Removing HQs

[McNaughton]

More thoughts. I don't think that a Division / Army should be able to be formed out in the middle of nowhere no matter what the cost. They should at least have to be formed and in a metropolitan area that would have the infrastructure etc.. to support such an undertaking. Also I like the fact that almost a full month is required to put togeather the staff and organization neede to support the Division commander. Just another 2 cents worth.

The AI will be less able to do this than the current system! Their troops are always on the move, rarely at a major metropolitan area. They will never form divisions if these are the requirements. Also, they never know when is the best time to create divisions, they may end up creating a division in a city that is soon to be seiged, and the creation of the division is so ill timed as well..

Any locked penalty, or time constraint after the fact of divisional creatinon will just hurt the AI more than it currently is.

I have tested the AI, and given Divisional HQs they show that they can deploy and use them. All that the AI needs is to be taught to build them in greater numbers. Also, due to geographic limitations, the AI needs to be able to build western divisions, as it appears that it uses a unit wherever it is built. If it arrives in Richmond, it will fight around Richmond, even if you have 20 divisions in the field there already.

I say, solve the limited problems that exist with the current system, instead of creating a new system that may have even more unforseen problems.

[Lasse]

having only played the demo so far my experiences are limitet, but i'll give my two cents anyway...

I agree with McNaughton points about the value of the hq's, but as I suggestet in another thread, I would maybe be an idea if you could build hq's directly in a province. But to simulate the transport time it would take more time to get organized the further it is from the capital, thus minimizing the micromanegment, but still not making instant armies out west.

Ultimatly it's the dev's decision as the AI is the primary concern. if it's impossible to make the AI form proper divs, corps and armies then rather a competent AI than hq units. for realism and value i'd prefer them keept in though...

[Robin]

During my first try with ACW, I had some difficulties to well understand how this command chain works, with Armies and Divisions HQ (but no Corps HQ ! Very confusing this particular case...).
And I found really boring to manage my divisions/corps/armies, bring HQ to the right place, etc.

But now, I really enjoy this part of the game and think that it's a part of the originality of ACW.
So, I would prefer to keep this system like this. And more, I really like to have Corps HQ in the game...
For new players, I am sure that the difficulty to handle the chain command (and to allow "non-grognard" gamers) would disapear with an addenda to the documentation (I spoke before about a very detailed reference card focused on why and how to manage a command chain like this in ACW : samples of good armies/corps/division composition, best practices, historical justifications, etc.).

Of course, if it's really necessary to help the IA, I'd like, at less, to keep these HQ units still visible in my stacks. They may appear in the stack as soon as we decide to create a division/corps/army from this stack.
It would be nice and not only "eyes candy feature" to keep them in a stack. These HQ units would keep the possibilities to take causalties during a battle, to be transfered to another stack, etc.

[pasternakski]

I would just not rather have it up for a vote. I would like the developer to take all this input and make the final call.

Like you yourself said there is still a lot we don't know about how this will work.

An excellent comment with which I agree wholeheartedly. We can fiddle-diddle around in our posts, but it is a matter not only of game integrity and design for those responsible, but economic survival is at stake, as well.

In the final analysis, we should be seen as trying to provide insights and ideas, not ultimate solutions. That is, as you so astutely point out, the business of those who "own" the project.

I will be perfectly happy to accept the results of the deliberations of AGEod (particularly the "two-headed Philippe" monster), but I (and various other posters, apparently) saw something going rather wrong here.

(P.S. I was reading another thread and like you I started on Tactics 2 with my brothers. D-day was one of my favorites, but my only temper tantrum came when the Africa Korps was eliminated outside of Tobruk on a roll of 6. I learned my lesson as my brother said: "I'm outta here- you clean it up " leure: )

YES! I still get it on in Afrika Korps from time to time. My latest disaster? I was playing a guy I know to be a tough Britisher, and had succeeded in collapsing his forward forces back into Tobruk, where he had a 4-4-7 and two 2-2-6s. I attacked, massing my Panzers against the Brit armor at 3-1 (I guess I should say "armour"), while sending Ariete and supporting Italian infantry against one 2-2-6 at 2-1 and soaking off at 1-2 against the third 2-2-6 with the sad little Sabratha division.

I rolled 5, 6, and 5, costing me my mech regiments from 15 and 21 Panzer, a 2-2-12 recce battalion, and 10 attack factors of Italians. The end.

See, this is why I don't gamble for a living...

