Camps? Where are they?

[Temple]

OK, another weird problem. I just started the standard campaign in the intermediate rules and I can't find out where to select to build camps. And I don't see any camps. I'm perplexed. I played through a Basic game and just assumed that camps don't show up there, but now I'm thinking either they are missing or I'm befuddled.

Here's what I see when I select the build screen for New York City.

[Hard Sarge]

you need to be in the advance building set up I believe, from the set up screen, I think you are still under the level needed to see camps, your still missing a number of buildings you can build on that list

[Temple]

OK, I started an advanced game and yup the option is present. There should be an asterisk next to the mention of Camps on page 80 noting that they only show up in the advanced game. 

[Hard Sarge]

it been a while since I was in the rules, but I thought it was set up that way

[Jonathan Palfrey]

In the manual, camps are clearly described in the basic game rules as though they're present in the basic game. Other, more advanced buildings aren't described there at all.

This seems to be an error either in the manual, or in the game. It would seem quite reasonable to me to have camps in the basic game. Perhaps it's an error in the game. If so, will it be fixed in a patch?

[Shoot Me_I Explode]

On page 90 of the manual it says camps do not count toward the number of buildings supported by a mansion yet in game they do.  If you dont have the mansion to support the camp then you can not build the camp.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Shoot Me_I Explode

On page 90 of the manual it says camps do not count toward the number of buildings supported by a mansion yet in game they do. If you dont have the mansion to support the camp then you can not build the camp.

Um, this is not the issue. The issue is that we can't build camps in the basic game at all. They're not just greyed out; they're not even on the list.

Without camps, I suppose casualties are never replaced, veteran units gradually diminish to zero, and the only way to get new troops is to build new units. This seems unsatisfactory even in a basic game.

[ericbabe]

Yes, there is a problem that camps are mentioned as though they are available in the Basic Rules when they are in fact not available.  On the developer forum we've had a lengthy discussion in regard to the best way of addressing this.  Currently our favorite solution is to keep camps advanced and to give each side a fixed reinforcement rate every turn (so many 1000's for US and a different number for the CS...)  Please let us know what you'd think of this solution...

[jonreb31]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

ORIGINAL: Shoot Me_I Explode

On page 90 of the manual it says camps do not count toward the number of buildings supported by a mansion yet in game they do. If you dont have the mansion to support the camp then you can not build the camp.

Um, this is not the issue. The issue is that we can't build camps in the basic game at all. They're not just greyed out; they're not even on the list.

Without camps, I suppose casualties are never replaced, veteran units gradually diminish to zero, and the only way to get new troops is to build new units. This seems unsatisfactory even in a basic game.

I'd like to add that replacements will not magically become Veterans in a veteran unit. They will lower the overall quality of the unit a little, but increase their numbers. Quality of reinforcements depends on National Will.

If you really want camps that bad play on a higher setting. Basic is basic.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: JonReb

If you really want camps that bad play on a higher setting. Basic is basic.

According to the manual, camps are basic.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

Yes, there is a problem that camps are mentioned as though they are available in the Basic Rules when they are in fact not available. On the developer forum we've had a lengthy discussion in regard to the best way of addressing this. Currently our favorite solution is to keep camps advanced and to give each side a fixed reinforcement rate every turn (so many 1000's for US and a different number for the CS...) Please let us know what you'd think of this solution...

Thanks for the reply. Yes, if you don't want camps in the basic game for some reason, your alternative seems OK. No objection from me.

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

Yes, there is a problem that camps are mentioned as though they are available in the Basic Rules when they are in fact not available.  On the developer forum we've had a lengthy discussion in regard to the best way of addressing this.  Currently our favorite solution is to keep camps advanced and to give each side a fixed reinforcement rate every turn (so many 1000's for US and a different number for the CS...)  Please let us know what you'd think of this solution...

FWIW that makes sense to me too. Keep the Basic Rules basic.

[Alex Gilbert]

ORIGINAL: Shoot Me_I Explode

On page 90 of the manual it says camps do not count toward the number of buildings supported by a mansion yet in game they do.  If you dont have the mansion to support the camp then you can not build the camp.

