Why are my units not filling out ??

[Pocus]

actually the method (the pure probabilistic one) can be improved, and this would not add micro management on the player side, in the end everything is a question of priority...

for the second part, we never wanted, Philippe and I (the other Philippe ) to have games with the basic combat object being the element, but the unit. Elements, despite all the precision and details attached to them, are bricks for us, and are not meant to be played (can I say nurtured) individually. Or if you start this trend, you have soon the next week people asking to have the game down to companies, with each one having the type of rifle used. If you have a brigade battered and another which is not, you won't split the first and keep the untouched regiments to the front, you will let the whole brigade recover.

[Snoob]

Thanks for the extra fast response

I'm not advocating individualizing regiments. Keeping the units at the level of brigades, I was wondering whether it'd be possible to prioritize brigades which have the same stance based on the strategic needs. If I have several damaged brigades (forget I mentioned the regiments), it'd be nice to be able to tell the game to "roll the dice" first for the brigade that's facing imminent danger, instead of treating all damaged brigades on a par. This way, if I'm unlucky and the envelope is used up in the replacement process, at least I'll have made sure that the brigade that will be seeing action first gets the replacements, instead of one that has secured its position.

[Frank]

Hi Pocus

maybe you can add a Prioritized button to the panel similar which is in "Hearts of Iron 2 Doomsday". So the player can choose which unit get replacements first.

Frank

[hkbhsi]

Hello everyone, this is my first post. After saying that the game is marvellous I would like to ask if, in order to recive replacements, the unit has to be inside the city or it could be also stationed in the region. I'm asking this because i don't like to leave big units inside a city where they can be easily put under siege. Thanks.

[Pocus]

Hi Pocus

maybe you can add a Prioritized button to the panel similar which is in "Hearts of Iron 2 Doomsday". So the player can choose which unit get replacements first.

Frank

This is an ON/OFF button. In AACW you have 4 postures for that

[Rafiki]

But seeing as posture governs other things as well, it's not inconceivable that one would like to prioritize replacements to a unit that is set as "offensive" due to other reasons.

Though I'll be the first to admit that I wouldn't need this often, if at all; "posturing" has so far worked well for me

[Stonewall]

As to the point of the thread. The units are definitely now filling out quite nicely. Tons of elements are arriving in depleted units at game start. Wonderful.

[pasternakski]

At the risk of sounding disputatious, I don't think the mechanics governing replacements need to be altered or augmented at all.

The "passive units get priority" rule, to my mind, simply and perfectly presents the historical truth that units in attack or closely engaged with the enemy are a trifle busy to be absorbing replacements (or resting, or re-provisioning). They're busy fighting. You the player have to decide when is the right time to pull units out of the line to restore numbers, cohesion, and supply. This, incidentally, also emphasizes the need for maintaining adequate reserves, another primary consideration the historical commanders faced.

[Snoob]

Well, since I'm one of the "proponents" of prioritizing replacements, please allow me to clarify my point: I've no problem with the idea that passive units get replacements before defensive, offensive and assaulting units. That's fine. My concern is that there's no way of telling the system which of the passive units should get replacements first and so on for all units sharing the same stance.

I assume that if a unit in passive stance has lost one of its elements it will get the "envelope" first, before that envelope has a chance to be used to top up another unit, but this is a somewhat extreme case. With two partially damaged units, I see no way of telling the system that I want the Line Infantry units of the 1st Division reinforced before those belonging to the 2nd Division (for example, because the commander of the former is a reasonably competent officer while his colleague in the latter is, for lack of a better word, a dunce). So, what happens, is that I run the risk of having the incompetent reinforced before the competent, unless I place them in an artificial position (for example, the fact that I do not have the luxury to put my boys fighting in Western Virginia in passive stance and have to maintain defensive position does not mean that I want the guys kicking their heels in Denver to get reinforcements first. I want those boys sent to the front line and I think as commander of the armed forces I should be able to do just that.

I appreciate the argument that reinforcements should be more difficult to reach the front lines, but I think that having difficulties sending reinforcements to the front line is quite different from being unable to dictate where the reinforcements are sent. Even if I were to withdraw a unit from the front line and set it to passive stance, in order to make sure that they get priority, I would have to manually set all other units in at least defensive mode. It's doable, but it can be a hassle and it doesn't feel natural. And then, it assumes that I want to give priority to just one unit. What happens if I want unit A reinforced before B and C, but once this is done, I want C reinforced before B?

Incidentally, a method to simulate difficulties in managing replacements would be to have state-based replacements, although that could add to the micromanagement.

