Changing Leadership of a Division

[Lonster]

I realize this may be a pain to implement programatically, but wouldn't it make sense to be able to change the general in charge of a division without needing to pay the cost again.

For example as the CSA, I have a division that I have formed around Sterling Price (he is pretty much all there is out west to start with) but as a few more generals "wake up", I now want to hand his division over to Earl Von Dorn (maybe this way he won't be out womanizing ), but right now I need to pay for a new division for Earl.

It seems like you should be able to switch the leadership.

Is this a programming issue or is this what happened historically.....disband the division and then form (pay) a new one?

Your thoughts?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[HMSWarspite]

You can change Div commanders over without paying for a new division. Disband the dividion in question, and as long as it is reformed the same turn (with the new general, or the old one if you have made a mistake) and you get it for 'free' (you don't pay for the reformed div.)

[Paul Roberts]

I think the price also simulates the shakedown time for the new leader to gather his staff, send a hundred telegrams, meet with the various colonels and majors, sack who needs sacking and replace them with his own favorites, and find out which regiment maintains the best liquor supply.

[bloodybucket]

I'd really like a tutorial that went in to the details of division command. The current one is OK for armies and corps. I'm still slightly foggy about divisions and where they fit in the chain of command, how they relate to armies and corps, etc.

[mikee64]

You can change Div commanders over without paying for a new division. Disband the dividion in question, and as long as it is reformed the same turn (with the new general, or the old one if you have made a mistake) and you get it for 'free' (you don't pay for the reformed div.)

I can't confirm this because the costs are so vague for other things that take up the supplies... I really need to quit living on a "zero budget" or whatever my wife calls it.... But if you reform a Div under a different command he does suffer the performance penalty, which leads me to believe he may re-pay the cost too.... or maybe not.

The new Division command really confuses me more than the original....

[pasternakski]

The new Division command really confuses me more than the original....

...oh, thank you, all this time I thought I was alone...

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[pasternakski]

Gray, you have a talent with quotation marks that takes "simple" into the realm of "obtuse."

[Uncle Billy]

You don't repay the cost if you recombine troops in the same turn, otherwise everytime you moved units in and out of a division you'd have to pay. I was under the impression that the divisional command remained indefinitely anyway, otherwise why have a 'remove divisional command' button?

The important thing to understand is the division command is paid for per general, not for the group of elements in the unit, so if you want to give a new general somebody else's division you aren't 'repaying' anything, you are buying a new command for that new general and reassigning the units from the first division to the new one. Just think of divisional command as a one time upgarade you buy for generals from which you never get your outlay refunded (such as when you want to strip the general of divisional command to make more room for other divisions, or because he functions in some other way).

In other words, you can't transfer the assests represented in the cost to upgrade a general to some other general, its a permanent value assigned to that general (until yuou take it away).

[mikee64]

That's what I was trying to say; new general = new performance penalty (1 turn, maybe) = new cost for new division. It was stated above you could form the "same" division under a new general during the same turn at no supply cost... I don't think that's the case.

Now it's late and I'm old so I need to duck out of here before I get hit w/ pasternaski's "obtuse use of quotes" label....

[pasternakski]

Now it's late and I'm old so I need to duck out of here before I get hit w/ pasternaski's "obtuse use of quotes" label....

Hee hee. Makes me think of Mason Williams poetry (see "Them Moose Goosers")...

Uncle Billy is exactly right, and his explanation makes me even more wistful about division HQ units. With those, you knew where you stood without reference to unit display graphics and odd subtractions from your various resource pools. Did I mention that you knew exactly how many active divisions you had available to build on the map and where they could be built because THAT'S WHAT YOU BOUGHT AND THAT'S WHERE THE DIVISION HQs WERE? (sorry, didn't mean to get carried away)

In any event, I still think that the original design had the right idea: you create the command, then appoint its leader. What we have now is a rather lame "Hi, there, I'm a leader, and I can squat down and create a command wherever my subordinates have dug me a latrine, which is wherever I happen to be" "system" (now, how's that for an "obtuse use of quotes," mikee?)

I liked what we had. I wish we could go back.

[Rafiki]

pasternaksi, unless I'm much mistaken, you can use the old rules by adding the following to ACW\Settings\General.opt:

Code: Select all

RemoveDivHQ = 0

[jimwinsor]

The reason for all this confusion, IMO, is the cost requirement.

I get the impression the reason this $10, 1mp, 5ws cost mechanic was added to the new division rule was because many people here were all a-twitter at the notion that divisions would be formed "on the fly." Never mind that we already have corps being created thusly (a larger and more complex organization!)...there was this feeling out there that division creation during the Civil War was time consuming and complex.

And as I pointed out...I could think of no historic example or basis in fact for this feeling. In fact, I challenged people to cite sources which would indicate division creation was some sort of tramautic organizational endeavor, of the sort they were arguing for...and no one took me up on that!

As far as I've been able to determine, division creation back then was a general taking a piece of stationary, writing out an order, and sending copies out to various brigade commanders.

BUT if I'm wrong on that...and I may well be...please cite some sources.

Now, if THIS challenge goes unmet, my suggestion would be to eliminate the 10/1/5 economic cost...entirely.

This would solve all the confusion. Division creation would be pretty much in line with how corps creation currently is. You click on the button, and if it's under your allowed cap, your leader is now a division commander! Elegant and simple.

