Support Units

[Jabberwock]

I still hesitate to call this one an exploit. I have enjoyed using it too much. I have written about its various uses several times in strategy threads. Notice the languange I have used. 'Gamey tactic', 'feature', etc. Y'all can't make me call it an exploit. (except maybe by implication)

[Franciscus]

This is not a poll , but I would like to add my voice and ask for the devs to consider correcting this "problem", as it really is contrary to not only all wargame conventions but specially to the reality of formation moving, not only in the ACW context.

I would really love to hear more from the Phils about this

[Pocus]

I'm not contesting this is a problem, and that he should not be corrected. Why it was done like that, first place? Because this helped speed up the pathfinding algorithm (and so the turn resolution) by a significant factor.

The two others parameters to consider in the equation are:

a) the AI won't be able to tweak dynamically its divisions to speed them up when needed. This means the AI divisions will always move at the speed of an artillery battery.

b) the terrain matrix is very hard against wheeled units in mud. Having a division with a single battery nearly halted in muddy weather don't seem very realistic either.

When the simplification was decided, I admit I thought of the argument of having units helping each others. Horses and mules in excess (or even soldiers helping the batteries servants) could mitigate in my opinion the loss of speed of the whole division, just because you have 6 guns to move with your 5000 men...

Also you have to figure that when a big body of troops move, they don't move always at the same speed, yet they still appears as a single counter. Over a march of several days, some regiments can be ahead, and the artillery can follow some kilometers behind, because of weather perhaps... but if a pause is decided, or if a battle ensue, the artillery train can keep up in a matter of hours, even if it implies continuing the move by night while the first line is already resting or is deploying for battle. In the end, when the sun rise, everybody is still in place.

So I don't think it is as black & white as you said, and I'm still unsure that a whole division should move exactly at the speed of its slowest element. I think some compensation should be in order, if only for gameplay purpose and leniency toward the AI.

That said, we will do something

[W.Barksdale]

a) the AI won't be able to tweak dynamically its divisions to speed them up when needed. This means the AI divisions will always move at the speed of an artillery battery.

This seems like it will be a serious problem to be considered.

b) the terrain matrix is very hard against wheeled units in mud. Having a division with a single battery nearly halted in muddy weather don't seem very realistic either.

During this period large military operations in muddy conditions just did not happen. Not effectively anyway. Moving a division in muddy weather, even with no battery, would cause the roads to turn into a quagmire.

Also you have to figure that when a big body of troops move, they don't move always at the same speed, yet they still appears as a single counter. Over a march of several days, some regiments can be ahead, and the artillery can follow some kilometers behind, because of weather perhaps... but if a pause is decided, or if a battle ensue, the artillery train can keep up in a matter of hours, even if it implies continuing the move by night while the first line is already resting or is deploying for battle. In the end, when the sun rise, everybody is still in place.

An excellent point. At the moment, however, I don't believe the game models this well. If the head of your column is deploying for battle it should take time to get the bulk of your guns up to support them.

So I don't think it is as black & white as you said, and I'm still unsure that a whole division should move exactly at the speed of its slowest element. I think some compensation should be in order, if only for gameplay purpose and leniency toward the AI.

Agreed.

[W.Barksdale]

Given a two week\turn timescale I don't think there is a major issue with artillery inside infantry divisions. In truth I only noticed the inconsistency with cavalry divisions. Consider:

1) Non-horse drawn artillery should not be able to be added to cavalry divisions or mounted infantry\cavalry divisions.

2) Emplaced guns should not be able to be added to any division.

3) In muddy conditions, moving without the aid of trains or ships with artillery attached, inside a division or loose in the stack, should produce the same movement penalties.

[soundoff]

[HTML]1) Non-horse drawn artillery should not be able to be added to cavalry divisions.

2) Emplaced guns should not be able to be added to any division.

3) In muddy conditions, moving without the aid of trains or ships with artillery attached, inside a division or loose in the stack, should produce the same movement penalties[/HTML].


I reckon thats not a bad compromise.

