Empty brigades

[jack616]

After battles, sometimes my brigades are down to 1k or 0 men. Their supply level is either on high or normal, but it doesn't seem to help keep the numbers up. So, I'm forced to keep shuffling brigades in and out of my army... Any ideas? Thanks.

[christof139]

I don't know, but I wish i could send replacements to the Bdes. that I want to send replacemnts to, rather than having the AI control it, both options would be nice.

Chris

[Twotribes]

Are you using disease rules? If so next time either turn it off OR build a lot of Camps.

The only way to rebuild brigades strength is through replacements generated from camps. You start with 3 camps as the Union and gain one more if Kentucky joins. That is only 2000 replacements a turn.

You need at least several more camps and you need to get the tech advance that increases the disbursement from camps. If your not using the rules that allow camps to produce replacements there is nothing you can do to bring those brigades up in strength.

One way to rebuild shattered brigades is to rotate them out of the active army to Container in the rear, in good supply with good hospital coverage, set that container to high ( assuming you can afford it or are not using the rule that costs you for this) Personally I wouldbnt set an entire army on high supply, to many brigades to reinforce. Keep your combat forces on Normal is my suggestion.

[kennonlightfoot]

It would be a nice feature to the game regardless of camps to be able to dissolve brigades when they fall below a certain strength and transfer their troops to another brigade in your group. As the fighting heats up there will always be to many regiment size brigades around and their needs to be a better way to handle them than elliminating the unit to make room in groups.

[Erik Rutins]

You could always keep a spare separate division container around. Put brigades that need reinforcements in that container and keep it at High supply priority.

[balto]

Twotribes and Erik, excellent idea.  Now more then even I am starting to see how the CSA strategy of "build a CAMP every other turn" is the way to go.  For the USA, if they can ever scrape up enough horses, they too should get a camp whenever they can.., of course that takes 4 turns to build up enough horses for USA.
 
What an interesting game.., I mean, really interesting.  I am gearing up for a PBEM by end of month.., I am still having trouble moving and manuipulating moves on the map.., river provinces, regular provinces, etcc.,, I am getting there.  I know the map looks great, but as a beginner, it is hard to figure out what is next to what, etc...  Thanks

[spruce]

ORIGINAL: balto

Twotribes and Erik, excellent idea.  Now more then even I am starting to see how the CSA strategy of "build a CAMP every other turn" is the way to go.  For the USA, if they can ever scrape up enough horses, they too should get a camp whenever they can.., of course that takes 4 turns to build up enough horses for USA.

What an interesting game.., I mean, really interesting.  I am gearing up for a PBEM by end of month.., I am still having trouble moving and manuipulating moves on the map.., river provinces, regular provinces, etcc.,, I am getting there.  I know the map looks great, but as a beginner, it is hard to figure out what is next to what, etc...  Thanks

the biggest benefit you get from camp hoarding is NOT the amount of reinforcments ... the biggest benefit is the fact that you are going to have an operational defensive army that's costing your virtually nothing ... even division on low supply will get reinforcments after some time ... meaning your military power will be multiplied as you have to be able to pay for all that glitter and glamour.

with cost I mean amount of gold payed for the number of soldiers in the field.

[rook749]

ORIGINAL: spruce

the biggest benefit you get from camp hoarding is NOT the amount of reinforcments ... the biggest benefit is the fact that you are going to have an operational defensive army that's costing your virtually nothing ... even division on low supply will get reinforcments after some time ... meaning your military power will be multiplied as you have to be able to pay for all that glitter and glamour.

with cost I mean amount of gold payed for the number of soldiers in the field.

Don’t forget you also don’t have to re-buy weapons or attributies for existing units but you do for replacements brigades.

Rook

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: rook749

ORIGINAL: spruce

the biggest benefit you get from camp hoarding is NOT the amount of reinforcments ... the biggest benefit is the fact that you are going to have an operational defensive army that's costing your virtually nothing ... even division on low supply will get reinforcments after some time ... meaning your military power will be multiplied as you have to be able to pay for all that glitter and glamour.

with cost I mean amount of gold payed for the number of soldiers in the field.

Don’t forget you also don’t have to re-buy weapons or attributies for existing units but you do for replacements brigades.

Rook

I find the whole idea of camps to be near total fantasy. I've been thinking of creating a mod in which camps and many other buildings cannot be built during the game. If you lose what you have then you're out of luck. I'd rather see the game be about building and commanding armies rather than the strange civ like game it is now.

[Twotribes]

That is crazy. The Union and Confederacy most surely used replacements. But more to the point, I suggest you also triple ot quadruple the manpower if your going to not allow replacements or by 1863 your not gonna have much of an army anywhere.

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

That is crazy. The Union and Confederacy most surely used replacements. But more to the point, I suggest you also triple ot quadruple the manpower if your going to not allow replacements or by 1863 your not gonna have much of an army anywhere.

I meant that when you lose a camp you can't replace it not that you can't replace troops. I'd add a lot of camps, maybe 1 per state capital. As it is now the condederates can keep building camps and increasing their replacements even if they've lost half of their territory. It should be harder to replace troops when you lose ground.

[rook749]

I agree that there needs to be some method of generating replacements - but the current system does work well at all. It favors the CSA. As horses are the key for getting replacements going and not manpower the CSA can get 20K + replacements going 18 months faster than the Union can get there. You can get there as the Union, I know cause I do it all the time but you will get there later than the CSA. I personally don’t like the effect from a historical perspective that the CSA will never run out of replacements regardless of how badly their army is doing and how much territory is lost but that’s a personal issue.

I’d much rather see a system that generates “x” number of replacements per turn per side with these reinforcements going into a pool that is carried over from turn to turn. Then allow them to be disturbed 100 Per Brigade for every 1 supply point the Brigade receives. This would allow the South to keep fighting, but over time the losses to start to have the historic effect.

I *think* that the camps and reinforcements are going to be changes in the next patch but I’m not sure.

Rook

[spruce]

I *think* that the camps and reinforcements are going to be changes in the next patch but I’m not sure.

Rook

yes, they'll be - IIRC they were considering to put a gold upkeep for camps and capping them based on city level.

This means camp hoarding will cost more gold - so you'll have a more expensive army and less flexible compared to recruiting new brigades (less units). This means camp hoarding will be less sexy and that's good. And due to the capping, the sky is the limit doctrine has been taken care of.

[Gray_Lensman]

Personally, I think the total amount of camps available to be built within a state ought to somehow be tied to that states population, regardless of whether or not the cost to buy them is changed in the patch.

edit: just saw the reply re:camp gold upkeep and the cap based on city level... Hope that is so.

[Erik Rutins]

Have you guys tried the settings I used in the Historical Test thread? I don't see the CSA getting anywhere first economically if you have the Union with those settings.

Also, if you turn off Advanced Buildings in the options, that also turns off camps. As of the next update, it will then give you a fixed number of replacements each turn for the entire game.

Regards,

- Erik

[Gray_Lensman]

Speaking of the next update, Is there any estimate when it might be released?

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Have you guys tried the settings I used in the Historical Test thread? I don't see the CSA getting anywhere first economically if you have the Union with those settings.

Also, if you turn off Advanced Buildings in the options, that also turns off camps. As of the next update, it will then give you a fixed number of replacements each turn for the entire game.

Regards,

- Erik

And I am betting, based on previous "options" and built in bias that replacments for the North will be abysmally low and just as the population is used to ahistorical cap the army, replacements will be used to keep it from being adequately rebuilt.

I hope your Replacement setting is modifiable. This could be a game breaker for me. But hey no worry, I alrady bought the game.

[Erik Rutins]

Twotribes,

I believe it's set to 8,000 per turn for the North - that's only IF you turn off camps. If you keep camps on, you can still build them yourself.

Regards,

- Erik

[rook749]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Have you guys tried the settings I used in the Historical Test thread? I don't see the CSA getting anywhere first economically if you have the Union with those settings.

Regards,

- Erik

Erik,

I have used the setting as both sides: USA Power +3; Difficulty Level 1st Lt; Advanced Supply; Upkeep Costs; Governors; Research upgrades; Advanced buildings; Richer Economies; Impressments; Unit Attrition; Staff Ratings; Special Attributes; Unit Disposition; Upgrade Weapons; Fog of War; Hide Enemy Strength; Unit Attributes; Initiative Checks; Use Generals; More Generals; Victory Locations; Out of Command; July 61 Scenario.

I won’t argue that once I started using the Union + 3 (per your recommendation) the union Economy runs very nicely (as does the CSA). The only area in the short term the CSA can out build the Union is in camps. For the most part it makes no sense for either side to build camps that give more then 20k – 30k if your using advanced supply as its hard to distributed that many reinforcements in a single turn. It just does not feel right to see the Army of Northern Virginia getting 10k+ reinforcements every 15 days until they are built back up to strength month after month, year after year.

I love the game.

Rook