Production System Clarification

[vicberg]

In the documentation is says every turn there is money, war supplies and horses provided. From what I'm seeing in both January and August campaigns as France production is once a month. First turn of every month. Is this true? It's a major departure from virtually every other AGEOD game and the documentation isn't correct, FYI.

A once a month production system makes for some headaches. +66 horses per month as France. That's less than 1 horse replacement and 5 ARTY replacements, as the Artillery Replacement system currently stands and I've already posted about that.

Yes, you can rely upon Region Cards, but that's eventually a limited prospect as these cards reduce loyalty by 20% and a development card only increases by 10%.

[lodilefty]

The manual does need some work.....

I think the overall design premise is resource scarcity, based on historical.
Very likely, you won't be able to keep all units at full strength or complement. Very historical.
I like it!
I may have to do a super-mod of WIA someday......

[vicberg]

I'm not convinced it's historical at all.

I'll say this again. Once per month you can get a horse replacement, which is ONE element. How many horse elements are starting either scenario. I haven't counted? 50+?

EDIT: I just counted Grand Army. 74 Horse elements, not including horse artillery, alone.

[vicberg]

The manual does need some work.....

I think the overall design premise is resource scarcity, based on historical.
Very likely, you won't be able to keep all units at full strength or complement. Very historical.
I like it!
I may have to do a super-mod of WIA someday......

I'm going to predict a PBEM game. Though Nappy loved Chasseurs, etc. and though each corp is "roughly speaking" starting the game with a light cav division, those will quickly go completely away as there is little ability to keep them up to strength let alone build new ones.

Is that historical?

[monniker]

Vicberg,

I've really only played with Spain for any long degree, but certainly as Spain I find I have more than enough horses. If you control click on a city icon you can see what resources they produce; and by doing so you can prioritize taking cities that will bring a return on horses. A lot of cities in North Africa, for instance, will help supply horses. Each one is a small increase, but if you want horses it's a start. I imagine other closer sources remain, and an early invasion of Spain might also help.

[Suvorov928]

Please do the supermod for WIA!

[vicberg]

I'm looking at this from game play.

With barely 2 horse replacement units a MONTH and Artillery costing 10 horse replacements each (including normal artillery though it doesn't have horses in it), this is how I will be FORCED to play the game.

1) Absolutely no horse brigade or division purchases for the majority of the game unless I'm able to secure enough horse producing cities to be able to replenish my existing horses and artillery to the tune of at least 10% a month. I can replenish my infantry 100% each month. I can replenish 2% of my horse units a month based on the current numbers. Hmmmm. 100% versus 2%. Does the math add up?
2) All existing horsed divs and units are immediately taken out of the front line and placed into a reserve corp(s) and used for MTSG only, since the MTSG units take less losses than the front line. For the "historical" folks on this forum, is this historical?
3) Draft costs me 20% and 1 NM, but gives me 1200 conscripts, enough for a division or multiple brigades. Seize horses costs 20% and gives me only 50 horses, a little more than ONE element, let alone a brigade or division. Develop territory will give me back 10%, and eventually Martial or Habeus if I want to drive a city into the dust, but this can't be used consistently and driving down loyalty drives down production from that city, so it can't be used a lot nor on a lot of big cities. I cut my nose off despite my face using Regional Cards.

"Historical" is another very general term used on this forum a lot, much like "immersion". So I have to ask the question, why would Nappy put so many horsed units into the field if he couldn't replenish them? He revolutionized Army and Corp structures (along with much else). Didn't know "historically" he was this stupid to have 100 elements of horse in the field and the ability to only replenish 2 a month. I disagree. The math isn't adding up. This isn't historical.

[loki100]

I'm looking at this from game play.

With barely 2 horse replacement units a MONTH and Artillery costing 10 horse replacements each (including normal artillery though it doesn't have horses in it), ..

sorry but it does, who/what do you think pulled the guns between battles and so on?

[Colonel Marbot]

@vicberg

In the beginning of the campaign, it is very important to conserve cavalry using them for recon and setting them to evade combat and retreat quickly from any skirmishes they get into. it is easy to destroy a cavalry division and it takes a long time to replace. Historically, the French cavalry was augmented first by beating Austria and later by beating Prussia. In the game, the majority of your horses will come from the F12 cards and these cards will increase in number and frequency as the campaign progresses to simulate Napoleon's requisitioning of horses fgrom conquered lands. I have a campaign going that is in 1810 and I have three very strong cavalry corp: Murat in Poland, Lasalle in the alps cleaning up insurgents, and Exelman in Portugal. Futhermore, I have very strong cavalry divisions attached to each of three army headquarters, and practically all corps have enlarged corp cavalry divisions. So, it can be done, but you must build your cavalry methodically and use your cavalry wisely.

[lodilefty]

I'm not convinced it's historical at all.

I'll say this again. Once per month you can get a horse replacement, which is ONE element. How many horse elements are starting either scenario. I haven't counted? 50+?

EDIT: I just counted Grand Army. 74 Horse elements, not including horse artillery, alone.

Have you played the seize horses card?

[vicberg]

sorry but it does, who/what do you think pulled the guns between battles and so on?

I'll say this again.

It costs 8 horse to build 3 horse artillery. It costs 0 to build 3 non-horsed artillery. It costs 10 to replace a single element in both.

Please explain the math?

[vicberg]

@vicberg

In the beginning of the campaign, it is very important to conserve cavalry using them for recon and setting them to evade combat and retreat quickly from any skirmishes they get into. it is easy to destroy a cavalry division and it takes a long time to replace. Historically, the French cavalry was augmented first by beating Austria and later by beating Prussia. In the game, the majority of your horses will come from the F12 cards and these cards will increase in number and frequency as the campaign progresses to simulate Napoleon's requisitioning of horses fgrom conquered lands. I have a campaign going that is in 1810 and I have three very strong cavalry corp: Murat in Poland, Lasalle in the alps cleaning up insurgents, and Exelman in Portugal. Futhermore, I have very strong cavalry divisions attached to each of three army headquarters, and practically all corps have enlarged corp cavalry divisions. So, it can be done, but you must build your cavalry methodically and use your cavalry wisely.

This makes sense. It's going to require a small degree of micro management as develop territory, habeas corpus and military law will be needed in order to even get a region loyalty up to the 35% needed for seize horses. And will there be enough regions to fill the quotas? Guessing by your game there are.

I'm still not understanding the horse requirement for artillery replacements at all.

[samba_liten]

Foot artillery guns were pulled by horses, just as horse artillery was. The difference was that the men in a horse artillery unit were also mounted, whereas in a foot unit the men walked. Why it does not cost horses to build foot artillery, I can't say, but I think it is correct that all artillery would need horses to replace dead or worn out animals.

[vicberg]

I agree that artillery requires horses. What I'm not understanding it why it's costing 10 horse for each replacement.

In doing the basic math, and not much is adding up so far, a "horse" for production = 10 horses in the element.

1) Dragoon element = 400 horses and a replacement costs 35 horses = 350 horses in the element. Doesn't exactly match, but close
2) Horse Artillery = 24 Horses and a replacement costs 10 horses = 100 horses in the element = 4x the amount of horses in the element
3) Foot Artillery = 0 horses and a replace costs 10 horses = 100 horses in the element = 10x the amount of horses in the element (actually infinity, since # of horses = 0, but we won't go there)

More basic math

1) Foot Artillery = 8 cannons = 24 horses to pull them. Should cost 2-3 to build and 2-3 to replace assuming that we care about horses in foot artillery. If we cared about horses in foot artillery, how come there isn't any horses listed in the foot artillery element description? Perhaps because these are pack horses and we only care about combat horses, such as those in horse artillery?
2) Horse Artillery = 8 cannons = 24 horses to pull them. The brigade costs 8 to build (though the 3rd artillery is a light and only has 16 horses) so total cost is actually 64 horses which should be 7 to build. Again, close but not matching. Should cost 2-3 to replace.

It's a production system. The math should add up.

I'm understanding that horse production primarily comes from the seize horses card. Got that. What's going on with spending horses? it's a mystery to me and no one has been able to explain it yet.

