Replacements

[W.Barksdale]

It is my understanding that all units inside structures (with a depot) are considered in passive stance when receiving replacements. Many of these units, in fact, don't really need replacements. Then units that really do need replacements don't get them. Or at the very least don't receive enough.

Is there a way to give priority to specific units for receiving replacements given these new rules?

Does specifically putting a unit on passive inside the depot give them more priority then just any unit inside inside a depot not manually put on passive (even though they are now considered to be in passive for replacement purposes)? Sorry for the confused wording.

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

While we're on the subject of replacements, here's a couple for [anyone].

1. The replacement screen offers the option to buy replacement points for Army HQ units. What do these expensive replacements really buy--entire HQ units or just removal of some of the red bar? And does it really hurt HQ efficiency/effectiveness if an HQ has a small or large red bar?

2. For the longest time, my naval engineers in Boston were 50% "in the red." So I bought a replacement point. But it didn't "spend." The naval engineer stayed 50% red turn after turn while the purchased replacement point sat there unused. What's up with that? And do naval engineers operate at reduced efficiency for being "in the red"?

"Inquiring minds" and all that...!

[cmdrsam]

I'm curious about this as well. I would buy a HQ replacement as was previously mentioned and I get the same result.

[Rafiki]

Let's see if we can do a step by step on how reinforcements and replacements work

1. You receive conscript companies either from your regions or from events. These are stored in a national pool, which you can see at the top of the screen, and you can also see projected totals in various places (e.g. the replacements screen as you say).

2 You use conscript companies in two ways:

2A: Buy reinforcements (new units). This is pretty straight-forward; the units spend a variable amount of time on the map, building strength, and become available after a shorter or longer while.

2B: Buy replacement chits. These are bought and collected in separate pools for each type of element (e.g. "line infantry" or "cavalry"). By themselves, replacement chits don't do anything, nor can you use them directly, but they are needed for repairing and replacing elements.

3 Your replacement chits can be used in two ways:

3A Repairing damaged elements. Damaged elements will recover some of their strength each turn; the rate will vary based on type of element, where it is located and whether it's a Union or CSA element. There is a chance that each element replacing losses like this will spend a replacement chit, but it's not certain it will. Note that even if an element wouldn't have spent a chit while repairing itself, it still requires that there is at least one chit in the appropriate pool for any repairs to occur.

3B Replacing eliminated elements. Units that are missing elements compared to their original TO&E can recover one of them each turn. This will spend a replacement chit of the corresponding type

For some details concerning this, check out http://www.ageod.net/aacwwiki/Manual:Losses_and_replacements

[Pocus]

Units in structures, which are in defensive mode are considered to be in passive for cohesion recovery. For replacements they are not, so you can play with that to prioritize replacements.

Units in passive in structures, if attacked, are considered in defensive mode.

[marecone]

Units in structures, which are in defensive mode are considered to be in passive for cohesion recovery. For replacements they are not, so you can play with that to prioritize replacements.

Units in passive in structures, if attacked, are considered in defensive mode.

WOW! These are very important informations that I have probably missed in manual and wiki.

Thanks Pocus

[Rafiki]

WOW! These are very important informations that I have probably missed in (..) wiki.

No more!

Thanks Pocus

[W.Barksdale]

Units in structures, which are in defensive mode are considered to be in passive for cohesion recovery. For replacements they are not, so you can play with that to prioritize replacements.

Units in passive in structures, if attacked, are considered in defensive mode.

Ahh! So I had my information wrong again! Thank you for the clarification!

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

Looks like my error was in thinking that purchased replacement points automatically would be used up, providing of course that there was at least one unit of the appropriate type that needed it. Apparently not the case!

[W.Barksdale]

I don't get it. I've bought replacements. I have units on passive in Richmond and yet they get no replacements. In fact, I don't even see any msgs about replacements in the mail box with replacement filter on. Is there something I am missing?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[arsan]

I don't get it. I've bought replacements. I have units on passive in Richmond and yet they get no replacements. In fact, I don't even see any msgs about replacements in the mail box with replacement filter on. Is there something I am missing?