[Pocus]

not having total control (but only general priorities with the postures) seems more realistic to us. Perhaps in a later game, like a WW2 one, things were more rationalized, but I doubt that it was as such during the Civil War.

But the main point is not there: you have always to balance the fun factor with the added complexity. Sure we could add a new button to the interface, not a big deal code wise, but more options give a more complex games, which is in the end less fun because more cumbersome. You don't really want to have the unit panel transforms itself like a boeing or airbus cockpit do you? The degree of control given, has for us, the right balance between precision and complexity, on this topic.

[Stonewall]

More importantly, unless you can teach the ai to prioritize her front line combat units like a player will do, its just one more advantage for the human player.

I like the current sstem where everyone is ruled by the same guidelines.

[pasternakski]

Well, and now we come to ground I fought over on another game designer's forum: in your role as overall national commander, to how much detailed control are you entitled?

We already fiddle around with individual unit compositions, specifically detailed individual movement orders, and the like. That's all fine, but I think you've got to draw the line somewhere. If your replacements wind up in what you think is the wrong regiment or brigade, all you can do is rail like Lear against the unfair machinations of fate (and the idiocy of your subordinates).

This other publisher, despite my protests, guerrilla warfare, and acts of intellectual terrorism, ultimately published a hopeless mish-mash of a game that cost me plenty of bucks and agony, then wound up off my hard drive bearing my final judgment, "ridiculously unplayable." The biggest problem was that the designers and developers never settled on a clear definition of what role you, the player, stepped into when you fired up the game.

The result was that you stepped into something far less pleasant than a "role."

[Gargoyle]

Pocus,

Thank you for the response. Frankly, I'm not quite sure I like the replacement model; unless there are other parameters which you haven't mentioned (e.g. for each "pass", the "envelope's" chance of "surviving" the next check is diminished, there's a very real chance that with one "envelope" you'll get hundreds and hundreds of troops, in different states, armies etc.

I don't want to sound like I'm advocating micromanagement, but I do think it would be better if each "envelope" had a limited number of men it could offer (minimum and maximum). The "chances" are a bit abstract or perhaps a bit too much luck comes into the equation.

Using the example you mentioned, I could replace 30% (I think it should be 35%, there's the base land unit recovery rate) of several regiments and still the chance for the envelope to be removed from the pool is too low (15%).

Also, as far as prioritizing replacements goes, I was wondering whether it'd be easier to do it per regiment. What I mean is this: I have one envelope of artillery replacements and two brigades with damaged regiments. The one has just trounced the enemy while the other is set to face another army soon. I don't want to attack, so I place both in defensive stance. This would put both brigades on the same priority level. The only way to make the system send replacements where I want, would be to make the "safe" brigade assume an offensive stance. But it could be that my useless Union general is not activated (as per usual) so I cannot do that). Then, my only option to prioritize would be to place the brigade which could be facing an enemy soon in passive stance (and there are several reasons I might not want to do that). Sorry for the long-winded example. Hope it's reasonably clear, though I'm not sure if it would be possible to prioritize per brigade/regiment.

You are forgeting what the envelopes are. They are draft notices. And the actual amount of replacements to envelopes is then inherently uncertain. You may get more volunteers or more draft dodgers. So there is no reason to worry about the exact number of replacements each envelope actually becomes.

[hkbhsi]

Is it correct with the last patch that at the beginning of the campaign replacements are spent to give existing brigades entirely new regiments?

[Snoob]

You are forgeting what the envelopes are. They are draft notices. And the actual amount of replacements to envelopes is then inherently uncertain. You may get more volunteers or more draft dodgers. So there is no reason to worry about the exact number of replacements each envelope actually becomes.

My main concern is not so much how many men each envelope is worth but how, in tight situations, I can make the best (or what I delude myself is the best) use of whatever replacements are at hand. In other words, how to prevent Fort Ontario from using up a valuable envelope to get an extra regiment of Fortress Troops when the closest enemy is three states away, when at the same time Fort Sumter is under siege...

If I'm allowed to order individual gunboats around, it'd be nice to be able to tell my commanders to attempt to reinforce some units first and even skip altogether some others (so as to avoid the risk of using up a precious envelope). We've been talking about prioritizing reinforcements and I just realized that there's no way of stopping a unit from receiving reinforcements if there are envelopes available.

Imho, the most convincing argument against prioritizing reinforcements is the one made by Stonewall: perhaps the AI won't be able to handle this parameter.

