Army creation

[Blutch]

In AACW I had to have a HQ support with my 3 star generral stack, but now it seems I can promote general to Army General without this small support unit.

Actually, I am promoting all my three stars general one after one, without losing morale or VP ....

[Ace]

There was a big debate in beta whether a cost is needed for Army creation or not. I would like to hear from other players whether it is needed or not. Historically armies were formed without much cost, but using the current system (without cost) it is sometimes too easy (and gamey) to promote all generals to Army command, thus avoiding NM and VP penalties for giving armies to lower seniority generals.

[Boomer]

Paying for army creation is one of the changes in the new game that I really appreciate. There were lots of times in ACW 1 when building a new army command as the South was just too much in money and WS.

In fact, I just wish leader movement and army creation... any kind of staff movement, should be able to do with a minimum of fuss and cost. After all, civil war era command structures usually consisted of what, a couple of tents, some telegraph wire, and a handful of staff officers? Any cost would minimal, and to charge the player with any kind penalty seems a bit overindulgent (and incorrectly) on the historical realism side.

[Blutch]

There was a big debate in beta whether a cost is needed for Army creation or not. I would like to hear from other players whether it is needed or not. Historically armies were formed without much cost, but using the current system (without cost) it is sometimes too easy (and gamey) to promote all generals to Army command, thus avoiding NM and VP penalties for giving armies to lower seniority generals.

Yes it is the word 'gamey'.
It is really a pity, in CW2 there are no more choice to do, and in fact no problem to promote Grant, just have to grant Banks and other one and send them in the far north !!
No hope of improve otherwise than with house rules ?

So I don't understand why we can still buy HQ support units ?

[Mickey3D]

Yes it is the word 'gamey'.
So I don't understand why we can still buy HQ support units ?

HQ Support units have special abilities (don't remember all at the moment).

[Mickey3D]

Yes it is the word 'gamey'.
No hope of improve otherwise than with house rules ?

As written by Ace, there is a hot debate on the subject and I'm not expecting a decision to come quickly.

The main problem is that the requirement to pay with resources to build HQ and army is non historical but without cost you don't have any incentive to bypass seniority level for promotion.

[veji1]

Paying for army creation is one of the changes in the new game that I really appreciate. There were lots of times in ACW 1 when building a new army command as the South was just too much in money and WS.

That was the point though. An army is not supposed to just mean that there is very senior general in command of whatever force that may be. The very real benefits in game of being an army (CPs so less combat penalties, march to the sound of guns with the corps, etc...) are supposed to emulate that an army is a more structured and organised force, that has had common training, has an estafette system to carry orders, where officers, ncos etc know their roles, etc... So it makes sense for me that it would have a cost and be complicated to put in place.

For the south it should cost something to give a 3* general an army say on the coast to defend better against invasions, rather than just puttin a 3* general at the head of the stack. In the latter it is still a poorly structured force, in the former, it means that you have an organised force.

And for the north particularly, it just makes the whole "crappy political 3* generals" problem go away.. makes no sense.

[Micah Goodman]

I never liked the you had to have an HQ unit to form an Army concept in ACW 1. Why not just have a cap on the number or Army formations available to each side based on historical precedent? Similar in concept to the no Corps or Divisions before a certain date? That still limits the North's ability to have every stack an Army yet retains the flexibility (more or less) of the current system.

[willgamer]

Firstly, I liked the old system with required, but limited in number, HQ elements.

However, in the spirit of moving on, here's a simple suggestion for a rule addition to the current system:

Every turn that an Army General fails to have X (unlocked) elements under his command, a morale and/or VP penalty of P is paid.

X is specified by year and side.

P is derived from the generals political rating.

The rational for this is that the more politically savvy a general is, the more he will bitch/moan/complain that he has not been "fairly treated" if promoted but shuffled off to a remote hamlet.

Also I suggest a new ability for generals: Consensus Leader- may replace any other general without any penalty cost.

[veji1]

I never liked the you had to have an HQ unit to form an Army concept in ACW 1. Why not just have a cap on the number or Army formations available to each side based on historical precedent? Similar in concept to the no Corps or Divisions before a certain date? That still limits the North's ability to have every stack an Army yet retains the flexibility (more or less) of the current system.

Funny, I quite liked that system. it was horrible for the AI because it couldn't get itself organised (I am all in favor of AI cheating when it comes to that type of thing), but for the human player it made it a hard decision : Is it worth building an Hq so that I can give Johnston an army to defend the mississipi with or should I just leave it an independent command with assorted penalties ? etc.

[Blutch]

Firstly, I liked the old system with required, but limited in number, HQ elements.

However, in the spirit of moving on, here's a simple suggestion for a rule addition to the current system:

Every turn that an Army General fails to have X (unlocked) elements under his command, a morale and/or VP penalty of P is paid.

X is specified by year and side.

Y is derived from the generals political rating.

The rational for this is that the more politically savvy a general is, the more he will bitch/moan/complain that he has not been "fairly treated" if promoted but shuffled off to a remote hamlet.

Also I suggest a new ability for generals: Consensus Leader- may replace any other general without any penalty cost.

+1

This type of limitation, is really interesting, meanwhile, you should have information about morale/VP penality every turn. Pocus is it possible without waiting CW 3 ?

[willgamer]

+1

This type of limitation, is really interesting, meanwhile, you should have information about morale/VP penality every turn. Pocus is it possible without waiting CW 3 ?

As far as I know, Athena doesn't do gamey things with leaders anyway.

So, I see this as a player only rule; no AI coding needed.