[DEL]

pasternakski

What's this "two-headed Philippe" monster you talk about! Oh, you mean Pocus and PhilThib the Dev's!

Hope you enjoyed your well deserved mini break Pocus! Can't wait for 1.02f!
Or whatever is next!

[Franciscus]

If I may add my 2 cents, I generally agree with the idea of getting rid of divisional HQ (and maybe also Army HQ), if that's what is needed to get a more "intelligent" AI (main point for me, here). Also, the whole shuffling of Divisional HQ is a pain and not necessarily historical, and having division and army HQ but no Corps HQ is inconsistent. But I think Queeg is close to the mark:

Perhaps HQs could have the same price they do now, but you just pay it when you attach it to a commander. In other words, select the general, create the HQ (paying the cost) and then the general gets the red bar showing that his HQ is forming. I like the fact that HQs have a cost and take some time to organize - it adds a layer of planning. I just don't want to have to move them to find my generals. Being able to build them on the spot, but with the same costs and organizational delay, would be ideal, I think.

I propose that HQ should still have to be planned, built (with the same or similar cost as now), and only when available, and in the number available, they could "automatically" be assigned to a leader (maybe with some restriction, such as being only possible to build them on a depot, or something)

The main problem I see has to do again with the AI. If the problems that Athena has now have to do with the shuffling around of HQ, it will be good. If the problem is "knowing" how many to build and how to use them, no good.
Another problem I think could be what will happen to a division if the leader is killed. Maybe a pool of non-descript brigadier generals or colonels could be a solution, but there should be a way then to assign a new leader to such division

Nevertheless, I am, in principle in favor of any measure that leads to a better AI.

[mike1962]

If it is a vote, I vote NO don't do it. I really like the game as it is now. Granted, there are a few AI quirks, but the fundamentals of this game and how it works make it a masterpiece. I really like the way the HQs and divisions work. This way I never have a perfect stack and always there is something I would like to do.
That being said, I am sure the devs will do a good thing either way. I have waited a long time for a really good strategic ACW game. This one is already better than anything I could have imagined. But anyway I shall cast my vote now.

[mike1962]

I bet this poll ends up like the Bush / Gore election. Hanging chads!

[pasternakski]

I bet this poll ends up like the Bush / Gore election. Hanging chads!

And Chad ain't gonna be very happy about it, either...

Well, one thing occurs to me here on reflection (and I would rather see just ablout anything in the mirror but myself). Pocus indicates that the simplification involved here would retain the command structure dynamic.

Like so many others who have posted here, I am worried about what the change will actually be, but I sure wish I had a better idea of what the modification envisioned by the designers actually is before coming to any conclusions about it.

That said, I congratulate every poster here (me excluded, of course) on contributing thoughtfully to a dynamic discussion superior to any of the dreck and drivel that characteristically passes for "dialogue" on the Internet.

Thank you, gentlemen.

[McNaughton]

Just to let everyone know, I ran a test into February 1862, giving the AI some Divisional HQs to start with via an event. Just to see what they did.

By January 1862, most have filled out (takes the AI some time, but not much will happen in 1861, so the AI won't suffer without divisions), and the CSA is actually in a better position than I am (one of their western divisions is at 450 strength, as tough as my best Eastern Division, which means that it will be a rough fight come spring!).

The AI can use divisions, it just has a hard time building them and giving them leaders, plus it sends out their units too much during the winter months.

I personally believe that the AI can handle the Army and Divisional HQ structure currently in the game, if tweaked and given specific priorities.

I do realize that there must be a call made by the production staff.

[rasnell]

Ageod is the master of simplifying a game but keeping deep strategy intact. I'm in favor of the change, especially when Pocus says it will improve the AI.

[Dogrobber]

Longtime lurker, first time poster … yeah I know it’s been used a thousand times

First this is an excellent game. Easily the most immersing one more turn game I have played since BiN from SSG.

I voted “No” for the reasons others have stated which is that eliminating the HQ unit will permit the free & easy formation of HQs leading to an ahistorical swift pace in the conduct of operations Also I agree that HQs units incentivize the preservation of combat formations as losing a HQ is a big deal (as it should be) when considering the cost & time to replace it. In fact if I could actually program, I would want another layer of HQ units for Corps.

At all costs I would recommend keeping Army HQs. These units represent not only the logistical support for the formation but in the Civil War also were an investment of national prestige. In fact I’m unsure that I would patch the game to a version that did not at least include Army HQs because those units are really the sine qua non of the period flavor for the game. After all it was the AotP not McClellan’s army (even though it may have seemed that way for a time).

