! Disease ! The real story.

[Viking67]

The CSA lost (died) 2 solders to disease and starvation for every 1 solder that died in combat. The Union lost (died) just under 1 solder to disease and starvation for every 1 solder that died in combat. I found these facts very interesting and enlightening.

Source: Civil War Journal – Yank versus Reb: The Solders Life

Perhaps hospitals shuld cost more and disease be harsher.

[Paper Tiger]

Perhaps it would be worth thinking about the number of soldiers who were lost to wounds and disease but recuperated and later rejoined their units. Effectively went to the hospital then the camp and arrived back as re-inforcements at some point later.
Instead of looking at the figures for losses to disease as all dead look at them as the dead, and temporarily incapacitated.
Perhaps there should be a replacement pool consisting of say up to 75% of all losses + n men per turn from which camps can draw replacements and modified by national will?

[Twotribes]

Perhaps one should understand that a very LARGE number of troops will never appear because of the population shortcomings DESIGNED to prevent real large armies.

Just my suggestion.

[Alan_Bernardo]

ORIGINAL: Viking67

The CSA lost (died) 2 solders to disease and starvation for every 1 solder that died in combat. The Union lost (died) just under 1 solder to disease and starvation for every 1 solder that died in combat. I found these facts very interesting and enlightening.

Source: Civil War Journal – Yank versus Reb: The Solders Life

Perhaps hospitals shuld cost more and disease be harsher.

In relation to everything else, I think Hospitals are expensive enough. Though disease was a killer in both armies, one source (and an autobiography at that, it seems) does not make the 2 to 1 ratio an established fact.

Perhaps.


Alanb

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Alan_Bernardo
In relation to everything else, I think Hospitals are expensive enough. Though disease was a killer in both armies, one source (and an autobiography at that, it seems) does not make the 2 to 1 ratio an established fact.
Alanb

I'll vote with Alan. If hospitals stopped desease, it would be wrong, but considering even with coverage in the 30+ range you can still get "whacked" by desease the costs are fair enough.

[Twinkle]

I'll vote with Alan. If hospitals stopped desease, it would be wrong, but considering even with coverage in the 30+ range you can still get "whacked" by desease the costs are fair enough.

All you should need according to the rules is 1 hospital per area… why a 30+ coverage?

And to the initial poster...

Viking67 your source is wrong. Read the US Army General-surgeon report from directly after the war (or another source from that time citing such a report) and you will find that about twice as many Union soldiers died from diseases as compared from battles (not only KIA’s also those dead from battle wound). And the number of men dead from diseases is more likely to be underrepresented then the number killed on the battlefields.

Regards,
/twinkle

[chris0827]

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/troops_furnished_losses.html Shows the dead from all causes. That should end that argument

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: chris0827

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/troops_furnished_losses.html Shows the dead from all causes. That should end that argument

But I'll bet it doesn't. [:D]

[Viking67]

Twinkle, I am not sure why you say my source is wrong. The other source referrenced also illustrates a 2 to 1 ratio, disease to killed in combat.

Other source:
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/troops_f ... osses.html
Died from disease 199K, killed 110K. This is for both Union and CSA combined. If you review the CSA, you can see the ratio is higher than 2 to 1.

[Viking67]

Something seems wrong with the "Other source". The state of Virginia only shows 10 killed in combat and 16 from disease. This can not be correct???

Never mind - This is Union only.

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: Viking67

Twinkle, I am not sure why you say my source is wrong. The other source referrenced also illustrates a 2 to 1 ratio, disease to killed in combat.

Other source:
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/troops_f ... osses.html
Died from disease 199K, killed 110K. This is for both Union and CSA combined. If you review the CSA, you can see the ratio is higher than 2 to 1.

That source shows the union dead only.

[Viking67]

Ok.

Is it safe to say the CSA deaths to disease must be higher?

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: Viking67

Ok.

Is it safe to say the CSA deaths to disease must be higher?

A higher percentage of Confederate soldiers died of disease but the total deaths would be less than the Union's.

[Berkut]

The question is not some overall ratio - that is interesting, but not the end of the story as far as how disease should impact the game.

Not everyone killed in the war is even represented in the game to begin with - the only troops "represented" are those in formal combat brigades in formal divisions. This (presumably) does not include hundreds of thousands serving in logisitcal units, support, etc., etc., all of which would contribute to the "disease" loss numbers, but obviously not to the combat loss numbers.

What we care about are losses from disease strictly amongst actual combat units. If the overall ratio is 1:1, then the overall ratio in combat units is almost certainly considerably less, since almost all combat deaths will come from combat  units, while disaease deaths will be spread throught the military structure. Think about all the men in the Navy, for instance, for whom disease is irreelevant, but in real life probably had hundreds of thousands of cases. Those are all included in the 1:1 overall ratio, but NOT represented in FoF at all.

Further, the issue is not simply one of deaths, it is one of impact on the game. How did disease effect the ability of the militaries of the age to operate? Are there significant examples of armies simply incapable of operations due to disease in the ACW? Not really. Generally, disease was there, it was tolerated/controlled as best they could, but it probably did not impact at the Forge of Freedom game scale that much. Some percentage of your men was pretty much incapacitated and unable to serve, and you marched with the rest. It would be very unusual to ahve an army sized unit simply incapable of marching for weeks at time due to disease in normal circumstances.

When I look at a brigade in FoF and see it has 1787 men, I can pretty much imagine that it's actual book strength may very well be considerably greater than that number, but right now, it is 1787. Maybe I will get some replacements next turn, and this will represent a trickly of new men, and some guys coming back from leave, or sickness, or whatever.

Right now, IMO, the effect of disease is grossly over-modeled in FoF, and I suspect it drives from the common "urban legend" of the "more men lost to disease than combat..." stories. An example of something that may be technically true, but in practice becomes a unfortunate distraction and reduction in realism.

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: Berkut

The question is not some overall ratio - that is interesting, but not the end of the story as far as how disease should impact the game.

Not everyone killed in the war is even represented in the game to begin with - the only troops "represented" are those in formal combat brigades in formal divisions. This (presumably) does not include hundreds of thousands serving in logisitcal units, support, etc., etc., all of which would contribute to the "disease" loss numbers, but obviously not to the combat loss numbers.

What we care about are losses from disease strictly amongst actual combat units. If the overall ratio is 1:1, then the overall ratio in combat units is almost certainly considerably less, since almost all combat deaths will come from combat  units, while disaease deaths will be spread throught the military structure. Think about all the men in the Navy, for instance, for whom disease is irreelevant, but in real life probably had hundreds of thousands of cases. Those are all included in the 1:1 overall ratio, but NOT represented in FoF at all.

Further, the issue is not simply one of deaths, it is one of impact on the game. How did disease effect the ability of the militaries of the age to operate? Are there significant examples of armies simply incapable of operations due to disease in the ACW? Not really. Generally, disease was there, it was tolerated/controlled as best they could, but it probably did not impact at the Forge of Freedom game scale that much. Some percentage of your men was pretty much incapacitated and unable to serve, and you marched with the rest. It would be very unusual to ahve an army sized unit simply incapable of marching for weeks at time due to disease in normal circumstances.

When I look at a brigade in FoF and see it has 1787 men, I can pretty much imagine that it's actual book strength may very well be considerably greater than that number, but right now, it is 1787. Maybe I will get some replacements next turn, and this will represent a trickly of new men, and some guys coming back from leave, or sickness, or whatever.

Right now, IMO, the effect of disease is grossly over-modeled in FoF, and I suspect it drives from the common "urban legend" of the "more men lost to disease than combat..." stories. An example of something that may be technically true, but in practice becomes a unfortunate distraction and reduction in realism.

There are regimental records that would give that kind of information but I'm not aware of any being available online. Fox's Regimental losses is available for $30.40 on amazon.

[christof139]

You can get Fox's regimental Losses with the OR on CD from a number of vendors. The Guild Press version of the OR is more expensive, about $60 new, but there are other versions for $20 or so that also have the Southern Historical Society papers/publications, forget the exact name but they are a wealth of info. Also you can find used copies on Ebay. You can get the Navy OR too, as part of a bundle. The Navy OR is seperate from the Army OR.
 
Had a friend that had both in book form, amazing.
 
Chris
 
 
 

[General Quarters]

christof, you mention a number of ventors. Could you name them so I could try to locate them. I would love to have the book version of OR.

[Joram]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

ORIGINAL: chris0827

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/troops_furnished_losses.html Shows the dead from all causes. That should end that argument

But I'll bet it doesn't. [:D]

It's clearly biased towards the undead.

[Twinkle]

ORIGINAL: chris0827

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/troops_furnished_losses.html Shows the dead from all causes. That should end that argument

no... [:)]

[Twotribes]

Once again, the game does NOT model the actual troop strengths of the Union at all, over the course of the war over 2 million ( according to some, nearly 3 million) men served in the Union Armies. Have HUGE losses to disease that decimate attacking armies are not historical and are not acceptable when the Union is prevented from replacing them. I add again, check the " Improvement" thread there is a move to tie the abysmally low population to replacement as well. Meaning even LESS ability to replace losses.