[Ace]

Firstly, I liked the old system with required, but limited in number, HQ elements.

However, in the spirit of moving on, here's a simple suggestion for a rule addition to the current system:

Every turn that an Army General fails to have X (unlocked) elements under his command, a morale and/or VP penalty of P is paid.

X is specified by year and side.

P is derived from the generals political rating.

The rational for this is that the more politically savvy a general is, the more he will bitch/moan/complain that he has not been "fairly treated" if promoted but shuffled off to a remote hamlet.

Also I suggest a new ability for generals: Consensus Leader- may replace any other general without any penalty cost.

When Corps are available, Army command stack is usually empty. How would you handle that?
Also, if his replacement(Grant) is good enough, I do not see public (NM loss) moaning for McClellan in the long run.

[Ace]

I never liked the you had to have an HQ unit to form an Army concept in ACW 1. Why not just have a cap on the number or Army formations available to each side based on historical precedent? Similar in concept to the no Corps or Divisions before a certain date? That still limits the North's ability to have every stack an Army yet retains the flexibility (more or less) of the current system.

There is a historical cap. Only, for the Union it is rather big

[willgamer]

When Corps are available, Army command stack is usually empty. How would you handle that?
Also, if his replacement(Grant) is good enough, I do not see public (NM loss) moaning for McClellan in the long run.

When corps are available, the Army Commander gets credit for all the elements in the corps that he commands as well as any elements that are actually in his stack.

The new ability I suggest covers the second point. If Grant has the Consensus Leader attribute, then replaces McClellan, there is no NM loss for assuming command and McClellan is removed from Army Command and therefore will just be another 3* with no penalties.

[Saltaholicwm]

The simplest solution might be a soft-cap:

Number of armies (Y) without financial penalty = X + 2, where X is the year in the war. If Y > X +2, then Y-2 * $2,000 is the upkeep costs per month of keeping additional armies.

So in 1861 (where X = 0), you can have 2 armies and pay no upkeep costs. In 1862 you can have 3 armies and pay no upkeep costs. If you want more than the soft caps of those years, then you pay a small (but not totally insignificant) fee for it.

[Ace]

Good sugestion, simple enough and easy to implement

[willgamer]

The simplest solution might be a soft-cap:

Number of armies (Y) without financial penalty = X + 2, where X is the year in the war. If Y > X +2, then Y-2 * $2,000 is the upkeep costs per month of keeping additional armies.

So in 1861 (where X = 0), you can have 2 armies and pay no upkeep costs. In 1862 you can have 3 armies and pay no upkeep costs. If you want more than the soft caps of those years, then you pay a small (but not totally insignificant) fee for it.

A soft cap would serve the same purpose as the limited number of HQ elements. I would favor that.

However, that does nothing to address the issue of creating a cost (esp. the Union) for bypassing the seniority ranking to avoid using abysmal political generals.

[RebelYell]

The soft cap cost should be NM also.

[willgamer]

The soft cap cost should be NM also.

OK, now I onboard if a soft cap included monetary, NM (and possibly VP) penalties per turn.

[RebelYell]

Per turn NM penalty is too powerful IMO, one time cost will stop Union from using the best guys from the start.

edit. Im not against a upkeep cost of money for every Army per turn, good way to bring the crooked clerks in the game.

[willgamer]

Per turn NM penalty is too powerful IMO, one time cost will stop Union from using the best guys from the start.

Historically, the North didn't use its best guys from the start... I think that's the point!

The Union needs to pay the political cost to bypass the political generals or suffer a significant penalty. There should be no small cost for abusing the seniority system.

[RebelYell]

Historically, the North didn't use its best guys from the start... I think that's the point!

The Union needs to pay the political cost to bypass the political generals or suffer a significant penalty. There should be no small cost for abusing the seniority system.

I agree but one time cost is enough, loosing 1 NM per turn is very powerful, it makes it impossible to pass anyone.
The one time NM cost can be significant also but you only pay it once.

[aaminoff]

I just want to agree with those would would like some mechanism to make the NM/VP costs of bypassing bad generals relevant. In a game between human players, you could just agree to a house rule like no more than N armies in a given year. In a game vs the AI I don't know what to do. The answer will to a large extent be whatever is easy for the devs to code. If folks don't like it then perhaps there could be an option to turn on or off on the options screen. But the assignment of less competent political generals like Banks and Butler is to me an integral part of the history of the ACW. Giving them an "army" with no troops and stashing them in Schenectady just does not feel right.

[willgamer]

I agree but one time cost is enough, loosing 1 NM per turn is very powerful, it makes it impossible to pass anyone.
The one time NM cost can be significant also but you only pay it once.

Just to be sure we're on the same page... The soft cap penalty would be in addition to the out of seniority order penalty (if any).

So the player could still:

1. go over the cap, stay in seniority order=pay cap penalty; or
2. stay under the cap, break seniority order=pay (today's) out of order penalty; or
3. exceed the cap, break seniority order=pay both penalties.

[RebelYell]

Just to be sure we're on the same page... The soft cap penalty would be in addition to the out of seniority order penalty (if any).

So the player could still:

1. go over the cap, stay in seniority order=pay cap penalty; or
2. stay under the cap, break seniority order=pay (today's) out of order penalty; or
3. exceed the cap, break seniority order=pay both penalties.

Sounds good, one time NM cost for these and maybe an financial cost per turn.

[willgamer]

Sounds good, one time NM cost for these and maybe an financial cost per turn.

I'm in.

ompom: