I am playing as Russia, though the issue is most likely general.
I declared a colony in Afghanistan and received their troops, who are now displayed as Russian. Their detailed Unit Panel shows the tag 'TAA.'
I defeated some (Polish) rebels and captured a whole Corps! However, the only element to remain there was the HQ and a field artillery. Their detailed Unit Panel shows the tag 'TEU.'
However, even though I have the relevant RUS replacement chits (inf, elite inf, etc.), these - ethnic - units do not receive any replacement/reinfrocement.
Is there a way to provide reinforcements to them or all I can do is simply wait till they are destroyed in battle / by wear and tear.
-
yellow ribbon
- Posts: 2245
- Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 5:42 pm
for Afgh. there were few glitches with all colonial troops, normally you are not supposed to refill/to be able to build them (like Apache or other tribes in the original order of battle of factions, you could have gained in the US for instance). you are owning them, but they are not your original faction.
there is one exemption, if there are colonial units programmed to be build using the same replacement chip (seldom).
also many glitches were shown for being unable to upgrade this kind of adopted forces. they are not meant to be.
*******************
as far i remember from the games at all, you are not supposed to create any new element in the [color="#FFFF00"]captured [/color]units. thus, NO, you will not have any chance to replace the inf. or cav. of the Poles, in your case, you can use them in the filed for free, but are not supposed just to create a new unit on based of the captured equippment
indeed, artillery and sometimes staff units are most common for the military recycling. in older games you wouldnt have been even able to fill the guns with replacements.
supply wagons are completely to be replaced. and, but i saw it only for AI subfactions, even a medical unit was once captured...
there is one exemption, if there are colonial units programmed to be build using the same replacement chip (seldom).
also many glitches were shown for being unable to upgrade this kind of adopted forces. they are not meant to be.
*******************
as far i remember from the games at all, you are not supposed to create any new element in the [color="#FFFF00"]captured [/color]units. thus, NO, you will not have any chance to replace the inf. or cav. of the Poles, in your case, you can use them in the filed for free, but are not supposed just to create a new unit on based of the captured equippment
indeed, artillery and sometimes staff units are most common for the military recycling. in older games you wouldnt have been even able to fill the guns with replacements.
supply wagons are completely to be replaced. and, but i saw it only for AI subfactions, even a medical unit was once captured...
...not paid by AGEOD.
however, prone to throw them into disarray.
PS:
‘Everything is very simple in War, but the simplest thing is difficult. These difficulties accumulate and produce a friction which no man can imagine exactly who has not seen War . . . in War, through the influence of an infinity of petty circumstances, which cannot properly be described on paper, things disappoint us, and we fall short of the mark.‘
Clausewitz
however, prone to throw them into disarray.
PS:
‘Everything is very simple in War, but the simplest thing is difficult. These difficulties accumulate and produce a friction which no man can imagine exactly who has not seen War . . . in War, through the influence of an infinity of petty circumstances, which cannot properly be described on paper, things disappoint us, and we fall short of the mark.‘
Clausewitz
captured artillery elements will sometime recover some hits for free, over time. As for the rest, the general rule is that each element has a 'faction tag', if this tag is not 'native' to you, then you'll never be able to get replacements (to get back hits or even whole elements, if the unit lost some).
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Is it possible to make a command to split a corps into its basic units? As is, captured artillery is very hard to use effectively because it's captured as part of a corps; because of this, the CP cost for your captured artillery is the corps' 12 CP. That cost just isn't worth it to utilize the 2-3 artillery elements in the captured unit. It would be nice if we could split off the 2 artillery elements from a vanilla infantry corps and make them into a single "Field Artillery Regiment", which is already represented in game, and leaving behind the old corps HQ which can be disbanded. That would take the CP cost of captured artillery down from 12 CP to an affordable 1 CP. They still wouldn't gain replacements because the tag would carry over from whatever tag the corps was, so the utilization of captured guns is still as limited as it should be.
Even in the case of the heavy infantry corps, with 2 field artillery and 1 medium artillery, the split would leave you with one field artillery regiment (2 elements) and the captured corps HQ with the medium artillery element. This idea would allow for a corps to also be split into 2 divisions, or 4 brigades + an artillery regiment.
Another idea would be to make the CP cost of a unit proportional to the number of elements in the unit compared to the number of elements that SHOULD be in the unit. In the example of a captured vanilla infantry corps, we have 3 elements (2 Field Art. + 1 Corps HQ) compared to the 11 elements (8 Inf. + 2 Field Art. + 1 Corps HQ) that should be there. This gives us a command cost of 3/11 of the normal cost, which is a little over 1/4, which gives us a 3 CP cost for a captured infantry corps. This is much more manageable than 12 CP, and this idea would work for any corps, captured or native, that has lost elements. It simply shouldn't take as much command to give orders to a corps that had lost 6 of its 8 infantry regiments as it would to a fully staffed corps.
Even in the case of the heavy infantry corps, with 2 field artillery and 1 medium artillery, the split would leave you with one field artillery regiment (2 elements) and the captured corps HQ with the medium artillery element. This idea would allow for a corps to also be split into 2 divisions, or 4 brigades + an artillery regiment.
Another idea would be to make the CP cost of a unit proportional to the number of elements in the unit compared to the number of elements that SHOULD be in the unit. In the example of a captured vanilla infantry corps, we have 3 elements (2 Field Art. + 1 Corps HQ) compared to the 11 elements (8 Inf. + 2 Field Art. + 1 Corps HQ) that should be there. This gives us a command cost of 3/11 of the normal cost, which is a little over 1/4, which gives us a 3 CP cost for a captured infantry corps. This is much more manageable than 12 CP, and this idea would work for any corps, captured or native, that has lost elements. It simply shouldn't take as much command to give orders to a corps that had lost 6 of its 8 infantry regiments as it would to a fully staffed corps.
unit composition or CP cost is read from the database, so it's not possible split any element as we wish and have them in a unit, the unit would be unknown from the database... Your second solution is much more possible though...
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
-
yellow ribbon
- Posts: 2245
- Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 5:42 pm
depends how you want to use captured equipment...
the HQ puts you in a better position with some, formerly free operating brigades attached than the malus for 35% of too high CP in the stack.
a nice thing for sieges, entrenched positions, behind rivers... but most certainly not for offensive operations.
draw back of the splitted CP on elements, some situations like the US American civil war and the franco prussian war, its pretty easy to gather a lot of capt. equipment.
no penalty therein would mean a that high concentration of now free operating artillery in game, that the variables in battles would make it too exploitable even with the new command for structures.
can be a terrifying drawback in small theater of war, access burden on cost of the AI
the HQ puts you in a better position with some, formerly free operating brigades attached than the malus for 35% of too high CP in the stack.
a nice thing for sieges, entrenched positions, behind rivers... but most certainly not for offensive operations.
draw back of the splitted CP on elements, some situations like the US American civil war and the franco prussian war, its pretty easy to gather a lot of capt. equipment.
no penalty therein would mean a that high concentration of now free operating artillery in game, that the variables in battles would make it too exploitable even with the new command for structures.
can be a terrifying drawback in small theater of war, access burden on cost of the AI
...not paid by AGEOD.
however, prone to throw them into disarray.
PS:
‘Everything is very simple in War, but the simplest thing is difficult. These difficulties accumulate and produce a friction which no man can imagine exactly who has not seen War . . . in War, through the influence of an infinity of petty circumstances, which cannot properly be described on paper, things disappoint us, and we fall short of the mark.‘
Clausewitz
however, prone to throw them into disarray.
PS:
‘Everything is very simple in War, but the simplest thing is difficult. These difficulties accumulate and produce a friction which no man can imagine exactly who has not seen War . . . in War, through the influence of an infinity of petty circumstances, which cannot properly be described on paper, things disappoint us, and we fall short of the mark.‘
Clausewitz
-
Sir Garnet
- Posts: 935
- Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:23 pm
yellow ribbon wrote:depends how you want to use captured equipment...
the HQ puts you in a better position with some, formerly free operating brigades attached than the malus for 35% of too high CP in the stack.
a nice thing for sieges, entrenched positions, behind rivers... but most certainly not for offensive operations.
draw back of the splitted CP on elements, some situations like the US American civil war and the franco prussian war, its pretty easy to gather a lot of capt. equipment.
no penalty therein would mean a that high concentration of now free operating artillery in game, that the variables in battles would make it too exploitable even with the new command for structures.
can be a terrifying drawback in small theater of war, access burden on cost of the AI
I don't think CP discounts are a good idea for our own or captured units. Countries that have Corps available already have an advantage over those with divisions, and discounts for Captured units makes the least sense. Now, letting those arty corps be disbanded for partial credit towards replacements would make sense. Otherwise sit them on defense in a fort with their 35% penalty alongside a separate force of infantry.
-
yellow ribbon
- Posts: 2245
- Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 5:42 pm
Sir Garnet wrote:I don't think CP discounts are a good idea for our own or captured units. Countries that have Corps available already have an advantage over those with divisions, and discounts for Captured units makes the least sense. Now, letting those arty corps be disbanded for partial credit towards replacements would make sense. Otherwise sit them on defense in a fort with their 35% penalty alongside a separate force of infantry.
