militia training ratings

[Treefrog]

"All Confederate leaders have one added to their training ratings when they are training Militia or Mounted units."

This language confuses me. The only units leaders can train are militia or mounted.

I interpret this sentence to mean that a CSA leader with, for example, an infantry training rating of "3" actually trains at a level "4". Is this correct?

Makes one wonder why they didn't just add a "1" to all the CSA ratings in the program. Perhaps this is remnants of an earlier rule since abandoned, kinda like an appendix.

[Joel Billings]

Your interpretation is correct. I don't know why we didn't do that, probalby because the data was already done when we decided to add the bonus in and it was easier in the code than to change the data for 500 leaders (that's just a guess, as I can't recall what we were thinking then).

[ckammp]

deleted

[Joel Billings]

The logic, for what it's worth had more to do with the arguement that a greater number of southern soldiers were rural men that had more experience with guns in paricular, and things that would help them while campaiging in general, than the more urban northerners. This is a generalization of course. This bonus was not intended to represent Confederate leaders were better at training.

[ckammp]

deleted

[Doc o War]

Joel;- you realize that many southerners were not very well trained marksmen- rural or not- and this idea that the Northern troops were all urbanites is not very realistic either- especially the Western armies. In history after history I have read that Northern troops from Maine, Pennsylvania and various other places and also many western and mid western states- where known for their marksmanship.
 
 The average Northern and Southern soldiers were very much alike in most regards throughout the war. So what is the other reason why the Southern Generals can train faster and better infantry?- I will grant the cavalry in the south trained up faster- but show me some documented or statistical data that shows the Confeds could train better and faster infantry than the North. I would really like to see that source data.
 
MOST GOOD BASIC HISTORIES OF THE WAR- Like Bell Irvin Willy's Johnney Reb and Billy Yank, or Cattons books , or McPherson's, or Spears. or Cozzens- all pretty much hold that man for man there really wasnt much difference between the average soldiers of both sides- and they certainly took the same time to train them.
    learning to march and work as a trained body of infantry- and the ability to deliver volley fire instead of man to man fire was the basis of most Civ War infantry training and fighting. The whole marksmanship thing is tossed out the window in a volley fire situation- masses of men packed together shoulder to shoulder presenting and firing volleys by command takes training- the same training for both armies. If anything the Union had more able training commands than the south through the war.  So I don't think the south should be faster at training infantry than the north- that seems artifical. Unless it is a game balancer.  

[Joel Billings]

Nope, can't give you any stats on this. You can see it as a game balancer if you like, or a general advantage of southern leaders/soldiers to create better units faster. We felt we had justification to add this to the game, but realize it is a subjective opinion. I'll leave it to the Civil War buffs to debate this one.

[Doc o War]

OK fair answer.