On Generals and Recruitment

[cwhomer]

I'd like to start by saying that I realize that it is impossible to implement anything of the following under the current engine. These ideas are more of suggestions/wishes for, say, AACW 2 (should we ever be that lucky), and to get people thinking. This is why I didn't post this in the wishlist thread, but if it's better to be there, my apologies for making Rafiki wave his wand.

I'd like to see changes to the way leadership is handled. My starting point is that leaders simply don't get wounded or killed enough during large battles. Civil War generals lost limbs and lives left and right- sometimes cutting a brilliant career short, sometimes temporarily (or permanently) opening the door for someone else. This is not something that I feel is reflected accurately under the current system. I understand why it is not reflected. Wounding, capturing, or killing off brigade, division, and the occasional corps/army commanders at historic rates would hurt both human and AI players' ability to organize, and keep organized, their forces. That is because, as it now stands, the general's element makes the army/corp/division/independant brigade stack. This brings me to my second, larger point: I'd like to see this philosophy/approach flipped by changing the recruitment process. Here's what I mean.

Let's say it's November 1861, and you want to create a new army/corps/division. First you need purchase a new HQ.
Want to create the Army of the Potomac, or add the 1st Corps to it, or add the 1st Corps, 2nd Division, 1st Brigade? You purchase the respective HQ, which unlocks the organizational unit on the Army's ledger/OOB screen. Now you have a "paper" army laid out in on a screen with a bunch of empty slots/boxes.

To actually build the division, you pull elements of the recruitment pool. Under this system you still order individual brigades/regiments/batteries, but they don't appear on the map right away. Rather, after being completed they go to certain data "camps" that armies can pull from. For example, let's say I want to recruit the 1st Brigade, 2nd Division, 1st Corps, Army of the Potomac. I've ordered the 2nd Division HQ, opening up 2 brigade slots. Now I order the 1st Brigade HQ and open up 5 element slots. The Army of the Potomac is currently in Fairfax, VA and Washington, DC is the nearest camp. I open the Washington's camp's ledger page and see the following units available: the 25th Ohio, 77th Pennsylvania, 102 Pennsylvania, 9th NY Cavalry, and Knapp's Battery. I click on the 25th Ohio and receive a drop down box with various commands I can assign it to, including the 1st Brigade(Note that there would be an option to create independant commands as well). I choose the the 1st Brigade and a tooltip tells me that this element will join its command in 12 days, which is when it will physically appear on the map (this would change based on the distance needed to travel). Alternatively I could shift existing units into this new division by removing them from their current assignment, with a delay or no delay depending on the distance to the new command and a loss of cohesion.

We have already created the army/corps/divisions/brigades using the HQs. The HQ's allow us to build and maintain our commands. Now, via the army's or command's ledger screen we can take our generals and apply/attach or attach them to an appropriate level HQ. The generals still appear on the map, just as the combat elements do. However rather than being treated as an active unit (in the sense of being able to create stacks), the generals act more like a trait. Perhaps another way of putting it is that the general acts asan elite brigade/special unit does now. They apply command points (and even that might not be necessary under this system, since the HQs would carry them) and special abilities to the HQ/stack as long as they are attached, but are separated from them. Little Mac can be removed or Longstreet can be wounded without eliminating their commands, since the HQs, modelling the staff/human infrastructure, persist. It would then be a simple matter of promoting or assigning a new commander to the exisiting HQ, again following the model of adding combat elements. Commands without a general would suffer the type of penalities as those with inactive generals, only more severe (unable to move, movement/combat penalties, low cohesion).

I see several advantages to this system. First, it would reduce micromangament. You would not have to cycle through 100 units every turn or drag and drop them to their destinations, as the order/camp/assignment setup would abstract and organize the process somewhat. It would give you a clear picture of how your own forces are organized and deploed. More importantly, it would untie the creation of army/corps/divisions from leaders and allow for persistent commands. This would open up the possibility to model in some new things. As time goes on, units that are left together could get cohesion bonuses as they become accustomed to working within the same chain of command. Political weight of certain commands could become a factor in who gets to lead what.

As I said, this is not something I expect to see anytime soon, if ever. But I am curious as to what people think about these ideas, and any of their own I'm sure there are lots of problems with my thinking, and I encourage people to find them, or to throw in their own suggestions.

[Le Ricain]

You should upgrade with the latest patch. Division HQ's were eliminated almost 2 years ago.

[soloswolf]

How exactly does this model generals being wounded or killed?

What you are talking about is a completely different game. Completely. I think that some of your ideas are neat, but I get the sense that it would require a total overhaul of basic game structure.

The question that everyone with one of these grand ideas should ask themselves is: Can the AI do this?

I also don't see it removing any of the micro-management either. It is just presented differently.

Also, the time of purchasing division HQ's is a dark one in AACW history, and one best not relived or spoken of.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[cwhomer]

Very true... At least 18 months ago. The only actual HQ unit left in the game is the Army HQ, which has to be included for specific game reasons.

I consider myself up to date with things (your work on HAM, the beta patches, and so on), but I missed the whole divisional HQ period entirely. For the record I knew they existed and were removed some time ago, I just never played with them. Looking over my post I can see how it looks like I think they are still in the game- a communication error on my part. After reading over the Wishlist thread, I intentionally decided not to include my post there, since it was less a "tweak this" discussion and more of an approach/philosophy/big idea one. Hence the lack of useable suggestions (made less useable probably by being up way too late last night :bonk .

But my apologies if it's a direction the AGEOD team previously went in and didn't like.

If I had to boil my point down to something a bit clearer, it would be this:

-Divisions can be formed without leaders by paying some kind of small cost. (Aware that players can currently create ad hoc divisions)

-Leaders can join divisions, supplying them with command points and traits. Rather than allowing the other units to combine under it, it would be one of the combiners.

-Therefore, leader units could be replaced/destroyed like any other element in the division without causing the destruction of the division itself.

It would work like this. A previously built brigade has 3 elements and is full. You choose to upgrade it to a division, paying a small cost in conscripts and money (symbolizing, but not actually creating, that which shall not be named). The game code now flags the stack as a division which can contain up to 18 (removable) elements, including leaders to supply command points and traits. As long as one element remains in the stack, the stack remains flagged as a division.

This is very similiar to the present system, and therefore within Athena's (and her successor's) capability but breaks the division trigger from being tied to a specific element.

Also Soloswolf, I agree to your "presented differently" point regarding micromanagement, but I'll leave that for now.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted