Disease & Reinforcements?

[kirk1226]

Hi,
I am trying my hand again at this game as the union with advanced settings and am looking for any helpful advice. I figured this would be a good place to go:). It is Feb. of 1862 and here is my events report. Im just curious to know if my loss to disease here would be considered high, normal or low? I have 4 hospitals and about 73,000 men in Annapolis where it looks like most of the disease took place. Also, just curious to know if the reinforcement rate from my camps would be considered good, average or poor. Actually, I have tons of other questions but those will do for now:) Thanks for any help

My Economic Report looks like this:

Reinforcements Available from Camps Each Turn: 13785
Total Reinforcements Required by All Our Brigades: 4477
Number of Brigades That Require Reinforcements: 26
Reinforcements were distributed to 26 brigades.

[terje439]

I hardly play the Union, however I will say that your losses to disease is way lower than what I often end up with, and as for your reinforcement rate as the Union I will say you are in good shape, but keep expanding (aim for roughly 20k imo).

It seems however that you have indeed taken few casualties, so getting more camps is no biggie untill you decide to go on the offence.

But that is just me, and probably alot of the others will disagree [;)]

[kirk1226]

Thanks for the advice terje439. Yes, my casualties have been light as I have purposely avoided any offensive actions until I had built up my armies and infrastructure etc. My plan is to to go on the strategic offensive, tactical defensive in March or April and get my units a lot more experience built up. I thought I could do that by moving my armies into rebel provinces with the settings on "Avoid Battle". That way, I assume, I would be on defense if a battle ensued. I had read that the union do better on tactical defense this early in the war and this might be a way of building up experience without getting too clobbered by the rebs. Again, thanks for the tip. Thats exactly the kind of thing Im looking for. kirk

[kirk1226]

one downside of my strategy, I have to admit, has been the recent losses of cincinati and cairo, along with the entrance of kentucky on the rebel side. In hindsight, Im wondering now if I should have built a fort or gunboats on the ohio river earlier in the game. Obviously Im hoping to recover cincinato soon. I have an army of about 45,000 in Dayton and I just started constructing 4 or 5 gunboats on the upper miss. river for the combined land water descent of the Miiss. river and the recapture of Cairo. kirk

[terje439]

ORIGINAL: kirk1226
I had read that the union do better on tactical defense this early in the war and this might be a way of building up experience without getting too clobbered by the rebs. Again, thanks for the tip. Thats exactly the kind of thing Im looking for. kirk

Indeed so. In all tactical battles the defender recieves a +4 bonus to will to fight, and in the first couple of years the Union can only show a handful of capable officers, while the CSA can field two entire armies with nothing but very capable officers. The CSA troops also starts with better morale and experience, so running into a Southern army too soon can be costly indeed. And remember if you fight a battle and lose, alot of your troops will leave their weapons behind, weapons you will have to spend alot of resources to get back.

KY will sometimes go North and sometimes South. In my current Pbem-game I got KY on round two. It seems chances are better if you have no troops in the state, and you have not suffered too heavy casualties.

As the Union you can hardly prevent the South from advancing on some places the initial years, you just have to make sure you do not lose more than you can eventually take back [;)]