The other thing to consider is "historical" realism. I hate using the word because honestly, it's overused. But in this case, are we tracking horses in Foot Artillery or are we not? Historically, they were pulled by horses. So why aren't horses listed in foot artillery? What does each "horse" in production equal to in terms of the element? I can't figure it out. It's all over the map.

[lycortas2]

I am probably going to mod in horses for foot artillery and a new option, decision, whatever, to purchase horses at a cost of money to gain ~50 horses. This was a standard method used by France in France to gain more horses. Also bought horses from Arabia.

[vicberg]

That's great but why mod? These are obvious defects needed in a future patch.

The fact that I noticed this major discrepancy between Arty purchase and Arty replacement in 1 day of having the game begs the question how much testing has actually occurred? The 1-2% monthly replacement rate of horses versus number of horse, horse arty and arty elements in the field is absurdly low and probably a result of not enough testing that would have highlighted it. The reliance upon seize horses as a means of production is questionable. I understand that Nappy requisitioned horses from conquered territories, but what did he do prior to 1805? No way the current horse production rate could have supported 150+ horse, horse arty and arty elements in the field, even if you go back to 1792 as the current native french horse production rate is only 12-18 elements a year, and don't forget all the fighting that occurred from 1792 to 1805. So yes, an option to purchase horses is needed or the native rate needs to be bumped up. Something happened, other than seize horses, that enabled Nappy to field that many horses. Throw in a French Occupied Hannover performing a DOW against France in the beginning of the August scenario, which is obviously another bug, and these glaring defects, right out of the gate in the game, bring up a lot of doubt right now.

That being said, our PBEM group (6 of us now, possibly a 7th and still looking for an 8th) will play this out and and contribute our findings to help AGEOD. Overall, they are a great game company and I love their games.

[timrt]

I have been following this thread with interest.

I signed up as a beta tester but because I am relatively new to ageod games I found it very difficult to really get stuck in & contribute as a beta tester, The testing time was also very limited & more about the big picture than the real in depth playability and balance of the game. Some testers really cracked on, had tremendous knowledge & threw everything they had at doing all they could to help. I do feel that the game has been rushed out, that is my personal opinion, inorder to meet a defined end date. This has resulted in a game that still needs correcting, is a good game and will be better but will rely on threads like this to unearth issues that frankly I would expect game developers to have worked through, not us, the paying public. Well, those are my thoughts for what they are worth.

[vicberg]

It's going to be a great game and yes, it obviously has been rushed out. I've been in technology for a long, long time. Not the first time it's happened and won't be the last.

We just need to make sure these issues don't get swept under the rug. It's easy to say, "just use seize horses" or "it costs 10 because horses are pulling the artillery." Ummm, wait. 10 production horses = 100 actually horses. I need 100 horses to move 8 cannon? Wow, must be heavy cannon.

And seize horse can't be the only method for getting horses and I highly doubt it was the ONLY way the Napoleon built up his horses from 1805-1815. It was ONE way he built them up and perhaps the primary method, but as of right now, it's the ONLY way and that's what we call a "design gap". There need to be other ways, such as purchasing OR the production rate needs to bump up. I can burn the 1 horse replacement I receive per month on moving one turn alone with attrition.

So hopefully, the devs will have read this and are working on fixing it, possibly in next patch or future patch.

[Colonel Marbot]

The shortage of horses was one of Napoleon's chief problems, even more so then finding skilled riders for them. it was one he never solved and which definitely contributed to his final defeat. France had never been noted for its horses, other than some excellent draft horses in Brittany, Normandy, and the Limousin and Jura areas.

In 1800, according to War ministry records, the cavalry's regiment depots had their full quota of remounts, but inspection showed a complete absence of any actual animals. Napoleon put Colonel's in charge of a remount fund for their regiments and that failed. He then bought stallions from Turkey, Syria and Mecklemberg but France did not have the required skills to breed them to any sufficient number and in 1805, Napoleon had to go to war with a dismounted division of Dragoons. From 1805-1813, Napoleon depended on purchase from German breeders and trainers as well as from very large captures fr5om the Austrian army in 1805 and 1809, and from the Prussians, Hessians, and Saxon armies in 1806.