However, if the vote goes agin’ me would the following solution be feasible from a programming & AI standpoint?

For Divisions require that a one star leader & a wagon be present in the same region to form a division. The wagon requirement represents the logistical “tail” needed. Since wagons can be produced by state this at least eliminates the need to ship HQs from DC or Richmond. Then for each combat unit assigned to the division subtract a substantial percentage of the unit’s cohesion to represent the disruption caused to the unit by its reassignment & time for training need to integrate the new formation or new unit into the formation. Such cohesion losses would be historically consistent with what occurred with Joe Johnston’s reorg of the Army of Virginia in Spring 1862 & AotP by Grant in Winter 1863-64. As it is now player can blithely reassign combat units from division to division with no cost which I do not believe was historical; divisions that were comprised of brigades which were used to working together (AP Hill’s Light Division, Hood’s Division, Sykes Regulars) performed better than more ad hoc formations as a rule. This would allow the player in desperate straits to use these new divisions just at a substantial loss of performance because of low cohesion. It also may be advisable for the loss of cohesion to be lessened or recovery hastened through the assigned leaders’ Army, Corps, or Division special attributes or strategic rating.

For Corps require a 2-star or 3-star leader & wagon for same reasons as discussed above. Again a loss of cohesion but much less than that exacted for Division formation. Why because IMHO there was alot less disruption to the basic combat units from division reassignment then to integration of the basic combat units (brigades, regiments, batteries) into the division. I could probably come up with some historical examples but it’s getting late & I would really like to get in a turn or two before I go to bed.

This begs the question of what to do if one of these guys gets killed of course; generic leader or battlefield promotion by a subordinate?

For Army HQs well I don’t really want to discuss it because I just can’t bear to think of the game without them … leure:

All of the above is of course IMHO & YMMV

Sorry for such a long first post & go ahead flame away ...

[el_Gato]

Despite what impression I may have given in the "HQ and Support" thread, I'm ambivalent on the excising all HQ's issue. Like several others have stated, I wouldn't be bothered by seeing Div HQ's gone --- I think there should be a requirement for Corps HQ's instead --- but I think Army HQ's need to stay. There should only be a limited number of Armies on the map at any one time (four to a side, max), and keeping the HQ in the game would be the easiest way to control proliferation --- not to mention, make people really think about where they need an army. And since corps are only created as a subset of an army, that's an automatic limitation on their numbers. On the other hand, if you have 2 - 3 brigades, and a two-star general, I see no reason not to be able to form a division on the fly. As I've said before, this is 1860. The ratio of teeth to tail (soldier to support) is a lot lower (something like 3:1) than a modern army (very nearly 1:6). Not every commander is a L'il Mac: It shouldn't take 6 months to form an army.

There have been some excellent ideas forwarded: I particularly like the cohesion penalty when forming a higher organization --- that way your new army can move, just not fight very well. I also think that paying the same cost in resources you already have been for the physical HQ when forming the actual higher command should be no big deal. Don't think adding a supply train into the cost of forming an Army or Corps is a good idea: If yr like me, you drag around at least two supply units per corps with every army anyway, because of the massive supply drain all those troops cause. The cost is already there --- just not rolled into the army command structure. I also suggest you keep in the adjutant rule for armies: It effectively requires two generals to run an army that way, simulating the need for an increased staff. (For those of us who like having a command bonus for our army commanders, anyway)

What I'm curious about is, if there's no physical HQ, how do you intend to limit the numbers formed? Will it be by region; nation; year? Will it be kept track of in the Reinforcements screen?

[pasternakski]

Like several others have stated, I wouldn't be bothered by seeing Div HQ's gone

I am waiting for more information about what the new system is before agreeing with this. Also, at least as many posters have argued for retaining them as against.

--- I think there should be a requirement for Corps HQ's

Now, this I agree with completely, and I cannot understand why corps HQs were singled out for different treatment in the first place.

but I think Army HQ's need to stay. There should only be a limited number of Armies on the map at any one time (four to a side, max), and keeping the HQ in the game would be the easiest way to control proliferation --- not to mention, make people really think about where they need an army. And since corps are only created as a subset of an army, that's an automatic limitation on their numbers.

Absolutely, Mr. Cat, although I think that the number of armies has to be more limited on the CSA side (say four versus five) due to historical considerations of mass, manpower, and logistical and support ability.

On the other hand, if you have 2 - 3 brigades, and a two-star general, I see no reason not to be able to form a division on the fly.

