Matrix Games Forums

At least 35 union regiments had more than 2,000 men serving in them during the war. 14 of those had more than 2500. The highest I could find was the 1st Maine cavalry with 2,895; The 28th Pennsylvania Infantry with 2665 men, and the 9th New York Heavy Artillery with 3227 men. So much for the myth that the union didn't reinforce.

ORIGINAL: christof139

****Here's a tidbit that could be worked into the game. Both North and South recruited in and encouraged immigration from Europe etc. It's estimated that maybe 200,000 - 250,000 European recruits (may be off a bit here as it has been a long time since I read this), mainly Irish, German, Scottish, British, and Slavic were recuited into the Northern military, and maybe 80,000 into the Southern. So, as one or the other's influence with European powers increase or decrease in the game, perhaps a little tweak, a bonus of a given number of reinforcements per turn could be given. Just take a simple average of the approximate number of foreigners that were recruited and served in each sides' military, then divide it by the number of turns in a full game to give an approximate number for this influx to both sides of European manpower. Plain and simple.

Interesting idea, Christof.

ORIGINAL: chris0827

At least 35 union regiments had more than 2,000 men serving in them during the war. 14 of those had more than 2500. The highest I could find was the 1st Maine cavalry with 2,895; The 28th Pennsylvania Infantry with 2665 men, and the 9th New York Heavy Artillery with 3227 men. So much for the myth that the union didn't reinforce.

Dammit IE just crashed and took a very long post with it.

Here is now the short of it.

Since you singled it out the 28th Penn Goldstream Regt was formed in June 1861 by John Geary, it was one of those privately formed regiments. They were issued Enfield rifles with Sword bayonets and were orignal issued a grey uniform, quickly changed to blue. The Regt formed was formed with 3 year enlistments and was composed of 15 companies, numbering 1551 men. Also enough men left over to form Knaps Battery.

The Regiment mustered out in Aug of 1865. This means that a good many of those men left after 3 years and your total of 2665 men inclused those added to the Regt after it reformed.

Now if you want large regiments look at the ones Grant pulled from the washington garrison during the Wilderness campaign in 1864. Also while your there look at the number of regiments that were forming the brigades of grant. There are Brigades with over 10 regiments in them. Small undersized union regiments that were getting toward the ends of there enlistments and were poorly reinfoced heh had to add that.

My info on the 28th Penn Regt obtained from

http://www.pa-roots.com/~pacw/infantry/ ... thorg.html

ORIGINAL: Artmiser

ORIGINAL: chris0827

At least 35 union regiments had more than 2,000 men serving in them during the war. 14 of those had more than 2500. The highest I could find was the 1st Maine cavalry with 2,895; The 28th Pennsylvania Infantry with 2665 men, and the 9th New York Heavy Artillery with 3227 men. So much for the myth that the union didn't reinforce.

Dammit IE just crashed and took a very long post with it.

Here is now the short of it.

Since you singled it out the 28th Penn Goldstream Regt was formed in June 1861 by John Geary, it was one of those privately formed regiments. They were issued Enfield rifles with Sword bayonets and were orignal issued a grey uniform, quickly changed to blue. The Regt formed was formed with 3 year enlistments and was composed of 15 companies, numbering 1551 men. Also enough men left over to form Knaps Battery.

The Regiment mustered out in Aug of 1865. This means that a good many of those men left after 3 years and your total of 2665 men inclused those added to the Regt after it reformed.

Now if you want large regiments look at the ones Grant pulled from the washington garrison during the Wilderness campaign in 1864. Also while your there look at the number of regiments that were forming the brigades of grant. There are Brigades with over 10 regiments in them. Small undersized union regiments that were getting toward the ends of there enlistments and were poorly reinfoced heh had to add that.

