Support Units

[W.Barksdale]

WAD
Units don't move at the pace of their slowest element, or all infantry divisions would move at the pace of their artillery (and in mud, wheeled elements crawl...). So there are some advantages purposely done here, like moving to the speed of the line elements if you include support elements within an unit.

Thank you. I figured I would verify. Makes sense for supports.

However, it seems odd to me that a division would not move at the speed of its' slowest element, namely artillery. Historically mud was a serious impediment to the movement of cannon\wagons. If this is the case, gamewise, for a lone artillery unit, why does it not apply to artillery in a division?

[soundoff]

Given some of the posts I am reading in this and other threads the number of exploits or to put it charitably 'gamey' things one can do within the game is quite depressing. Really does remind me of tabletop rule sets. On reflection though I suppose in a game of this scope some are inevitable. Only hope that if there are future patches that some will be corrected.......Adding seige artillery to cavalry and not slowing down cavalry movement....daft just plain daft. leure:

[runyan99]

Well, I probably wouldn't actually use siege artillery, but given the current rule set, creating a cavalry division and then using 20lb artillery seems like a pretty good idea.

[W.Barksdale]

Adding seige artillery to cavalry and not slowing down cavalry movement....daft just plain daft.

If it's not horse artillery cavalry divisions will be slowed by light, field, and seige guns.

[soundoff]

Cant disagree with your game logic...seems an eminently sensible idea...but how does that fit in with a game that is supposed to recreate the feel of the American Civil War 20lb Artillery with only cavalry and the cavalry not being slowed down....very historical that.

[soundoff]

Grief I am so poor at posting a complete post. I intended to add as well Runyan99 that you yourself called it an exploit. In my humble opinion exploits, if possible, ought to be strangled at birth by developers for they are the potential death knell of any decent game.

[W.Barksdale]

Well, I probably wouldn't actually use siege artillery, but given the current rule set, creating a cavalry division and then using 20lb artillery seems like a pretty good idea.

I agree. I must say, however, that I find this concept quite ludicrous. Historically speaking the game does not model this type of movement well.

[W.Barksdale]

Cant disagree with your game logic...seems an eminently sensible idea...but how does that fit in with a game that is supposed to recreate the feel of the American Civil War 20lb Artillery with only cavalry and the cavalry not being slowed down....very historical that.

Indeed. Horse artillery used smaller calibre weapons to cut down weight. This enabled them to more easily keep up with the main column.

Seems to me that 'horse artillery' has no special function other than to add 'flavour' to the simulation.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[veji1]

It seems to me logical that a division should move at the speed of its slowest element : If you want your divisions to move fast, cut on the Artillery and have only infantry or cavalry..

this rule should be changed asap.

[marecone]

It seems to me logical that a division should move at the speed of its slowest element : If you want your divisions to move fast, cut on the Artillery and have only infantry or cavalry..

this rule should be changed asap.

I second this

[arsan]

I agree.
I was not aware of this "feature" but it sound like a pretty bad idea, sorry
As i understand what Pocus explains, this happen only with divisions and not with normal stacks of cav+art or inf+art. Thats seems very arbitrary and unfair.
Divisions are already pretty strong. They don't need any further ahistorical and illogical advantage, IMHO.
Unless there are some important "technical" reason for that i think it should be changed.
On reality and on all wargames, a group of units moving together should move at the speed of the slowest one.
Regards!

[Le Ricain]

Indeed. Horse artillery used smaller calibre weapons to cut down weight. This enabled them to more easily keep up with the main column.

Seems to me that 'horse artillery' has no special function other than to add 'flavour' to the simulation.

I disagree. In order to take advantage of the 20 lb cannon exploit, you need to form a cavalry division. With the original maximum division limit of 48/24, forming cavalry divisions was seldom practical IMHO. Forming a weak division just to be able to take advantage of an artillery exploit does not seem to make sense.

Horse artillery stacked with a cavalry brigade makes sense. The stack has plenty of punch and the artillery unit can be built with minimal conscripts required.

[Franciscus]

I disagree. In order to take advantage of the 20 lb cannon exploit, you need to form a cavalry division. With the original maximum division limit of 48/24, forming cavalry divisions was seldom practical IMHO. Forming a weak division just to be able to take advantage of an artillery exploit does not seem to make sense.

This and other things like the reason for "leaders in capital" makes me think more and more that the main decisions taken by Pocus and co many moons ago were, of course, right, and probably should not be messed about...

