Slavery, Contrabands, US Colored Troops

[elxaime]

In other American Civil War Games, for example AGEOD's ACW2, there are rules for creating the US Colored Troops, manpower impacts from Union advances into southern territory (and resultant flight of enslaved labor), and so forth. But reading the notes, aside from the Emancipation Proclamation and Garibaldi decisions, little is said about these topics. Are their impacts woven into other game mechanics? The USCT by the late war were a significant component of the Union forces, and throughout the war African Americans also provided significant manpower to the Union Navy (where crews were integrated).

[lwarmonger]

Given the way this game combines manpower and production, you could make the argument this is represented by MPP's the Union extracts as it fights it's way into the South.

That being said, the South already has a hard time putting up resistance longer than 63, because supply and attrition arent as much of an issue in this game system then they were in real life, so I dont think we need to be thinking about making the Union stronger.

[elxaime]

I am not arguing for making the Union stronger. But it seems the game is missing a significant aspect.

[devoncop]

The total number of coloured troops ( as per contemporary parlance) was a maximum of 10% of those who fought for the Union. Significant, sure but given the scale of the conflict not decisive.

Incidently of course about 10,000 hispanic troops also fought in the war, mostly for the Confederates including the "Lousiana Tigers" involved in the defence of New Orleans. They also are not represented but the scale of the game again makes this understandable.

As there is nothing denoting specific ethnicity of troops recruited the coloured troops can well be assumed tho make up some of these forces.

[elxaime]

The answer may just rest on the fact that Strategic Command games don't go to the level of detail the AGEOD games did. But assuming the USCT and contrabands have been abstracted, it would be nice to have a comment from a designer on that.

FWIW, I am sure a design essay would be welcome on other items, like technology and events. They don't owe us that, of course. But it would be great to have a window into their thinking.

[Soulcollector]

It is possible to rename your troops, so you can change the names of regiments/brigades/divisions to the names of colored troops (e.g. 54. Massachusetts)

[BiteNibbleChomp]

Looks like I've been summoned

The introduction of African-American soldiers into the Union Army is mentioned in a popup event, and if you look carefully at the 3d model for the level 2 Union corps you will see one of them fighting alongside his white comrades. The per-turn FS bonus you receive after taking the Emancipation Proclamation decision in part also represents the growing appreciation within the Union for their sacrifices.

Beyond that, a lot of this is abstracted. The division is the most common unit on the map in the back half of the game, and to my knowledge there were no wholly (or even majority) African-American divisions in the war, so an event explicitly forming them (as opposed to an FS or MPP boost, which then assumes that African-American troops are being included in your general recruitment orders) might look out of place.

FWIW, I am sure a design essay would be welcome on other items, like technology and events. They don't owe us that, of course. But it would be great to have a window into their thinking.

I don't know about a design essay, but if you've got questions I'm happy to answer them

- BNC

[Willard]

IIRC, there was at least two divisions of USCT that fought at Petersburg. Ferraro's 4th division was made up of USCT and they were initially trained for the assault at the Battle of the Crater.

[BiteNibbleChomp]

IIRC, there was at least two divisions of USCT that fought at Petersburg. Ferraro's 4th division was made up of USCT and they were initially trained for the assault at the Battle of the Crater.

You are correct on that, not sure how it slipped my mind . Although the heavy losses taken by that division did cause a bit of a political stink which discouraged commanders from having African-American troops lead the attacks afterwards, which doesn't exactly support the idea of distinct USCT units on the game map...

- BNC

[Willard]

I haven't played the game yet so unable to comment on the scale. From what I have read, early on you can raise divisions and then later corps units as the war progresses. For a strategic/operational level game there needs to be a level of abstraction. The SC series does a good job of weaving these types of issues through the event pop-ups. So perhaps there can be an event added (if not already included) that provides a decision to raise USCT divisions, impact on MPs, etc.

How is the scale working in this game at 9 mile hexes? Since most CW battles and troops occupied spaces much smaller due to the linear tactics, does the SC model of shuffling units work? This my biggest hang-up holding me off from a purchase.

[BiteNibbleChomp]

Raising divisions and then corps is correct.

Re the game scale, JWW has written an excellent post summarising my approach to the game's design better than I could, I recommend you give it a read: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 8&t=385538

- BNC

[elxaime]

Thanks, I read that Post and it was excellent. I agree with the design philosophy, which is to not get mired in bullet-by-bullet calculations, but to attempt to capture the broad decisions that need to be made at the operational and strategic level. I haven't gotten that far into the game yet (and just against AI) but so far it "feels" right.

That said. Would love if an update can capture more of the historical happenings. Some things, if they aren't in there already: Tredegar Iron Works; CSA high seas raiders (CSS Alabama); Jeff Davis prickly relations with Gov. Vance of Georgia; - Ohio Copperheads; NY riots and Tammany Hall anti-war machine; Sam Houston and Texas; CSA raids from Canada; pro-Union relations of Russia and Prussia. Some would just be flavor, but others could have small impacts.

[cholerajohn]

Three things seemed to happen as the Union marched south with regards to former slaves. 1) The South lost production capacity due to its loss of an enslaved workforce. Even after the Southern troops came in behind the Union armies those slaves were gone. And with those people gone, the South had permanent loss of production capacity 2) The Union picked up willing volunteers for military service. (USCT) 3) The Union armies slowed and had some supply issues as the newly freed slaves followed behind the Union armies.

Having played the game 1 time on the B & G campaign I am not seeing a lot of that happening. Some will howl that most of this makes the North even more powerful. To which I answer, yes it does. I prefer accuracy over game balance.