My info on the 28th Penn Regt obtained from

http://www.pa-roots.com/~pacw/infantry/ ... thorg.html

What's your point? The 28th penn still received over 1100 reinforcements during the war.
The regiment was not reformed. The original 3 year men went on furlough after they reenlisted while the rest of the regiment stayed on duty in Tennessee. I'm looking at the organization of the Army of the Potomac on dec 31st, 1864. I see one brigade with 10 regiments. I also see a confederate brigade with 10 regiments and another with 13 regiments. The Army of Northern Virgina has more regiments than the Army of the Potomac at this time despite having 30,000 fewer troops. Where are their reinforcements?

Actually the heavy artillery had 150 man companies with 3 battalions of 4 companies each.

Yup, you're right, I reversed my digits, and they HA Companies did have more men in them.

Chris

What's your point? The 28th penn still received over 1100 reinforcements during the war.
The regiment was not reformed. The original 3 year men went on furlough after they reenlisted while the rest of the regiment stayed on duty in Tennessee. I'm looking at the organization of the Army of the Potomac on dec 31st, 1864. I see one brigade with 10 regiments. I also see a confederate brigade with 10 regiments and another with 13 regiments. The Army of Northern Virgina has more regiments than the Army of the Potomac at this time despite having 30,000 fewer troops. Where are their reinforcements?

Plus, the average strength of Union Rets. in the east was higher than that of the Confeds. in 1864, due to all these factors an the fact that the Confeds.' manpower pool was drying-up.

Chris

yes it was in 1864, not to mention the loss of some states.

yes it was in 1864, not to mention the loss of some states.

In the West, one Sherman started his 1864 campaign, the average strength of an USA Inf. Regt. was only 305 men in his 3 Armies, and I don't remember what the average strength was in the CSA AoT, but I think it is in Livermore, and I haven't delved heavily into Phisiter yet, and probably will do so gradually, but there are differences in figures and data used. between Phisiter, Livermore and Fox etc., and that just figures. [8|][;)]

Chris

Im trying to figure out what you were saying in regards to the 28th. What furlough? reading the very detailed account of the regt I dont see anythign about it, which is typical of regimental histories. I do know that if 28th reenlistments was average for the northern 3 year units that would be around 30%. And 30% of 1552 is 450, plus 1100 brings it back to Strength. The Regt was never more over Str then it originally was, and the 1100 is the number of men it took to bring it back up after most of the orignal discharged.

Contradictory information regarding the civil war is something you have to get used to.  The bias of the researcher factors in, they can scew there research numbers to show what they want to show.  I was in combat, and the histories of the battles I was in are so screwed up its not funny and thats today.   I imagine how things were back then the only thing you could count on is yes the North did win, and yes Lee and Grant were generals.
 
No not quite that bad but always keep that in mind when reading said researchers data.   And the information they are using is from reports that were made by people with, in many cases, there own agendas.  Sounds familiar doesnt it?    You can read newspapers from back then for some information but keep in mind we know how reporters always tell the truth.
 
Always keep that in mind.  Think like Sherman, you will not be far from the truth.

Contradictory information regarding the civil war is something you have to get used to. The bias of the researcher factors in, they can scew there research numbers to show what they want to show. I was in combat, and the histories of the battles I was in are so screwed up its not funny and thats today. I imagine how things were back then the only thing you could count on is yes the North did win, and yes Lee and Grant were generals.

No not quite that bad but always keep that in mind when reading said researchers data. And the information they are using is from reports that were made by people with, in many cases, there own agendas. Sounds familiar doesnt it? You can read newspapers from back then for some information but keep in mind we know how reporters always tell the truth.

Always keep that in mind. Think like Sherman, you will not be far from the truth.

I know. This applies to many things and situations, not just the ACW.

I was in an ACW reenactment unit in about 1969 or 1970, just before I went in the US Army, Infantry. Bow-wow. Line-doggies.

Never underestimate your enemy. Think as your enemy thinks. Put yourself in the other guy's shoes. Never assume ANYTHING. Blah, blah, blah.

AAA-0, Anything, Anytime, Anywhere, Bar None! 39th Infantry Regiment, Paddy's Gang, WWI = part of the 4th ID Poison Ivy, WWII = 9th ID the Old Reliables, Vietnam Era = 9th ID and 8th ID, Today = 2nd Bn/39th IR at Fort Jackson, SC.