As for mud fouling everything up...again thats about right and it should be that in mud wheeled units dont hardly move at all. That though tends to link into one of the other recent threads on attrition where some contend there is too much mud.

[W.Barksdale]

Also you have to figure that when a big body of troops move, they don't move always at the same speed, yet they still appears as a single counter. Over a march of several days, some regiments can be ahead, and the artillery can follow some kilometers behind, because of weather perhaps... but if a pause is decided, or if a battle ensue, the artillery train can keep up in a matter of hours, even if it implies continuing the move by night while the first line is already resting or is deploying for battle. In the end, when the sun rise, everybody is still in place.

While looking up on entrenchments I found the following. It refers to Jackson's fight at Front Royal. From Shelby Foote's Pea Ridge to the Seven Days p.156-7:

[quote]Jackson looked down from the heights south of town and saw the Federals escaping..."Oh, what an oppurtunity for artillery! Oh that my guns were here!" he cried, and turning to his staff he shouted "Order up every rifled gun...!" It was easier said than done]

There are many more examples. I suppose it is difficult to model this type of thing, however, I found it relevant to the current discussion.

[Jabberwock]

As for mud fouling everything up...again thats about right and it should be that in mud wheeled units dont hardly move at all. That though tends to link into one of the other recent threads on attrition where some contend there is too much mud.

I have to admit I am partially responsible for that. Way back when, we were having an issue with Siberian winters all across the map; I made some suggestions for the new weather matrix that specifically included requests for plenty of mud. <sigh> Of course, we didn't have a "realistic attrition" option at that point.

[Clovis]

All this discussion leads me to revert to the initial number limits for divisions.

Original limits are not only forcing players to follow the " guidelines" of the Civil War with CSA divisions larger than their Federal counterpart but solves most of the problem of gamey use of siege artillery in cavalry division.

Another example I guess a game system is first a system where one detail change has many side effects...

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Clovis]

Artificially limiting divisions numbers to lower numbers just to force players to conform to historical practices is an extremely "gamey" solution to the problem.

The root problem is not in the number of divisions, but how the divisions allow and handle ahistorical merging and corresponding merged movement in the first place. This same effect bleeds over into the other AGEod games using this engine also, so it should be solved at the "root" level, and not by other artificial restaints.

Sorry but a point seeming overlooked is this limits account for details not present in details in the game engine ( number of staff officers available by example).

Where's AGEOD succeeds greatly to other design philosophies is to draw a clever line between what needs to be detailed and what has to be abstracted in order to keep a rich but playable, not sufficiently abstract to lose any historical flavour but avoiding pilling details without any discernment which create both great complexities and gamey highways destroying any realism.

There's too the AI. The best detailed computer wargame failing to get an AI able to cope with rules is a failure, commercially but too as a game when the vast majority of players aren't in PBEM.

Last, the refining of this rule, the suppression of this small abstraction wouldn't really add to the historical feeling. Let's face it: AACW is almost a one year baby and it's only now this point is pointed out. For a game where space is made of regions hundred kilometers wide and time divided in 2 weeks turn, would this change, coping with the fact an artillery battery to be 5 kilometers behind the lead infantry regiment, add something to the historical side of AACW?

I prefer to consider a 3-4-4 general is abler to get his full division ready to battle than a 2-1-1, meaning the first has acted rightly to get his artillery quickly on the battlefield when the second is engaging piecemal his force. And that difference is factored in the initiative status and on the bonus off/def ratings give.

[W.Barksdale]

Excellent point. I do agree, however, emplaced batteries, columbiads, and the like roaming around with cavalry\mounted infantry divisions is just ludacris.

I believe these divisions were a huge part of the actual war. Many people would willingly trade the strength of an infantry division for the speed and reaction of a cavalry one and historically they did.

I am positive that there is an easy and logical solution to reach. A solution that works 'but avoiding pilling details without any discernment which create both great complexities and gamey highways destroying any realism'.

An excellent point, though, I must say.

