Removing HQs

[PJL]

Surely it would take longer to rewirte the whole system and them make the AI learn the new rules than it would be to make it learn the old rules? I would even go as far as to make some fudges for the AI (ie AI events to make divisions for them, or make them cheaper for the AI).

I say keep the old rules and give the AI a leg up or two in getting it to create divisions. And if you are going to use the new rules, then corps should be restricted to them as well (with an even bigger supply penalty, and restrictions on numbers of those too).

[arsan]

Another benefit of this new system is maybe to test it to see if it could be applied to next game VGN or any other really...

Speak ! I´m listening!! ouet:

Oh, by the way, i think (and hope) the new HQ system will be for the better

Cheers

[rasnell]

Always impressive how AEGOD keeps trying to improve and simplify. I really hope to see some kind of simple "relocate" function for the Navy.

Just like BOA, when AEGOD releases a patch, it is almost never to fix bugs (most bugfree game releases of any software developer) -- it's to add features, game enhancements and even more playability.

[PDF]

I'm rather happy with the new decision ... Surely this discussion had an effect !
About divisions, if now they cost war supplies, if we have to move the supplies it'll still require management... I'll also add a (reasonable) $$$ cost.

[Alan_Bernardo]

I voted yes, but I think only Divisional HQs should be done this way. Maybe for Army HQs there could be put in place a selection of formation points instead of just DC. Perhaps St. Louis, Indianapolis, DC, New York, or something similar. Of course I'm no programmer and have no idea how difficult this might be to do.

I'd like to retain the HQs and go with the above. Being able to select areas where the HQ could be formed would lessen the tediousness of having to train a HQ all the way across the map.

But-- as mentioned above-- this might not work from a programming standpoint, though if it can be done with regular troops then I wouldn't think it would be so difficult to do with HQs.

So I'm against getting rid of HQs, but support the idea of being able to closely pinpoint where you want your HQs to appear.

Edit: After reading page three I see that AGEOD has already decided to eliminate Division HQs or, rather, how they are managed.

I'm fine with that.

When will all this happen? I'm about half-way through my campaign (still touch-and-go). Are we looking at days or weeks, or months?

Nice job all the way around with the game.




Alan

[Pocus]

I'm still having questions on how the army HQ will be handled ?

1) Will it be "merged" with one of it corps ?

2) Can the enemy dislodge it - by defeating it - or is it "undefeatable" ?

3) I also think command radius for high strategy generals is way too high. I think the "area" of play for guys like Grant and Lee is just too much.

4) Does this mean we'll be facing the army of Lee, army of Jackson and army of Forrest after a few turns ? I mean the confederacy has so many good leaders - the confederate player will be tempted to build a high number of armies (unrealistic) to bear the fruits of the command chain umbrella.

rest assured, army system don't change at all.

[Pocus]

don't expect the change before a month, and once it is done, the patch will perhaps not be compatible with current games.

[PJL]

don't expect the change before a month, and once it is done, the patch will perhaps not be compatible with current games.

Good - I can start a new campaign without fearing that the new patch will make my save incompatible.

[Spruce]

rest assured, army system don't change at all.

ok, that's great news to hear - thank you !

[pasternakski]

Good - I can start a new campaign without fearing that the new patch will make my save incompatible.

I think Pocus, in his thoroughly charming way of coping as a Frenchman with the hazards of English idioms, is trying to say that the patch WILL "perhaps" be incompatible with current games.

By the way, can I vote now? I'm ready...

[Stonewall]

Regiment size is the reason divisions are too big, however dealing with that may be more trouble than it is worth.

Indeed. The number of regiments per division is fairly representative of the time period, with certain exceptions. The issue with soldiers per division has to do with the ease at which regiments can be kept at full strength of close to full strength. Thousand man regiments were not something that were very common in the Civil War...even at the start.

[richfed]

I guess I'm too late, but I would have voted to keep them ... even though that is a phase of the game I have yet to figure out. It is a nice touch and adds even more to this game's wonderful strategic potpourri!!

[PJL]

I think Pocus, in his thoroughly charming way of coping as a Frenchman with the hazards of English idioms, is trying to say that the patch WILL "perhaps" be incompatible with current games.

By the way, can I vote now? I'm ready...

