[Please let us split or change bridages formations.]

On 1/17/2017 at 5:22 AM, Col_Kelly said:

That would mean changing the whole AI so it could act at a regimental level. Lots of work for un-guaranteed results. I like the idea of a brigade bending to avoid flanking fire however. 

How so? All of the mechanics are already there. The "brigades" we have are already splitting off smaller elements.

[Please let us split or change bridages formations.]

On 1/17/2017 at 7:35 PM, Admiral666 said:

Or you just adjust the size of regiments downward, both numerically and terms of how wide their formations are. The complaint was that regiments aren't simulated. That would be the most straightforward way to do it. If the player wishes to use their regiments in an ahistorical manner, who are we to tell them otherwise? It would mean some reorganisation in OOBs, sure, but that would be required with any implementation of regiments. And the ability to split brigades into regiments could easily result in 4x the number of units on the map as well -- why the backlash? No need to write the code to split brigades if you instead account for regiments in your basic unit structure/OOB.

I agree with this. In fact the code is there, it's the same idea as splitting "skirmishers" off from a "brigade". In fact, and sort of comically, the amount of men splitting off as skirmishers are accounting for late war regimental sizes (albeit at the low end numerically). 

I'd really like to see regiments accounted for, not called Brigades.

[Let's talk about unit sizes]

I'm not saying reduce their numbers, that wasn't my point at all. I'm saying up the number of cannons.

[A GREAT site for some wonderful information on the ACW]

Also, just so you guys know, that organization also tries to protect battle sites by incorporating them into national parks and preventing them from being developed. In fact they are working on the Princeton Battlefield near me (New Jersey, USA) which was the site of a famous battle of the American Revolution. It's, rather ironically, in danger of being bulldozed to make way for an addition to school. Spread the word! They're doing some really good work to try a hold onto historical sites for future generations : )

[Let's talk about unit sizes]

Just as an addendum to everything I just said: If I come across as a bit of a horses rear-end, it is not intentional. I just walked in from work so I'm a bit tired and irritated (rush hour traffic >_<). Also I used separate replies to address you all individually rather than in one giant post just for my own sanity.

[Let's talk about unit sizes]

On 1/17/2017 at 7:41 PM, Andre Bolkonsky said:

Excellent points. I'd love to sit down over a beer and hear more. 

Let me play the other side of the table: the basis of this game, the thing that makes it great rather than very good, is its elegant simplicity. At the end of the day, it's dirt simple. 

For all of its realistic variables, and the level of detail and modability on this game is tremendous imho, mess around with the simplicity and the playability and you'll kill the game in the name of historic reality. So, everything is simplified:  Brigades are 1000 - 3,000 men, batteries are oversized to prevent the crews from dying in place, etc, etc, etc. 

I get that there needs to be a level of simplicity, but what I'm trying to get at is that the graphical elements, the functions, all of that can remain the same. The only adjustment I am arguing for is an adjustment to the value. In other words, if we're going to say that we are commanding individual brigades as the smallest element we are able to command (without special situations in place breaking them down further from the start of the mission) than the value of men that we are given as a recruitment pool, how many men are assigned to what kinds of cannons, and how many men form, at minimum, an early war brigade, all of that needs to be adjusted as it is either too high, in the case of artillery (or too low if you account for the support element which we are not), or too low in the case of infantry at the brigade level, at the outset of the war.

[Let's talk about unit sizes]

On 1/17/2017 at 7:00 PM, A. P. Hill said:

I wish I would have had my head together in my younger days playing at reenacting.  I took the easy route and reenacted Infantry. Secretly I envied the guys reenacting artillery. But really, my interest in Artillery didn't really peak during that time.  That said, however, I started an active study of the ACW at the tender age of 10, when my parents took the family to Gettysburg for summer vacation that year.  Just being on that field at 10 years of age was overwhelming.  However since then, I've studied every aspect of the ACW for the better part of 51 years now.  So my knowledge may not be as "hands on" as yours.

That said, I'd like to state that I find the information below, somewhat in error.

