Matrix Games Forums

Camps seem overpowered, or at least unbalancing in favor of the Confederacy. The primary cost is in horses, which the Union lacks but the Confederacy doesn;t, ecspecially if Kentucky goes Confederate. That allows the CSA to build camps faster, which means more reinforcements, which means they get to replace thier losses faster, which IIRC wasn't always the case.

The simple soultion would be to lower the cost of camps, but IMO thats not solving the problem.

There ought to be a way to tie replacements from camps into overall population, and improvments such as telegraphs make that more efficient. A higher number of camps means a higher percentage of the total population is recruited. The balancing factor to this is that CSA recruits would be of higher quality than the USA ones.

Thresh

I still don't follow these complants about the camps ?

the Union needs around 5000 men to replace there starting troops, the CSA needs over 200,000

the Union has close to a 2 to 1 edge in manpower

the idea is for the Union to build troops

if all you do is replace losses from combat, the Union is never going to be able to fight the CSA Toe to Toe

(3000-4000 lousy troops, just mean 3000-4000 troops die faster)

use what you have, use what you can get and make, be a Grant and stop asking "IF"

if the CSA can replace more losses then you can, make sure the CSA takes more losses

take POWs, the CSA can not lose units, they can't replace them, any battle where you have the edge, use it and take POWs

use numbers, the CSA can not be everywhere, use it

you have a number of Major Iron Centers, set everything else to build Horse Farms, and build some horse farms, if you need more camps

if Kentucky goes CSA, take it back, if you can't take it back, plunder it, so it don't give anything to the CSA, plunder the CSA Iron Centers, that will hurt them even more

Thats a very simplistic view Hard Sarge.  Fact is many of us aren't as adept in battle as you are, so our ability to inflict such large casualties on the enemy is lessened.

But also, from a mathematical point of view, it just doesn't add up.

I am playing a game on one of the lower setting right now where I get 3500 reinforcements a turn from my camps, and need (due to musters and conscriptions in order to maintain a numerical advantage in my favaor) 91K plus, or 107 brigades that need reinforcements.

Even though I outnumber my computer enemy, I am losing more battles than I win, and my losses are almost always higher than those I inflict, to the point I can barely conscript or muster anymore.  I've done so much in order to maintain what numbers I have, but the the simple fact of the matter is this:

I fight a Battle in Fredericksburg and win, but lose 12K troops doing so.  I Inflict 16K, but seeing as how starting numbers were 85 me and 95 him, its a net loss.
I Have seiges going on, in Wheeling, Knoxville, Nashville, and Island Number 10, and lose more than few troops in those.

I win a battle in Little rock, but lose 3K troops in doing so.

So even though I am winning more than losing, pressing everywhere, and doing IMO fairly OK, I lose 20K troops (as an estimate, but I know 15K is right), and get 3500 as replacements.  So, in return for pressing the advantage with an Army that isn't as good morale wise, loses more often than it wins, loses more troops than in casualties than it causes, and makes me think I am fighting on the Somme rather than the Cumberland, I lose 8500 men a turn whether I win or lose those battles.  If thats not attrition warfare, I am not sure what is.

If I have a 2 to 1 manpower advantage, I should be able to replace my losses faster than the  confederacy, and the way the game is coded, thats not possible.  Instead, I lose twice as many men in order to win, replace a quarter of whats lost, and end up on the short side.

Grant knew he had reserves he could call up, which is why he did what he did.  I'm no Grant, I'm the first to admit it, but lets be honest, if he was facing the same problems I am, he wouldn't be able to do what he did either

Thresh

the Union needs around 5000 men to replace there starting troops, the CSA needs over 200,000


As the two sides don't start the "Standard Scenario" that far apart in Number of Brigades or actual strength, doesn't this really mean that the South can expand it's numbers rather quickly and cheaply by building camps (they have the horses) and filling existing Brigades? While the North is faced with expensively building new Brigades from scratch?

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

the Union needs around 5000 men to replace there starting troops, the CSA needs over 200,000

Isn't one of the reason there is a large differnece is that the Union brigades are capped at 3000 men while the Confederates start capped at 4000 men... but since the confederates units only start with 3000 like the Union forces they need an extra 1000 per brigade to fill them. So this comparison doesn't really work. If the Confederates where capped at 3000 like the Union at the start they wouldn't need over 200,000 replacements. It's a false perception.

I know when I've played (as Union) and picked the upgrade that allows my brigades to have increased sized I've had a near impossible time trying to get the manpower to do it, especially considering the losses I take each turn. One of the things that I did do in COG all the time was combine depleted units together or transfer manpower from militia units to the regular infantry units. But these options are not here... you basically have to use a unit until it no longer exists. It wouldn't be so bad if the casualty numbers weren't so lopsided all the time.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

As the two sides don't start the "Standard Scenario" that far apart in Number of Brigades or actual strength, doesn't this really mean that the South can expand it's numbers rather quickly and cheaply by building camps (they have the horses) and filling existing Brigades? While the North is faced with expensively building new Brigades from scratch?

Don't forget the need to arm new troops and pay upkeep as the number of units in your army expands. The problem is that it is far more cost effective to replace your losses in your existing units than keep building new units. New units need to be bought, mustered or conscripted and then armed - existing units are usually already armed and add no additional up keep costs. If the South keeps its army at full strength (which is a one time investment in camps) it can slowly expand its army. Right now the union can slowly expand its camps and quickly (until it can’t afford any more upkeep costs) expand the number of units in its army but most of these units will be poorly armed and less then full strength and this strength will only get worse due to battle, march attrition and disease.