For clarity I will repeat something. I don't believe this is a big issue with infantry. Except in muddy conditions. Cavalry and mounted infantry is where this gets nuts though.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Clovis]

Excellent point. I do agree, however, emplaced batteries, columbiads, and the like roaming around with cavalry\mounted infantry divisions is just ludacris.

I believe these divisions were a huge part of the actual war. Many people would willingly trade the strength of an infantry division for the speed and reaction of a cavalry one and historically they did.

I am positive that there is an easy and logical solution to reach. A solution that works 'but avoiding pilling details without any discernment which create both great complexities and gamey highways destroying any realism'.

An excellent point, though, I must say.

For clarity I will repeat something. I don't believe this is a big issue with infantry. Cavalry and mounted infantry is where this gets nuts though.
A mobile force of cavalry and mounted infantry supported by siege guns, emplaced battaries, and coastal artillery just doesn't add up.

Rather than working about complex solutions about divisions speed, the best should be to exclude possibility to add such unit types to a division. Highly abstract, but after all highly realistical too....

[W.Barksdale]

Rather than working about complex solutions about divisions speed, the best should be to exclude possibility to add such unit types to a division. Highly abstract, but after all highly realistical too....

I have given this exact suggestion earlier. Seems like it would be easy without touching anything else just yet.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jabberwock]

Maybe the Weather Matrix needs some adjusting itself, before all these other modifications are tried.

It seemed to be common consensus that plenty of mud was fairly historical, was a good idea, and worked well. I haven't been aware of any negative commentary prior to realistic attrition. I'm not saying realistic attrition is bad, or that the weather matrix is bad. I'm saying that particular option doesn't play well with the weather.

[Clovis]

The trouble with this solution is that it still doesn't solve the "Merged" artillery movement speed problem for normal combinations. By solving the "merged" movement speed problem, you eliminate the gamey rationale of combining Cavalry and Columbiads in the first place and you make the game perform more historically accurate to boot.

This point would create endless difficulties, to begin with learning AI to care of. I would largely prefer AI to be learned first to make amphibious movements, or implementing several turns plans as I don't see what real historical gains we would get by solving this small abstraction.

By any ways, what to do? Force all units in a division to move at the speed of the slowest element? But then we will have a system where quicker units will not be able to go ahead and in some times we will have contrary complaints about the fact " I can't push ahead one infantry regiment of my division to seize the town at day 4 before my opponent comes at day 5"...

Or then force all units to move at the highest rate?

Or create a system where divisions on the march break in subunits and recompose slowly when halted? I suppose a nightmare to program in itself...and poor Athena...

[Jabberwock]

I think we are all in agreement about emplaced fort batteries not being added to divisions, although it would help to know what weapons they are supposed to represent. Speak up if you're not in agreement.

If any division containing field artillery moved at a standard speed, and any containing heavy artillery moved at a slower one, I think that would form the basis for consensus on the rest of it. Would anyone have a big issue with 6lb artillery being in the same class as horse artillery?

I'm trying to come up with a solution that:

a.) Resolves the issue
b.) Isn't too abstract
c.) Isn't too detailed
d.) Wouldn't be difficult to code
e.) Wouldn't mess up Athena

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[arsan]

I agree with Gray.
It makes no sense that artillery inside a division moves at infantry speed but an artillery stacked with some independent brigades moves very slowly.
Pocus has some very good points about the guns moving slower but keeping somewhat up with infantry by doing longer matches etc. This is very reasonable if we think we are representing a 15 days turn with stops along the way and even some resting days.
Maybe wheeled move rates (specially over mud) could be made a little faster. And, as someone said before, tweak the weather matrix so mud gets rarer.
Specially if we take into account the hardened attrition rules.
The actual efects of mud over an area does not represent normal mud produced by some rains.
I think it represent A LOT of mud caused by very heavy rains. The kind of nearly "cataclysmic" mud that made infamous the Burnside's March on the mud, and impeded the Napoleon and German Nazi's advances on Russia ("Rasputitsa" i think it was called...) and the like
This kind of awful mud maybe should not be as common as it is now on game.