While somewhat correct that every piece doesn't require 22 men to field a gun in actuality, and according to many existent Ordnance manuals and Artillery manuals of the time, and by those manuals, the definition of a gun crew borders on 19 - 22 men per single piece.  According to those manuals you have 7 cannoneers, (privates,) and 1 gunner, (corporal,)  and the Chief of the Piece, (sergeant.) There's 9 guys there.  Per gun.  And of course this is with a full crew on paper.  In addition to these 9 guys, and the piece, you have as you mentioned the limber.  The limber helps the piece become mobile, and to do that, depending on the gun, the number of horses and teamsters varied. Most small guns, (6lb and up to 10lb) tubes were mounted on a Number 1 carriage, and due to the smaller size of the ammunition, they required only one caisson to be attached to the piece. These guns and caissons were pulled by teams of four horses each, requiring 2 men per pair of horses.  These teamsters need to be counted, because the 1860's artillery practice during the Civil War, teamsters and cannoneers were not cross trained in duties.  So you have to add these guys to the 9 men already listed. 

Now if we're talking 12lb Napoleons, 24lb Howitzers, and a few other gun tubes, these required a heavier carriage known as a Number 2 carriage. (There is of course, the Number 3 carriage as well, carrying 32lb Howitzers, and the 20lb & 30lb Parrots.) Because of the size of the 12lb and up, ammunition, two caissons were assigned per piece.  And because of the combined weight of these guns and limbers and ammunitions, the gun limber required six horses and 3 teamsters, while the caissons required only four horses still, but now the teams were doubled because of the two caissons as support, so now we're talking eight horses and four teamsters.

And of course each of these vehicles, (limbers & caissons) required 3 - 4 men as you mentioned, so these men need to be added to the count.  So now if we're dealing with a Number 1 carriage, there are approximately 15 men to support a piece.  Caisson ammunition boxes were limited in quantity of ammunition so each platoon, (1 gun and it's associated caissons,) required at least one 6 mule quartermaster wagon to carry the extra rounds ... as the standard quantity of ammunition to be accompanied by any gun was in excess of 250 or 300 rounds.  The quartermaster wagon required only 1 muleskinner to manage the team, so now we're up to 16 men per platoon.  IF the platoon was a 12lb gun and associated caissons, that number would increase to approximately 20 men as a standard crew.  That's a single gun.

A battery is the artillery's equivalent to the infantry's company.  On paper a fully company of infantry was to max out around 110 men under the command of a captain.  In the artillery, a battery maxed out around 150 - 160 men depending, and included up to 6 pieces and their associated equipage.

As, my friend Mr. Aagaard mentioned, there were other skills required to maintain a proper battery.  Farriers, blacksmiths, were part, but there were also cartwrights, wheelwrights, and regular carpenters, as well as mechanics.  Now some of these skills could be cross trained possibly reducing the number of men, but generally not. A standard Union Battery would have 3 wood skilled artisans, and 3 metal skilled artisans, as well as 2 horse skilled, (farriers,) men in the battery.

Of course with the battery came other vehicles as well.  Equipment known as Traveling Forges, and Battery Wagons each with their associated limbers, and horse teams and teamsters. And each of these units all came with associated non commissioned officers in charge.

And like a regiment, there were special posts also attached to these. The quartermaster sergeants and ordnance officers 1 each per battery all led by a captain and his staff which at the time was sized by personal preference and not by any military standards.

I have taken a bit of time to compose an organization chart of an 1862 Union 6 gun Light 12lb gun-howitzer battery.

https://www.dropbox.com/home?preview=battery+components.htm

But even with all of that the point still stands as they were not cross trained, remember? 

Even if you account for the limber and horse crew, that would be well OVER 22 men. Again, the issue is the amount of men per cannon. IF we're stating that the number of men shown in the game (right now 22 men per cannon) is supposed to depict every man that can CREW A CANNON (capitalized for emphasis, not that I'm screaming it be an ass lol), than 22 men is too high for a single gun. If logistics is to be included, then we would have to include:

Quartermasters
Medical staff
Engineers
Blacksmiths
Nurses
Singalmen
Carpenters
Gunsmiths/Armorers 
Public relations
Teams of wagons
Pontoon bridge crews
The entire medical corps of the Union army (since someone above wanted to emphasize the point using mid to late war numbers and statistics)
Bakers
Butchers
Couriers
Scouts
Surveyors 


We simply are not accounting for all of that. The only time, I think, that the crews of horses are being accounted for is in the mounting and dismounting of cavalry. At this point to argue that a single gun needs 22 men, even accounting for the limber crew, is high. I'm well aware of what is required to operate a field artillery unit, as I was a field artilleryman, and even the modern field artillery battery has sections numbering between 3 and 8 depending on the piece with the entire battery being between 100 and 140 men. But as I've been trying to say, we aren't accounting for support elements, so why have 22 men per single cannon in game? If we're going to suppose that a crew needs a back up, then 10, 12, or maybe 14 men per gun. 

