Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: chris0827

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

Well, actually, no it shouldn't end the argument, since AFAIK nobody has actuallya rgued anything in contradiction to what that table has shown.

Everyone knows lots of people died from disease. What we need to know is:

1. How many died from disease within combat units exclusively?
2. What was the rate of casualty?
3. What effected that rate?
4. What impact did death from disease have on the operational capabilitues of the armies in general?

Your link does not answer any of those questions.

"1. How many died from disease within combat units exclusively?"


Virtually all of them. The ACW took place before the "logistics tail" began to wag the "combat dog" in American Armies. Most logistical personel were hired civilians (wagon drivers and the like) and wouldn't be part of these figures.

How many wounded that died from disease/inection are included in thesenumbers?

ORIGINAL: regularbird
How many wounded that died from disease/infection are included in these numbers?

I don't know. As a general rule if a soldier entered a hospital with a wound, and later died, he would be listed with the "died of wounds" category (on the assumption that if he hadn't been wounded he wouldn't have had the infection that killed him?). But "hard and fast" rules of reporting such things weren't in place yet.

GQ,
 
Just look on Ebay for the CDs. The books, both Army and Navy OR will be over 100, and you cn get a complete set but a new set usually cost well over $1,000, and I can't remember if the US Governmnet printing office priints them or a private vendor. There was a recent, within the last 20 years or so give or take, republication of the complete OR. I have seen this on Ebay every now and then but rarely.
 
The Guild Press CD's for both the Army and Navy ORs is the way to go, as the other cheaper CD copy I have had problems with, but the chaeper copy also has the Southern historical Society paers/records and they are great, plus maps.
 
So just look on Ebay and the web and all this stuff will pop-up without any problem very quickly.
 
I don't know if you have the Atlas that is made to acconpany the OR, but it is great, and I have seen those on Ebay for about $20 sometimes!!!!!!!!!
 
Chris
 
Chris
 

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
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.

asking again... why do you need a 30+ coverage? only 1 per area is needed as per the manual, or?

the atlas is great to have, but what i really like to see is that some of the frequent posters on this forum got an electronic copy (should be about 80 USD) of the Official Record and started to read battle reports, letters between commanders, government stuff etc... btw; I can tell that it is fun to read through the three volumes that concern the battle of Gettysburg as it is likewise fun to search and read all about your favourite regiment or officer.

cheers,
/twinkle

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

"1. How many died from disease within combat units exclusively?"


Virtually all of them. The ACW took place before the "logistics tail" began to wag the "combat dog" in American Armies. Most logistical personel were hired civilians (wagon drivers and the like) and wouldn't be part of these figures.

Well, certainly the logistical tail was nothing like the 10:1 ratio of WW2, but I doubt it was naything close to the 0:1 ratio you seem to be proposing, and it doesn't even address my main point - the game only shows us the "important" combat units. It does not include losses from disease outside of them, while the official histories do not distinguish - so using official historical claimed ratios is misleading. We simply do not have a great idea what the right number within combat units should be - certainly more than none, but how much?

And more importantly, how *important* was it to the relative strengths of the combatants? Even if the absolute numbers are right, that doesn't mean that the gameplay impact is correct, or worth the trouble of simulating.

Hey, if nothing else, you could avoid the complaints about army sizes not being right by saying that the difference is the abstracted representation of those who are not capable of fighting at any given time...

Another point about disease - the oft sited mantra of "disease killed more men than died in battle..." kind of misses the fact that many of the people who were casulaties in battle where not killed, but just as good as dead as far as the military is concerned.

I assume that when I see "USA Soldiers killed: 8,765" in the battle report, that isn't *really* that many dead - it is that many casualties, to include wounded, killed, and captured. This must be so since the number of men available before the battle minus the number killed seem to be about the number available afterwards...surely they were not ALL killed.

They all died because of bad food, lousy rations. [&:]
 
Chris

You can get a cheaper copy, not a Guild Press Copy, of the OR and the Southern Historical Papers etc. (and this also includes Fox's regimental Losses I do believe) for $20-$25 or so on Ebay. Problem is I had trouble with the OR but it worked, and the SHS stuff also worked OK, but that was on Win98, and I haven't tied either yet on WinXP.

I have frewuently gotten lost in the CD verison of the OR, but I always find my way out again. It is easy to menader.

Chris

ORIGINAL: Twinkle
asking again... why do you need a 30+ coverage? only 1 per area is needed as per the manual, or?

You don't for reducing disease - but additional hospital coverage helps with increasing disposition. Disease reduction depends on having a hospital in the same province you're in and on keeping your troops dispersed a bit more until you need to use them.

Regards,

- Erik

Are hospitals effects Cumulative for Disease reduction in the province? Ex, 2 hospitals reduce disease by 75% [1-(50%*50%)], 3 would be 87.5% [1-(50%*50%*50%)]

Balto,

Yes, I believe that's how it works. Disease itself still has a wide range of casualty possibilities too though, so while multiple hospitals will help a lot of you "roll low" as well, you can still take a decent hit. Also, eventually you will end up with an army in the field away from hospitals and that's when it really hurts, but the player can do a lot to minimize disease casualties in garrison situations through deployment, buildings, research and even unit attributes.

Regards,

- Erik

I haven't read this whole thread, because busy, but here are the rule changes to disease we are testing in beta right now:

83) CHANGE V1.2.7: A brigade with a Medical Attribute now lowers disease losses by 20% for all units directly attached to the same military group or fort; brigades with two Medical Attributes lower disease losses by 40%.  This supercedes the old rule under which the Medical Attribute reduced disease losses by 50% only for the brigade with the attribute.

105) CHANGE V1.3.0: Strategic supply now reduces losses from disease; every level of strategic supply reduces base disease casualties by 5%.  Units at zero strategic supply, however, take 50% more casualties from disease.

105a) Disease casualties penalty from swamps increased from 10% to 25%.

105b) Base disease casualties reduced from a Gaussian distribution around 15% to a Gaussian distribution around 11%.

The changes, then, will tend to reduce disease casualties and give players more control in managing them, except for units out-of-supply and in-swamps, which may suffer casualties at 175% the current levels in the absolute worst situations.

Sounds interesting eric! Great to see the response to users issues!

Cool and Thanks.

So if you have one brigade with 2 Med attibutes.., it can help the whole Army lower disease by 40% if it is an Army, or likewise, the whole Corp if it is in a Corp?

Thanks again for all of the input.

Hi, Mike

"1. How many died from disease within combat units exclusively?"


Virtually all of them. The ACW took place before the "logistics tail" began to wag the "combat dog" in American Armies. Most logistical personel were hired civilians (wagon drivers and the like) and wouldn't be part of these figures.
----------------

There were a lot of troops detailed from regimants to man the supply lines and ligistics centers. A lot of them acted as stevadors manhandling the supplies, loading and unloading them. Thousands were assigned such temporary duties.

Chris

Has anything been done about the inability of infrastructure to help in adjacent enemy controlled provinces?

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Balto,

Yes, I believe that's how it works. Disease itself still has a wide range of casualty possibilities too though, so while multiple hospitals will help a lot of you "roll low" as well, you can still take a decent hit. Also, eventually you will end up with an army in the field away from hospitals and that's when it really hurts, but the player can do a lot to minimize disease casualties in garrison situations through deployment, buildings, research and even unit attributes.

Regards,

- Erik

you just replied to me saying that only 1 are needed for reducing disease losses, and now you tell Balto that the effect is cumulative and I find nothing saying that in the manual. ???