Maybe the units are under siege?
Are you sure you have the right replacement type for them?
Are the replacements actually used up on something, but not on the Richmond units... or are they not expended at all?
Cheers

[Rafiki]

I don't think there are any messages regarding replacements being delivered. The way you can tell is the red bar shrinking away on those units that have suffered losses.

You only get messages when whole elements are replaced, not when elements are "repaired" even if they use a replacements chit.

You don't get a message when you lack replacement chits in a category where you had use for them either. That might perhaps be handy, as would a statistics page displaying replacement usage during a given turn

(Disclaimer: I love having statistics available to me )

[soundoff]

You don't get a message when you lack replacement chits in a category where you had use for them either. That might perhaps be handy, as would a statistics page displaying replacement usage during a given turn

Perhaps you could add to that stats page the details of all units that require replacements to bring them to full strength.

[W.Barksdale]

Maybe the units are under siege?
Are you sure you have the right replacement type for them?
Are the replacements actually used up on something, but not on the Richmond units... or are they not expended at all?
Cheers

It is very strange. There is no siege. Units are line infantry and I've bought line infantry replacements. And the replacements do get used up. All of them! However, none go to the units on passive. I'm thinking that the passive priority thingy might be broken.

Anyone else have problems with it? Maybe I just need a reinstall.

[arsan]

It is very strange. There is no siege. Units are line infantry and I've bought line infantry replacements. And the replacements do get used up. All of them! However, none go to the units on passive. I'm thinking that the passive priority thingy might be broken.

Anyone else have problems with it? Maybe I just need a reinstall.

Hi


Pocus should know best about the actual system.
I'm not sure if the passive settings gives that units an absolute priority above non passive units or just an increased chance of being selected to receive replacements.
Maybe the level of the losses also affect the priority so that if you have some other units highly damaged they get the replacements first.
I have not played much with the latest version, but on previous ones i had no problems with the health recovery... even if not in passive
Regards

[Coregonas]

It is very strange. There is no siege. Units are line infantry and I've bought line infantry replacements. And the replacements do get used up. All of them! However, none go to the units on passive. I'm thinking that the passive priority thingy might be broken.

Anyone else have problems with it? Maybe I just need a reinstall.

Are you playing with realistic attrition?

In case Yes, about 5% (? I guess ) of all the troops deployed are lost to the alcohol & such... so you need lots of Replacements to hold the build up...

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jabberwock]

It is very strange. There is no siege. Units are line infantry and I've bought line infantry replacements. And the replacements do get used up. All of them! However, none go to the units on passive. I'm thinking that the passive priority thingy might be broken.

Anyone else have problems with it? Maybe I just need a reinstall.

Lately I've been having quite a few problems keeping any kind of serious rebel army in the field after 1862. It's got to be due to historical attrition / replacements. I buy replacements to bring back troops to units that are seriously depleted by combat, but they generally seem to go to keeping other units topped off with full companies, which then lose troops again due to attrition, etc. So I buy just one of each, so I can build new units, but I can't even afford that because it gets sucked up and spit out in the form of drunken bounty-jumping deserters. There really doesn't seem to be a point in buying them, anymore. It happens if I start a late-war scenario, because there are already so many troops in the field. The replacements pool just gets sucked dry almost immediately.

It's not a problem for me if I play an early war scenario against Athena, because I can beat Athena before I hit the out-of-replacements wall. It's not a problem as the union, because the rebels hit that wall first, and I can certainly afford replacements long enough to win.