Yes, I know that but it came out incorrectly, what I wanted to say is that I have no fear of a patch coming out say next week with all the changes mentioned in this thread making the save incompatible.

[McNaughton]

Would it be possible, for the new setup, to have Union Divisions designated as they were during the Civil War? As in, each division was given a number designation based on the Corps. You have the 1st Division of III Corps, and the 1st Division of IV Corps (and so on). Division name is contingent on Corps/Army assignment, otherwize, is named after the General in command, or given a base numeric designation.

[Dunhill_BKK]

I know I'm a bit late in this thread but I'd like to bring up a point for discussion.

What about abstracting corp and division HQs to a leader, such that a purchase could be made for a specific leader? This could then be added to his traits list (if possible)? This trait listing could then unlock/alter a leaders ability to form larger units? Would the death of a leader result in the loss of an HQ, possibly?

I think this "HQ trait" could also be linked to cohesion modifiers when forming and reforming units. The more HQs associated with the units involved, at division, corp and Army level, the less the cohesion hit in reforming.

I assume this would also be easier for the AI.

[McNaughton]

Will divisions be only formable in commands that are already Corps or Armies? I cannot find too many examples of Divisions being deployed or formed on their own (i.e., independent divisions), but were primarily attached to Corps or Army Commands directly. This may eliminate the ease at which it would be to create Divisional Commands, relying still on the fact that an Army HQ has to be there, or near, to create the division. The AI is good at creating Corps units as well (and deploying troops to them), so this aspect might not be a problem for them.

[LAVA]

Actually...

I would have perferred that the game used the following mechanics:

* 3 star + army HQ = Army
* 2 star + corps HQ = Corps
* 1 star + any 2 units = division

Making divisions isn't really all that important in a strategic sense. It's the development of Armies and Corps which is the most important thing in a game of this scope.

Ray (aka LAVA)

[Rafiki]

Due to the hefty Command Point discount a division gives, I'd say they are quite important anyway.

[LAVA]

Due to the hefty Command Point discount a division gives, I'd say they are quite important anyway.

True...

Which could lead to a lot of "divisions" running all over the map. I can see this happenning already with the confederate AI's use of raiders... which, instead of small units pushing into your rear will become divisions with all kinds of bonuses.

Perhaps the discount should only become available if the division is "inside" a corps.

Ray (aka LAVA)

[Rafiki]

Not sure I agree. In my games so far, I've had problems getting enough division HQ's even for my front-line stacks, but that might just be my style of play, I guess

[LAVA]

Not sure I agree. In my games so far, I've had problems getting enough division HQ's even for my front-line stacks, but that might just be my style of play, I guess

Well..

According to Pocus, that problem is going to go away when he takes out division HQ's, making it very easy to form divisions.

The follow-on to that is... with the mechanics of the game allowing very easy division creation, will we be looking at independent divisions all over the map?

Ray (aka LAVA)

[Rafiki]

Well, the same principle applies, since there will be a limit to how many divisions you can assemble in total. You don't get the added step of having to build the HQ itself, but the lack of available HQs will be implicit in the system

[Pocus]

I don't know. If the historical buffs out there (PhilThib included) say that it is ahistorical to allow divisions formed outside of the corps stack, then so be it.

[LAVA]

Well...

You are going to need independent divisions for amphibious warfare by the Union, so a hard and fast rule of no divisions outside the Corps stack, may not be a very good idea. In fact, it is probably not very historical as well.

If you tie the number of divisions to the number of armies, it won't be a very big restraint to building lots of independent divisions. What is the ratio right now? For the US, 6 armies - 48 divisions. That is 8 divisions per army, so just by creating a second army you will have 16 divisions at your disposal.

Possibly a more limiting process would be to associate divisions with corps. The game mechanics would suggest a maximum of 4 divisions per corps created. However, seeing as how once you create an army all you have to do is promote any 2 star to corps commander, that undermines restrictions as well.

So basically, you will have a division free for all.

"Dat's" why I recommended changing division HQ's to corps HQ's.

With corps HQ's you don't need near as many division HQ's in the game. For example, if you look at the Union, with 48 divisions available, that is a lot of HQ's you have to build and move. By changing the division HQ to a Corps HQ, if you apply a 4 divisions to one corps limit, than to max out your army organization, you would only need to build 12 Corps HQ's as opposed to 48 division HQs in the present game.

