Camps? Where are they?

[jimwinsor]

ORIGINAL: satchel

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
Without camps, I suppose casualties are never replaced, veteran units gradually diminish to zero, and the only way to get new troops is to build new units. This seems unsatisfactory even in a basic game.

This is unsatisfactory. The lack of being able to reinforce units affects gameplay greatly. What is supposed to be the "Basic" setup becomes a logistical mess with a cumbersome endgame.

Unsatisfactory perhaps, but not necessarily ahistorical.

Both sides had difficulties fielding replacements for existing regiments. Reason being, a new volunteer generally prefered joining a newly formed regiment, where he could perhaps start out at a higher rank. As a consequence existing brigades tended to dwindle; the famed Irish brigade was down to the size of a small regiment at Gettysburg IIRC...yet existed on paper as a full brigade.

Yes this was an administrative and logistical nightmare as you point out...yet neveretheless this was not far from how they did it back then.

[jsaurman]

Why not tie the basic game "camp" value to a factor of victory points?   I would make it something like 500 troops for every victory point plus say 2K for each point of national will.  So at the beginning of the game, you would be getting 500 troops every game, and would have to raise new regiments to get things done.  Once the war started to go your way, and you had 12 victory points and +3 national will, you would be getting 6000 plus 6000, which is 12000 reinforcements per turn.  
That seems about the same level it would be if I were building camps in the advanced game.
That also seems to fit in with history, as recruits like to get on the bandwagon with a winner, not with a loser.  If things go badly, recruiting should dry up.
 
JIM

[satchel]

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

Unsatisfactory perhaps, but not necessarily ahistorical....this was not far from how they did it back then.

Maybe I was thinking from a more modern perspective. I can't argue against historicity.

[ericbabe]

For the Basic Rules (or any rules in which "Advanced Buildings" is turned OFF), the USA and CSA will have constant levels of reinforcements -- presently the numbers are 20,000 for the USA and 10,000 for the CSA, but these numbers will be moddable in the Data\AcwConstants.txt file.  The "Invalid Corps" upgrade will modify this number, just as it modifies reinforcements in the advanced rules. 

These numbers are based on data that the USA had about 2,500,000 men during the war and the CSA about 1,250,000.  The Civil War lasted about 48 months, or 96 of our turns, so this gives almost 2M US troops and almost 1M CS troops, and assuming that the player starts with a few hundred thousand and recruits/requisitions a few hundred thousand more, gives approximate historical totals (the historical numbers include some troops out West that aren't on our map).  The numbers are comparable to what players can get from Camps in the Advanced game -- though in the Advanced game (depending on the other options) it can take a while to build the 20-30 additional camps required to get this level of reinforcements, it is also possible in the Advanced game to get more reinforcements than this from more Camps.

I considered briefly modifying these numbers by things like National Will, but since this rule will be for the Basic Game I'd like to keep it as simple as possible.

[siRkid]

Do camps pull from the manpower pool? It would seem to me that the game has two methods for creating troops, one is building new units and the second is reinforcing existing units through the use of camps. Both are historical options. If the camps pulled from the manpower pool, then the more camps the player builds the less new unit he should be able to raise. If the system works this way, then it leaves it up to the player to choose his preferred method. If it does not work this way, then it is unrealistic and should be changed.  As for the basic game, maybe give the player a setup option that allows him to pick the reinforcement rate. The higher the rate the more manpower used thereby reducing the number of new units that can be raised.

[jimwinsor]

Replacements generated from Camps do not lower the manpower levels of cities, only building new units does that.
 
I can see how this might seem at first to be unrealisitic, however...the way I rationalize this is that Camps are facilities that scrape up men to use for replacements from other recruiting sources not represented by manpower points.  One source would be rounding up deserters (which were actually quite numerous throughout the war).  Another might be prisoner exchanges (which early in the war were fairly common).  A third might be conscripts drawn from the dregs of 19th century society, unemployed idlers whose contributions to society were so minimal so as to not contribute to Manpower (which may be defined as a measure of the economically productive members of society).

[spruce]

I think infantry construction should be somewhat less expensive - division container production also less expensive - and camps a little more expensive.
 
Granted if you rely solely on camps - you'll get brigades at 4.000 strength - but your "coverage" of the battlefield will be lower. You'll have crack containers, but fewer of them ... and this is dangerous - for sure against human players - who will blast trough your lines and then you'll have to catch them up and then there's nobody guarding the back door (or front door) [:D].
 
Camps are not directly imbalancing the game (all those reinforcments), camps are indirectly imbalancing the game as they topple the ratio =
 
(amount of soldiers in the field) / (payed supply cost)
 
the supply cost is payed for a brigade - and those "fat" brigades will make a huge difference on your money balance each turn. And your "fat" corps will stand the test in relation to a standard game "minor" army - but with one huge difference - the cost to pay for all this stuff...
 
another amplifier for imbalancing is the fact that you don't need to put your units on high supply anymore (to favour reinforcment of battered units) - the reinforcments will go automatically to the battered brigades as the non-battered are just full ! This saves also many of your resources ...
 
using this approach over a longer period of time - simply will make you rich and will allow to buy all sorts of goodies. During my last CSA game I was traveling around on Union soil with the biggest siege gun works - ever seen by men ... he he ... [:D] and I build many Ironclads so I could blockade the port of Washington - now that's a statement !

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

Replacements generated from Camps do not lower the manpower levels of cities, only building new units does that.

I can see how this might seem at first to be unrealisitic, however...the way I rationalize this is that Camps are facilities that scrape up men to use for replacements from other recruiting sources not represented by manpower points. One source would be rounding up deserters (which were actually quite numerous throughout the war). Another might be prisoner exchanges (which early in the war were fairly common). A third might be conscripts drawn from the dregs of 19th century society, unemployed idlers whose contributions to society were so minimal so as to not contribute to Manpower (which may be defined as a measure of the economically productive members of society).

In that case, do the large numbers of men that can apparently be drawn from camps seem realistic?

It would make more sense to me to say that all new soldiers come from the same manpower pool, whether they're assigned to existing regiments or to new ones. Surely recruits from any source could have been assigned either to existing regiments or to new ones in reality.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

For the Basic Rules (or any rules in which "Advanced Buildings" is turned OFF), the USA and CSA will have constant levels of reinforcements -- presently the numbers are 20,000 for the USA and 10,000 for the CSA, but these numbers will be moddable in the Data\AcwConstants.txt file. The "Invalid Corps" upgrade will modify this number, just as it modifies reinforcements in the advanced rules.

These numbers are based on data that the USA had about 2,500,000 men during the war and the CSA about 1,250,000. The Civil War lasted about 48 months, or 96 of our turns, so this gives almost 2M US troops and almost 1M CS troops, and assuming that the player starts with a few hundred thousand and recruits/requisitions a few hundred thousand more, gives approximate historical totals (the historical numbers include some troops out West that aren't on our map). The numbers are comparable to what players can get from Camps in the Advanced game -- though in the Advanced game (depending on the other options) it can take a while to build the 20-30 additional camps required to get this level of reinforcements, it is also possible in the Advanced game to get more reinforcements than this from more Camps.

I considered briefly modifying these numbers by things like National Will, but since this rule will be for the Basic Game I'd like to keep it as simple as possible.

Your argument seems right that the US should recruit about 20,000 per turn and the CS about 10,000. But you seem to be proposing to direct all these recruits into existing regiments, whereas in reality most of them (88% of them in the case of the US in 1862) went to form new regiments.

Also, it strains credibility a bit to imagine the CS maintaining the same constant rate of recruitment into 1865, with a lot of its original territory captured or inaccessible. I think the loss of territory may be even more significant than the National Will factor.

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
Your argument seems right that the US should recruit about 20,000 per turn and the CS about 10,000. But you seem to be proposing to direct all these recruits into existing regiments, whereas in reality most of them (88% of them in the case of the US in 1862) went to form new regiments.

The Union did tend to form new regiments instead of mustering troops into old ones, but I believe these new regiments were often attached to already existing brigades. Even though units such as the Iron Brigade and First Vermont Brigade sustained heavy losses (First Vermont suffered the highest loss of any brigade in U.S. history, and the Iron Brigade suffered the highest proportionate loss of any brigade in the Civil War, if I remember correctly), new regiments were added to them to augment their strength, and they continued to exist throughout the war.

Also, it strains credibility a bit to imagine the CS maintaining the same constant rate of recruitment into 1865, with a lot of its original territory captured or inaccessible. I think the loss of territory may be even more significant than the National Will factor.

Sure, couldn't agree more, but this is just for the *Basic Rules*. For the Basic Rules I want to keep things as simple as possible.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

The Union did tend to form new regiments instead of mustering troops into old ones, but I believe these new regiments were often attached to already existing brigades.

OK, I don't have relevant data, but that sounds like a good reply. Thanks.

You seem to be saying, in effect, that you don't expect players to raise any significant number of new brigades. Because, if they do, they'll be exceeding the total historical recruitment levels. Unless they're unable to use all the replacements for existing brigades that are available to them.

To make new-brigade recruitment entirely independent of existing-brigade recruitment seems a bit odd and unrealistic to me (though you may have some good answer to that too). In reality, I feel that recruiting a lot of people into existing brigades would have depleted the numbers available for new brigades, and vice versa.

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

For the Basic Rules I want to keep things as simple as possible.

For the Basic Rules I agree there is definitely a virtue in keeping things as simple as possible for the player. That's the whole point of having Basic Rules. However, varying the recruitment rate according to territorial loss (or National Will) doesn't give the player any extra work.

I just mention this as something to consider. I don't want to make a big issue of it.

[Gil R.]

Suggestions should go in the Wish List, lest they be lost. (I'm not clever enough to fit "last" and "lust" into that sentence.)

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Suggestions should go in the Wish List, lest they be lost. (I'm not clever enough to fit "last" and "lust" into that sentence.)

This thread won't last long on page 1 so if you lust for changes to the game then your suggestions should go in the Wish List, lest they be lost.

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

Replacements generated from Camps do not lower the manpower levels of cities, only building new units does that.

I can see how this might seem at first to be unrealisitic, however...the way I rationalize this is that Camps are facilities that scrape up men to use for replacements from other recruiting sources not represented by manpower points.  One source would be rounding up deserters (which were actually quite numerous throughout the war).  Another might be prisoner exchanges (which early in the war were fairly common).  A third might be conscripts drawn from the dregs of 19th century society, unemployed idlers whose contributions to society were so minimal so as to not contribute to Manpower (which may be defined as a measure of the economically productive members of society).

They may make sense to you, but it is largely an artifical construct to justify Camps in the game. As stated elsewhere in this thread -- what you suggest simply didn't happen, or didn't happen on the scale that Camps provide reinforcements in the game.

When Camps are providing 10,000 to 20,000+ reinforcements per turn, you simply can't get away from the fact that what you are modelling is the raising of new regiments to flesh out the brigades that appear in the game.

Fine. That happened historically. However, to detatch that process from the population pool creates absurd situations that mostly favor the South -- given that Camp construction is, of all things, mostly a function of the number of horses you have.

If one favors the notion that Reinforcements in the game are, roughly, 75-85% newly raised regiments and 15-25% individual replacements joining existing regiments, the long pole in the tent is not (and should not) be horses but rather people.

Regards,
Feltan

[jimwinsor]

You know, I came up with this somewhat elaborate "Wish List" idea during playtest, which not only encompassed replacements (essentially replacing Camps) but volunteer recruitment as well. Might as well throw it out here, see what you all think; note that it does tie replacements (generated now solely by the "draft"...see 12) to population levels:

New Wish List Idea for Mustering and Conscription
------------------------------------------------

1) Each side has two types of units: Regulars and Volunteers.

2) Regulars are units purchased the usual way in the production screen.

3) Regulars start with some weapon other than IWs. Random allowed by type/tech?

4) Regulars have no Term of Service (see below) and assuming they survive, serve for the duration of the game.

5) Volunteers are units brought in by the current Muster button.

6) Volunteers usually start with IWs, but maybe a random chance of a better weapon (?)

7) Volunteers have a new stat: Term of Service. It's the length of time the unit serves, after which the player must decide whether to Disband it or Reenlist it. It can vary between 3 months to 3 years.

8) Players have two ways to increase the odds of a successful Muster: A Cash Bounty and/or a lower Term of Service. Maybe a couple of slider bars under the Muster button to handle this graphically (?)

9) A Cash Bounty is simply that, a bribe to encourage enlistment in the new Brigade. Higher the bounty offered, better chance of a Muster (and very historical). Default is $0. Increments, say, of $5.

10) Term of Service varies in increments of 3 months, and the default is 3 years. Lower the TOS, the higher the chance of a Muster.

11) At the end of a TOS the player will have an option to Reenlist the unit; figure some base chance based on National Will, modified by the usual Cash Bounty and TOS sliders. If he fails the unit disbands.

12) There are no more Conscript units. Instead, each time you click the Conscript button you deduct 1 population, and add 1500 men to your replacement pool. Which is then distributed by the CoG/FoF game engine in its usual silent and efficient manner. Danger probability and effects as usual. This will serve to supplement a very inadequade trickle of automatic replacements assumed to be gathered by enlisters of existing brigades. A player can choose not to draft...but then he'll find his 3K Brigades dwindling down to 2K, then 1K...

I thought of these Wish List ideas and put them together while musing between gaming sessions. Fun, shiny new chrome, or needless additional micromanagement...you decide!

[Feltan]

That would be a great set of improvements.

For newly raised brigades, I suggest muskets as the default -- with IW or a better weapon available at some random chance.

Mustered units in 1861 should have much lower TOS, gradually increasing over time.

Regards,
Feltan