Division Build Limit

[lodilefty]

This debate has raged on and on and on.....

I'm receptive to removing the limit on Division build quantity.
Let your economy, number of Generals and number of units be the limit.

...of course, we'll keep the initial "0" limits in scenarios that have them, and only raise the limit when the existing event allows...


What say ye?

A "NO"vote will remove the scripted limitation (just like California's reverse logic, eh?)....

(and to be clear: I vote NO: remove the limit)

[squarian]

I feel the need to explain my "yea" ('cause I'm long-winded like that ). What I'd really like to see is a limitation by event, similar to the existing limits on corps and division formation, on when full and partial mobilization can be used.

In my opinion (and I think among many other players, judging from the frequency with which house rules with this effect are used in PBEM) the problem isn't too many divisions per se, it's that both armies grow too large too quickly. A division limit is an awkward but essentially effective way to limit the size of the field armies, which achieves something like the desired result. However, the real solution is to limit army sizes by limiting (ahistorical) early conscription, smaller numbers of manpower translating directly to smaller field armies.

If conscription were placed on an historical time-line, I'd change my vote to "no" (i.e. in favor of unlimited numbers of divisions).

[lodilefty]

I feel the need to explain my "yea" ('cause I'm long-winded like that ). What I'd really like to see is a limitation by event, similar to the existing limits on corps and division formation, on when full and partial mobilization can be used.

In my opinion (and I think among many other players, judging from the frequency with which house rules with this effect are used in PBEM) the problem isn't too many divisions per se, it's that both armies grow too large too quickly. A division limit is an awkward but essentially effective way to limit the size of the field armies, which achieves something like the desired result. However, the real solution is to limit army sizes by limiting (ahistorical) early conscription, smaller numbers of manpower translating directly to smaller field armies.

If conscription were placed on an historical time-line, I'd change my vote to "no" (i.e. in favor of unlimited numbers of divisions).

I've tinkered with a mod to do just this. Never published, as WIA-RoP etc. occupied me.

...time to dust it off. (but it will "just" be a mod for now)

[squarian]

it will "just" be a mod for now

Just a mod is just fine by me - I'd be grateful to try it (and I'm sure I'm not alone) - thanks much, Lodi.

[Jarkko]

I voted NO. If somebody wants to use understrength divisions, it should be their right to do so, especially if they will burn their money doing so Ie let the player set the "cap" he believes his economy and military structure can handle, not an arificial cap somebody did invent during some hazy moments in the dark hours

[jennison]

I vote a big NO. In fact, I wish I could find that thread that showed how to edit the game to remove the cap (although I'm not sure I ever confirmed if it worked or not) so I can use it in my new campaign. It's a HUGE buzz kill to be playing as the Confederates and to run out of divisions... Especially when the economy is booming and there are generals/units galore.

[Philippe]

Haven't voted yet, but don't want to until I understand why the limit exists at all.

I'm assuming that what we're talking about is administrative and logistic capability. In that context I can understand that there would be a difference and that the Union would probably have an advantage.

But I don't understand the history behind this, or how (and/or even if) it should translate into the game.

All things being equal shouldn't the North field more divisions? If the limits are set ridiculously high or done away with altogether, will the North tend to have more divisions? Didn't the South tend to have fewer but larger divisions, and isn't that what the limit is trying to reflect? I strenuously oppose making changes in the system to accomodate personal styles of play if it makes the game behave in a less historical manner. Historicity is often inconvenient.

[Normalguy]

Remove the limit - let the 'natural' constraints of available manpower, money, supplies and industry drive how we organise our armies, just as in real life, rather than artificial limits.

Or if there is a really good reason to limit the number of division (e.g. the game will crash if there are more than x Divisions) then make it the same limit for both sides.

Having said that, dont change when Divisions and Corps become available.

But ...hey....what do I know, I'm the new boy here

[lodilefty]

Haven't voted yet, but don't want to until I understand why the limit exists at all.

I'm assuming that what we're talking about is administrative and logistic capability. In that context I can understand that there would be a difference and that the Union would probably have an advantage.

But I don't understand the history behind this, or how (and/or even if) it should translate into the game.