This confused me as well. As it currently stands, camps do NOT count against the support limits, however, you still need at least 1 free spot to build them. That is, if you have a mansion, you need to have 3 or less buildings to buy a camp there, but after the camp is built, you will still have the extra support spot available. Not sure if this was the way it was intended, but either way, it has not been a big deal in my games since there is always SOME city with extra space.

Alex

[Hard Sarge]

not sure if that was the plan, but from what I have seen, you have to have space open, to build a camp, but you do not use that space if you do build it

and yes, it can be confusing until you get used to it, but once you are, you do not even think about it

[ericbabe]

I will change the game so that camps can be built even when the city is at its support level.

I would like to keep the Basic rules free of camps.  I'm trying to keep Basic as simple as possible.  We'll add the camp section to a rules errata and add the constant reinforcement rules.  Any suggestions for the size of the constant reinforcements?

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

I would like to keep the Basic rules free of camps. I'm trying to keep Basic as simple as possible. We'll add the camp section to a rules errata and add the constant reinforcement rules. Any suggestions for the size of the constant reinforcements?

I copied a file off the Web sometime from the U.S. Civil War Center estimating statistics for America's major wars. It reckons that the USA recruited a total of 2803300 soldiers and the CSA 1064200 -- though that apparently counts people more than once if they were recruited more than once.

You could divide these figures by the number of turns in the game, roughly speaking; but then there'd be no men left over for completely new units. I don't know how you want to play that. You could end up with the USA having more replacements than it could use if you're not careful.

I seem to remember reading that the USA tended to recruit men into new units (leaving existing units undermanned) while the CSA tended more sensibly to recruit them into existing units if possible. But don't rely on me for this, my memory may be garbled.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

Here's some more information from McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom, Chapter 10, Part IV:

"The normal complement of a regiment in both the Union and Confederate armies was a thousand men formed in ten companies ... [However,] Within a year of its organization a typical regiment was reduced to half or less of its original number by sickness, battle casualties, and desertions. Instead of recruiting old regiments up to strength, states preferred to organize new ones with new opportunities for patronage in the form of officers' commissions and pride in the number of regiments sent by the state. Of 421,000 new three-year volunteers entering the Union army in 1862, only 50,000 joined existing regiments. Professional soldiers criticized this practice as inefficient and wasteful. It kept regiments far below strength and prevented the leavening of raw recruits by seasoned veterans. In 1862 and 1863, many old regiments went into combat with only two or three hundred men while new regiments suffered unnecessary casualties because of inexperience."

The emphasis is mine.

McPherson seems to be talking mainly about the US Army here, but he doesn't actually compare the US and CS Armies in this respect. I still think I've read elsewhere that the problem of understrength regiments was worse in the US than in the CS Army.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

More information from the Web:

"The War Department in 1861 considered making recruiting a Federal responsibility, but this proposal seemed to be an unnecessary expense for the short war initially envisioned. Therefore, responsibility for recruiting remained with the states, and on both sides, state governors continually encouraged local constituents to form new volunteer regiments. This practice served to strengthen support for local, state, and national politicians and provide an opportunity for glory and high rank for ambitious men. Although such local recruiting created regiments with strong bonds among the men, it also hindered filling the ranks of existing regiments with new replacements. As the war progressed, the Confederates attempted to funnel replacements into units from their same state or region, but the Federals continued to create new regiments. Existing Federal regiments detailed men back home to recruit replacements, but these efforts could never successfully compete for men joining new local regiments. Thus, the newly formed regiments had no seasoned veterans to train the recruits, and the battle-tested regiments lost men faster than they could recruit replacements. Many regiments on both sides were reduced to combat ineffectiveness as the war progressed. Seasoned regiments were often disbanded or consolidated, usually against the wishes of the men assigned."

The emphasis is mine.

[jimwinsor]

Yeah this was my impression as well...both sides had trouble getting volunteers to join existing regiments, but the CSA was a bit better at it than the Union.
 
In game terms I suppose, we could say the CSA "built more camps" than the USA.

[satchel]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
Without camps, I suppose casualties are never replaced, veteran units gradually diminish to zero, and the only way to get new troops is to build new units. This seems unsatisfactory even in a basic game.

This is unsatisfactory and unrealistic. Without reinforcements, the "Basic" game drags, especially the endgame.

The Basic game needs some reinforcement mechanism.