Why no Field Armies?

[Hellfirejet]

Just an observation after watching some let's play videos, why is it that the game designers went with multiple smaller units such as Brigades, Divisions, and Corps attacking a single hex, same as previous versions of Strategic Command? When I would have thought that at the scale an Army should have been the main go-to land unit. The map as many have said is very large and each hex is supposed to represent 9 miles as far as I'm aware, and most battles of the Civil War were within for sake of argument 3 miles. The best unit to use in my opinion would be an Army unit and use small land units to defend other strategic locations on the map. I suppose I will be using the editor a great deal which is no bad thing, as the editor is superb.

[devoncop]

I think if armies had been the basic unit the game would be pretty threadbare. Throughout the ACW the Confederates for example only fielded 18 different Field armies.

It would also make little sense to have an army take up the same space on the map as a regiment, brigade or a Division.

Its personal preference but I like what I see of the scale so far.

[Hellfirejet]

I wasn't thinking that the Army unit is the basic unit, but the main one used to defend your most important map locations like Washington or Richmond, units like Regiments and Brigades could be sent to defend the least important areas of the map. I just think that whatever way you look at it you can't use the same kind of combat system used in the other games of the series, the Civil War is completely different. 5 or 6 units moving in and out and attacking a single hex in procession in my eyes is wrong, it's my view of things others I'm sure will see it there way, I suppose whatever rocks your boat, gamers can play the game whatever way they want.

Example historical rationale for having the Army of the Potomac.

What was the main goal of the Army of the Potomac?

The Army of the Potomac was the primary Union fighting force in the eastern theater of the Civil War, primarily in Eastern Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. Its dual mission was to defeat the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia and to safeguard Washington, D.C.

[devoncop]

I wasn't thinking that the Army unit is the basic unit, but the main one used to defend your most important map locations like Washington or Richmond, units like Regiments and Brigades could be sent to defend the least important areas of the map. I just think that whatever way you look at it you can't use the same kind of combat system used in the other games of the series, the Civil War is completely different. 5 or 6 units moving in and out and attacking a single hex in procession in my eyes is wrong, it's my view of things others I'm sure will see it there way, I suppose whatever rocks your boat, gamers can play the game whatever way they want.

Example historical rationale for having the Army of the Potomac.

What was the main goal of the Army of the Potomac?

The Army of the Potomac was the primary Union fighting force in the eastern theater of the Civil War, primarily in Eastern Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. Its dual mission was to defeat the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia and to safeguard Washington, D.C.

I get your point but the way I see it is that the Army of the Potomac in this game is represented by a number of Divisions/Brigades (and later Corps) holding the area to the south of Washington initially rather than a single Army as an entity and all under the Command of a General (or Generals) that the units are attached to.

The problem with your solution is the lack of consistency in scale with regiments/brigades taking up the same space as your armies....To an extent that is already there but this would amplify the disconnect.
I think the system is adapted as well as it can be for the ACW but until I play it I can't be sure. I was sceptical when this was announced but reports and Lets plays suggest they may have done a good job with the game.

Fingers crossed.

[Hellfirejet]

Yes, fingers crossed gameplay works well when I buy the game on Thursday. Armies are used in the other Strategic Command WW1 and WW2 and they co-exist with Garrison, Division, and Corps units all on the map at the same time.

WW2 Armies and Corps etc

Untitled.jpg (116.77 KiB) Viewed 927 times

[BiteNibbleChomp]

For the game system to work, you need to have enough units within a given area of the map to actually be able to play with.

If there's too few, it becomes very hard to actually push forward, because there's not enough units to protect the ground you've already won. It becomes very easy to get drawn into a cat-and-mouse chase as one unit tries to cut off its opponent, and vice versa, which isn't a lot of fun and doesn't make much sense. When battle does occur, fewer units means RNG has a much greater impact in deciding who wins (if you launch a dozen attacks, RNG will tend to average out over those attacks), and it also takes away the choices that battle commanders actually have - in the game as it is, the right of an army is usually one or two hexes, the centre is another one or two, and same for the left - meaning you can choose where to focus your attacks and which sector gets the best units. An army counter (assuming we take three corps out of the game for every army we add in) means all three sectors are the same unit.

