Matrix Games Forums

As we near our "gold" release of the patch, we'll have a few issues that we want to poll you on. Here's the first:

Should we change the rules to allow a single army to hold more
corps/divisions, so that the AoP can be represented as one army instead
of three? (The primary argument against doing this is that the entire
army would then be able to move coherently under the game rules, whereas
forcing the player to divide the army into more than one group, as the
rules are now, more realistically models large armies moving in a
piecemeal fashion.)

You could do both, after an army reaches a minimum size restrict its' movement to one province per turn thereby forcing the player to split the super army into smaller armies for extended movement.

Btw great game, I can't stop playing it.

ORIGINAL: BigJ62

You could do both, after an army reaches a minimum size restrict its' movement to one province per turn thereby forcing the player to split the super army into smaller armies for extended movement.

Btw great game, I can't stop playing it.

That's actually not a bad idea... there's another thread about reducing the movement rates of units... but if you reduced it as a unit gets larger that might make some sense.

I by expanding you mean allowing a relasitic setup, In my AAR I can't get two fully equiped corps into my army.  an Army should be able to hold the maximum for the setup - so I it can hold 3 corps, then It should be 3 corps with filled divisions, rather than the brigade maximum that seems to be messing up the setting up of an army. maybe lower the number of birgades a divison can hold - it was 5 wasn't it? my memories a little hazy but i'm sure i read somewhere that there was

3-5 regiments per brigade
3-5 brigades per division
3-5 divisions per corp

But i could be making that up.

Grey hunter,


North army holds 35 units max.
Corps 15 units max
Division 5 units max
U should be able to get 2 full corps and a added division in a corps container alone or as a division directly under the army, into an army.

For south its
Army holds 42 units max.
Corps 18 units max
Division 6 units max
U should be able to get 2 full corps and a added division in a corps container alone or as a division directly under the army, into an army.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Should we allow Army Groups "XXXXX", evenough they weren't called by this name then, they were used as in Petersburg.

Drex,
I'm rusty on this point -- what exactly are you pointing to in terms of Petersburg?

If the major reason against larger armies is to represent the disjointed moves of multiple corps, that is not a biggie for me. I would prefer to see a single AoP or, maybe, a largish AoP and a smaller force called Washington Defenses or Dept (District?) of ... or something like that. The DC-Md-NoVa area often had, in effect, two forces, one operating in DC-NoVa and one operating in Western Maryland-Harper's Ferry-Winchester-the Shen. Maybe the smaller force could, in effect, be a force available for that assignment.

Could you not allow larger armies but with a relatively low chance of leaving a container behind? Such as an army moving but one of its divisions fail to move.

My $.02: I'd prefer the larger army and model the coordination at a smaller scale with some detailed battle or quick battle delays in the future as time allows. Much as I like the idea of modeling that coordination, I'd rather do it below the map level at this scale.

Regards,

- Erik

I agree with Erik. One large army but you can delay out the arrival times of the divisions in HW like what happened many times in the real war.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but Chamberlain in his "Passing of the Armies" mentions the Army of the James being present also besides the AOP. Grant also gave Sheridan command of multiple Corps making him an army commander of sorts. The Army of the James was commanded by Ord and comprised the XVIII and X Corps after Butler was relieved by Grant.

It should be harder for a large army to actually get all its units into the battle -- a frequent problem especially for some generals.

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

It should be harder for a large army to actually get all its units into the battle -- a frequent problem especially for some generals.

I agree and I think I posted elsewere that the starting locations/times of divisions in Detaild Combat should be staggered possibly using a general's initititive rating. Do this instead of in one nice line formation but the reason against it was because the CoG players didn't like the way detailed combat started and wanted an easier setup in a nice line formation or grouped together.

The problem is there are two groups of players (I walffle back and forth between both camps) that want a more realistic move and setup, and others that want (for lack of better term sorry...) less realisitc moves and setups. It's why some people like chess... and others checkers... [:)]

Neither method is right or wrong and depends on a players preference... which is why I hope the developer's keep adding more "options". Instead of always making it one or the other .... give the player the choice on how to play. Sometimes I'm in the mood for a challange... sometimes I'm not but still want an enjoyable game.

Allow an option for larger armies... allow an option for more random setups for detailed combat... Allow an option for force size to affect movement rates... the more options--- the more people can enjoy their style of play.

Dude

IMHO a true type of meeting engagement would be good. Like Gettysburg where troops on BOTH sides trinkled on to the battle field. Possibly over days, this could be affected by both over all commander and specific corps/ division commander's initiative. Ofc this would never be any one's deliberate choice. So this check should be made pre where sides are given the choice now. Especially if bigger armies are implimented.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

I'm hopeful this wouldn't be too hard to do, since the "Feint" option already does it to some degree, but Eric would be the ultimate judge of the actual challenge.

Wow, so far the votes are pretty evenly split between changing things and keeping things the way they are.  Since keeping things the way they are now is easier to do, I reckon I'm inclined to do that unless a stronger consensus for allowing bigger armies emerges.

John F. Kennedy said something to the effect (but sounded better) that, 'if there is not a reason to change, that is a reason to preserve.'

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

John F. Kennedy said something to the effect (but sounded better) that, 'if there is not a reason to change, that is a reason to preserve.'

Isn't that just a fancy way of saying "if it ain't broke. Don't Fix it."?

Why not test the change out and see if the scenario is still playable if it's not too hard to change?
Christian