All things being equal shouldn't the North field more divisions? If the limits are set ridiculously high or done away with altogether, will the North tend to have more divisions? Didn't the South tend to have fewer but larger divisions, and isn't that what the limit is trying to reflect? I strenuously oppose making changes in the system to accomodate personal styles of play if it makes the game behave in a less historical manner. Historicity is often inconvenient.

IIRC, the limits are imposed to reflect the historical quntity of divisions fielded.

The game engine does NOT restrict size of a Division differently for one side or the other.

IMHO, the limit is set to try to repeat history, which is sort of wierd when you can completely change history via your strategy....

The game was published almost 5 years ago, and has evolved a lot! (anyone for Division HQ units?:bonk Since then, the understanding of the economics and added capability of the engine have given us a lot of room to change. Should we stop evolving?

[Coldsteel]

I vote no.

Remove the limit! Viva la Revolution!

[Philippe]

I guess what I'm looking for in a game like this is to be handed the same tools with the same advantages and limitations that the participants had, and to have the ability to change history within the framework of what was possible or likely at the time.

Neither side could field an unlimited number of divisions. In addition to that, I gather the two sides tended to organize themselves a bit differently, partly because of the way they raised manpower. All things being equal (and I'm not holding myself out as an ACW expert, so I invite the more knowledgeable to correct me) I would expect the South to have fewer and larger divisions, and but they would suffer fewer penalties for grouping large numbers of troops together. [My thinking is that the North is almost twice as big as the South in terms of manpower, but that the South had almost half the trained senior officers at the start of the war, which is more than its fair share].

How this translates into the model is another story, and I don't presume to know the model well enough to advocate changing it one way or the other. But I would caution against making changes for the sake of game balance, because the situation was, in the long run, inherently unbalanced. What evened it out somewhat was that the South could win a political victory on the battlefield even if it was doomed to lose the war of attrition (from the perspective of resources and manpower). Adding things in that balance things out is simply the wrong way to go (except in a mod -- and that would be a perfectly legitimate modder's what if).

I think that maybe the real question here is do the limits accurately reflect what they're supposed to reflect. If they don't, I'd hesitate to use historicity as a defense for a failed design. But if they do work more or less as they should, then the question becomes one of figuring out what reaonable limits should be. In that case I'd propose (without knowing what the limits actually are in the game) something like each side's historical maximum plus fifteen percent (maybe less), with the Southern numbers adjusted for Anglo-French invasion, depending on what the state of the developer's intervention is.

In the real world you never have an unlimited amount of anything. So knowing that you only have so many trained staff officers to spread around seems like a realistic kind of thing to have to worry about. On the face of it that could give North and South very similar maximums, but logistical differences should make the South's number tangibly smaller.

And would someone who knows more about the Civil War than I do please chip in their two Confederate dollars worth? This shouldn't be decided based on what one person or the other wants, but rather on what's appropriate given the situation.

[Franciscus]

I voted NO. If somebody wants to use understrength divisions, it should be their right to do so, especially if they will burn their money doing so Ie let the player set the "cap" he believes his economy and military structure can handle, not an arificial cap somebody did invent during some hazy moments in the dark hours

+ 1

I could not have said it better

(except if this would delay the final &*%# 1.16 patch a couple more years )

[lodilefty]

To be clear:

Division formation islimited by:
1. Leader available and active
2. Enough $$ etc to pay
3. Troops to put in it
4. You have not yet created the scripted number of Divisions

...and 3. carries it's own limits: you had to have conscripts, money and WSU to build them....

..and implied:
5. You have the wherewithal to keep them supplied.

The poll proposes eliminating item 4.
A mod I'm tinkering with will further limit items 2 and 3

I don't really know the "history" of the scripted limits, but I do know that I believe we can get 1,2,3 and 5 to constrain things nicely...

[Oldman]

+ 1

I could not have said it better

(except if this would delay the final &*%# 1.16 patch a couple more years )

+1 both to the original Jarkko post and this one.

[willgamer]

+1 both to the original Jarkko post and this one.

Who knew so many people still watch this forum?

Yeah, me too, also NO!

[bigus]

We could have the best of both worlds. Since the division limit seems to be set in each scenario. We could have one scenario with a division limit and one without. You could have multiple versions of the same scenario. I'm not sure if thats the direction you want to go.