ORIGINAL: Artmiser

Im trying to figure out what you were saying in regards to the 28th. What furlough? reading the very detailed account of the regt I dont see anythign about it, which is typical of regimental histories. I do know that if 28th reenlistments was average for the northern 3 year units that would be around 30%. And 30% of 1552 is 450, plus 1100 brings it back to Strength. The Regt was never more over Str then it originally was, and the 1100 is the number of men it took to bring it back up after most of the orignal discharged.

The furlough is mentioned on the website that you linked.

Actually is Said this.
 
The campaign ended, the division went into winter quarters at Bridgeport. In December the Twenty-eighth, with many other regiments, re-enlisted for three more years, and soon aftertook their departure, on veteran furlough, for their distant homes. Upon the expiration of this time the command again concentrated at Bridgeport, whence it proceeded on that long and toilsome march and unparalleled career of military brilliancy which terminated only with the overthrow of the rebel army and annihilation of the Southern Confederacy.
 
On the 18th of March, 1864, Colonel Ahl resigned and was mustered out of the service, and on the following day Lieutenant Colonel John Flynn was commissioned Colonel.
 
Does not really say how many reenlisted.
 
During the four years' service of the Twenty-eighth Regiment, its casualties were about equal to the number of its original muster and, although in its organized condition it served in twelve different States of the Union, and was engaged in as many skirmishes and battles as any regiment in the United States army, it never lost a single wagon or ambulance or any other description of property, by allowing it to fall into the hands of the enemy. The officers were frequently changed in consequence of deaths, resignations and promotions, the regiment having had four Colonels, four Lieutenant Colonels and nine Majors. It also produced one Major General and three Brigadiers; viz: �Hector Tyndale, Ario Pardee, Jr, and John Flynn.
The members of the regiment who remained at the end of the war were mustered out of the service on the 18th of July, 1865, and were heartily welcomed home, their privations, sufferings, labors and gallant services having endeared them in the warmest affections of the highly gratified and truly grateful loyal people of the country. Their soiled, torn and tattered flags, carried triumphantly through so many bloody battle-fields, attesting the unfailing courage of the men who bore them, have received a hallowed place in the archives of the Commonwealth, whilst the brave and noble soldiers who fought beneath and around them, have returned to the peaceful pursuits of life and the enjoyment of the multiform blessings their struggles and triumphs have secured to their country and the world.
 
Of course it also says..
 
Regiment lost during service
6 Officers and 151 Enlisted men killed and mortally wounded and
3 Officers and 124 Enlisted men by disease.

Total 284
 
The Standard 10 to 15%
 
 
Was getting tired of this back and forth but could not let it appear that I had conceded anything.

Bought the game a few days ago. The computer wargaming genre has been missing a good Civil War game and this one fills the void.

I been playing a few games as the South and it is striking that the economy is what need to be improved in the game.

1)
Even with poor economy setting, the economic growth is simply HUGE. The factory, mine, horse camp is what build the economy. If you have those 3 you can practically get all the rest.

Since factor and mine cost 40 units and horse camp 30 units and they produce +2 (+4 for mine if having iron works though!) the leist productive of these 3 is factory which

means 40 , +2 and that is 5% profit per turn. One year is 24 turns so 1.05 * 1.05 * 1.05 24 times will be 3.23!

In 2 years it is 10.40, so you can get grow too fast.

Even with poor economy option, the profit would be 0.75 out of the 5% so it means 3.75% proft and in 2 years that is still 5.85 which is still an enormous growth.


1 year(24 turns) ,, 2 years ,, 3 years
5% growth ,, 3.23 ,, 10.40 ,, 33.5
3.75% growth ,, 2.42 ,, 5.85 ,, 14.16
2% growth ,, 1.61 ,, 2.59 ,, 4.16


You can see that with the higher growth numbers, the conomy will explode in 1864.

Solution should be that the resource bulding cost more so that they give less % profit. Another solution would be to make mansion and plantation ALOT more expensive and that would mean initially you can build economy fast but when your cities hit thier support limit you have a tough slow barrier to break to expand. A combo of both would be good.

