Disease kills 40k men in 5 turns...

[Twinkle]

It should of course be a higher proportion of units struck by disease in an area with a large army, but to have each and every unit loosing men like it is the end of the world is ridiculous. Having NVA loosing about 40k men during 3 disease events is madness, especially if they all appear within 5 turns and basically during the winter of ’61.

Please reconsider doing something about this strange phenomenon.

Regards,
/twinkle – ssg BATTLEFRONT beta-tester

[ericbabe]

During the war the Union lost about 250,000 men to disease and the Confederacy lost about 164,000 men to disease.  The Civil War from Sumter to Appomattox lasted, if I remember correctly, about 48 months.  That works out to be about 5,000 disease casualties per month for the Union, and about 3,400 per month for the Confederacy.  If one looks at records of disease losses (like in Fox's Regimental Losses), he'll notice that losses from disease weren't very constant, but varied quite a bit -- some periods and areas had losses that were much worse than other periods and areas.

As a player in FOF, it's important to manage disease: hospitals and the medical attribute each reduce disease casualties by 50%, large stacks of units will cause more casualties in the long run, and keep troops away from swamps.

[siRkid]

Does the giving a unit the medical attributes benefit other units in the region/container?

[ericbabe]

Right now the Medical attribute only benefits the unit that has it.  We've had the suggestion that it benefit all brigades in the same division, and that's something we're considering changing.

Incidentally, while checking my notes for the disease numbers I cited above, I came across the statistic that the North estimated that there were more than 200,000 deserters from US armies during the war.  By comparison, there were only about 110,000 battle deaths for the North during the war.

[siRkid]

I would support it benefiting the entire division. 

[Artmiser]

Also remember allot of the disease statistics are those that died from battlefield related complications.  There was an interesting statistic I ran accross have to see if I can find it again.   It rated the chance of a soildier dieing from disease duirng his turn of service, starts high but the three year veterans only have about 1 or 2 percent chance.  They are hardy sons a bitches.

[Gil R.]

My own thinking would be that if we expand it to the units in a division it not automatically benefit all of them, but rather a number that is determined by the Logistics rating of the division's officers. (The logistical rating already has an impact on the effects of disease, so this would be in keeping with that aspect of game design. Plus, it keeps the Medical attribute from becoming too powerful.)

Thoughts?

[jsaurman]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe
Incidentally, while checking my notes for the disease numbers I cited above, I came across the statistic that the North estimated that there were more than 200,000 deserters from US armies during the war. 

I think I read somewhere that at the beginning of the war, when most men were under 90 day enlistments, they were charged with desertion if the decided to take off for home at 89 days, so those numbers may not be accurate.

JIM

[siRkid]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

My own thinking would be that if we expand it to the units in a division it not automatically benefit all of them, but rather a number that is determined by the Logistics rating of the division's officers. (The logistical rating already has an impact on the effects of disease, so this would be in keeping with that aspect of game design. Plus, it keeps the Medical attribute from becoming too powerful.)

Thoughts?

Great idea.

[Artmiser]

That would help Gil, the problem with disease as it stands now even with my army dispersed I had a bad couple of rounds where the same units get hit over and over.   Try this, not sure how programmable it is,  after a unit gets hit with disease the first time it gains some immunity, so every time it gets hit with a disease it take less and less casualties.  So a brigade aguires disease flags, cant see them of course, once it maxes out its flags it takes only a token amount or no casualties if its area is hit by disease.  If it gets reinforcements take away a flag to represent the new men.  So a lets say a five flag unit that takes no catualties from a disease hit, gets 400 men.  Now its a four flag disease unit and can take some casualties.   Attrition from disease was high among new recruits but very low among veterans, this would give you a feel for that.  And a brigade can never fall below a 1 or 2 disease flag brigade no matter now many new bodies.  Always have that core of veterans.
 
 

[Gil R.]

That's a bit too complex, I think. For one thing, any time the game needs to be tracking info for particular units that adds significantly to the programming. But more importantly, it seems to involve some new graphics, which again is not so easy to implement.

If a change is to be made to the disease rules it would be easier to have it involve the Medical attribute being more potent.

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: jsaurman

ORIGINAL: ericbabe
Incidentally, while checking my notes for the disease numbers I cited above, I came across the statistic that the North estimated that there were more than 200,000 deserters from US armies during the war.

I think I read somewhere that at the beginning of the war, when most men were under 90 day enlistments, they were charged with desertion if the decided to take off for home at 89 days, so those numbers may not be accurate.

JIM

well, to be honest, that is still Desertion, plus I am sure there was a reason that a number of them left on day 89

[histgamer]

Yea maybe they couldnt count to 90[:D]

[ericbabe]

I kind of like the disease-flag rule.

Another thing I've considered is to make disease casualties proportional to levels of strategic supply.  Seems to make sense that a poorly supplied army would be more prone to disease.  This would give players more control over disease casualties and would give another good use to the strategic supply stat.

[MPHopcroft1]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

ORIGINAL: jsaurman

ORIGINAL: ericbabe
Incidentally, while checking my notes for the disease numbers I cited above, I came across the statistic that the North estimated that there were more than 200,000 deserters from US armies during the war.

I think I read somewhere that at the beginning of the war, when most men were under 90 day enlistments, they were charged with desertion if the decided to take off for home at 89 days, so those numbers may not be accurate.

JIM

well, to be honest, that is still Desertion, plus I am sure there was a reason that a number of them left on day 89

Perhaps it was the same reason so many Washington dignitaries thought watching the First Battle of Bull Run would be a fun day out -- they had no idea what real war was like and, when they found out the hard way by going into battle, found they had little taste for it.

Which brings up an interesting question: in the game, if the Union player suffers a significant early-war setback, how difficult will it he for him to recover from the 90-day men leaving service and the potential evaporation of entire demoralized regiments or divisions? And if that first clash turns out to be an utter catastrophe, does the Union player have time to recover before the Lincoln government collapses and whoever replaces it sues for peace?

[Artmiser]

Nah Gil no new graphics, you dont get to see the flags.  Its a hidden thing.  I just used the flag terminology to make it easier to understand. That way the older brigades will have at least 1 or 2 flags, whatever the minimum is decided. After of course you get diseased to get them to start with. Reflects the fact that veterans that have been exposed to x amount of diseased and survived become less suseptible.


Not sure on the difficulty of the programming. But doesent seem hard, get disease get a flag, get reinforcements remove a flag, to the minimum of course heh. Each flag removed 20% of the disease casualties up to 100%.