[Snoob]

Is it correct with the last patch that at the beginning of the campaign replacements are spent to give existing brigades entirely new regiments?

I think so, yes. At least, in my Union campaign the reinforcements were used to bring the various forts at the Keys up to full strength.

However, when this happened I had no armies needing replacements. But, I think if there's a missing element in a brigade, it gets priority. Perhaps one of the developers or the beta testers can confirm that.

[Hidde]

I think I understand all this (or most of it) but I still don't know whats going on in my first campaign as CSA. It's now august-61 and I admittedly forgot to move Johnston for several turns but his Shenandoah force are now in a level two city but neither them or Beauregard are getting any replacements. At least not line infantry.
I wonder if there is something wrong with those because i have bought line infantry like crazy and every time I look the next turn there is not a single envelope left. I bought 6 envelopes at once one time and they were all gone the next turn but all units were as red as before. Other units seems to fill out ok.
Another thing; can units be without padlock on their picture and no mention about nr of turns before unlocked in the tooltip but still have a padlock on the envelope to the right? The tooltip above the envelope is telling me that they can be moved with penalties but I haven't been able to. They are in Florida and one other place near that.
I love this game but the union are now at the doorsteps of Richmond and I'm totally helpless if I allow this to continue.

[Pocus]

the replacements once requested are put into your pool and disapears as envelopes, but appears as a number right the the NATO symbol. 6 replacements per turn for line regiments when you have an hord of units to be constitued is low.

you will get the exact situation about locking when you hover the mouse over each locked unit (as type of lock can vary between units in a given group, theorically). They will soon be freed, rest assured.

[Snoob]

Hi Pocus,

The situation as of 1.02 is as follows (from the USA side): if you buy line and wagon replacements before the Northeastern army is mobilized through an event, these will be used up to reinforce union forts. If Sumter is not captured by the CSA in turn one, it will absorbe 1 line infantry replacement in the following turn and 1 in the next one.

In my latest test game, a total of 6 line infantry replacement points (envelopes) were used up to reinforce Sumter, the union forts in the Keys and the GoM, plus fort Ontario and the one north of Norfolk (2 wagon replacements were used for the supply trains there).

In light of this, I am of the opinion that there should be some way of telling the game not to reinforce some units at all. As I have explained in rather lengthy posts, I am of the view that there should be some detailed form of prioritizing replacements. The argument has been made, as well as the counter-arguments, so I will press this point no further.

Still, a Yes/No option would be useful, so as to stop the computer from squandering precious resources (especially early on) by sending replacements to forts that won't be seeing any action for years (if ever). As the system stands, the player cannot prevent this waste.

[ussdefiant]

Actually, i've had a couple of instances where full-strentch inf replacements go into Sumter on the 1st turn, leading to a repulse of the Reb assault. This might well deserve consideration.

[Snoob]

Actually, i've had a couple of instances where full-strentch inf replacements go into Sumter on the 1st turn, leading to a repulse of the Reb assault. This might well deserve consideration.

IIRC, Pocus has said that the Union infantry will be removed from Sumter in the coming update, so as to ensure that the CSA capture the fort every time.

It still happens, but it's not guaranteed by any means and if the CSA don't succeed the first time and the USA player has ordered line replacements in their first turn, then the reinforcements (nearly 1,000) will arrive once the CSA turn is resolved and at this stage (with another 1,000 the next turn, perhaps) it means that the fort is nigh unassailable.

[Pocus]

we have done a work around for Sumter at least: the garrison will only have the artillery battery.

For the on/off switch, I understand your points Snoob. I will add a note on that, but don't expect something before some time I fear.

[Hidde]

Pocus
Bad wording from me. What I ment was that the envelopes disappear but no replacemntes(for Beauregard and Johnston, that is) shows up and the number you refer to remains zero.
I started a new campaign this morning and I really think I've done everything as I'm supposed to but it happened the same way. I wrote down the number of men in 29 elements within Beauregards army, mostly line infantry but some artillery and cavalry as well.
I bought 16 envelopes. The elements gained exactly 1(one) man each and the number in the ledger was again zero.
Next turn I bought about 10 envelopes. The outcome was the same; one man/element. Ex 396/1000--397/1000.
I haven't checked if a lot of other brigades all over the map get huge amount of replacements but Beuaregard was the only force in passive stance this last test.
Either I'm doing some stupid misstake or it must be something fishy going on.
Another thing. The number of conscripts and amount of war supplies were totally different in the two campaigns. In the first I had lots of conscripts but were low on WS. This time it was totally the opposite. I didn't do much in the second campaign but could that result in an almost reversed situation?