[Let's talk about unit sizes]

On 1/18/2017 at 8:19 AM, Fred Sanford said:

This is a key point to me.  If we go with the historical 'just gun crew' sizes, artillery will be too fragile in the game.

 I agree with the point, but my argument isn't about the amount of men with regards to artillery, it's about the amount of cannon. 

22 men should be able to field 2 cannon, not 1. 

Again,

8 men per cannon

2 cannon per section

1 officer (Lieutenant) per section of 2 cannon

17 men total for 1 section of cannon.

[Let's talk about unit sizes]

On 1/17/2017 at 8:34 AM, thomas aagaard said:

And how many reenactment units include all the other personal in a battery? The blacksmiths, the teamsters and similar?
The current numbers are not that fare off. They just include the men doing support roles behind the lines.

 

The current brigade structure work fine. In the early battles many of the enemy units are in fact regiments if you look at their names.
And they where never at full strength. Both sides did very bad jobs at keeping their units at full strength. (the csa better than the US, but still rather bad)
At gettysburg the average strength of the union infantry regiments was just 375 men.
Later in the campaign you are facing brigades.

Historically late in the war some union heavy artillery regiments (fighting as infantry) was broken into battalions on the field, so the basic unit was still around 400men... 
This simply made much more sense than having one regiment the size of most brigades.

 To answer the first point: Few if any, mine being one of those few. But then, the numbers I posted did not take those numbers into account either, only the 8 men per gun, 17 men per gun section (2 guns + crew + 1 section commander).

Second point: The structure works fine yes, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that to call a brigade of 1000 men a brigade is ridiculous so early in the war. Even by late war standards most REGIMENTS were fielding between 300 to 800 men on the Union. At the bare minimum after FOUR TO FIVE YEARS of conflict, the numbers in game would be accurate. Most regular infantry REGIMENTS were founded at 1000 as per the standard.

Gettysburg is, again, a mid to late war battle, my point still stands. Even for brigades like the famous Iron Brigade, at MID WAR strength (i.e. Gettysburg) they went in at 1500 for the entire brigade. That was after spending 3 years at war. 

Regarding the heavy artillery units: A battalion and a regiment are one in the same. Heavy artillery battalions and regular infantry battalions are vastly different in terms of units composition. Again, by 1865, yes, these numbers would be accurate. But we ARE NOT in 1865 at this point...so regiments are still being formed at 1,000. A many were still being formed in these numbers well into 1864 in the North. 

 

[Buildable Fortifications]

I think it would be easier to allow the map to have more areas that could be used as "fortified positions". In that stone walls, some fences, forests, boulders, hills, and buildings, could all have the option to garrison men in them. The coding is already there, the graphics and mechanics already there, all that needs to be done is to place more of those points on the map. 

[Please let us split or change bridages formations.]

On 1/11/2017 at 6:38 PM, Nox165 said:

Would be nice if we could split a really big bridgage into two small bridgages. If that's not possible giving us the option to bend or change the formation would also be welcomed.

You are referring to the next unit level below brigade. This is called a regiment, or battalion. The game does NOT depict the army composition of the day accurately. There are not "two smaller birdgages [read: brigades]" in one brigade. A Civil War era brigade was composed of 2 to 5 regiments of 1,000 men each as the standard. This would place brigades at 2,000 to 5,000 men each. Then, yes, it would make sense to divide brigades up into regiments. Or "small brigades" as you worded it.

[Breastworks]

I disagree, I think 1 brigade is more than enough to man a breastwork, however I think the size of the brigades needs to change. As it stands right now, 1000 men per brigade is way too small for a unit at the brigade level. Union and Confederate regiments both had a starting standard of 1,000 men per regiment at the start of the actual war. This would place brigades at 2,000 to 5,000 men at the beginning of the war.