I'm thinking that with historical attrition on, replacements don't need to be going to line regiments with over 600 troops at all. They don't need to go to volunteers with over 450 at all. Maybe somebody has a better suggestion for how to fix this. Maybe somebody who helped design the current historical attrition system can give the rest of us pointers on what we are doing wrong. It feels like* a large portion of the beta team got done with this debate and then headed for greener pastures (other games). I respectfully suggest that without a way to effectively make use of replacements to keep armies going for as long as was done historically, the game becomes unbalanced and broken, except for short scenarios. Apologies to berto, but I think this needs to be fixed before display numbers are adjusted. Of course, if he has a suggestion for fixing both together, I'm certainly willing to listen.

* Yes, I did. I just used the phrase "feels like".

[Coregonas]

The only way I ve found to solve this is just not buying Replacements or building a single 1 of every kind.

I believe the problem is desertion on garrisons / well trenched & fed troops / city & fort stationed troops and so on.

I believe it should be wiser to either completely eliminate attriton in case there is some kind of "structure" or reduce it to a very very minimum (?1%),

...while holding attrition loses "realistic" due to "cohesion" & "weather"

[Barker]

I find replacements are necessary but yet disposable. I keep my front line units back and put second line in the front to absorb most of the punishment, then brine in frontline while new militia is being requested. I run into the problem in early war I get pasted after June evry time by the union no matter what strategy i use.

[Bertram]

Jabberwock,

I am curious how much troops you have in the field when you cant keep up with the replacements.

I have been considering the size of the armies in the game. I think the armies in the basic game become to large. This is, in my opinion, due to the fact that with no attrition there is no cost associated with keeping the army in the field (other then the consumption of supply, and that is always more a problem of transport then of amount available).

With attrition there is a cost for keeping up larger armies, and there should be a maximum size you can sustain with the manpower you get over time.

Of course the rate of attrition would determine the size of that army, given a certain level of manpower/turn. If this rate of attrition is right at the moment is up for debate - from your post it seems you think the rate is to high, and the resulting army you can sustain to small.

Not totally on topic: I also wonder if an "army in being" doesnt need a continuous stream of warsupply to keep it going, this giving a second limiting factor to the size of the armies.

When these factors are balanced right they add a new layer of strategy: you have to decide if you want to have a large army now, which you wont be able to keep in shape, or a smaller one that you can keep up to strenght.

(I see I went from 3 green squares to 4, and from having interesting insights to being nice...is this a promotion or did I say something stupid but adorable?)

[Jabberwock]

It's not a specific army size where I have problems. Just a general observation that I hit what feels like* a brick wall sometime in '62. I start operations faster than most players and I've noticed from reading other player's AARs that my armies are usually smaller than the ones I'm reading about. I have problems keeping the CSA army together enough, in relation to the opposition, to keep the USA army from walking right over it into Richmond without a real strategy. It generally does occur as the armies get bigger, late '62 - early '63.

Now, admittedly, I tend to "push the weather". I don't do it with all my troops. I entrench my main forces for as much of the winter as possible. But after looking through old threads, I'm thinking maybe all those replacements are going to keep raiders alive.

If that's the case, there is still a problem. The replacements system is entirely too opaque (black-box). We know what we put in, but we don't know what we will get. We don't even know what we've got once we've got something.

* again

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[soundoff]

Now, admittedly, I tend to "push the weather". I don't do it with all my troops. I entrench my main forces for as much of the winter as possible. But after looking through old threads, I'm thinking maybe all those replacements are going to keep raiders alive.

Just to say its in my game with Barksdale that this problem of replacements has reared its ugly head. One of the points I made to him was that as the Union player I'd actually done more attacking in winter 61/62 than I had in what could be loosely called the 'campaigning seasons of 61 and 62. Without doubt this has meant no rest for the troops on either side...especially the main forces. You only have to look at the AAR to see the way divisions have 'charged' from one theatre to another to realise that its not doing the attrition rate any favours.

[Coregonas]

As another important related fact--- I ve always tried to explain without success --- (as now it is) the combat matrix favours attackers.

