Strength of both armies

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Queeg

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Maybe the patch could put the correct population into the game. That would solve a number of problems...

"Correct" it to what, exactly? What population numbers/ratios would you suggest?

Well, as the subject is population, how about using the population figures from the Census of 1860 for the cities/areas involved? They are available..., and even broken down into categories.

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Queeg

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Maybe the patch could put the correct population into the game. That would solve a number of problems...

"Correct" it to what, exactly? What population numbers/ratios would you suggest?

Well, as the subject is population, how about using the population figures from the Census of 1860 for the cities/areas involved? They are available..., and even broken down into categories.

I think that gives too big of a boost to the north. They enlisted a smaller percentage of their population. I would however increase the manpower of the north if Britain and France entered the war. I believe more would have volunteered to fight a foreign power.

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Well, as the subject is population, how about using the population figures from the Census of 1860 for the cities/areas involved? They are available..., and even broken down into categories.

Seems like I've covered this before. Census figures are next to irrelevant to army size. Not much progress here. Oh well....

[Twotribes]

We do, however know how many men served in the Union armies. The population provided does not even come close to those numbers, one must assume it is the same for the South. The designers have STATED they purposefully limited population in order to limit the size of the armies.

Not only is the population inadequete to raise anywhere near the size armies that were raised when you throw in using population to control production it is even worse. Add now the loss of popultaion for reinforcements and it just gets worse.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Queeg

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Well, as the subject is population, how about using the population figures from the Census of 1860 for the cities/areas involved? They are available..., and even broken down into categories.

Seems like I've covered this before. Census figures are next to irrelevant to army size. Not much progress here. Oh well....

Actually the census figures have a great deal to do with army size, as they define the maximum manpower available to either side. And as the North had almost 4 times the white population of the South it meant that even without enlisting negroes they could easily raise a much larger force with much less effort. And having both side's negro population to draw on beginning in 1863 just made the situation better for the Union. Starting in 1863, the South was fighting a losing battle just to maintain it's military numbers..., while the Union's Armies continued to grow until the end of the war.

[Erik Rutins]

Actually, if you turn off population modifiers and make heavy use of Muster, Conscription and Production of units, you can come pretty close to the historical army sizes.

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
Not only is the population inadequete to raise anywhere near the size armies that were raised when you throw in using population to control production it is even worse. Add now the loss of popultaion for reinforcements and it just gets worse.

[Twotribes]

I disagree, while you may come close in 62 after you have exhausted the starting city populations they only replensish at 1 ior 2 a year ( according to the rules) meaning that in 64 youwill have nearly no population to exapnd with.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Actually, if you turn off population modifiers and make heavy use of Muster, Conscription and Production of units, you can come pretty close to the historical army sizes.

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
Not only is the population inadequete to raise anywhere near the size armies that were raised when you throw in using population to control production it is even worse. Add now the loss of popultaion for reinforcements and it just gets worse.

One thing the game totally lacks is "Volunteers". Lincoln called for an got tens of thousands of them after the Bull Run defeat, and the South made several "calls" as well. The game makes us pay for all the troops we recieve, then makes us pay to arm and equip them as well. "Conscription" didn't even exist on either side until 1862, and was a big political issue for both. And I'm still damned if I can see why "mustering" (as close to volunteering as the game gets) COST players problems with the Governors. The Governors got to appoint lots of their friends and cronies as officers for the new Regiments (that's where many of the lunkheads on both sides got their starts) and were usually happy to have a new unit mustered as it gave them additional "patronage".

[regularbird]

I do not understand the concept behind the muster.  What is the game trying to simulate with this?  I can understand the conscripting and it getting people and gov upset.  Mike is right volunteers made up the majority of USA forces.

[regularbird]

Mike this idea could help with the volunteer thing.  If camps deposited 500 or so men, per turn in a force pool that the player could use to either form new brigades or reinforce existing ones, you could remove the muster option and give the north several more camps to start with.

[Erik Rutins]

Mike,

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
One thing the game totally lacks is "Volunteers". Lincoln called for an got tens of thousands of them after the Bull Run defeat, and the South made several "calls" as well. The game makes us pay for all the troops we recieve, then makes us pay to arm and equip them as well. "Conscription" didn't even exist on either side until 1862, and was a big political issue for both. And I'm still damned if I can see why "mustering" (as close to volunteering as the game gets) COST players problems with the Governors. The Governors got to appoint lots of their friends and cronies as officers for the new Regiments (that's where many of the lunkheads on both sides got their starts) and were usually happy to have a new unit mustered as it gave them additional "patronage".

I'm not sure I follow. The "Muster" in the game is the call for volunteers. You don't pay for them, they just show up. They come with Improvised weapons, which many units early in the war had - basically very old muskets, etc. To equip them with a new type of musket only costs 10 Guns per brigade, which isn't exactly a major hit. The -5 you get for each muster with the governor is not a major penalty at all. The game separately models the Governor "crony" appointments - those are to the Command and Logistical staffs of Divisions, Corps and Armies.

Conscription is a much bigger risk, but a 100% guarantee as long as you have Men. Honestly, I don't get how the game is far off from what you are requesting. Everything you're describing is pretty much already in the design in one form or another.

Regards,

- Erik

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Mike,

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
One thing the game totally lacks is "Volunteers". Lincoln called for an got tens of thousands of them after the Bull Run defeat, and the South made several "calls" as well. The game makes us pay for all the troops we recieve, then makes us pay to arm and equip them as well. "Conscription" didn't even exist on either side until 1862, and was a big political issue for both. And I'm still damned if I can see why "mustering" (as close to volunteering as the game gets) COST players problems with the Governors. The Governors got to appoint lots of their friends and cronies as officers for the new Regiments (that's where many of the lunkheads on both sides got their starts) and were usually happy to have a new unit mustered as it gave them additional "patronage".

I'm not sure I follow. The "Muster" in the game is the call for volunteers. You don't pay for them, they just show up. They come with Improvised weapons, which many units early in the war had - basically very old muskets, etc. To equip them with a new type of musket only costs 10 Guns per brigade, which isn't exactly a major hit. The -5 you get for each muster with the governor is not a major penalty at all. The game separately models the Governor "crony" appointments - those are to the Command and Logistical staffs of Divisions, Corps and Armies.

Conscription is a much bigger risk, but a 100% guarantee as long as you have Men. Honestly, I don't get how the game is far off from what you are requesting. Everything you're describing is pretty much already in the design in one form or another.

Regards,

- Erik

But they did have to pay for mustered soldiers in the war. It cost a lot to equip a brigade even if you count the weapons separately. You should have to pay for mustering and conscription. It's the regular production that makes no sense. What is that supposed to model? When a regiment was raised in the war it took a few days to a few weeks not months. They often marched directly to the front training along the way. Of course they wouldn't do well in combat as 1st Bull Run showed by they could be used in an emergency. Drop they mustering, make infantry production take 1 month, and add costs to conscription and you have a much better representation of the civil war.

[regularbird]

Erik, thanks for the explanation, I thought muster was trying to represent the activation of militia units. The only thing I have trouble with is why if you call for volunteers is there a penalty to the govenor and a potential to cause unrest. I understand that conscription would cause unrest but why does a call for volunteers.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: regularbird
Erik, thanks for the explanation, I thought muster was trying to represent the activation of militia units. The only thing I have trouble with is why if you call for volunteers is there a penalty to the govenor and a potential to cause unrest. I understand that conscription would cause unrest but why does a call for volunteers.

There is no potential for unrest with mustering, only with conscription and impressment. I assume the penalty to the governor may have to do with involving yourself in his state. If he supports mustering, there is no penalty. It's a minor penalty in any case.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: chris0827
But they did have to pay for mustered soldiers in the war. It cost a lot to equip a brigade even if you count the weapons separately. You should have to pay for mustering and conscription. It's the regular production that makes no sense. What is that supposed to model? When a regiment was raised in the war it took a few days to a few weeks not months. They often marched directly to the front training along the way. Of course they wouldn't do well in combat as 1st Bull Run showed by they could be used in an emergency. Drop they mustering, make infantry production take 1 month, and add costs to conscription and you have a much better representation of the civil war.

You do have to pay to arm them with more than improvised weapons and as soon as they are raised, you're paying supply costs each turn for food, clothing, ammo, etc. Mike thinks it should cost even less, you think it should cost more, let's say we have a compromise.

Regarding regular production, what I do is build a few manufacturing centers in my major cities. Once you get up to three, infantry is produced in one turn (two weeks). Conscription has a risk of unrest and otherwise has the same costs as muster, you need to arm and it's another unit added to your supply rolls. As far as I can tell, what you want is already in the game.

Regards,

- Erik

[regularbird]

Hmm, I could have sworn my musters have caused unrest. I may have imagined that one. If that is the case, I will double check, then it is not a huge issue, although I would do away with the govenor penalty.

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: chris0827
But they did have to pay for mustered soldiers in the war. It cost a lot to equip a brigade even if you count the weapons separately. You should have to pay for mustering and conscription. It's the regular production that makes no sense. What is that supposed to model? When a regiment was raised in the war it took a few days to a few weeks not months. They often marched directly to the front training along the way. Of course they wouldn't do well in combat as 1st Bull Run showed by they could be used in an emergency. Drop they mustering, make infantry production take 1 month, and add costs to conscription and you have a much better representation of the civil war.

You do have to pay to arm them with more than improvised weapons and as soon as they are raised, you're paying supply costs each turn for food, clothing, ammo, etc. Mike thinks it should cost even less, you think it should cost more, let's say we have a compromise.

Regarding regular production, what I do is build a few manufacturing centers in my major cities. Once you get up to three, infantry is produced in one turn (two weeks). Conscription has a risk of unrest and otherwise has the same costs as muster, you need to arm and it's another unit added to your supply rolls. As far as I can tell, what you want is already in the game.

Regards,

- Erik

It cost the same to equip a volunteer regiment as it did to equip a conscripted one. This is not in the game. Conscripts only cost manpower.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: chris0827
It cost the same to equip a volunteer regiment as it did to equip a conscripted one. This is not in the game. Conscripts only cost manpower.

I guess you can assume the Governor's footing the bill, hence the decrease in his attitude.

[regularbird]

Smoooooooth

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: chris0827
It cost the same to equip a volunteer regiment as it did to equip a conscripted one. This is not in the game. Conscripts only cost manpower.

I guess you can assume the Governor's footing the bill, hence the decrease in his attitude.

The state paid for the volunteers too.