Volunteer Pay Decision Chart

[Q-Ball]

This is the payoff for each of the Volunteer pay decisions. The results were very interesting. Not sure if it's identical or not for the whole game, but this is the 1861 June result, which should be pretty consistent.

Note that when you are paying $1.50 for 250 conscripts as the South, you are actually paying a total of $375 in order to get 130 MORE conscripts than you would if you had paid NOTHING. So, the important number is the extra cash you are paying for the incremental number of conscripts.


From this chart, it becomes apparent that $1.00 is a bad deal. For both sides, you are paying a very high premium for just a few more conscripts. For the South, $150 for 30 conscripts, and the Union is paying $320 for just 50 guys, which is even worse.

The other two options, you are clearly trading cash for conscripts. My gut tells me the South should never go over $1.50, and probably should select "FREE" sometimes, depending on your money situation. There isn't a big win for $2 option on either side, so it's simply a matter of how much cash you have vs. what you need.

TAKEAWAYS:
1. Don't ever pick $1
2. If CASH is a limitation for you, don't ever pay a premium; you get a cadre of conscripts FREE anyway.
3. Understand the total amount you will be paying out, and make sure you have that amount ON HAND (otherwise, you will really be wasting your money, because you'll pay $2 only up to the amount of money you have; that may be throwing it away)

[Jim D Burns]

They need a tooltip that tells players what they get for each level chosen before they commit to spending money. I can’t imagine the $1.00 level was intentional so perhaps they’ll change it. Personally I think the cost per recruit should go up the more conscripts you gain as it’s harder to convince more people to join when you try and pull in big numbers of men. This chart goes against logic, fewer men should not cost more per conscript, it simply makes no sense that the $1.00 level is so expensive.

Jim

[Ol Choctaw]

There is a chance element to it also. I think the numbers are variable to a degree. There is no tool tip on most of the decisions. Not everyone looks under the hood or analyzes the percentages of a positive outcome.

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Ol Choctaw

There is a chance element to it also. I think the numbers are variable to a degree. There is no tool tip on most of the decisions. Not everyone looks under the hood or analyzes the percentages of a positive outcome.

If there is a chance element, it would be helpful if players report their 1861 conscipt hauls here. If there is no variability, then the numbers should match my chart.

To answer Jim's comment, I don't disagree that the $1 level doesn't make sense. It would make sense for the Rebs to get, for example, 180 for that decision instead of 150. Union should get around 400 or so. Those amounts align better with the extra costs.

[Aurelian]

Doesn't NM play a role in how much you get paying for volunteers?

[Ace1_slith]

For all choices besides 2$ bounty there is a roll against your NM whether your conscript call will succeed or not. If the roll fails, you will receive less conscripts, and if it succeeds you will get more.

I am also pro favor of explaining it better in a tooltip, but the devs felt historically neither US nor CSA knew exactly what will be their conscript turnout and opted on a tooltip not telling you exact conscript turnout.
I have to say their reasoning is ok, although I am a player that needs to know everything and would feel better if I knew all the outcomes and probabilities prior to decision.

About, other point - high $/conscript cost for low bounty
I also commented that the higher bounty money should create more expensive extra conscripts. But, other players had the view that many people historically volunteered regardless of the bounty size. And lowest possible pay would not necessarily yield much more conscripts. It would take an extra more money to bring those conscripts that were generally unwilling to volunteer for free in the first place. Here, I also have to say there is valid reasoning in this thinking.

[Jim D Burns]

I think you may be miss-reading his chart. He gives the cost per conscript over and above the free (those who join up no matter what) conscripts.

Jim

[Ace1_slith]

No, I red it correct. I was just saying that some players stated that small bounty was historically unlikely to generate great interest. The outcome is, small bounty is not so good decision as it is shown in the chart. I am all in favor of balancing the cc output so the decisions are more or less equal in quality.

[Ol Choctaw]

I understand the diminishing returns they’ve put in. The small bounty is not enough to risk life and limb, while the large bounty encourages bounty jumpers. Something that was a problem at the time. Seeing the best returns on the mid level makes sense.

[veji1]

I understand why some players want to have tables, and tooltips etc, but I sort of dislike it. Part of the fun of the game is that the engine stays under the hood, and you have to actually drive the car to get to know it, not play mechanic to understand exactly how it works...