include. Some "models" are identical in every feature except the artwork -- so for instance there's a basic CSA line infantry "model" and there's a second model that's the same except for alternate artwork. So, Gray's right - there are some pre-set brigades n the Units database where the only difference is that they use models with different artwork.

For each unit in the database, there are fields that define what's in the unit, and a separate set of fields that define what types of replacement or additional elements the unit can take. so, for your question "You mean you can't take a militia brigade with one militia regiment, which already can be combined with another militia regiment for a max of two and make that instead a max of 5?" -- yes, (I think) you could, but that would mean redefining the unit to allow the addition of more elements, and it would apply to all of the same type militia brigades. Do you want every militia brigade set up to allow the addition of 5 more elements? A modder could change the replacement elements for any and all brigade types in a way that allows more elements to be added. But that seems like a pretty clumsy way to get at customizing brigades. Plus, the command cost for each brigade is permantently set in the Units database, and it doesn't change when elements are added. That's why when you combine two militias, the command cost remains 1. You COULD set up each militia brigade to accept 4 more elements, but the command cost would stay at 1, so that doesn't work so well.

Gray has spotted a way to potentially increase the variety of brigades that can be formed -- freeing up space by eliminating redundant units from the database. I had no idea there were as many of those as Gray has identified. Even a few more brigade configurations to choose from would be a significant improvement, especially with early war divisions being eliminated. The only trade-off is the loss of some variety in the unit artwork, which I'm guessing most players would be willing to make.

If what you say is true, then it could be done for militia (Have the militia units currently available and then add these new units.), possibly inf, and cavalry, but not art., too much variety in the guns already, unless art has only one element type, but I think it has at least 3?? light, field, heavy. As far as the CP costs go, I would set them at the max fill level, so if the max fill was 5, set the CP at 5.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted