Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Artmiser

The reason you have to be carefull with the north is because with competent leadership the north would have won the civil war in 43.  When you hand a wargamer the reigns of the norths manufacutring and population he will use those to hammer the south flat.  Then you dont have much of a game, They put those hard and fast limits on the north to represent the reasons the north didnt do historicly what a wargamer can do today.

Example after the harvest season of 1862 the state of illinoise contributed 125 Infantry Regiments, 16 Cavalry, and 35 Artillery batteries.

Give me that kind of production potential in this game and I would own any southern player in the world, including God if he was interested in playing.

Those Illinois numbers are what they raised for the whole war, not 1862.

Phelps' Brigade was I do believe the Eastern Iron Brigade, and Phelp's Brigade was never composed of the 5 Regiments that composed the better known Western Iron Brigade, or Gibbon's, Meredith's etc. Brigade.

At Antietam, the Western Iron Brigade, then composed of only 4 Regiments without the latter arriving 24th Michigan, was, without looking in the few Antietam books lying at my feet, the 4th Brigade of the 1st Division (Doubleday) of Hooker's I Corps. At Gettysburg, the Western Iron Brigade now including the 24th Michigan, was the 1st Brigade, 1st Division, I Corps, of the Army of the Potomac, and was given that position as a mark of honor and respect.

Brigades were frequently moved around in nymerical sequence within a Division and also when transfered to anothe Division, and the brigade Staff went wwith the Brigade wherever it was assigned within the Army. There were not permanet Brigade Staffs attached to a brigade slot within a Division of an Army. When the Brigade ws reassigned the Brigade Staff was reassigned with their Brigade. The Brigade Staff was composed of officers and enlisted personnel from the Regiments and other subunits within that Brigade, although rarely Brigade Staff members could be reassigned, either and usually temporarily and more rarely, to other duties and units by a higher HQ.

The Brigade was a flexible organizational asset, and when a Brigade was moved within a Division or reassigned to another Division, it did not carry its numerical designation with it. Hence, the Western Iron Brigade at Antietam, the 4th Bde., 1st Div., I Corps, became the 1st Bde., 1st Div., I Coprs by the time of Gettysburg.

I believe Phelps' Brigade was the 2nd Brigade, 1st Div. I Corpr at Gettysburg and was comanded by Cutler maybe, off-the-top-of-my-head, could be different though, would have to check.

Chris

Your Union example shows two different brigades. Every union corps had a 1st brigade. Brigades would be renamed if they switched corps.

Every Union Division had a 1st Brigade, and every Union Corps had a First Division. Thus, a Union Corps had more than one 1st Brigade.

Chris

The Union did not have an official policy of not reinforcing existing regiments and other units with replacements, because they were reinforced, and sometimes in substantial numbers. It is not known why many Regiments were left to 'die on the vine' due to lack of continuing substantial replacements. Something that will never be known, but perhaps it may have to do with what State the Regiment came from, because some States like Michigan and Rhode island etc. did send many replacemnts to exisiting units, but not always, while other States didn't. jat a stupid and inefficient oddity.

Chris

Given the discussion, perhaps there is a case for maintaining a home state detail for every unit and only allowing camps to contribute men to units from their home state. At this point you could also count every 500 men as 0.5 population points. 2000 is a starting brigade at 2 population, in addition I would agree that replacements should also cost guns.
I would also suggest that when a unit is removed for being below strength that whatever strength remained should be treated as "free" replacements at the end of the turn, or they should be immediately merged into the next lowest size unit in the army and the morale levels averaged. As things stand without manpower costs I tend to regard camps as soaking up all the straglers and wounded who are coming back into action. If this is no longer the case then some effect would need to be added so that a percentage of pursuit losses and a percent of combat losses return to the camps automatically over time. Say a third of whatever the temporary losses are return to the general replacement pool every turn to represent men recovering from illness or straggling in behind the army.
To detail army A fights a battle and loses, 6000 men are lost in the fight a third of these are "light wounds" that will later return to active service (the other 2/3rds are KIA or invalided out for good.) 2000 added to the temporary losses pool. After the battle a further 9000 are dispersed or left straggling in the retreat. One third of these are regarded as captured or killed and 2/3rd will again join the pool. The pool is now 8000 strong. The following turn the army is then hit by disease and loses a further 6000 men of these only 1/3rd die (33% mortality rate is pretty high for any disease but it only includes those so affected as to be unfit for service.) 4000 more are added to the pool which is now 10,000 men. Provided no other factors come into play the player will recieve 3333 "free" replacements next turn. the other 6667 will remain in the pool. Note these replacements will come in at the lowered replacement morale level and this could be regarded as modelling the fact that they may be still suffering from the after effects of illness, exhaustion etc.
How does that sound people?

Also I think the level of losses to men from within the union ranks should affect governor attitude. The affect of all those voters who have lost sons and husbands or seen them returned maimed and broken.
Not the same for the south they were defending home, and that is modeled by the affect of pillaging.
BTW don't think the South should be able to pillage, they have raiders and partisans to do the same affect and had they attempted to it would I think have been more likely to have a Pearl harbour affect and harden Union resolve.

ORIGINAL: christof139

Your Union example shows two different brigades. Every union corps had a 1st brigade. Brigades would be renamed if they switched corps.

Every Union Division had a 1st Brigade, and every Union Corps had a First Division. Thus, a Union Corps had more than one 1st Brigade.

Chris

Correct. I mistakenly wrote corps instead of division.

ORIGINAL: chris0827

ORIGINAL: Artmiser

The reason you have to be carefull with the north is because with competent leadership the north would have won the civil war in 43.  When you hand a wargamer the reigns of the norths manufacutring and population he will use those to hammer the south flat.  Then you dont have much of a game, They put those hard and fast limits on the north to represent the reasons the north didnt do historicly what a wargamer can do today.

Example after the harvest season of 1862 the state of illinoise contributed 125 Infantry Regiments, 16 Cavalry, and 35 Artillery batteries.

Give me that kind of production potential in this game and I would own any southern player in the world, including God if he was interested in playing.

Those Illinois numbers are what they raised for the whole war, not 1862.

Actually I was wrong, regiments 7-12 were 3 monthers, and the 131st regiments was the last one formed in Nov 1862. So that would be 119 regiments and the 15th Regiment Cavalry was formed in Dec 1862, and ill stand by the artillary numbers. Now some of those Infantry regiments were formed in 1861, about 25 of em. Total numbers for the entire war was 256,000 or there about.

That did burn up most of the young men willing to fight, only another 25 infantry regiments were formed during the rest of the war.

And I guess I was a little hard corp on the camp issue but the majority of the north didnt reinforce its regiments, prefering to form new ones. And look at the way the south was set up, the same regiments were there, under the same leadership.

I can just remember in allot of my readings how it was difficult at time to determine the union strength based on unit flags because there size varied so widely due to the unions dislike of reinforceing excisting regiments.

Illinois formed 32 artillery batteries
17 in 1861, 13 in 1862, 2 in 1863
 
Illinois formed 17 cavalry regiments
11 in 1861, 2 in 1862, 3 in 1863, 1 in 1864
 
Illinois formed 131 infantry regiments that served longer than 100 days,
60 in 1861, 59 in 1862, 2 in 1864, 10 in 1865
 
Where did all of those men called up in 1863-1865 go? Not to a lot of new regiments.
 
From Regimental Losses in the American Civil War by William F. Fox.

Im not going back and forth on this anymore its taking up way to much of my time. However feel free to check the Tareton University web sight where I snagged this.

On the division level, a Confederate division could be larger than its' Union counterpart.
The reason for this was a better organizational development on the part of the Confederates who would fill existing regiments with new recruits rather than creating new ones as the Union frequently did when attrition occurred. In the Confederate armies major generals commanded divisions, for the most part. In the Union armies a brigadier general could command a division.

Thats from people who have allot more time to stare are rosters then I do, feel free to argue with them.

By August of 1861, Illinois had enrolled men in the 7th through 55th Infantry Regiments. Some men had difficulting getting into Illinois Regiments and joined Regiments from other states. By the end of August 1862, Regiment Numbers through 116 had been or were forming. Just one month later, the number was up to the 129th.

By late November 1862, after the harvest season, Illinois had 125 Infantry Regiments, 16 Cavalry, and 30 Artillery batteries. The total was 20,000 men in excess of the Union's requested quota for the State of Illinois

http://www.illinoiscivilwar.org/units_num.html

Part of the reason my numbers were off in the last post when I double checked the regiments formed out of order so it through me off.

Also from what I could find, and its not easy, one regiment of 1000 men recived 157 replacements during its 3 year enlistment.

And lets not forget how the Iron brigade got smaller and smaller and smaller as time went on.

Confederate regiments strenghts fluctuated allot, from what I coud find, but from the regiments that I could find they went through about 1500 or more replacments to there 1k men

And all this from me saying that the union should not get as many camps as the south, and you know what Im right.

From Oct 17th 1863 to Dec 19th 1864 the federal government made five calls for troops to serve for 3 years except for the last call which was 1 year. Illinois provided 97,662 men in those calls. They formed 18 formations during this same time period. These formations would require less than 17,000 troops leaving over 80,000. Where do you think these troops went? Are you still going to say the Union didn't reinforce existing regiments? More than 80% went to existing regiments.

And all this from me saying that the union should not get as many camps as the south, and you know what Im right.

 
You're right. The union shouldn't get as many camps as the South. The Union should get more.

Perhaps the Union should get less camps, but it should also have the resources to build many more units, and the camps of both sides should cost manpower and gun resources.