As far as the game, the Seize horses decisions are not a perfect solution, but it does work, and allows the game to "ramp" with conquests without introducing an additional economic trading model. Another alternative may be to bump the horses pool when Austria, Prussia, Hessen, and Saxony are defeated.

@Vicberg, from your calculations, it does appear that the replacement costs may need modification. The AGEOD team is very responsive to input so I am sure they will look at this closely.

[vicberg]

I know AGEOD is very responsive, which is why I posted in the first place.

Thanks for the explanation. Since horses WERE purchased, instead of a trading model, I like the idea of an event "Purchase Horse from ...." costing money and providing some amount. Can be played every X months providing not at war with target country(s) and target country(s) hasn't been conquered by you or another power.

Using the production costs, 1 horse for production = 10 horses in the field. As stated in an earlier post, replacement for a horse unit should be 40 (not 35). Replacement for an artillery (foot or horse) should be 2 or 3, depending on how you want to round (up or down). The cost for a foot artillery brigade (3 batteries) should be 8. The cost for a horse artillery brigade remains the same.

Considering the amount of historical detail that AGEOD strives for, I'd suggest you look at Nappy at his height. How many cav divisions did he field and at what year and backtrack from there. Using 1805 at a start, how many horses per year would be required for production to get from 1805 to that year. Then you can figure out native production versus seize horses versus buy horses event. This would also have to consider the battling that occurred and replacements, so you would take the number and increase by an arbitrary percent. Then you can figure the number of purchase events + the number of seize horses cards + base production.

I don't think there should be a 100% reliance upon seize horses, unless you want to reduce the loyalty cost (at least if played on home country territories) or reduce requirements to play it (may be played on any region regardless of loyalty). But if the game is built on 100% reliance upon seize horses, as it is currently defined, and it's working, I'll make it work.

[lycortas2]

No, the horse replacement cost of artillery needs to be higher than your calculation. An 8 gun battery would have 2-4 caissons or so each pulled by 2-4 horses.

[vicberg]

No, the horse replacement cost of artillery needs to be higher than your calculation. An 8 gun battery would have 2-4 caissons or so each pulled by 2-4 horses.

Hold on a sec. Not sure if your speaking for AGEOD or yourself on this. Open a horse light arty, shows 16 horses for 8 cannon, 2 horses per cannon. Not 24 horses for 8 Cannon and 4 Caissons (or whatever the number is). So now we are paying for Caissons not reflected anywhere in element? Open a Cav Div and shows 2416 horses in total for a cost of 242 horses. 1 horse for production = 100 horses in the field and the costs throughout the game reflect that with the exception of replacements, which are very incorrect.

Where are Caissons reflected in any element? They aren't. It's a supply unit, so in this somewhat abstracted supply mode, it's part of a wagon/ammo train and NOT part of any horse/foot cannon element. What am I missing here?

If the old way of doing replacements were still in use, we wouldn't even be having this particular part of this discussion. With the replacements wildly generalized, you have to be very careful now. Should we be paying 3 horse (30 horses) for each light artillery requiring 16 horses? If the preponderance of artillery is towards the smaller side requiring less horses, then the replacement cost for "artillery" should be towards the lower side rather than the higher side.

If you want Caissons, then include them in the purchase cost (they aren't) and include them in the replacement cost (which is incorrect anyway) and show them on the element description (there are none).

[Pocus]

There is no perfect solution. Horses in game are in a fuzzy state between horses for cavalry and draft horses for supply wagons and artillery carriages. We do want to show that carriages used horses, but we do not want to ask for too many horses when dealing with a unit needing only draft horses, contrary to a combat unit using horses for war.

I'm sorry if you find this simplified system too simple. The game is already very grognardish and it would be a a disservice to it to push it further in this direction by reverting to the old replacement system. If you ask for it, we can put a cost in horses for all units using draft horses, including all artilleries, this way you'll be happier, right?