Solution Alternative a) mint, mine, horse camp, factory cost 100% more to build

Solution Alternative b) mint, mine, horse camp, factory cost 70% more to build, mansion and plantation cost 100% more to build


2) Manpower
There is no real manpower limitation since you only need men for new units? Correct me, but can I not reinforce hundreds of thousand casulties using camps without using a single "men" resource?
I would LOVE to see manpower usage when reinforcing anda penalty system where say you have

Richmond 10 pop
Atlanta 5 pop
Baton Rouge 2 pop

When you reinforce it first takes from the largest richmond so Richmond will eventually be 9/10 pop
then after that Atalanta will become 4/5 pop
if you reinforce more Baton Rouge becomes 1/2 pop

If you see 9/10 is 90% left so Richmond will have no manpower penaly
Atlanta is 4/5=80% and gets a small manpower penalty next man they recruit
Baton rouge is 1/2=50% so they will get a heavy penalty for future reinforcement.

Worth to be noted is that the usage is in priority of those with highest % manpower left so baton Rogue large penalty will not bs used for a while since first Richmond for instance would need to be at 4/10 (lower than 50%) before Baton Rouge is used.

The manpower penalty sets in and increases for new recruits depending on what you have left, so when Richmons is down to 4/10 for instance they will have quite a manpower penalty (quality?) since they are starting to recruit young men and old men instead of the prime manpoer, also they are forcing recruiting hence using the less motivated part of the population.

Currently it is easier for south to reinforce than north since they have so much horses. Maybe camps should also cost some mint to build to somehow restrict this exploit (since soldiers want wages) and also REINFORCING SHOULD USE UP MANPOWER and there needs to be a manpower penalty when you recruit a too large part of your population.

Worth to be noted is that since the economy is flexible, the horse advantage of south is more of a starting block effect, in long term you will build production of the resources you lack so it will even out. The total economy is what is important. Weapons and Mint work abit different since you cannot turn them into the other resources while you can use workforce, iron, horses producing weapons and mint.

1) It would be easier for the player to start most Western Gens. out west, including having Lyon and Fremont in St. Louis and Price in SW Missouri and McCullough in NW Arkansas at the Start of the July and coming Fury and Standard Scenarios. It's just easier, whether 100% accurate or not. Perhaps put McCullough in Austin, TX.
 
2) Based on my game play and personal historical but unavoidable and very slightly subjective analysis of the weapons in the Guns.txt file, it does seem some weapons such as the Lorenz and others may be a bit too steep in cost and have an effectiveness far beyond historical reality. Arty. costs are alos high.  Anyone with any reasonable knowledge of ACW weapons would state the same thing, that is the weapons' effectiveness in the Guns.txt filke are a bit off, and enough so to affect games in a negative and unhistorical manner.
 
3) For the ships ditto 2).
 
4) Mints, I like them as is, but if the time to build them is lengthened somewhat slightly, then perhaps they could be made to give 3 Money points instead of 2. Also, to weasle in something like a computer CSA victory or defeat in Arizona and New Mexico would be interesting, with a victory giving the CSA an immediate influx bonus of maybe 50 Money and perhaps a 10 - 20 Money per turn income. This would reflect or model CSA control of the silver and gold mines out in the Far West. if a CSA defeat is generated, then perhaps any CSA troops stationed in Texas would be hit with a one time 10 or 15% loss in manpower. If a USA victory then the USA gets the same Money bonuses as in the CSA victory, and if a USA defeat is computer generated the same troop deductions in Topeka as the CSA gets in Texas.  Something simple but interesting and fun.
 
5) Infantry and other Combat Arms units running about the HW screen just completely ruins the HW aspect of the game for me. Those little baloons are just so cute, and ridiculous. Perhaps make an Engineer unit for both sides that can have Baloons, and also Naval Riverine Gunboats.
 
6) Turtledove: It wan't me that first mentioned Turtledove, but rather about 10 or so other people. However, there are some similarities apparent.
 