I dunno. Even a division was a creature of some complexity to organize, train, and bring to a decent level of combat efficiency in those protean times, although I am aware that many organizations had to learn the hard way through "entering the crucible," because no amount of training by a command staff that had only limited or no "hands on" experience with this era of warfare (Mexico was the only direct source, and conditions in those campaigns were far different from what would be encountered in this conflict). Still, I agree that division formation should be less difficult, cumbersome, and time consuming than corps formation, which should be easier than army formation (on which, as you point out, corps formation depends).

As I've said before, this is 1860. The ratio of teeth to tail (soldier to support) is a lot lower (something like 3:1) than a modern army (very nearly 1:6). Not every commander is a L'il Mac: It shouldn't take 6 months to form an army.

And you are perfectly right, of course, yet it is the very shortness of the logistical and administrative tails in this period that contributed remarkably to the inefficiency of large forces in combat. Also, I think that the huge amount of difficulty Civil War armies had in maintaining their "tail" in the face of enemy raids and the lack of sophistication in delivering and distributing supplies, ammunition, and replacements (heck, even orders, for that matter)need to be taken into account when trying to build a satisfyingly accurate model of warfare on this scale and during these times.

There have been some excellent ideas forwarded: I particularly like the cohesion penalty when forming a higher organization --- that way your new army can move, just not fight very well. I also think that paying the same cost in resources you already have been for the physical HQ when forming the actual higher command should be no big deal. Don't think adding a supply train into the cost of forming an Army or Corps is a good idea: If yr like me, you drag around at least two supply units per corps with every army anyway, because of the massive supply drain all those troops cause. The cost is already there --- just not rolled into the army command structure. I also suggest you keep in the adjutant rule for armies: It effectively requires two generals to run an army that way, simulating the need for an increased staff. (For those of us who like having a command bonus for our army commanders, anyway)

Excellent stuff.

What I'm curious about is, if there's no physical HQ, how do you intend to limit the numbers formed? Will it be by region; nation; year? Will it be kept track of in the Reinforcements screen?

Yep. Here we are standing in front of the telescreen waiting for the Ministry of Truth to give us the latest details on the choco-ration...

I personally prefer army limitation by theater, with there being three theaters - East, West, and Far West - for this purpose.

[Queeg]

On reflection, and having read all the comments here, I think the only compelling reason to eliminate HQs would be if necessary to assist the AI. I like most of what HQs add to the game. The only thing I don't like is the need to move them to where they are needed. I'd like to see the concepts of cost and organizational time retained, but favor whatever implementation best promotes a strong AI.

[Chris0827]

The ratio of teeth to tail (soldier to support) is a lot lower (something like 3:1)

*********************************

I don't know where you got 3:1. 10:1 is more like it.

[Pocus]

10 to 1 is what was the ratio in Vietnam for the US, but I don't have hard facts to back my words (remembering that from previous reading). I would expect that in the ACW this ratio is a lot lot lower.

[jimwinsor]

I've been doing alot of OOB and TO&E research for purposes other than AACW, and I have to point out what appears to be a rampant misconception here...that civil war HQs were elaborate, it's support elements numerous, and hence took great time and effort (and expense) to put together...and that forming "divisions on the fly" would be the death of all realism, etc etc etc..

Well, I have to tell you guys, NO, thats NOT what my research has been showing. Quite the opposite in fact...divisional HQ and "support" troops could in most cases be counted on one hand!

I'll give you guys a typical example of what I'm talking about. Here is a link to a very thorough OOB of the armies at Fredericksburg:

http://www.brettschulte.net/OOBs/Fredericksburg/FredericksburgOOB.doc

Now, take a look at this doc. Look at the AoP right off the bat, and at the top, at the army level, you'll see lots of support elements...provost guard, engineers, signal corps, quartermaster, and a large cavalry escort to protect them all. ALL at the highest (army) level.

Now lets move down to corps level. The Union I Corps, for example, has a 32 man cavalry escort to guard it's HQ and...that appears to be about it. NO support troops listed. None. Very rarely have I run across support troops on the corps level, where an army existed above it.

Same with divisions. No support elements listed among it's TO&E, just 3-6 inf brigades, plus a few batteries grouped together making for the divisional artillery. Very simple, just combat units grouped together under a commander, it would seem.

And how much staff did this commander have? Well, lets take a look. As a random example, lets take Birney's Division, the 1st Division in the III Corps in Hooker's Center "Grand Division." Now, the OOB lists the division strength at 7982. OK, lets add up the component combat brigades: 2475+2498+2782+ the arty 223 = 7978.