[ATTACH]16497[/ATTACH]

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

I voted no, but if we remove the division limit cap, then there absolutely has to be tweaks to the other constraints. 30 full strength divisions is ~200,000 troops. Maximum CSA end of year army size was actually 464,646 in 1863 for the CSA. I'm not sure how many of those were effectives in the main "armies" though. 200,000 seems somewhat low, but within reason to me. I've never been able to get to 60 divisions as the Union so I'd say they have less men in the field as well than historically. This isn't really a bad thing since no players actually garrison like the forces did historically. Giving them historical force levels would just end up with all of them on the front lines.

Now on to solutions. A straight penalty to CS points wouldn't be ideal. I think the forces build up at about the right speed until sometime in 1863. (the Union may be a little slow) One thing AACW lacks is a way to simulate the exhaustion of manpower in the later years. As it is now, just keep a good NM and you can draft/volunteer to your hearts content. Some type of conscript point penalty based on overall casualties and lost capitals seems like a start, though I'm guessing that's more of an AACW2 feature at this point unless someone can mod it. Clovis had mentioned something like this for his SVF 2.0 mod but he's AWOL and who knows if that will ever come out.

Maybe an easier solution would be to add penalties to the conscription/volunteer options after a certain date. Preferably tiered in some way.

Anyway, I don't really care about the method, I just want a realistic amount of combat troops on the field. Division limits accomplished this to some degree, but there's a more flexible/artisitic approach out there somewhere.

[ERISS]

I say no, as this is an ugly design. But maybe the game has then to be tweaked with the Lodilefty next mod.

[W.Barksdale]

I voted for 'no' limit. I always believed this to be quite poorly thought out. I'm not really sure what this was trying to model as the force pool and manpower are the proper limiting factors.

A no limit/99 division limit division cap IMO is much more historically accurate. If interested you can find the research by searching through some of my previous threads. I did an analysis sometime ago on the number of Federal and rebel divisions. For the Federals I counted around 90 distinct divisions. For the rebels I counted 39 distinct divisions.

As stated above it allows people to recreate some of the smaller divisions. This is particularly relevant for Union players. The federals already have manpower quite below historic levels. This will make it possible to have the large historic armies and, further, it allows the Union proper garrisons of backdoor theatres which is now almost impossible due to the high relative CP cost for Federal brigades (another thing I have no idea what it is being modelled here).

Finally, it just makes more sense. If there are recruits and general officers available there is just no reason why they should not be able to be formed into divisions.

And lodi thank you for bringing this up. I really hope this gets implemented. If so this is a big step for the historical accuracy of the best ACW simulation I've come across.

[lodilefty]

I propose that we implement "no" limit in the two ""Kentucky" Campaigns.

We'll keep the "delayed onset" of Corps and Divisions as-is.

I will put a set of instructions "How o change Division Limits" in a readme with the patch.

[Franciscus]

I propose that we implement "no" limit in the two ""Kentucky" Campaigns.

Accepted !

[Longshanks]

Hg

I propose that we implement "no" limit in the two ""Kentucky" Campaigns.

We'll keep the "delayed onset" of Corps and Divisions as-is.

I will put a set of instructions "How o change Division Limits" in a readme with the patch.

Whoa! Can we wait for a few more votes or is this Florida? i'm fine with removing division caps but that's not the top issue.

Instead, id rather see much bigger NM penalties for mobizations early in the war coupled with rising NM penalties for repeated use to simulate draft riots. These are more important issues.

Having said that i vote no.

[lodilefty]

Hg

Whoa! Can we wait for a few more votes or is this Florida? i'm fine with removing division caps but that's not the top issue.

Instead, id rather see much bigger NM penalties for mobizations early in the war coupled with rising NM penalties for repeated use to simulate draft riots. These are more important issues.

Having said that i vote no.

That will be addressed in my upcoming mod.

Not ready for such sweeping changes to be made for now....
...patience please!

Let's get the patch done!

[Philippe]

...the high relative CP cost for Federal brigades (another thing I have no idea what it is being modelled here).

I wonder if this isn't an attempt to create Confederate divisions with more brigades than Northern divisions. I've always thought that some of the Army of Northern Virginia divisions almost looked like small Corps. No idea how well this works in practise in the game though.