If you do not tie the created corps to geography (division limit wise), than when the AI creates a corps, even if it is in Virginia, it will have 4 additional divisions it can create anywhere on the map. This should make life a whole lot easier for Athena.

Would the AI still have a problem mating corps HQ's to corps commanders? Perhaps, but it would be far less challenging for the AI because we are talking about quite a large difference in numbers... 12 in comparision to 48 at the present.

If it doesn't work out, you just revert to the present system of creating corps and get rid of the Corps HQs.

If it does work out... you are able to keep a feature in the game that lots of folks like, just at a different, and perhaps more realistic, level. It is a possible compromise to "only Army creation" which could make everyone happier, still give Athena the boost she needs in army organization and perhaps keep the game from becoming an independent division slugfest.

Ray (aka LAVA)

[Rafiki]

I don't see any reason to tie the number of divisions into any of the organizations (armies, corps, etc) that may or may not exist on the map and that can fluctuate a fair amount over time. Just have an overall limit that starts low and gets added to over time (to keep it simple)

On that note, it would be interesting to see how the number of ("proper") divisions evolved on each side as the war progressed; if there was variation or if there was a (fairly) stable growth.

[LAVA]

I don't see any reason to tie the number of divisions into any of the organizations (armies, corps, etc)

History... perhaps.

Ray (aka LAVA)

[Rafiki]

If the existance of divisions was tied in with the army/corps structure, I might agree with you; otherwise I have to say that I get an artificial feel from that kind of distinction.

[Spruce]

I agree 100 % with Ray (aka Lava) here.

Corps and army command are something totally different then division command.

An army commander chooses his corps carefully. The Corps commander chooses his division command carefully - or organises and re-organises.

Also strategic orders of any value where conducted by the corps and army. A division is more the executioner of the orders they are given.

Also detachments - like the detachment of Lonstreets corps to go fight in Chickamuaga shows that division level is just too low to go into detail (this game is a strategical game).

General Hood was great at brigade and division command, but not suited for corps or army command. There's a "gap" between both levels.

So in my (I confess, simplistic) view, a player should be able to tinker with the divisions as he likes (like building blocks) - he'll need a general and some cost (supplies or whatever) to form divisions. But they should be "flexible" managed. But no division HQ's !

While on the other hand, army and corps should need HQ's. That's the real "structure" of the army.

[Stonewall]

I don't know. If the historical buffs out there (PhilThib included) say that it is ahistorical to allow divisions formed outside of the corps stack, then so be it.

Its not ahistorical to see divisions outside of their Corps formations. There were no Corps sized formations on the Confederate side until after the 7-Days battles outside Richmond. It took an Act of Congress to implement Corps sized commands in the Union army starting in early 1862. There were no Corps commanders in 1861, yet divisions were still there roaming the countryside.

At Shiloh, the Confederate Army began using a modified Corps command structure. Independant commands from the Western theater were styled "corps." At Shiloh, the Union army did nor have a Corps structure. It was Grant and Buell's armies made up of divisional commands.

Divisions also in the rear areas, serving as part of a Department. There was no Corps organization, per se.

The idea that divisional commands did not operate independant of Corps is not supported by the historical record. Additionally, if there is a concern about too many divisions running around independant of one another, isn't there still a 24 division limit? I never have a problem finding generals or soldiers for the 24 divisions I'm allowed to field as the CSA.

Ultimately, every one of the generals included in the game commanded division sized formations during the war. That seems like the criteria for their inclusion into the game and the exclusion of some famous brigadiers who never held divisional command. If the generals included were capable of commanding a division, why not let them. Divisions cost 4 points to command. A leader with no bonuses generates 2 command points. There is an automatic 10% penalty for divisional commands to start with. Plus, a division not assigned to a Corps that is assigned to an army has additional penalties for independant command.

I think this is sufficient to encourage divisions within Corps sized formations without taking away some of the flexibility a game of this scale needs.

[jimwinsor]

With the new system requiring a general to form a division, the number of leaders also forms a theorical limit on divisions.

So, for example, for the CSA it will be 24 or the number of generals on the map, whichever is less.