And there you have it. Birney's division "staff" consists of 4 men. Birney, and presumably 3 assistants.

I've been doing the math, and I'm finding this ALL across the OOBs, all throughout the war. Division "staffs" can literally be enumerated on one hand. All the paper pushers were on the army, and, to a much lesser extent, the corps level. NEVER on the division level. At least not that I've run across.

Which tells me, YES, divisions could be, and hence probably quite often were, grouped together "on the fly." No support troops, exceedingly few command staff, almost ALL combat troops. They seemed to be nothing more than X number of brigades and batteries, grouped together, with a general (and a tiny staff) to direct them. A tent to fold out maps in...and that's it!

So, yeah, it makes perfect sense to ax division HQs from the game. The time, effort and expense necessary to group 4 men together has to be seen as negligible.

Army HQs, well thats a different story...yes thats where all the paper pushers apparantly gathered...so yes, it does make sense to keep army HQs in the game, IMO.

[aryaman]

I would try to sum up some ideas that have been forwarded and that I like for a new system without HQs
1) Leaders should be required to form a division
2) It should be formed in a region with a city
3) It should take time and it should cost money and war materials
4) Merging units should take a big hit in cohesion. This, together with point 2, should encourage players to form divisions in the rear.
5) Any time a division is reformed units take cohesion hits, and the division is locked for a turn, that should also prevent constant reshaping of divisions within a stack.
5) 1, 2 and 3 should also apply to Army and Corps HQs
6) All Hqs will remain locked while being created

[aryaman]

I've been doing alot of OOB and TO&E research for purposes other than AACW, and I have to point out what appears to be a rampant misconception here...that civil war HQs were elaborate, it's support elements numerous, and hence took great time and effort (and expense) to put together...and that forming "divisions on the fly" would be the death of all realism, etc etc etc..

Well, I have to tell you guys, NO, thats NOT what my research has been showing. Quite the opposite in fact...divisional HQ and "support" troops could in most cases be counted on one hand!

I'll give you guys a typical example of what I'm talking about. Here is a link to a very thorough OOB of the armies at Fredericksburg:

http://www.brettschulte.net/OOBs/Fredericksburg/FredericksburgOOB.doc

Now, take a look at this doc. Look at the AoP right off the bat, and at the top, at the army level, you'll see lots of support elements...provost guard, engineers, signal corps, quartermaster, and a large cavalry escort to protect them all. ALL at the highest (army) level.

Now lets move down to corps level. The Union I Corps, for example, has a 32 man cavalry escort to guard it's HQ and...that appears to be about it. NO support troops listed. None. Very rarely have I run across support troops on the corps level, where an army existed above it.

Same with divisions. No support elements listed among it's TO&E, just 3-6 inf brigades, plus a few batteries grouped together making for the divisional artillery. Very simple, just combat units grouped together under a commander, it would seem.

And how much staff did this commander have? Well, lets take a look. As a random example, lets take Birney's Division, the 1st Division in the III Corps in Hooker's Center "Grand Division." Now, the OOB lists the division strength at 7982. OK, lets add up the component combat brigades: 2475+2498+2782+ the arty 223 = 7978.

And there you have it. Birney's division "staff" consists of 4 men. Birney, and presumably 3 assistants.

I've been doing the math, and I'm finding this ALL across the OOBs, all throughout the war. Division "staffs" can literally be enumerated on one hand. All the paper pushers were on the army, and, to a much lesser extent, the corps level. NEVER on the division level. At least not that I've run across.

Which tells me, YES, divisions could be, and hence probably quite often were, grouped together "on the fly." No support troops, exceedingly few command staff, almost ALL combat troops. They seemed to be nothing more than X number of brigades and batteries, grouped together, with a general (and a tiny staff) to direct them. A tent to fold out maps in...and that's it!

So, yeah, it makes perfect sense to ax division HQs from the game. The time, effort and expense necessary to group 4 men together has to be seen as negligible.

Army HQs, well thats a different story...yes thats where all the paper pushers apparantly gathered...so yes, it does make sense to keep army HQs in the game, IMO.

I disagree
1) If you look at the Osprey book you list as source, you will notice that CSA divisions consistently have larger staffs, for instance the Light Division list a staff of 30. The difference is, as so many times, that armies had different counting systems. Clerks and other administrative workers were usually not counted as they were not in the army.
2) In that time many of the functions now performed by HQs were left to private contractors, for instance supply transport, cooking and washing (mostly by camp followers).
So, OOBs severely underepresent the size of HQs and their complexity.