Armies work well in WW1 or WW2 because the amount of soldiers fighting in those wars was much larger than in the ACW. The famous 6th Army, for instance, was around 250k men during the Stalingrad campaign, but it was only about 1/3 of all the German soldiers fighting in that campaign. 250k men is much larger than the Army of the Potomac ever was. 1/3 of the ACW Eastern Theatre is about a corps' worth of troops, hence corps make a lot more sense as the largest unit represented.

- BNC

[Hellfirejet]

Ok! I see your point of view, and the logic behind it, but when the game gets released Mountain Division unit slot is out and Army is in. I also will be changing the research on Corps, which is unnecessary just like Divisions, Corps can easily be set up when available to build, without a Research slot being used to do it. As usual with Strategic Command games I really like them but I'm really glad to have a fantastic editor to alter things. Another thing I noticed while watching let's play videos units need to retreat more instead of just sitting there getting wiped out.

[Hellfirejet]

Quick question but not on the subject of Armies. I noticed again while viewing a video lets play that the Union was using Balloons, nothing unusual in that right, wrong in-game time this was happening in July I believe, which seems strange since the Balloon Corps became active in October 1861 that is 3 months before they were available historically.

[The Land]

Ok! I see your point of view, and the logic behind it, but when the game gets released Mountain Division unit slot is out and Army is in. I also will be changing the research on Corps, which is unnecessary just like Divisions, Corps can easily be set up when available to build, without a Research slot being used to do it. As usual with Strategic Command games I really like them but I'm really glad to have a fantastic editor to alter things. Another thing I noticed while watching let's play videos units need to retreat more instead of just sitting there getting wiped out.

The progression from Brigades to Divisions to Corps works quite well, in my view. Both sides start with quite high MPP income so limiting Corps by research, so they don't start being fielded until well into the war when there are many Division around, makes sense. (In the other SC games this might not be necessary as most nations start out with fairly low MPP income). Of course if you're restructuring everything to include Army counters then it might make most sense to have some Divisions on the field at the start (particularly on the east coast) and then tie Armies to the research.

Retreat is also significantly more likely than in previous SC games. Though it remains uncertain and terrain-dependent. Cavalry are in the habit of scarpering...

[BiteNibbleChomp]

Quick question but not on the subject of Armies. I noticed again while viewing a video lets play that the Union was using Balloons, nothing unusual in that right, wrong in-game time this was happening in July I believe, which seems strange since the Balloon Corps became active in October 1861 that is 3 months before they were available historically.

The balloon Enterprise was first demonstrated to the Union Army in June 1861 and was present at First Bull Run (though no useful intelligence was gained from it in this instance). So a balloon actually being in service and providing information is reasonable by that point

- BNC

[Duck Doc]

For the game system to work, you need to have enough units within a given area of the map to actually be able to play with.

If there's too few, it becomes very hard to actually push forward, because there's not enough units to protect the ground you've already won. It becomes very easy to get drawn into a cat-and-mouse chase as one unit tries to cut off its opponent, and vice versa, which isn't a lot of fun and doesn't make much sense.
- BNC

Well, historically it was indeed a military exercise of 'whack-a-mole' on a giant scale. Lee was able to avoid being pinned and decimated by maneuver of corps-size units all over the theater (and of course assembled into an army in a single hex for a confrontation) until the end when Grant pinned him in and around Richmond. Such was the case for all the theaters of conflict. It may not seem like a lot of fun but it happened this way and it indeed wasn't much fun at the time. It drove Lincoln to distraction. It may not make sense in game terms but it did make military sense at the time to those fighting it out. Good luck with the game.