[W.Barksdale]

I disagree. In order to take advantage of the 20 lb cannon exploit, you need to form a cavalry division. With the original maximum division limit of 48/24, forming cavalry divisions was seldom practical IMHO. Forming a weak division just to be able to take advantage of an artillery exploit does not seem to make sense.

This inconsistency is present even in an infantry division. Think about it.

Horse artillery stacked with a cavalry brigade makes sense. The stack has plenty of punch and the artillery unit can be built with minimal conscripts required.

On the brigade level, yes.

This and other things like the reason for "leaders in capital" makes me think more and more that the main decisions taken by Pocus and co many moons ago were, of course, right, and probably should not be messed about...

This does not change the fact that divisions do not move at the speed of their slowest element. This is an absurd proposition, ahistorical and unreal in every sense, and it should be changed immediately.

[Jabberwock]

The only historical argument I could see in favor of this, would be that the other troops are assisting the wheeled troops moving through rough or muddy terrain.

You could say, "Joe Johnston had his troops doing this retreating from the peninsula; he even stopped to lend a hand and got all muddy." I still don't think that's a very strong argument. In a 90%-10% analysis, it would fall in the 10% category.

I love this feature, I use the infantry version constantly. Seeing it fixed would make me sad. I do think it is gamey ...

[W.Barksdale]

The only historical argument I could see in favor of this, would be that the other troops are assisting the wheeled troops moving through rough or muddy terrain.

You could say, "Joe Johnston had his troops doing this retreating from the peninsula; he even stopped to lend a hand and got all muddy." I still don't think that's a very strong argument. In a 90%-10% analysis, it would fall in the 10% category.

I love this feature, I use the infantry version constantly. I think it is gamey ...

The "other troops assisting" argument lacks consistency. If infantry and an artillery units are loose in a stack the stack will move as fast as the artillery. Why wouldn't the infantry "assist" in that case.

[Jabberwock]

The "other troops assisting" argument lacks consistency. If infantry and an artillery units are loose in a stack the stack will move as fast as the artillery. Why wouldn't the infantry "assist" in that case.

I agree.

[runyan99]

You could say, "Joe Johnston had his troops doing this retreating from the peninsula; he even stopped to lend a hand and got all muddy." I still don't think that's a very strong argument. In a 90%-10% analysis, it would fall in the 10% category.

Why do you hate Joe Johnston?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jabberwock]

Why do you hate Joe Johnston?

Maybe I just like shiny generals? I mean, I hate them ALL indiscriminately! Wait, which side am I on? I don't hate those guys, just the other guys. Is Joe one of those?

JJ had his good points; but if he wore the right hat, most people wouldn't notice them.


I'm saying that he would do that sort of thing, but it was not common practise. That's why people noticed when he did it.

[Pocus]

This is an absurd proposition, ahistorical and unreal in every sense, and it should be changed immediately.

This is asked so nicely, how one can resist your gentle request.

[W.Barksdale]

This is asked so nicely, how one can resist your gentle request.

I was not asking anything nor was this a request. No sir, only my humble opinion in this ongoing debate.

[soundoff]

Pocus,

To your response to W.Barksdale I would say only this...and I've really really thought long and hard before posting this as I reckon I'm likely to be flamed but after much reflection I must say it.

The game is a good game, a very good game, even a very very good game, but truely having learn't almost by mistake that formations moving together do not move at the rate of the slowest component of the group is almost soul destroying. Its so 'unhistorical' in the majority of instances, whatever the era, as to be unbelievable.

If a patch to remove this exploit is not produced at some stage, whatever the programming difficulties, I truely do fail to see how the game can ever be considered, however enjoyable it might be, as a 'realistic' simulation of the ACW.

So I'd echo W.Barksdale's view, that it 'must' be changed...not for the games sake but for the reputation of AGEOD.

[Le Ricain]

The "other troops assisting" argument lacks consistency. If infantry and an artillery units are loose in a stack the stack will move as fast as the artillery. Why wouldn't the infantry "assist" in that case.

Also, if the other troops are assisting, then they can not be moving at their optimum speed.

[Le Ricain]

This inconsistency is present even in an infantry division. Think about it.

W.Barksdale,

I agree completely with your issue that a unit should only move at the speed of its slowest unit. In my post, I was referring specifically to the exploit of incorporating a 20 lb arty unit into a cavalry division. I do not think that in the pre-1.09a game, the benefit of this tactic is worth the loss of a strong infantry division.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jabberwock]

BTW -
It has been another way to move captured fort batteries around, besides RRs.

[Rafiki]

BTW -
It has been another way to move captured fort batteries around, besides RRs.

An exploit can't truly be considered an exploit till Jabberwock has admitted doing it....