[veji1]

There is no perfect solution. Horses in game are in a fuzzy state between horses for cavalry and draft horses for supply wagons and artillery carriages. We do want to show that carriages used horses, but we do not want to ask for too many horses when dealing with a unit needing only draft horses, contrary to a combat unit using horses for war.

I'm sorry if you find this simplified system too simple. The game is already very grognardish and it would be a a disservice to it to push it further in this direction by reverting to the old replacement system. If you ask for it, we can put a cost in horses for all units using draft horses, including all artilleries, this way you'll be happier, right?

Vicberg sounds a bit intense, in his observations, but to me they are to some extent valid. There are 2 issues :
1/ regarding difficulty of finding horses with low supply and need to use RGD, I here think Vicberg is a bit too shortsighted and wants to be able to build nice beautiful armies too quickly. without getting into what is historical or not, indeed horses should be a major bottleneck and require requisitions (ie RGD cards) + money spent (RGD card to buy some with an inflational cost) + Battle capture (ie you capture horses when a force surrenders or you beat them up, etc : they join your horse pool !) peace conditions (you beat up an ennemy, take there horses in the peace). so the game might need a tiny bit of fine tuning, but it looks ok to me as far as I have played.
2/ Production system : here without delving too much into detail it does seem to me there should be some clean up because there are some big discrepancies between buying troops / Buying replacements, etc.

[Sir Garnet]

I think tracking only one number for supply of horses is reasonable to keep in manageable, but what that represents includes mounts from chargers to nags and a multitude of draft animals.

The quality of horses is of enormous practical - life and death - importance to cavalrymen and cavalry units (as also for horse artillery). As I recall, France was in the business of liberating horses of every stripe since the revolutionary wars began, and both numbers and especially quality of mounts were an ongoing problem, though peacetime procurement and wartime capture and requisitioning of horses and the more capable cavalrymen and officer corps allowed the French cavalry arm to reach its apogee of effectiveness in the campaigns starting in 1805 (even though the horsemen of other powers continued to have better mounts).

One can't treat 100 requisitioned draft horses of indifferent quality the same as 100 suitable cavalry mounts - the latter are much more valuable and harder to produce (easier to liberate). To present the logistical and recruitment challenges involved for player strategy in the game, the number of actual horses on the ground represented by quantities in the pool of horse supply has to vary, and the "price" in horses for units and replacements accordingly.

I don't think horseflesh was the "oil" of Napoleon's wars, but there is some value in the analogy.

[Drake001]

After going further into the campaign the horse issue became less of an issue...it seemed to work out.

Also as part of treaty of pressburg in real life part of the reparations were indeed horses, enough to double what napoleon had in reserve. Which shows that it was an issue for him, to obtain mounts.

Maybe it can be part of a treaty agreement, to supply mounts?

[veji1]

Horse capture on the field (battle, retreat, etc) and in peace conditions should be a part of the game. I haven't had big battles nor peace negotiations yet so I wouldn't know, but it should be in there.

[vicberg]

In any software discussion, you have to wade through a lot of ideas, misunderstanding, etc., to get down to what is the problem and what is needed to resolve it. I may sound a bit intense, but there's a lot of chatter going on that's confusing the issue, such as Caissons.

Right now, I believe there's general agreement that the cost of artillery replacements is way too high. So what's the solution? Unfortunately, I'm a bit more confused after these last few posts.

1) There's draft horses and cavalry horses? So that explains the 0 cost for foot artillery? If so, it makes lumping artillery replacements together with horse replacements a bit more challenging as foot should require 0 horse and horse should require 2-3 horses. Since the preponderance of foot artillery is much higher than horse, I would suggest a horse replacement cost of 1 for artillery, possibly 2 maximum.
2) I'm happy with the new replacement system. I think lumping replacements that require horse with those that don't (foot artillery, if I'm reading these last few posts correctly), is a bad idea. Break up foot artillery and horse artillery and that solves this problem.
3) Or alternatively, horses are a generic combination of draft and cav. So make it consistent between purchase and replacement of foot and horse artillery and increase the number of horses either from base production, treaty, seize horses, etc...