[Uncle Billy]

Jim, it may not have been all that costly, but I do think the game needs some mechanism to prevent 'on the fly' divisions to represent that ACW divisions were fairly stable and not reorganized and tweaked every two weeks, which is something the player might do if there weren't any costs associated with creating divisions. Also, I'd rather not see a situation where a player felt free to create a division wherever a general rubbed elbows with a unit, in garrisons and the like.

I do think the general's stat penalty is the best penalty in this respect, but I also think the economic penalty is important. Abstractly I think it represent the cost of reshuffling personnel and getting a new staff up to shape, moving some brigades around, and perhaps securing some divisional material assests that aren't represented in the game.

[Black Cat]

pasternaksi, unless I'm much mistaken, you can use the old rules by adding the following to ACW\Settings\General.opt:

Code: Select all

RemoveDivHQ = 0

Where is the .opt files that would give more leader losses, and what setting ? I`m at 1864 in the full campaign and have not lost one Union general yet ?

Thanks !

[jimwinsor]

Jim, it may not have been all that costly, but I do think the game needs some mechanism to prevent 'on the fly' divisions to represent that ACW divisions were fairly stable and not reorganized and tweaked every two weeks, which is something the player might do if there weren't any costs associated with creating divisions. Also, I'd rather not see a situation where a player felt free to create a division wherever a general rubbed elbows with a unit, in garrisons and the like.

I do think the general's stat penalty is the best penalty in this respect, but I also think the economic penalty is important. Abstractly I think it represent the cost of reshuffling personnel and getting a new staff up to shape, moving some brigades around, and perhaps securing some divisional material assests that aren't represented in the game.

Why not make it a political cost rather than an economic one? Similar to the deal with changing army commanders. Appointing/de-appointing of division commanders gains/costs VPs (perhaps even a *small* bit of Morale), based on the political ratings of the generals? Seems to me this would make much more sense than imposing arbitrary and unjustified economic costs.

[Grotius]

I've gotten used to the new system; it's quite simple once you do it a couple times. Like Pasternaski, I miss the division HQs. Putting them in the right place at the right time was an interesting logistical challenge.

That said, I think Pocus said he removed them to help the AI. For me, that's a reasonable tradeoff, as the AI needs all the help it can get -- especially if we can still mod the game to restore division HQs. In fact, my biggest complaint with the AI in my first full game was its failure to organized its troops well -- something that apparently has improved in this latest patch, perhaps partly because of the new HQ system.

[Lonster]

To jump back into the discussion......

I like the "new" way of doing Div HQ, and I think the command penalties are appropriate. The part that seemed strange was that I couldn't switch Div commanders, without creating a new Div for the new commander ( and the old commander still retains his Div (his old staff) ).

I understand that a Div commander can release his troops and then reform them, or reorganize them into other Div and this seems appropriate. It just seems, that once a Div staff is formed, this staff could be passed to another commander.

In the example that I started the thread with.....often at the start of the war there is a piss-poor general that I need to use as a Div commander (for lack of any others), but then as better generals decide to join the good fight, I would like to take my poor Div commander and replace him as Div command and maybe use him for his training or recruiting (or knitting) abilities.

{MAIN THOUGHT}
If this inability is due to helping the AI, I have no problem with this, but if not......maybe we could form Div in the new way (with command penalty and cost), but when a Div is formed a Div unit (chit, counter, token) is created, and so then later this Div could be given another commander (when the "-" is used).
{MAIN THOUGHT}

{extra credit question: if I use "-" to separate the units of a Div, and fail to add troops back to the Div commander will he retain his staff ( Div Command). Because if a Div is created, but not given troops, it will automatically disband. I could test this in the game, but hopefully you have tried this already. Thanks }

[pasternakski]

pasternaksi, unless I'm much mistaken, you can use the old rules

Yes, of course, but what are the consequences to the game functions and AI? I have come along for the ride on this, but I just think the game is diminished somewhat as a result of this change.

[pasternakski]

I challenged people to cite sources which would indicate division creation was some sort of tramautic organizational endeavor, of the sort they were arguing for...and no one took me up on that!

I must be "no one," then. I cited several sources of writings by the people involved indicating that division organization and structure were significant considerations, and I suggested that you follow up by consulting those sources.

One other thing. You can't create corps "on the fly," because you have to create the army to which they are subordinate first, paying the costs, assigning the leadership, and putting the units in place that will constitute the body of the corps you are creating.

I liked, and will continue to like, the complex integrative task the player faced in fielding an army-corps-division structure. I don't like the current iteration as much, although it is workable and tolerable, and if it helps the AI play better, well, okay, I guess.

I guess.

[jimwinsor]

I must be "no one," then. I cited several sources of writings by the people involved indicating that division organization and structure were significant considerations, and I suggested that you follow up by consulting those sources.

One other thing. You can't create corps "on the fly," because you have to create the army to which they are subordinate first, paying the costs, assigning the leadership, and putting the units in place that will constitute the body of the corps you are creating.

I liked, and will continue to like, the complex integrative task the player faced in fielding an army-corps-division structure. I don't like the current iteration as much, although it is workable and tolerable, and if it helps the AI play better, well, okay, I guess.

I guess.

Well, I was looking for something a little less vague than that as backup for the feeling.

And the point about the corps, well, you're neglecting to mention that you only have to create an army *once*. And really, you don't even have to do that, as each side starts with at least one already on map.

After that, you can practically churn out corps to your hearts content, free of cost, limited only by the number of **'s/***'s you can move within the birthing zone. Oh there's a cap per army, but it's set so high it's unlikely to be an impediment.

It's just does not make sense to have division creation more complicated than corps creation. Just check out a few Civil War OOBs: It's at corps level you begin to see significant non-combat infrastructure.