Regards!

[arsan]

About the AI... i suspect the current arrangement benefits more the human player than the Ai.
Athena is not as good as the player organizing stacks and putting his artillery units always inside the divisions. And much less at making cavalry divisions with heavy guns at the like

[Jabberwock]

Or create a system where divisions on the march break in subunits and recompose slowly when halted? I suppose a nightmare to program in itself...and poor Athena...

Getting a little more abstract with this:

A moving stack in offensive or assault posture has a chance of reduced artillery during the first round of combat.

[Clovis]

About the AI... i suspect the current arrangement benefits more the human player than the Ai.
Athena is not as good as the player organizing stacks and putting his artillery units always inside the divisions. And much less at making cavalry divisions with heavy guns at the like

If you're playing gamey against Athena...Yet she has difficulties with honest players

Except huge gamey tactics, I fear a game shouldn't try to solve all small gamey possibilities. It's creating endless rules with side effects when in reality I guess 90% of the players will never have the idea to use such a gamey way because either they are fair , or they want as much as possible an Historical play....or they didn't noticed such a nuance in movement rates...

And PBEM can afford an handful of few rules. this one isn't difficult to implement.

[Clovis]

Getting a little more abstract with this:

A moving stack in offensive or assault posture has a chance of reduced artillery during the first round of combat.

But what about a stack present in a region since the last turn and adopting an attack posture the next trun? Should we consider they move? Wgat about siege assault?

[Clovis]

I am still curious and looking for confirmation on how Athena handles "stacks"? If she handles stacks by moving at the speed of the slower unit, then why the distiinction?

If a gamer wants to move faster, he should remove the slower units and have them lag behind separately, (this actually could affect the AI, since it probably wouldn't make that decision).

With the current time/space rato, it signifies no more artillery in division for at least 15 days.

[W.Barksdale]

With the current time/space rato, it signifies no more artillery in division for at least 15 days.

I believe this to be false. If the seperate artillery stack was ordered to move with the infantry during the turn they would arrive given the movement of artillery. The infantry will arrive first.

[Jabberwock]

But what about a stack present in a region since the last turn and adopting an attack posture the next trun? Should we consider they move? Wgat about siege assault?

I wouldn't consider either of those to be moving stacks.

[Pocus]

Now that the issue is pointed I agree that something should be done, because the first reason it was done this way was because of a computation constraint on the pathfinding algorithm, a constraint which has diminished some months ago, with a tweak done to it (accelerating much the game). This was not done purposely with a gameplay idea in mind (and the AI argument was secondary at this time).

I say that just to indicate that the game was not a perfect jewel at start and revising rules are sometime necessary, despite what people think .

I'm heading toward a compromise where elements within a division don't move at the lowest speed possible, but perhaps another formula, which can be calculated very rapidly (biased average etc.). You can rationalize that either with elements lending horses and mules or even men to speed up artillery and supply trains or with the 'slower elements catch the rest when the head colum rest or at night' thing...

About the number of divisions and what they can contains:

60 div for the Union is better and fairer. They had 79 multi-brigades units in 1864. Not all were called divisions but in the game, you would need 79 divisions to recreate them.
I do agree though that the 18 elements limit is not very realistic for the Union. Again, this was done with ease of play in mind.

The no-constraints/ I can stuff what I like/ in divisions was done on purpose, to ease gameplay. In an earlier beta version of the game, there was a set of complex requirements and constraints, that you can still imagine when you pass the tooltip over the combine button, when you have selected 2 non combinable brigades. This was not easy to understand and too grognard, with people having to understand the nominal OOB and various constraints on combinations before being able to merge 2 units. So in the end we removed all constraints for divisions. That is why you can have a division with 18 artilleries batteries if you want...

Adding siege battery can perhaps be checked though. This should be understandable enough to people. I removed purposely the ability to add supply units in divisions because it was a problem (people though they would have the same abilities in a division or outside, but this is not the case), so why not continuing on this trend with 'surgical' limitations. But we won't go overboard and add complex constraints.