Nah let me and Chris argue

Anyway of those 97k men how many ended up not forming untill 1862, how many ended up in supply/support positions.  I never argue that the north cant out recruit the south, I just dont think it should be via camps.   Id rather the north Get free brigades during certain times of the years, or more multi manufacturing centers.   Though others have aruged against the  manufacturing centers because of local area impacts.

Also Chris answer  your own question if you dont like my answer.  Where did those 80k men go.  I have aruged my point well I think, instead of making me do your research why dont you tell me where they went.

On a side note have you also noticed the low casualties in a regiment due to disease, anyware from 7 to 15 percent in those that I studied for the north.  Nothing like in game and that neets some tweaking.


Edit note. I admit I used guys with PHD's to help me argue but I take what I can get.

Although the way the game is written im not sure if that is possible, historical asside im not sure the in game north could survive without allot of camps.  Since its not regiment level there is no way to swap regiments in and out of formations as the north did to keep a unit up to strength.

ORIGINAL: Artmiser

Nah let me and Chris argue

Anyway of those 97k men how many ended up not forming untill 1862, how many ended up in supply/support positions.  I never argue that the north cant out recruit the south, I just dont think it should be via camps.   Id rather the north Get free brigades during certain times of the years, or more multi manufacturing centers.   Though others have aruged against the  manufacturing centers because of local area impacts.

Also Chris answer  your own question if you dont like my answer.  Where did those 80k men go.  I have aruged my point well I think, instead of making me do your research why dont you tell me where they went.

On a side note have you also noticed the low casualties in a regiment due to disease, anyware from 7 to 15 percent in those that I studied for the north.  Nothing like in game and that neets some tweaking.


Edit note. I admit I used guys with PHD's to help me argue but I take what I can get.

The 80,000 men went to existing regiments as I said. Why do you refuse to believe it? What research have you done? My numbers have come from well respected civil war historians. You have shown nothing that proves your point.

From Oct 1863 to the end of the war Connecticut raised 27,800 men for service of 9 months or longer. In that time period they only raised 1 regiment and 1 battery. 1200 men at most. That's another 26,600 men going to existing regiments.

so you say, I say they went to support and supply units. 


Ok maybe you didnt read this before

Division:
The second largest unit of the army.In theory, the division consisted of several brigades and sometimes battalions. The division was a unit 11 to 13 thousand men strong By mid-war few
divisions on either side had this many soldiers. A rare case was A.P. Hill's "Light Division",
which had at one point, 7 brigades or about 17 thousand soldiers. The "Light Division" was not
named so because it was light on soldiers as was the case with the famed British "Light Brigade".
On the division level, a Confederate division could be larger than its' Union counterpart.
The reason for this was a better organizational development on the part of the Confederates who would fill existing regiments with new recruits rather than creating new ones as the Union frequently did when attrition occurred. In the Confederate armies major generals commanded divisions, for the most part. In the Union armies a brigadier general could command a division

http://members.aol.com/awill84810/militaryterms.htm

I dont think I ever said the union didnt reinforce at all, The best I could find in illinoice was 157 men in a regiment of 1000.
After a certain point in attrition casualties the union didnt reinforce the regiment the confederacy did.
You do know about that unit called the Iron brigade? The regiments that composed that brigade and gave it its reputation got smaller and smaller.

From the Iron brigades webiste
In the union army, a group of four regiments, and a brigade general and his staff composed a Brigade.  The general in charge of a brigade was given one star and called a "Brigadier General".  Rufus King's Brigade, which was to become the Iron Brigad, started with the 2nd WI, 5th WI, 6th WI and 19th IN.  By the time the 7th Wisconsin showed up in Washington on October 1st, 1861 the 5th Wisconsin had already been re-assigned and the 7th admitted.  As time went on, and losses were taken, more regiments may have been added to attempt to bring a brigade back up to strength.  The 24th Michigan Regiment of Volunteers was added to the Iron Brigade for this reason.  The sad truth is, that after losses from illness and battle, most brigades could only field half as many men as they had on paper.  With new officers forming units back home and claiming new volunteers, few replacements made their way to existing regiments, and their numbers only dwindled.

http://www.ironbrigade.net/



Ok Chris I have showed you some of my research now let me see some of yours, with links if you would be so kind.

The armies of the civil war did not have supply units like armies do today . Supplies were moved by civilians and troops detached fom combat units. You have repeatedly said the Union had a policy of not reinforcing regiments and have offered no proof to support it. Since you brought up the Iron brigade I'll give some of it's numbers. The Iron Brigade consisted of the 2nd, 6th, and 7th wisconsin, the 19th indiana, and the 24th michigan. The 7th indiana was added for a few months in 1864 and a sharpshooter battalion in the fall of 1863. The brigade was not broken up just because of battle losses. It was broken up because the enlistments ran out in three of it's regiments in june and august of 1864. 1203 men served in the 2nd wis, 1940 in the 6th wis, 1630 in the 7th wis, and 1246 in the 19th ind. Those 4 regiments contained 4284 men when mustered in and 1735 men joined during the war.