Strength of both armies

[Queeg]

According to your historical figures, the North had roughly 1.75 times as many men under arms as the South on 1/1/1862. But as you correctly acknowledge, much of the North's manpower was diverted to the navy or to garrison or support troops who never made it to the battlefield. So the ratio reflected in the game, while admittedly imperfect, is closer to reality than I think you're giving it credit.

The geography issue I raised is merely the suggestion that the Southern forces currently are too heavily concentrated in the East.

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: Queeg

According to your historical figures, the North had roughly 1.75 times as many men under arms as the South on 1/1/1862. But as you correctly acknowledge, much of the North's manpower was diverted to the navy or to garrison or support troops who never made it to the battlefield. So the ratio reflected in the game, while admittedly imperfect, is closer to reality than I think you're giving it credit.

The geography issue I raised is merely the suggestion that the Southern forces currently are too heavily concentrated in the East.

The navy is not included in those numbers and garrisons are included in both ratios so tell me how 1.75 and 1.17 is close?

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: Queeg

According to your historical figures, the North had roughly 1.75 times as many men under arms as the South on 1/1/1862. But as you correctly acknowledge, much of the North's manpower was diverted to the navy or to garrison or support troops who never made it to the battlefield. So the ratio reflected in the game, while admittedly imperfect, is closer to reality than I think you're giving it credit.

The geography issue I raised is merely the suggestion that the Southern forces currently are too heavily concentrated in the East.

hehe, this was a related point I was making in regards to the disease-combat deathcanard that has been trotted out time and again.

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: chris0827

The navy is not included in those numbers and garrisons are included in both ratios so tell me how 1.75 and 1.17 is close?

Because, historically, the North garrisoned much more of its back areas than did the South. Witness the lack of any real garrison in New Orleans, the South's most important port. So the garrison ratios were never equal historically.

There is a second consideration related to game play. I'm reasonably certain that no one playing this game ever musters troops to provide garrison forces for backwater positions. If a unit exists in the game, odds are the player is going to use it. So giving the Union its full manpower advantage, without accounting for the fact that a big chunk of those troops never got to the front, simply gives the Union player an advantage Lincoln never had in real life.

Again, I agree the numbers can be tweaked. But the broader issue is more subtle than it first appears.

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: Queeg

ORIGINAL: chris0827

The navy is not included in those numbers and garrisons are included in both ratios so tell me how 1.75 and 1.17 is close?

Because, historically, the North garrisoned much more of its back areas than did the South. Witness the lack of any real garrison in New Orleans, the South's most important port. So the garrison ratios were never equal historically.

There is a second consideration related to game play. I'm reasonably certain that no one playing this game ever musters troops to provide garrison forces for backwater positions. If a unit exists in the game, odds are the player is going to use it. So giving the Union its full manpower advantage, without accounting for the fact that a big chunk of those troops never got to the front, simply gives the Union player an advantage Lincoln never had in real life.

Again, I agree the numbers can be tweaked. But the broader issue is more subtle than it first appears.

In november 1861 the north hadn't conquered anything to garrison.

[Erik Rutins]

The North did have a remarkable number of pre-war fortifications to garrison though, IIRC

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

The North did have a remarkable number of pre-war fortifications to garrison though, IIRC

As did the South. They had a huge coastline to garrison.

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: chris0827

In november 1861 the north hadn't conquered anything to garrison.

Chris:

Go look at the numbers of Union troops that were relegated to garrison duty in the Northern states themselves. Most of the big cities had permanent garrisons, particularly during the draft riots. Then there was the permanent garrison in the Washington fortifications. (Not to mention the large field army that was kept in place as a perpetual screen.) Then there was the frontier and the Indian territories (remember what happened to Pope?) and California. The North never brought the same percentage of its mobilized force to any battlefield as the did the South - never.

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: chris0827

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

The North did have a remarkable number of pre-war fortifications to garrison though, IIRC

As did the South. They had a huge coastline to garrison.

But the fact is they didn't garrison them for the most part. Not heavily. The North did not mount multiple invasions of the Confederate coast, not because the South had stout garrisons everywhere, but because of the logistical impossibility of supporting multiple invasions by sea - while trying to supply its initiatives elsewhere.

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: Queeg

ORIGINAL: chris0827

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

The North did have a remarkable number of pre-war fortifications to garrison though, IIRC

As did the South. They had a huge coastline to garrison.

But the fact is they didn't garrison them for the most part. Not heavily. The North did not mount multiple invasions of the Confederate coast, not because the South had stout garrisons everywhere, but because of the logistical impossibility of supporting multiple invasions by sea - while trying to supply its initiatives elsewhere.

What Civil War are you talking about? The North did mount multiple invasions of the confederate coast.

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: chris0827

What Civil War are you talking about? The North did mount multiple invasions of the confederate coast.

I meant as a main axis of attack. Outside of New Orleans, where? At least until very late in the war.

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: Queeg

ORIGINAL: chris0827

What Civil War are you talking about? The North did mount multiple invasions of the confederate coast.

I meant as a main axis of attack. Outside of New Orleans, where? At least until very late in the war.

McClellan's peninsula Campaign

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Queeg

ORIGINAL: chris0827

What Civil War are you talking about? The North did mount multiple invasions of the confederate coast.

I meant as a main axis of attack. Outside of New Orleans, where? At least until very late in the war.

With the exceptions of the Penninsula area and the New Orleans area, most of these landings were an "extension" of the "Anaconda" blockade...., designed to eleminate and/or isolate Southern ports.

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: chris0827

ORIGINAL: Queeg

ORIGINAL: chris0827

What Civil War are you talking about? The North did mount multiple invasions of the confederate coast.

I meant as a main axis of attack. Outside of New Orleans, where? At least until very late in the war.

McClellan's peninsula Campaign

I was in a hurry before and probably wasn't clear in my point. Yes, the Peninsular Campaign was an amphibious one, but it was essentially an indirect extension of the larger land battle with the main CSA army. Garrisons were peripheral.

My point, and I think the records back me up, is simply that the South never had an extensive system of garrisoning at the expense of its field army. It simply couldn't afford the luxury. The North, on the other hand, had a much higher proportion of its troops in garrisons or other support roles. So comparing army vs, army figures is a bit misleading.

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


With the exceptions of the Penninsula area and the New Orleans area, most of these landings were an "extension" of the "Anaconda" blockade...., designed to eleminate and/or isolate Southern ports.

Yes. Ports which, outside of NC, SC and Mobile, weren't especially well defended, at least in terms of ground troops.

[Twotribes]

The only draw back to your notice that the Union had larger garrisons is the inherient design decision to LIMIT the population to prevent the actual armies raised. One can not possibly raise the troop strengths listed for the North using the default populations provided.

[christof139]

The South had tens of thousands of troops in garrison defending their coastline, and if those troops could have been freed for use in the field in the interior, then things would have been much more difficult for the North.
 
Overall though, for the length of coastline the South had to defend the number of troops defending it was low.
 
Chris
 

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

The only draw back to your notice that the Union had larger garrisons is the inherient design decision to LIMIT the population to prevent the actual armies raised. One can not possibly raise the troop strengths listed for the North using the default populations provided.

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

[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?

[chris0827]

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?

How about using the number of men who fought in the war?