@veji1, I don't need a quick and beautiful army out of the game. I want to understand what's going on. I've already highlighted the issue with artillery replacement horse cost. Now I'm trying to understand horse production and guess what, there's some confusion out there. Draft horse? Cav Horses? Treaties giving horses? Purchasing horses? Or we simply rely upon seize horses as the only method for horse production?

Honestly, don't care which way AGEOD goes with this as long as it is consistent and fairly easy to understand.

[veji1]

In any software discussion, you have to wade through a lot of ideas, misunderstanding, etc., to get down to what is the problem and what is needed to resolve it. I may sound a bit intense, but there's a lot of chatter going on that's confusing the issue, such as Caissons.

Right now, I believe there's general agreement that the cost of artillery replacements is way too high. So what's the solution? Unfortunately, I'm a bit more confused after these last few posts.

1) There's draft horses and cavalry horses? So that explains the 0 cost for foot artillery? If so, it makes lumping artillery replacements together with horse replacements a bit more challenging as foot should require 0 horse and horse should require 2-3 horses. Since the preponderance of foot artillery is much higher than horse, I would suggest a horse replacement cost of 1 for artillery, possibly 2 maximum.
2) I'm happy with the new replacement system. I think lumping replacements that require horse with those that don't (foot artillery, if I'm reading these last few posts correctly), is a bad idea. Break up foot artillery and horse artillery and that solves this problem.
3) Or alternatively, horses are a generic combination of draft and cav. So make it consistent between purchase and replacement of foot and horse artillery and increase the number of horses either from base production, treaty, seize horses, etc...

@veji1, I don't need a quick and beautiful army out of the game. I want to understand what's going on. I've already highlighted the issue with artillery replacement horse cost. Now I'm trying to understand horse production and guess what, there's some confusion out there. Draft horse? Cav Horses? Treaties giving horses? Purchasing horses? Or we simply rely upon seize horses as the only method for horse production?

Honestly, don't care which way AGEOD goes with this as long as it is consistent and fairly easy to understand.

Chill out Vicberg, I understand your concern and share it, don't focus on Draft horses / cav horses, etc.. They are all just horses ingame. it' just that between costs for buying units / replacement costs there have been some choices made / some trade offs possibly overseen and some strange by effects that will need ironing out.

The best way to do it would probably be to run sand box testing to see what costs what exactly and how it could be changed.

Otherwise listing issues so that the Devs can address them in time is the right thing to do, right now they are more focussed on outright bugs and big UI issues.

EDIT : sorry my post sounded a bit curt, I just mean that I understand your frustrations but the devs have lots on their plate but would for sure be willing to look at suggestions if they are backed up.

[vicberg]

Chill out Vicberg, I understand your concern and share it, don't focus on Draft horses / cav horses, etc.. They are all just horses ingame. it' just that between costs for buying units / replacement costs there have been some choices made / some trade offs possibly overseen and some strange by effects that will need ironing out.

The best way to do it would probably be to run sand box testing to see what costs what exactly and how it could be changed.

Otherwise listing issues so that the Devs can address them in time is the right thing to do, right now they are more focussed on outright bugs and big UI issues.

EDIT : sorry my post sounded a bit curt, I just mean that I understand your frustrations but the devs have lots on their plate but would for sure be willing to look at suggestions if they are backed up.

No worries at all. I'm not frustrated at all.

FYI, France is difficult to play out of the game as things stand. The replacements for Artillery are extremely expensive (and incorrect by any math) at the current 10 horse cost per replacement. With only 3 seize horses cards, and a pathetic base production, all horses have to go into artillery replacement for months.

Why? In both January or August 1805 scenarios, on map units start without their artillery and require a LOT of artillery replacements in order to fill then out. With the artillery replacement cost so high, precious horses that *should* be going to horse replacements have to go to artillery instead in order to fill out all the requirements, meaning little to no horse replacements for months. This takes the French Cavalry completely out of any campaign, unless the French player is willing to risk units knowing there won't be replacements for months.

So the high horse requirement for artillery replacements snowballs into the first few months of the war which will affect any campaign (England in January, 1805 and Austria in August 1805) in a somewhat a-historical way.