The combat system favours too much the side with the quantity of elements involved.

So if a 25 elements command attack a 10 elements one -> Seems to me the system overflows and all the 10 elements get destroyed too quickly. (Although losses are not too much different, elements are wiped without pity)

If a 25 elements command attacks a 20 element the combat results seem better.

If the elements are not full, but 60-80% strength, the system overflows even more quickly.


Seems no realistic every battle (Ratios 2,5-1) involved with a Well trenched / in defense fire (20 instead of 11), fully rested cohesion and so on--- ends with a lot of defensive units wiped.

I just wanted to say -> Attrition speeds this even more.

[Daxil]

I have problems keeping the CSA army together enough, in relation to the opposition, to keep the USA army from walking right over it into Richmond without a real strategy.

I'm finding that deception is the only way. Of course, after a time the Union player will say damn the torpedoes and attack, anyways.

[Jabberwock]

I'm finding that deception is the only way. Of course, after a time the Union player will say damn the torpedoes and attack, anyways.

And thanks to the two of us, they all will now.

This is the point where I should claim that my entire purpose in this thread has been one massive deceptive propaganda exercise, with the idea of getting Union players to stupidly attack me. Unfortunately, claiming that would be untrue.

[bigus]

I'm thinking that with historical attrition on, replacements don't need to be going to line regiments with over 600 troops at all. They don't need to go to volunteers with over 450 at all. Maybe somebody has a better suggestion for how to fix this. Maybe somebody who helped design the current historical attrition system can give the rest of us pointers on what we are doing wrong. It feels like* a large portion of the beta team got done with this debate and then headed for greener pastures (other games). I respectfully suggest that without a way to effectively make use of replacements to keep armies going for as long as was done historically, the game becomes unbalanced and broken, except for short scenarios. Apologies to berto, but I think this needs to be fixed before display numbers are adjusted. Of course, if he has a suggestion for fixing both together, I'm certainly willing to listen.

I assure you that 3/4 of us that worked on the Attrition/Movement issue are still actively involved with the game.
IIRC The Attrition/Cohesion losses had nothing to do with A/C Recovery or any replacment issue. It was strictly to reduce Attrition and Cohesion which was deemed excessive at the time. (Whole armies being virtually wiped out due to movement ...etc).
Maybe Gray can point you to the discussion thread. It might take a while to read it though.
As for the replacement issue, I'm not sure what you want as the Confederates. Historically their manpower was spent by early-mid 63.
Drastic measures were taken and the fact that Longstreet was moved to the west in mid-late 63 proves this.

Just to say its in my game with Barksdale that this problem of replacements has reared its ugly head. One of the points I made to him was that as the Union player I'd actually done more attacking in winter 61/62 than I had in what could be loosely called the 'campaigning seasons of 61 and 62. Without doubt this has meant no rest for the troops on either side...especially the main forces. You only have to look at the AAR to see the way divisions have 'charged' from one theatre to another to realise that its not doing the attrition rate any favours.

Nuff said. Attrition losses as always are heavy in bad weather.

Bigus

[W.Barksdale]

Just to say its in my game with Barksdale that this problem of replacements has reared its ugly head. One of the points I made to him was that as the Union player I'd actually done more attacking in winter 61/62 than I had in what could be loosely called the 'campaigning seasons of 61 and 62. Without doubt this has meant no rest for the troops on either side...especially the main forces. You only have to look at the AAR to see the way divisions have 'charged' from one theatre to another to realise that its not doing the attrition rate any favours.

Okay I think I should be more clear. First, the attrition works BEAUTIFULLY and is NOT an issue! Second, this is NOT an issue about manpower. My issue here is specifically with the replacement mechanism.

Severely depleted units, due to battle casualties OR attrition OR whatever, are not receiving the replacements ordered when inside a depot\big city on passive. The replacement chips are being used up but are not following the supposed unit priority code.

This is using the latest official patch with no mods.