[Snoob]

Where are your men stationed? You need a level 2 town to receive reinforcements (it's not made quite clear in the replacements modifiers found on page 48 of the manual) and then the presence of a depot adds a bonus, on top of the base land unit recovery rate.

[Hidde]

Beauregard is in Richmond. Haven't moved him since he appeared.

[Snoob]

The only logical explanation I can think of is that the replacements you have bought have already been used up (to bring CSA forts to full strength, for example). Of the envelopes you bought, how many were for line infantry, cavalry and artillery?

If you get messages along the line "Fort X has received fortress troops", that's one line infantry replacement used up completely. The more such messages you receive, the more replacements are used up, one full "envelope" per message.

Also, wagon replacements may be used up to top up supply trains in the various armies. The message reads something like "Supply X received supply". That's one supply enveloped used up right there.

However, as the USA I never had problems with cavalry and artillery. Odd, that one.

EDIT: started a new campaign as the CSA, v.1.02. Bought 10 line replacements, and one of each of the other categories. To cut a long story short, ALL 10 line replacements have been up to top up existing garissons. Also, the 1 cavalry replacement has been used up to add a cavarly regiment to Bartow's brigade (not bad, that one, actually) The Clark garisson received an infantry (cosncript), the 1st TN Bde an infantry unit and the remaining 8 were sent as fortress troops all over the place.

So, perhaps this is your answer...I bet all these forts can consume another 10-20 line infantry easily.

Still, the artillery replacement was not used up, so you should see some reinforcements there, but perhaps it will be used up in subsequent turns. As far as I can tell, replacement of missing regiments takes precedence over topping up damaged regiments because the process of replacing an eliminated regiment uses up the replacement point by default.

Btw, this is definately a 1.02 change, it never happened in previous versions.

EDIT2: Turn two and another 10 line infantry replacements have been used up to reinforce mainy forts (but also the CSA western army)

Question: I thought the Army of the Potomac was a Union and not a CSA army...

[Hidde]

Snoob, thank you! That must be it. I got 14 fortress troops + 1 infantry for the 2nd Reserve Bde, after I bought 16 envelopes. Next turn I got 6 fortress troops + 1 more infantry. Didn't realise that each fortress troop consumed one envelope.
Hmph..I'm glad I can start again and take this in consideration but at the same time I think that the system is not working so good. The union troops are outside of Richmond and I can't get any soldiers before all forts and reserves are filled up?

[Snoob]

Well, I'm afraid I have more bad news for you...and me (playing as the Union): my suspicions were right, the system gives priority to replacing missing elements. This is particularly bad for the CSA, in the sense that there are lots and lots of forts in the south. I have spent 26 line infantry replacements, and only two of those went into reinforcing the CSA western army. Not my choice either, it was done automatically. Which means that no matter when you purchase replacements, these will first go towards topping up those forts and THEN your armies...ouch.

However, replacements do work, in the sense that the main CSA army in Richmond has received significant artillery reinforcements (no fort needs those, so they were available).

Still, it's a huge issue for anyone interested in starting a new game (v.1.02) as the CSA. You'll need more than 30 replacements before your armies start to see any sort of reinforcements for the line infantry. Which means that you need to resort to full mobilization to have any chance of surviving, and even then I have serious doubts whether it'd be possible. The fortresses absorb way too many replacements.

The Union played intelliegently enough in the west, trying to stir trouble with Lyon's cavarly, but was utterly suicidal in sending its token southern fleet againt the CSA forts. I assume both ships were sunk, but there was no feedback on that (I think the issue has been raised previously).

Also, the CSA could quite easily capture fort Sumter as it is (with the depleted infantry inside) if it used the forces at hand properly. From what I've noticed as the Union player, the AI sends one infantry unit and only in offensive stance. I sent all three in assaulting stance (redeployed the cavarly and the artillery) and won with some losses.

Also, the issue with the leaders icons not showing on top of armies is present with the CSA as well (quite logical, just saying). Also, as the CSA I can see the union marines and the maryland infantry, which I shouldn't be able to do, since both are in FoW zones.

[Pocus]

perhaps we can invert the priority then.

[Crawler]

As CSA I would like not to send any replacements to the garrison units in my forts at all, since I don't see the need for new infantry regiments somewhere in the Gulf of Mexico when the Union troops are advancing towards Richmond at the same time...

Perhaps it would be possible to use brigades with only 1 infantry regiment in the forts. Therefore they wouldn't have to be reinforced. (But i don't know if this would be historically correct).