[marecone]

And what will happen now that we are tied ?
I thought results will be something lie 50:50

[jimwinsor]

Yeah, but,

1) Even 30 men out of nearly 12,000 is an awfully small percentage; and
2) Is it reasonable in this game to pay for, and wait 3-4 turns, to raise and recuit "camp followers?"

[ANTONYO]

I would try to sum up some ideas that have been forwarded and that I like for a new system without HQs
1) Leaders should be required to form a division
2) It should be formed in a region with a city
3) It should take time and it should cost money and war materials
4) Merging units should take a big hit in cohesion. This, together with point 2, should encourage players to form divisions in the rear.
5) Any time a division is reformed units take cohesion hits, and the division is locked for a turn, that should also prevent constant reshaping of divisions within a stack.
5) 1, 2 and 3 should also apply to Army and Corps HQs
6) All Hqs will remain locked while being created

Completely in agreement.

In addition it must have a pool of HQ Army, another HQ Corps and another HQ Divisions, that it would have to work just as it now works the purchase of railroads and riverines but with maximum limits, and that would have a cost in men, money and war supplies.

The HQ would not physically exist, but if in our mind.

[aryaman]

Yeah, but,

1) Even 30 men out of nearly 12,000 is an awfully small percentage; and
2) Is it reasonable in this game to pay for, and wait 3-4 turns, to raise and recuit "camp followers?"

1) Yes, it is, but there were many others not counted that were working for the HQs but were not in the army
2) I don´t know how many turns, probably less, but I still think there should be limitations to HQs creation in this game as exposed in my other post, otherwise the game will speed up too much.

[aryaman]

About the problem of a Division leader being killed, just a suggestion
1) The division stack is kept, but with command penaty, removed when another leader joins the stack, in the meantime the division is locked.
2) The division "Hq" is retained, so adding the new leader doesn´t have a cost

[jimwinsor]

We could also have a generic 3-1-1 brigadier replace a division commaner who got killed. A field promotion, more or less.

All we would need is a database of brigadiers names, not used in the game. And use the black head leader counter to represent the replacement.

If we did that, then yeah, a leader could be required to make a division, and the number of leaders in the game would be the "brake" on too much division-ing.

[LAVA]

After some debating in the beta forum, we have decided to remove the HQs from the game.

Thus, I'm not sure why this has been put to a vote...

a) slightly simplified game

Yep... it appears folks are struggling with the initial learning curve of army construction. Have to say, it took me a couple games to figure it out and I've been playing wargames for a loooong time.

b) a much more enhanced AI

Always a good thing.

c) Less hassle in moving across the map HQs to the right location

Reinforces point a) as building HQ units requires a lot of prior planning, which, old hands may not find particularly difficult, but which adds another layer of complexity for many.

d) Many little things that don't works well when units are combined/detached will go away naturally.

Probably a good thing, as the designers undoubtedly have more important things to work on...

The change will need some weeks to be completed, if the vote is passed anyway... Also, we will proceed step by step, with armies first then divisions.

Indeed, I think it will require quite some time to redesign the game. Not quite what I expected when I bought it.

However, the designers need to do what they think will result in a better, more enjoyable game for the greater community and for the success of the game in general.

Wish all those involved success in their endeavor and look forward to playing the game again when it has been redesigned and tested.

Ray (aka LAVA)

[sval06]

OTOH I think that we'll lose some of the game "strategicness" by removing that feature, that was a rather good depiction of the command structure and constraints. Now we'll be able to form/unform/reform divisions either without limits, or be forced to add "gamey"/unrealistic limits such as gold/VP cost or whatever. That's not really an improvement.

+1 (including HQ Divisions in my opinion)

[Flashman007]

If you read Pocus' introduction to this thread we are not abandoning the command struture and they are not talking about limitless Armies and Divisions. At least that is the way I read it. I don't think the sky is falling.

As for this voting business- I am not a big believer in democracy, I prefer a benevolent dictatorship.

[Primasprit]

If you read Pocus' introduction to this thread we are not abandoning the command struture and they are not talking about limitless Armies and Divisions.[...]

Exactly. The goal is not to simplify the game rules but to enhance the gameplay.
Actually I am fine with everything what Philippe&Philippe decide, as they have a much better idea about game design and how modifications affect the game than me.
I am just a faithful follower.