[Let's talk about unit sizes]

Before I begin I'd like to state that my knowledge comes from my own military experience as a field artilleryman, Civil War reenacting, and through college where I majored in Intelligence Analysis. To main issues I have regarding unit sizes are as follows:

Issue #1. Field Artillery: A single piece of artillery does not require 22 men to field. You have 8 men to operate the piece, 4 to handle the limber, and for every TWO guns (an artillery section) you had a Lieutenant in charge. So for a UNION basic artillery battery you'd have 6 guns, 48 men, 16 Lieutenants, 1 commanding officer (a Captain). This brings the total to 65 men. Right now, 1 artillery piece adds 22 men to it. That means you're looking at a basic artillery battery having 132 men. That's roughly TWO batteries worth of men. That needs to be revamp.

To continue; FIVE artillery batteries, in the Union, were formed into artillery brigades commanded by a Colonel. Each Union infantry corps had 1 artillery BRIGADE attached to it. That would mean having not 6 guns per BRIGADE but at the very least 30 guns with, approximately, 660 men. This means that the amount of men per gun in the game needs to be readjusted to reflect accurate unit organization.

Issue #2. Infantry: At the onset of the Civil War, a Union battalion/regiment consisted of 1000 men as per the standard, while yes this would vary, the STANDARD was 1000 men. In the game we are commanding individual BRIGADES of 1000 men and this is inaccurate, we should have brigades made up of 3 to 5 regiments of 1,000 men each. This brings the total from 3,000 to 5,000 men for a brigade (currently 1,000). A division consisted of 2 to 4 brigades with the total between 6,000 to 20,000 men (currently 4,000 with 1,000 men per "brigade"). The next level up is corps; consisting of 2 to 3 divisions (Union) bringing our total up to 12,000 to 60,000 men (currently 8,000 with 2 divisions to start at 4,000 men per division roughly). A Union ARMY would consist of 3 corps (as the standard) making our total for a STANDARD UNION ARMY anywhere from 24,000 to 180,000 men. Currently numbers for the standard army, provided you could fill each regiment brigade with 1000 men, 4 "brigades" per division, 2 to 4 divisions per corps, 1 corps at the start of the game would be between 8,000 and 16,000 men. Again, this needs to be adjusted. Bare in mind that I am not saying 180,000 men need to be graphically represented with individual sprites. While that would be awesome, the graphics we have are okay, just the values need to be adjusted.

Any thoughts on this? Can this be adjusted by us? In other words is there a file I can go adjust. or "mod" if you will, that would account for this?

[Forever in Melee?]

Something weird and exceedingly annoying I have noticed is the propensity for infantry units in melee to continue charging through lines, inflicting ZERO casualties to enemy infantry units while taking A TON of casualties of their own, till they get behind the enemy lines and their either completely rout or surrender. All of this occurs while they are at a breaking point. They become completely uncontrollable when it begins and stays that way throughout the entire time. Is this a feature? It's almost like the unit charges 1 enemy unit and then if there is another unit behind or occupying the same ground, believes there is one giant unit and tries to pass through all of them. It makes zero sense for an entire battalion to charge, or get charged, fight a melee, and then after their morale drops advance THROUGH the enemy lines until they completely rout, get annihilated, or find themselves at the back end of the map.

Anyone else experience this?

[I think there should be a "Reverse" command]

There is a command "Backwards march" that is the real life equivalent of what's being suggested herein. However, you try to get an entire brigade to march backwards without tripping over terrain and let me know how feasible it is to do this over a long distance. It's really only used for small distance movements.

[A Proposed fix to AI scaling]

Something I've been thinking about that makes sense, and that would maybe rectify this issue of AI scaling its forces and being overly powerful after a battle where it was just crushed, is to have an infrastructure or "Ability to Supply Army" attribute. Something that reflects your sides ability to support YOUR army. The AI and yourself would be forced to maintain a certain army sized based on its supply usage. This could be upgraded through the camp screen, or perhaps on the campaign map by building railroads, supply depots, naval yards, by selecting towns to raid. Hell the raids could require you to send cavalry or light forces to attack certain points and the AI would have to react by deploying men to defend certain areas, or raise militia. 

What do you guys think?