Page 2 of 2
RE: Strength of the Union army
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 3:00 am
by Alex Gilbert
Well, without passing judgement on whether it is a good or bad idea, I can see some logic in the argument that soldiers fighting in an unpopular war will fight with less enthusiasm and tend to break sooner. I agree with you that if I were asked to come up with a term for this, "disposition" would fit better than "quality", but I think we have to consider how these terms are defined in this game.
Whatever it is called, I think that national will would affect the soldiers' willingness to stand toe to toe with the enemy, and that this is something that only victory in battle or training will change. I think that it should not be a transient attribute that will improve with rest and the proximity of medical care (hospitals). It just happens that in this game the first of these is termed quality, and the second is termed disposition.
Long winded, but hopefully that made sense.
Alex
RE: Strength of the Union army
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 3:21 am
by regularbird
Makes good sense and I guess I can see the logic. In short you are saying "who the heck wants to die for an unpopular war?" OK, I can definately buy that. Alex you should get a job explaining things to boneheads like me, your pretty good.
RE: Strength of the Union army
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:05 am
by Alex Gilbert
Many thanks. Perhaps I could get you to buy some life insurance now.......
RE: Strength of the Union army
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:42 am
by regularbird
LOL.........We shall see.
RE: Strength of the Union army
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 11:37 am
by Gresbeck
ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
Actually, I can get up to about 350k by that time.
Regards,
- Erik
Probably a dumb question. But how many brigades do you mean you have for 350K troops (I suppose you don't consider each brigade as 3k men)?
RE: Strength of the Union army
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 12:58 pm
by Erik Rutins
For the 350k, it was less than 3k per brigade, since they had taken disease and march attrition by then. If all brigades were full strength at that point I probably would have had about 450k, if I recall correctly. So probably equivalent to 150 brigades, though some were artillery/siege artillery/cavalry brigades. I'm not sure if I had gotten Extended Service yet as an upgrade, but I don't think so. I got two Extended Service upgrades within the next year, as I recall and together with an increased camps program, more musters and a new unit production program that allowed me to grow over 500k effectives.
Regards,
- Erik
RE: Strength of the Union army
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 2:01 pm
by Gresbeck
[&o] I thought it was impossible to get 150 brigades in such a time... I thought you hadn't enough time, even if you could manage resources perfectly. Was the game set to reflect the historical situation, as you posted in another thread, or did you use the default settings?
RE: Strength of the Union army
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 2:18 pm
by Erik Rutins
No, this was with the historical test settings, so Union was at +3 Power, Richer Economy, Population Modifiers Off, etc. Nevertheless, it's possible with the in-game settings. I mustered like crazy and did some conscription and production in the larger cities when musters there became inefficient, to make sure I was getting the most I could. I don't think I reached the full number until the new Spring 1862 manpower increase arrived though, but I think with more conscription I probably could have, but I didn't want to risk that level of unrest.
Regards,
- Erik