Rook

I love your posts Hard Sarge but I cant follow you down this road.  The CSA under no circumstance should be able to field more soldiers or replacements than the USA.  I could easily have the south churning out 20k replacements a turn fairly soon.  And that is just not right.  place a camp cap of 5k for the CSA and 10k USA, or at least add a cap slider ber option.
 
 

I don't know, I don't follow

I have no trouble with the Union, the war is over before 62 is done when I play from the Union side

trying to be polite and all, but most of the complaints, seems to be that the Union is beating there head against a wall, and then complain, that it is not fair that they can't beat a hole in the wall

there is no reason for the CSA to be making more troops then the Union does, that is your fault, you can take away anything the CSA has if you want it (Fredericksburg, Richmound, Tenn-Miss-River areas, wait till you can take them, before you try to take them

you do not have to take something to take it away from the other side

maybe I have played the game too much

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

I don't know, I don't follow

I have no trouble with the Union, the war is over before 62 is done when I play from the Union side

trying to be polite and all, but most of the complaints, seems to be that the Union is beating there head against a wall, and then complain, that it is not fair that they can't beat a hole in the wall

there is no reason for the CSA to be making more troops then the Union does, that is your fault, you can take away anything the CSA has if you want it (Fredericksburg, Richmound, Tenn-Miss-River areas, wait till you can take them, before you try to take them

you do not have to take something to take it away from the other side

maybe I have played the game too much

Indeed, maybe you have.

Being a hard-charging aggressive and successful player should have rewards in the game; however, such tactics should not be a substitute for the reality of the time. If you predicate game balance on your style of play, then the opposing AI would have to be monumentally skewed from that reality to offer a challange.

Regards,
Feltan

Why are confederate brigades larger? This is total fiction. Confederate Corps and divisions were sometimes larger but union brigades were on average larger than confederate ones.

Victory Points & National Will

I had barely started playing and was not aware of having lost any battles and my VP turned up -2. I probably just missed something. It would be nice if there were a place one could see a breakdown of how those VP and NW points were won or lost.

Shouldn't James Harrison Wilson have a cavalry rating. Isn't the guy who did an amazing raid through Miss? If so, it should be a pretty high rating, only a little below Stuart and Sheridan.

Economy, Supply, etc., Reports

It would be great if (1) you could click at the top of a column to pull up the most numerous items in that category and (2) totals for each category appeared at the top of the column.

Re -  Camps
Please don't forget the North can build horse farms no problem, it has pots of labour left over, also try sending some armies on a rampage of looting pillaging ad burning through Tenesee it is fun and it really messes with the CSA economy

ORIGINAL: Feltan

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

I don't know, I don't follow

I have no trouble with the Union, the war is over before 62 is done when I play from the Union side

trying to be polite and all, but most of the complaints, seems to be that the Union is beating there head against a wall, and then complain, that it is not fair that they can't beat a hole in the wall

there is no reason for the CSA to be making more troops then the Union does, that is your fault, you can take away anything the CSA has if you want it (Fredericksburg, Richmound, Tenn-Miss-River areas, wait till you can take them, before you try to take them

you do not have to take something to take it away from the other side

maybe I have played the game too much

Indeed, maybe you have.

Being a hard-charging aggressive and successful player should have rewards in the game; however, such tactics should not be a substitute for the reality of the time. If you predicate game balance on your style of play, then the opposing AI would have to be monumentally skewed from that reality to offer a challange.

Regards,
Feltan

you ever read Liddel Hart ?, or any of the others of his type ?

and as the Chinese master stated, the perfect battle is the one that is not fought

other then Alexsander, not many Generals could fight the battle on the enemies own battlefield and win

ORIGINAL: Paper Tiger

Re - Camps
Please don't forget the North can build horse farms no problem, it has pots of labour left over, also try sending some armies on a rampage of looting pillaging ad burning through Tenesee it is fun and it really messes with the CSA economy

well, nice to see someone follows what I been trying to say

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

you ever read Liddel Hart ?, or any of the others of his type ?

and as the Chinese master stated, the perfect battle is the one that is not fought

other then Alexsander, not many Generals could fight the battle on the enemies own battlefield and win

Actually, I studied them quite extensively.

My point was this: you may well be a master at this game (congrats); however, that does not make this a game good. Furthermore, for most consumers of a game like this, the ability to "win" against the AI is hollow unless there is appropriate levels of historical realism. Many, if not most, of the comments seen on these threads have to do with exactly that lack of historical realism. The fact that you can beat the tar out of an AI oppenent does not invalidate such comments.

Regards,
Feltan

overall, would have to point out that you can go to any forum on this board and make the same statement, I am just pointing out that you can win with what you have

Yes you can, I concur. If one is willing to do frequent detailed combat, and has some practice at it, defeating larger forces is rather easy. I have "won" as both Union and Confederate using the same settings. However, as I stated above, such victories are rather hollow -- simply build a boatload of camps and any sins in combat are automatically forgiven.

Regards,
Feltan

you don't need to build camps, you don't need to horde camps as some have suggested, 5000 men a turn is more then enough (more then that and you are keeping your Garrisons filled with troops)

the other point I am trying to make, with out coming out and saying it, if we cap the Camps that can be build, the player is going to find other uses for the Horses they have

once they do, then you are going to see a imbalance

and to be honest, I think most players are missing the big point, the CSA needs Iron, not horses, to get Iron, they need to shut down there Horse production, and the Union can make all the Iron they want, and it is very easy for the Union to shut down half of there Ironworks and use them for Horses and still have more then enough Iron to use, then it is for the CSA

Iron and Money drive what you need in the game, and it is much easier for the Union to load up and gain both then it is for the CSA