(I've voted no and am very pleased to see that we seem to be reaching some kind of consensus.)

[caranorn]

I voted yes for a few game design related issues...

Originally the number of divisions in AACW was indeed also a force pool issue as divisional HQ's had to be raised just like Army HQ or brigades right now. So saying that the number of divisions should only be based on force pool etc. is ignoring the original game intention...

But a much more serious issue is that over the years large numbers of 1* generals were added to the game that were not included in the original design, that in part to balance for the limited number of divisional HQ's available. Also we have far fewer leader casualties in AACW than in the actual civil war. Both of these factors in combination with unlimited divisions lead to unhistoric results...

If a change to division limites were to be made I'd expect serious tweaking of the leader available (only those who historically lead divisions, division equivalents, were likely to lead such forces or played an important role at the brigade level). Also look for a way for Confederate divisions to be larger than Union ones, otherwise this will likely benefit one side (there are far more obscure Union generals in the game than Confederates) over the other...

All in all this is one area I'd leave untouched for now, only reconsider it if AACW-II ever becomes a reality...

[lodilefty]

I voted yes for a few game design related issues...

Originally the number of divisions in AACW was indeed also a force pool issue as divisional HQ's had to be raised just like Army HQ or brigades right now. So saying that the number of divisions should only be based on force pool etc. is ignoring the original game intention...

But a much more serious issue is that over the years large numbers of 1* generals were added to the game that were not included in the original design, that in part to balance for the limited number of divisional HQ's available. Also we have far fewer leader casualties in AACW than in the actual civil war. Both of these factors in combination with unlimited divisions lead to unhistoric results...

If a change to division limites were to be made I'd expect serious tweaking of the leader available (only those who historically lead divisions, division equivalents, were likely to lead such forces or played an important role at the brigade level). Also look for a way for Confederate divisions to be larger than Union ones, otherwise this will likely benefit one side (there are far more obscure Union generals in the game than Confederates) over the other...

All in all this is one area I'd leave untouched for now, only reconsider it if AACW-II ever becomes a reality...

The limitation in the old Div HQ days was just as arbitrary.....

Still, the limitation is more $$ than anything (in the south anyway). We can increase the cost to form a Division, I suppose....

Limiting Generals is a significant engine change.

Anyway, it will only be the 2 "non-traditional" scenarios, and is easy to mod.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

Instead, id rather see much bigger NM penalties for mobizations early in the war coupled with rising NM penalties for repeated use to simulate draft riots. These are more important issues.

Having said that i vote no.

This sounds mostly good. Though if the penalties are high enough to prevent or delay conscription, it will result in already small manpower numbers becoming even smaller.

[lodilefty]

I just dug into the early AACW beta discussion, when removal of the Division HQ units was debated (ca. 2007), and the scripted limit was set to equal the "Unit Pool" of Division HQ Units..

Division limits were created primarily to help approximate history, balance game, and help the AI by eliminating the HQ unit. A lot of work went into "sizing the Unit Pools", and the limits we see today are results of that testing.

So, the key question:
Has the game engine (aka Athena) evolved enough to remove the limits?

I will discuss this off line with the Master, and we will all defer to his decision.

Thank you for your inputs

[squarian]

Instead, id rather see much bigger NM penalties for mobizations early in the war coupled with rising NM penalties for repeated use to simulate draft riots. These are more important issues.

Would Athena be able to cope with a choice? Or would she end up making silly decisions?

Or would it be possible to split the issue: give players a choice to lose NM in exchange for early conscription, but bind Athena to an historical timeline or after the player uses full/partial mobilization, whichever comes first?

edit: As it is, AFAICT the AI always goes for full mob ASAP - it that's the case, wouldn't additional NM penalties become effectively automatic for the AI?

[charlesonmission]

Either way, it would be nice if in PBRM the option was there to get rid of division limitations.

Charles

Would Athena be able to cope with a choice? Or would she end up making silly decisions?

Or would it be possible to split the issue: give players a choice to lose NM in exchange for early conscription, but bind Athena to an historical timeline or after the player uses full/partial mobilization, whichever comes first?

edit: As it is, AFAICT the AI always goes for full mob ASAP - it that's the case, wouldn't additional NM penalties become effectively automatic for the AI?