Mike, you know the engine and remember PONs state one year ago. CP penalty was/is the best way to simulate lack of experienced commanders. No one would or has to play AACW with 6+x generals anylonger, thought for PON there as a mod on the way, wasnt it.
if i think about how hard it was to create divisions in AACW, even corps in the vanilla version, the system in PON is simplified
remember that the units in 1850s are comparable strong and you add and add power to them. unless you forget upgrades, the thousands of variables in Pocus battle resolution monster, can even nil the 35% penalty or make it even... for the engine it fits, for lack of commanders either.
however, i am more busy with roman cold steel right now
PS:
i really like the idea of dissolving it towards replacement chips, it sounds like Lincolns sorry feeling about being able to make generals, but not horses when he was noticed about the raiders
...not paid by AGEOD.
however, prone to throw them into disarray.
PS:
‘Everything is very simple in War, but the simplest thing is difficult. These difficulties accumulate and produce a friction which no man can imagine exactly who has not seen War . . . in War, through the influence of an infinity of petty circumstances, which cannot properly be described on paper, things disappoint us, and we fall short of the mark.‘
Clausewitz
however, prone to throw them into disarray.
PS:
‘Everything is very simple in War, but the simplest thing is difficult. These difficulties accumulate and produce a friction which no man can imagine exactly who has not seen War . . . in War, through the influence of an infinity of petty circumstances, which cannot properly be described on paper, things disappoint us, and we fall short of the mark.‘
Clausewitz
Perhaps a simple solution would be to have captured units cost 1CP per element, this makes them much more expensive than normal but removes the problem with a corps costing 12 for 2 artillery and a HQ. Much of the advantage of captured equipment is the saved costs and the fact that it is in excess of the force pool limit.
You also need to look at normal unit CP costs - currently a corps or division is more expensive than its equivalent as brigades.
A corps of 8 inf + 2 art + HQ costs 12 CP, 2 divisions of 4 inf + 1 art cost 12, 4 brigades of 2 inf and 1 brigades of 2 art only cost 10. If you use brigades of 3 infantry then it only costs 8 and you have more infantry and artillery elements.
You also need to look at normal unit CP costs - currently a corps or division is more expensive than its equivalent as brigades.
A corps of 8 inf + 2 art + HQ costs 12 CP, 2 divisions of 4 inf + 1 art cost 12, 4 brigades of 2 inf and 1 brigades of 2 art only cost 10. If you use brigades of 3 infantry then it only costs 8 and you have more infantry and artillery elements.
-
yellow ribbon
- Posts: 2245
- Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 5:42 pm
thats close to Vezina calculation...
see, if it is only about the elements or cost, i would say, hell treat them like alight brigade, 2 CP and end of the discussion.
they are light to medium sized guns, and no full substitute to a battery.
but i always was angry about having so much bonus from the HQ. for other units below division you need signal unit, a balloon etc to have it, the HQ can have a dramatical impact in battle resolution if still in game as i saw it till last winter, especially if "THEY" attack you...
as said, its only a real problem if operation is done in small area with many troops/a couple of captures. My excel record tells me in a game against AI, highest number was only 18 corps from 5 nations in 70 years...
see, if it is only about the elements or cost, i would say, hell treat them like alight brigade, 2 CP and end of the discussion.
they are light to medium sized guns, and no full substitute to a battery.
but i always was angry about having so much bonus from the HQ. for other units below division you need signal unit, a balloon etc to have it, the HQ can have a dramatical impact in battle resolution if still in game as i saw it till last winter, especially if "THEY" attack you...
as said, its only a real problem if operation is done in small area with many troops/a couple of captures. My excel record tells me in a game against AI, highest number was only 18 corps from 5 nations in 70 years...
...not paid by AGEOD.
however, prone to throw them into disarray.
PS:
‘Everything is very simple in War, but the simplest thing is difficult. These difficulties accumulate and produce a friction which no man can imagine exactly who has not seen War . . . in War, through the influence of an infinity of petty circumstances, which cannot properly be described on paper, things disappoint us, and we fall short of the mark.‘
Clausewitz
however, prone to throw them into disarray.
PS:
‘Everything is very simple in War, but the simplest thing is difficult. These difficulties accumulate and produce a friction which no man can imagine exactly who has not seen War . . . in War, through the influence of an infinity of petty circumstances, which cannot properly be described on paper, things disappoint us, and we fall short of the mark.‘
Clausewitz
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests