Manpower

[Jagger]

(It seems that Jagger and I came to similar conclusions here!)

Well said and better than I said.

Great minds think alike, don't they?

[Jabberwock]

What is this x3 modifier? There are two costs when a unit move:

a) the cohesion per day loss, in 1/100 of pts

b) the cohesion loss because of lack of military control, which is 1.5 pts if no control at all (from memory)

It was 1.05c that the change was made.

Moving into hostile territory now costs up 3 cohesion point a day depending of the lack of military control (was 2). This is in addition to the standard fatigue cost.

[Jabberwock]

The 1864 entrenchments sound like something straight out of World War I.

And look the same, too. There are photos all over the net and in lots of history books.

[Jagger]

Rails and rivers. As the Union, I still do plenty of small deep raids, but it is mostly based from brigs and transports in accessible rivers (the ones that dont have forts guarding them). As the CSA, I still occasionally use the Hudson & the upper Mississipi for "suicide highways" with riverine movement.

I always try to conserve cohesion by not marching. Which means I use rails and water a lot.

In my Kilcavalry PBEM, he has been putting a stop to a lot of my river raiding by entrenching with heavy artillery along key river points. Plus he has gradually built up a very impressive ironclad navy based out of New Orleans. The combination of his ironclad navy, artillery and forts almost destoyed a large ironclad fleet under Foote. He just barely escaped. It will be a long time before that fleet puts to water again.

I am using secondary rivers much more than ever. Raids and invasions along rivers are a lot of fun and keeps the rebs running all over the place in the interior. The US mainland is not nearly as vulnerable to raids as is the CSA.

[Jabberwock]

I Personally believe that local state troops are under-represented in the game, in both numbers and ability

I concur.

[Jagger]

It was 1.05c that the change was made.

Moving into hostile territory now costs up 3 cohesion point a day depending of the lack of military control (was 2). This is in addition to the standard fatigue cost.

What does this mean- "In addition to the standard fatigue cost."?

The standard fatigue is 1 per day. So are we talking 3+1=4 cohesion loss per day when you don't have military control?

Am I going to have recaculate the numbers again???

[Pocus]

It was 1.05c that the change was made.

Moving into hostile territory now costs up 3 cohesion point a day depending of the lack of military control (was 2). This is in addition to the standard fatigue cost.

ok. 3 instead of 2. I was confused by the x3 multiplier.

[McNaughton]

One thing that I am planning to do is to tweak weapon accuracy for infantry forces.

from what I gather, accuracy to hit an opponent, given everything equal (quality, terrain, etc.) didn't really affect a unit substantially based on its battle stance. A Sprigfield rifle fired as accurately in an offensive battle line as it did in a defensive battle line.

The difference between an attacking and defending force would be those benefits based on terrain and entrenchment. A defending force may gain the benefit of well sited terrain, meaning that their opponent must cross a barrier, or be in range longer (based on height), etc. Yet, I see these already covered by the battle terrain mechanics, and even in a well sited fortress, you didn't fire any more accurately.

Also, while attacking, the force moved in battle line or skirmish line toward their enemy. They stopped, and fired. This movement in itself may have a shakey or lowered accuracy, but not at the rate at which is being specified (1/3 to 1/2 as much as defensive accuracy).

Next, battles of defence, even in fortifications, are not static. Units to tactical retreats, and tactical advances while on the defensive (as well as on the attack). So no side can truely be seen as 'standing' the entire battle.

Even still, this defensive force would not necessarily gain a significant accuracy benefit based on the fact that they are being attacked. Chances are they get the first shot off, and that they are in terrain that protects them, but, that should be figured through the battle engine, and their protection, not the attacker's ability to hit.

I am thinking of accuracy rates for early infantry in my mod to be...

14 Attack (from 10) 16 Defence (from 16)
*Attack being about 90% as accurate as defence instead of 65% as accurate

late infantry to be...

18 Attack (from 11) 20 Defence (from 20)
*Attack being about 90% as accurate as defence instead of 55% as accurate

This way, the benefits of defending are based upon where you place your force (behind a river, in terrain maximizing your force, etc.) as well as your level of fortification. A force defending out in the open, in a poorly placed position, and with no entrenchment, will be more or less on par with the attacking force (as I feel it should be).

[Pocus]

I'm still confused. I don't know where I pulled this 3 pts cost.

The cost is 1.5/100 pt for each pt of military control missing (= 1.5 pt if you march in a 0% controled region) + your CohOnMove cost (+ weather)

This added cost (from missing MC) has been made for two things:

1 - to help the weaker player, the one who is invaded (so the AI ).

2 - to represent the various minutes attritioning, skirmishes and guard duty you have to cope with when you are in hostile territory.

[Jabberwock]

In my Kilcavalry PBEM, he has been putting a stop to a lot of my river raiding by entrenching with heavy artillery along key river points. Plus he has gradually built up a very impressive ironclad navy based out of New Orleans. The combination of his ironclad navy, artillery and forts almost destoyed a large ironclad fleet under Foote. He just barely escaped. It will be a long time before that fleet puts to water again.

And how did he get the WS for all that? You let him stock the gulf blockade with brigs, didn't you. Tssk, tssk.

[McNaughton]

In regards as to when troops 'upgrade' from early to late, I figure that (for the USA and CSA, at least out East) it was about the time when Hooker reorganized the Army of the Potomac. Troops, by that time, were professional, weaponry was as standardized and as modern as possible (the last smoothbore musket was removed from the Army of Northern Virignia by this time, along with the 6lb artillery). Troops, for the greater part, were professional. Out west, this process was somewhat lagging behind. While troops were professional, they were lacking in modern equipment (still loads of smoothbores on both sides).

I have found that upgrading of regiments from early to late is a bit too early. I have lowered chances to about 5%, and had the first 'era' of upgrades appear in 1862 (meaning no late war infantry in 1861).

[Jabberwock]

I'm still confused. I don't know where I pulled this 3 pts cost.

The cost is 1.5/100 pt for each pt of military control missing (= 1.5 pt if you march in a 0% controled region) + your CohOnMove cost (+ weather)

This added cost (from missing MC) has been made for two things:

1 - to help the weaker player, the one who is invaded (so the AI ).

2 - to represent the various minutes attritioning, skirmishes and guard duty you have to cope with when you are in hostile territory.

Whatever the actual modifier is, it seems to work for small forces. The problem occurs with a large force that has low cohesion to begin with. It cannot convert territory, because its has no cohesion, and if it moves to retreat, the cohesion gets even lower. I have caught Athena this way many times, because a.) she uses up cohesion while still in her own territory b.) she overextends with forces that are not mobile enough to retreat easily c.) I cut off a large chunk of territory and then wait for her to come out.

[Jabberwock]

In regards as to when troops 'upgrade' from early to late, I figure that (for the USA and CSA, at least out East) it was about the time when Hooker reorganized the Army of the Potomac. Troops, by that time, were professional, weaponry was as standardized and as modern as possible (the last smoothbore musket was removed from the Army of Northern Virignia by this time, along with the 6lb artillery). Troops, for the greater part, were professional. Out west, this process was somewhat lagging behind. While troops were professional, they were lacking in modern equipment (still loads of smoothbores on both sides).

In terms of equipment, yes. In terms of professionalism, maybe after Chancellorsville.

[Jagger]

I just did a quick test in the 63 Scenario.

I moved Shermans division from swamp, mud region to an enemy controlled but unoccupied swamp, mud region. Shermans region at 100% Union control and the objective region at 100% CSA control

The move took 11 days. A Union brigade changed cohesion from 70 to 48. So he lost 22 cohesion points in 11 days. The first 5.5 days in US 100% control at a cost of 5.5 cohesion points. The remaining 5.5 days in CSA 100% control was at a cost 16.5 cohesion points.

3x loss in cohesion while in 100% enemy control appears correct.

This has an impact on my calculations for reduction in combat efficiency as well. I calculated the entire move as occuring in 100% enemy control. The reality is half of the move should be at the 3x cost of enemy control. A ballpark figure might be a 25% addition to my numbers for combat efficiency after approach march to battle.

BTW, if we changed infantry modifier in models to 33%, I think the loss of cohesion would have been 7.3 cohesion points instead of 22 points. Instead of a combat efficiency of 68% after that march, the brigade would have a combat efficiency of 90%.

Which is a more accurate reflection of combat efficiency after an 11 day march in mud and swamps-68% or 90%?

[Jagger]

In terms of equipment, yes. In terms of professionalism, maybe after Chancellorsville.

And I believe changes in tactical doctrine as well. The emphasis on entrenchment in 64, I think was a dramatic change in tactical doctrine.

I am not sure how to define the reluctance of troops and commanders to carry out all-out attacks-particularly after 63. Often I have read of troops in 64 either refusing to attack or quitting as soon as resistence was encountered. Professional experience, I guess---so professionalism.

[Jagger]

And how did he get the WS for all that? You let him stock the gulf blockade with brigs, didn't you. Tssk, tssk.

Hehe...My guess is because I haven't blockaded any harbors. Way too many ships required for harbor blockades now.

Although I have taken Galveston and about to take Pensacola--and hopefully Mobile or New Orleans sometime this year.

He has only a few ships in the Ocean blockade boxes.

[Pocus]

Whatever the actual modifier is, it seems to work for small forces. The problem occurs with a large force that has low cohesion to begin with. It cannot convert territory, because its has no cohesion, and if it moves to retreat, the cohesion gets even lower. I have caught Athena this way many times, because a.) she uses up cohesion while still in her own territory b.) she overextends with forces that are not mobile enough to retreat easily c.) I cut off a large chunk of territory and then wait for her to come out.

Mmmh, you convert territory in the same way with or without a high cohesion, as long as you are in the region. but I understand and agree to your other points, the AI is restless and too unfocused.

[Pocus]

I just did a quick test in the 63 Scenario.

I moved Shermans division from swamp, mud region to an enemy controlled but unoccupied swamp, mud region. Shermans region at 100% Union control and the objective region at 100% CSA control

The move took 11 days. A Union brigade changed cohesion from 70 to 48. So he lost 22 cohesion points in 11 days. The first 5.5 days in US 100% control at a cost of 5.5 cohesion points. The remaining 5.5 days in CSA 100% control was at a cost 16.5 cohesion points.

3x loss in cohesion while in 100% enemy control appears correct.

This has an impact on my calculations for reduction in combat efficiency as well. I calculated the entire move as occuring in 100% enemy control. The reality is half of the move should be at the 3x cost of enemy control. A ballpark figure might be a 25% addition to my numbers for combat efficiency after approach march to battle.

BTW, if we changed infantry modifier in models to 33%, I think the loss of cohesion would have been 7.3 cohesion points instead of 22 points. Instead of a combat efficiency of 68% after that march, the brigade would have a combat efficiency of 90%.

Which is a more accurate reflection of combat efficiency after an 11 day march in mud and swamps-68% or 90%?

It does not work like that. You are in the starting region as long as you have not reached the destination region. So you reach region B at day 11 and can be engaged into combat in this region only at day 11.

BUT the cohesion loss from lack of MC is using the average of the starting and destination region, so it means that you travel 11 days on a land with 50% MC, so it means you lose .5 x 1.5 = 0.75 cohesion per day of marching + the CohOnMove + weather if any.

[Jabberwock]

Mmmh, you convert territory in the same way with or without a high cohesion, as long as you are in the region. but I understand and agree to your other points, the AI is restless and too unfocused.

I expressed that poorly. Convert was the wrong verb. They cannot gain control of territory.

How old is she now? 2 years? Most 2-year-olds are restless and unfocused. I have great expectations of her as she matures.

[Jagger]

Below are the manpower numbers I am trying to get into the game. If successful, the numbers can be tweaked but these are the starting points I am looking at.

The general curve of manpower ratios are roughly maintained with historical values but not the 3-1 Union advantage. Max advantage is 2-1 by the end of the war. I am assuming many Union troops are tied down in northern garrisions and not needed in the game.

Monthly conscription increased for Union. Volunteer and drafts reduced for both Union and CSA. The importance of drafts reduced substantially for both sides as draft/conscription produced a very small proportion of total troops.

The primary source of manpower for both sides are the total volunteers. The volunteer manpower is a combination of monthly volunteers and twice a year special calls for volunteers.

Manpower production per year:

(Monthly Prod)Monthly Tot/Vol Tot/Draft Tot--Annual Tot

61--CSA---(30)780/300/200------1080(1280)
----US-----(65)1690/400/250---------------2090(2340)
----Ratio---2.2
(Numbers in Parenthesis are the totals if one side picks an early draft.)

62--CSA---(30)780/400/250------1430
----US-----(65)1690/400/250---------------2090(2340)
----Ratio---1.7

63--CSA---(25)650/200/200------1050
----US-----(55)1430/400/250---------------2080
----Ratio---1.7

64--CSA---(20)520/100/100------720
----US-----(50)1300/350/250---------------1900
----Ratio---1.8

65--CSA---(15)390/100/100------590
----US-----(40)1040/250/250---------------1540
----Ratio---2.0

Totals:
CSA 4870 (5070)----equiv 40 divisions (0riginal Max 10040)
US 9700 (10200)---equiv 80 divisions (Original Max 14345)
Total Ratio 2.0

Note that both CSA and Union peak in manpower production in 1862. However the CSA decline in annual manpower production is more severe than the US starting in 63. Drafts become a more significant source of manpower as volunteers drop off as the war progresses. By 1865, CSA manpower is close to tapped out.
----------------------------------------------------------

CSA Volunteer and Conscription Production

Twice a Year Vols
CSA------1861--62----63----64---65 Year
Vols Free-125---175---100---40---40 Conscripts produced
Vols, 1K--150---200---125---50---50
Vols, 2K--175---225---135---60---60
Vols, 3K--200---235---145---70---70

Once a Year Draft
CSA-------1861---62----63----64---65
Consc,Par--150---200---200---75---40
Consc,Ful--200---250---250---100--100
ExtraCost--10NM-2NM---2NM--2NM--2NM

Union Volunteer and Draft Production Choices

Twice a Year Vols
Union----1861---62----63----64---65
Vols Free-175---175---150---100--75
Vols, 1K--200---200---175---125--100
Vols, 2K--225---225---200---150--125
Vols, 3K--235---235---210---160--135

Once a Year Draft
Union--1861----62----63----64---65
Draft,Par--200----200---200---200--200
Draft,Ful--250----250---250---250--250
ExtraCost-10NM--10NM--2NM--2NM--2NM

Note that 2k and 3k volunteers are available but expensive for the small number of extra troops provided. Although towards the end of the war, they are a more attractive option. 1K volunteers are the logical choice in 61-63.

If a player calls a draft before the actual historical timeframe, there is a significant National Morale penalty.

Any comments before I try to get the numbers into the game?

[Jagger]

I have also made significant changes to the battle system to balance a bit more towards the offense. I have tested against the AI and am now testing in a PBEM.

Here are a list of the changes for a PBEM MOD.

1. March to Guns- Possibility of reinforcement through march to guns is significantly reduced between corps of the same army in adjacent regions. Don't count on automatic MTG reinforcement of independent corps. I am very happy with the results of this change.

2. Command Control-Reduced army control radius but increased army bonus for those under army control. Army commanders, with less than 6 strategic command, only provide army command bonus in their own region. Army leaders of strat rating of 6 and above, normally have 2 region command radius. Army bonus is now -1 instead of -2.

3. Cohesion loss reduced by 25% due to movement except for cavalry. However increased cohesion loss due to battle-approximately double vs regular game. Troops, except cavalry, can march further with less cohesion loss (-25% from regular) but suffer greater when in battle (+100% over regular).

4. Offensive infantry frontage quota modifiers increased in better offensive terrain such as clear and light woods but reduced in constricted terrain such as wilderness and mountains. Artillery frontages also modified-increased for high vision terrain and reduced for low vision situations. Mud, snow, frozen, blizzards reduce offensive quota modifiers due to poor mobility. These changes are based on the assumption that the offensive side able to concentrate troops vs defenders. Also reflects initiative advantage of offense. Allows side on offense with greater numbers to better use those numbers in more open terrain with the reverse in poor terrain. In certain terrain, it is best to use offensive stance regardless of numbers. (This area still subject to further modification)

5. The spread between OFFFire and DEFFire significantly reduced. Early war Rebs have slightly greater OFFFire than US troops. Advantage of defense not as dominating as previously. Early war Rebs maintain their cohesion, TQ, Asslt, etc advantages over early war Union troops. Late war infantry very similiar but with the rebs maintaining a slight OFFFire advantage.

6. Entrenchments- Entrenchments improve as the war progresses and armies place greater emphasis on entrenchments.

--Restricted to Lvl 2 and 5 in 61-Oct, 62 (for some reason, level 2 entrenchments appears to work but max entrenchment goes to 6 instead of 5. Not sure why.
--Restricted to Lvl 3 and 6 in Nov, 62-Oct, 63
--Regular entrenchments of Lvl 4 and 8 from Oct, 63 till end of war.

7. Cavalry Mod- Increased possibility of cavalry retreating from battle--increases survivability. Very happy with the results of this old mod as well.

8. Reduced manpower---------Not implemented yet.

This mod is going through heavy testing now. If anyone is interested in beta testing either against the AI or in a PBEM, drop me a PM and I will send the files. I definitely would like as much feedback as possible.