7) Brigade sizes: a) Huge Early War Brigades with max strength of 3,500 or 3,600 or 4,000; b) Large Mid-War Brigades with max strength of maybe 3,000; c) Small Late War Brigades with max strength of maybe 2,000 or 2,500 or 2,600.  When these time periods start and brigades are reduced in size, the excess troops are assigned to depleted troop units regardless of Arm of Service and any remaining excess troops are simply dispersed to Cities to fill up the City manpower Icons, and any further remaining excess troops are simply discharged and vanish.
 
Chris
 
 
 

I realise I can set the "power adjustment" in the main menu to low levels to get a slower economy (especially since the new buildings you build will produce less and be less profitable) but that will also make science facilities slower as well? Also it would put even more emphasis on getting the early blockade runners to succeed since the starting income of everything is so low.

I think for now I will just double the prices of mine, horse farm, mint, labor   and get a nice fun game with struggling economy for the south instead

A further effect this will have is that buying military stuff early on (like ironclad for instance) will be more appealing since the payoff is no longer so huge investing in economic growth

By the way, great game! 

firwepoerjohan,
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I'm wondering, though, whether you're playing the released version of the game (with patch 1.23), or are using the public beta patch? I get the sense that you might not be using that patch, in which A LOT of things have been changed. (See the sub-forum for more details.) Once Eric (= programmer) and I know which you're playing we'll be able to address your posts better.

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

firwepoerjohan,
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I'm wondering, though, whether you're playing the released version of the game (with patch 1.23), or are using the public beta patch? I get the sense that you might not be using that patch, in which A LOT of things have been changed. (See the sub-forum for more details.) Once Eric (= programmer) and I know which you're playing we'll be able to address your posts better.

The 1.23 normal version I am playing, yes.

I thought so. You should read over the description of what's in the beta patch, even if you don't want to play with it until it's officially released: you'll see a TON of changes. One of them, you'll be happy to see, is that the costs and function of camps has been significantly changed, so that they require fewer horses AND have a chance of depleting population levels in a city. There have been various other economy-related changes, too. Also, several western generals now start out west (Polk, Grant, etc.), so you don't have to waste two turns moving them from Richmond. The Guns.txt file has also been changed with respect to several weapons.

The New Mexico idea (#4) can't be done for this patch, but please add it to the Wish List so that it won't fall between the cracks. (As for changing build time and output of mines, that can be modded (as you seem to have discovered).

I think I've covered all of your points. Let me know if you have further questions.

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

I thought so. You should read over the description of what's in the beta patch, even if you don't want to play with it until it's officially released: you'll see a TON of changes. One of them, you'll be happy to see, is that the costs and function of camps has been significantly changed, so that they require fewer horses AND have a chance of depleting population levels in a city. There have been various other economy-related changes, too. Also, several western generals now start out west (Polk, Grant, etc.), so you don't have to waste two turns moving them from Richmond. The Guns.txt file has also been changed with respect to several weapons.

The New Mexico idea (#4) can't be done for this patch, but please add it to the Wish List so that it won't fall between the cracks. (As for changing build time and output of mines, that can be modded (as you seem to have discovered).

I think I've covered all of your points. Let me know if you have further questions.

I have registered now and downloaded the Beta patch. It seems there is alot of great improvements and it seems you are working hard for perfecting the game and listening to customers, I am impressed [:)]

Now, I have seen that still Resource Development buildings are way too cheap and it gives a too sttrong exponential growth that makes CSA very wealthy despite being blockaded.

If something has a profit of 5% per turn and you can reinvest that profit without much restriction you will get an exponential growth. The difference between having 5%, 3.75% or 2% will be enormous after 3 years.

As I said before, the poor economy option or power +/- options in the main menu can slow down that growth drastically and make the game balanced but it would also mean that the countries starting production levels are very low, so you cannot affort buying any military units for the first 1-2 years i.e until you have properlyu industrialised.

I think I will make all resource development buildings 80-100% more expensive in the Bldgs.txt script and have myself a great game [:)]