Matrix Games Forums

Design question/comment.

Playing as the South, I went on a campaign of building Camps. They cost 30 labor and 100 horses, and I figured with the southern advantage in horses it would be a smart move. I built only a few cavalry, and horded my horse meat for Camps.

Well, I just crossed into 1864 and the South is getting a tad over 27,000 replacements every turn. Combine that with Extended Service upgrades I & II, and every Confederate Brigade is at 5K plus and just about every unit is flush to the max with personnel.

My question is this: This situation seems odd, and more than a bit a-historical. The South was strapped for men, and I am easily replacing any combat losses or disease in a turn or two. Why were horses used as the long pole in the tent for Camps? Wouldn't it make more sense to have 100 Labor and 30 Horses needed for a Camp? Wouldn't it make sense to tie replacements to overall population in some manner (if possible)?

By 1865 I'll be generating about 30,000 replacements per turn. That is about the manpower of a historical Corps sized unit every two weeks. And, I feel no pain by doing so -- all my industires seem to be getting along just fine without a single man about to work! [:)]

The current situation makes the South just about unbeatable. Givent he Southern advantage in horses, the Union can't keep up. Just build a Camp first thing every turn, and plantations when you max out build limits, and then more Camps.

This seems to really skew the play balance.

Anyone else note this situation?

Regards,
Feltan

Which game rules are you playing with?  During beta testing, the testers were mostly complaining that camps were too expensive and didn't provide enough reinforcements...but they were mostly playing with all the advanced rules by that point. Yes, 27,000 is a lot.  We've been talking about making the cost of camps (and perhaps other buildings as well) progressive within a province.

I have all the advanced rules on, plus a few others. One of which is enhanced economy.

Frankly, I have been struggling with both the Union and Confederacy to strike a good historical balance with economies. The vanilla advanced rules and setting do not provide enough resources to do basic things ... by which I mean you cannot come close to recreating historical armies and navies. With an enhanced economy, perhaps I am at the other end of the spectrum.

However, I raised this issue because it seems independant of mere economics. It has to do with manpower. I can tinker around with the various economic settings until I get something close to what I want, but this issue appears to have implications no matter what economic choices one makes.

Regards,
Feltan

Feltan, I also played a "camp hoarding" game on advanced rules - 2'nd Lt - no power bonus for nobody.

I easely went up to 22.000 reinforcments a turn, which I decided was well enough.

How much containers do you have ? I had 1 active army - having 2 corps ... and 2 indepedent corps with medium divisions ... and 3 seperate divisions.

Those are 6 combat groups at full strength ... the coverage you get is simply too deploring. I was lucky to be on the offensive ...

Did you play an offensive or defensive game.

I think it's quite logical that a lower amount of containers - should reflect in fewer containers but more heavely "manned" - off course this has nothing to do with the containers itself - but with the camps.

Camps cost should be loked at - together with container cost - which is too high ... and more variable income from blockade running.

Let's see if I can recall from memory (at work right now):

Army of Northern Va. has two subordinate corps and 150K personnel. It has not left Fredricksburg the entire war, because it gets ample opportunity to "tax" federal manpower to the tune of 2-3K per turn there (stupid AI attacks at ridiculously low odds).

A Corps under Longstreet with about 75K and a load of engineers to conduct sieges.

Army of the Mississipi under Van Dorn with about 105K holding in western Kentucky.

About six division scattered about all with 25K+ to watch the coast, far west and Kentucky/West Virginia area.

I have mostly been playing defensive. Took back Pensacola and Fortress Monroe. However, as the Confederate, simply smacking the Union everytime they come across the Mason Dixon or try to land on the coast. However, now that the 1864 summer is approaching, I intend to take Washington D.C. and Maryland.

Regards,
Feltan

ORIGINAL: Feltan

Let's see if I can recall from memory (at work right now):

Army of Northern Va. has two subordinate corps and 150K personnel. It has not left Fredricksburg the entire war, because it gets ample opportunity to "tax" federal manpower to the tune of 2-3K per turn there (stupid AI attacks at ridiculously low odds).

A Corps under Longstreet with about 75K and a load of engineers to conduct sieges.

Army of the Mississipi under Van Dorn with about 105K holding in western Kentucky.

About six division scattered about all with 25K+ to watch the coast, far west and Kentucky/West Virginia area.

I have mostly been playing defensive. Took back Pensacola and Fortress Monroe. However, as the Confederate, simply smacking the Union everytime they come across the Mason Dixon or try to land on the coast. However, now that the 1864 summer is approaching, I intend to take Washington D.C. and Maryland.

Regards,
Feltan

I would advise against that - you might lose the war ... I invaded the western theather and was happy to maul Kansas, Missouri, Wisconsin and Indiana and Ohio ...

In my game the Union invaded Virginia with 3 army containers and had 2 armies in reserve (AOTP) ... beware. I had a stand alone corps guarind back door to Carolina's (Jackson). Jackson had to fight 2 or 3 army containers - a fight he won ... but was a close call.

Well right about now I would welcome a close call. Up to now, the game has been kind of lopsided, and it would be interesting for the Union to pull one out of their hat!

Regards,
Feltan

well I have to sort of agree with you - after Jackson punishing the Union armies - all was quiet on the eastern front - pretty illogical cause I was mauling the Union the west - and they had the forces to make me bleed in the east - weird ...
 
I had Lee's army and Jacksons corps in the east - and that's it ! I suspect the Union had 5 armies at least to invade Virginia ...

Well that game ended in January of 1865 with the Union throwing in the towel. I was sieging Washington DC, and had rolled up Missouri and taken Cairo and was heading north. As I guessed, my reinforcements for the South were over 30K per turn -- nothing the Union did phased me much; I was able to replenish every turn.

In my opinion, this aspect of the game needs to be adjusted. First, it makes little sense to me that the controlling resource for replacements/Camps is horses. Towards the end of the game, I got this mental picture of Mr. Ed with a Springfield rifle slung around his neck and a grey forage cap on his head saying, "Come on Wilbur, let's join the 14th Virginia!"

Question: Couldn't we just do away with Camps and recruit replacements either from Muster or Conscription? If you figure that one of those stick figures in the City Display is about 2,000 able bodied men -- why not recruit (or build) them as replacements?

There are a lot of cities with only one manpower -- they really don't warrant a barracks to squeeze out a cavalry unit. Why not allow those under utilized manpower sources to be turned into replacements?

Regards,
Feltan

well camp hoarding should be made more difficult - camp hoarding is mainly related to following reasons =

- blockade runners are too "beneficial" - they are a steady source of income and they guarantuee that the South has access to all sorts of resources - no scarce resources for the South. If you get to 3 blockade runners - you can have turns that you gather more then 100 horses ! This will boost your camp production rocketwise !

- plantations are a very nice investment for the South - they make a big difference in the middle game ...

- make camps more expensive is a solution,

- tweak blockade runners is also a solution,

- capping camps - linked to city size is also a solution,

- containers should be made less expensive ...

- capping brigade strength seems a wise decision also,

- also make diseases more dreadfull - and make hospitals better at lowering the loss from diseases. Hospitals should be made more sexy anyhow ... so camp hoarding gamers should get a back fire from time to time ...