Manpower

[Jagger]

I have been looking at total manpower available to each side over the 5 year time frame of the Civil War.

Here are the calculations.

CSA manpower over 5 year time frame.

CSA Monthly conscripts are approximately 29 conscripts per turn.
29csx24=696cs 696 conscripts per year.

1k or 2k volunteers every 3 months produces:

1K volunteers: 288csx4=1152cs each year
2K volunteers: 364csx4=1456cs each year

Partial or Full mobilization every 9 months or 1.33 mobilizations per year.

Partial mob: 455csx1.33=607cs each year
Full mob: 612csx1.33=814cs each year

Total conscripts over 5 year period assuming conscripts every two weeks, 2K volunteers every 3 months and full mobilization every 9 months--

Times 5 for five years of annual production:
[696x5]+[1456x5]+[814x5]=3480+7325+4070=14875 conscripts over five years

---------------------------------------------------

US
Monthly conscripts: 55csx24=1320cs

1K volunteers: 240csx4=960cs
2k volunteers: 339csx4=1356cs

Partial mob:
Full mob: 759csx1.33=1009cs

Total conscripts over 5 year period assuming conscripts each month, 2K volunteers every 3 months and full mobilization every 9 months--

5 years:
[1320x5]+[1356x5]+[1009x5]=6600+6780+5045=16690 conscripts over five years

----------------------------------------------------

14875/16690=89% or a 11% advantage in Union manpower
14.9 CSA divisions for every 16.7 US divisions

Assume 120 Conscripts= 1 division

CSA--14875cs/120cs=manpower for 124 divisions [restricted to 24 divisions] 5.2 times beyond necessary manpower for 24 divisions
US---16690cs/120cs=manpower for 139 divisions [restricted to 48 divisions] 2.9 excess manpower beyond necessary manpower for 48 divisions

----------------------------------------------------

My total numbers do not count formations available at start of scenario or free "event" provided brigades/militia.

I have made a number of assumptions such as approximate monthly conscipt numbers, selecting 2k volunteers and full mobilization at each opportunity. In addition, national morale will impact numbers. Regardless, we have some ballpark figures in total numbers to consider.

I am first struck by the ratio of 14875 CSA conscripts to 16690 US conscripts over a 5 year time frame. This is a ratio of 1.2-1 which remains the same throughout the game. The Union advantage in total manpower is very small both in terms of historical context and in game mechanics. Historically IIRC, the Union had a 3:1 advantage by the end of the war. In game terms, I would have expected at least 2:1 advantage considering the strength of defense within ACW. Although the Union has several strong advantages such as having 48 divisions to the CSA 24 divisions and superior mobility. But are those advantages enough to compensate the Union player for having the burden of attack with odds of 1.2-1 especially considering the strength of entrenchments and the poor Union leadership? And does a 1.2-1 ratio allow an accurate recreation of the strategic situation during the Civil War

Although I also noticed the excess manpower available to both sides vs the total number of divisions which can be created. My attrition rate is actually very low except for the occasional disasterous battle. In my longest PBEM game, I will be completely maxed out in divisions sometime in early 63. And I will no longer need mobilizations or costly volunteers. Unless I build lots and lots of independent brigades, for which I really have no need, the excess manpower is just there. I suspect the CSA would be in the same situation as the US but much, much earlier as they can only fill out 24 divisions.

Should manpower be reduced substantially for both sides? Should the ratio of troops between the US and CSA be altered? Any significant factors I am not considering? Anybody spot any errors in my calculations?

Any comments or thoughts?

[runyan99]

1k or 2k volunteers every 3 months produces:

Partial or Full mobilization every 9 months or 1.33 mobilizations per year.

I think the Volunteers option resets every 6 months, while the draft is supposed to reset once per 12 months. Is that not correct?

[Jagger]

I think the Volunteers option resets every 6 months, while the draft is supposed to reset once per 12 months. Is that not correct?

I am playing the CSA vs the AI now. I just made it to Jan 62 and purchased volunteers and did the draft. I see the volunteer option has changed to once every 6 months from the once every 3 month schedule of 61. And drafts have changed to once every 9 months to once every 12 months. So looks like one draft a year unless the frequency changes again in 63. I believe the US drafts and volunteers adjust as well.

Anyone know the location of the file with the timing sequence for the entire war?

[runyan99]

I am playing the CSA vs the AI now. I just made it to Jan 62 and purchased volunteers and did the draft. I see the volunteer option has changed to once every 6 months from the once every 3 month schedule of 61. And drafts have changed to once every 9 months to once every 12 months. So looks like one draft a year unless the frequency changes again in 63. I believe the US drafts and volunteers adjust as well.

I think you got confused by the fact that the game starts in april (not January '61), and the options reset in june/july for the 6 month options (volunteers), and in January for the draft.

Each year it is two volunteers calls (Jan-June and July-Dec) and one draft.

Anyway, you're on the right track in the analysis of the overall situation. The CSA in the game has much more manpower parity with the USA than was the case historically. It really needs a tweak.

There is also I think a problem with the fact that manpower doesn't seem to decrease for both sides as the war progresses and recruits are harder to find, but remains pretty constant through the game.

[Jagger]

I think you got confused by the fact that the game starts in april (not January '61), and the options reset in june/july for the 6 month options (volunteers), and in January for the draft.

Each year it is two volunteers calls (Jan-June and July-Dec) and one draft.

Ok. That makes sense.

I also just noticed something odd. The volunteers provided for the CSA are greater than for the US in my calculations.

Those numbers are from the December 61 turn of my game. When I look at the starting point of the game, the volunteers provided to the CSA for 2k volunteers are 321 conscripts vs 355 conscripts for the US. I suspect the difference is because I have a 37 point National Morale advantage in my AI game. That will have some impact on the total numbers. I will have to recalculate the numbers tomorrow for both the change in volunteers and reduced opportunities for drafts/volunteers. Just eyeballing, the total numbers will be reduced substantially although I don't think the ratio difference will change much.

[Jagger]

delete double post

[Jagger]

There is also I think a problem with the fact that manpower doesn't seem to decrease for both sides as the war progresses and recruits are harder to find, but remains pretty constant through the game.

I agree. The drafts and volunteers both decreased substantially for both sides as the war progressed. I read recently of the CSA draft for huge numbers of recruits in 1864 and only handfuls actually responded to the summons.

[Clovis]

I agree. The drafts and volunteers both decreased substantially for both sides as the war progressed. I read recently of the CSA draft for huge numbers of recruits in 1864 and only handfuls actually responded to the summons.

The current engine is (partially at lesat) taking this into account as Draft numbers are raising or decreasing with the NM level.

For my own, I consider the engine to be both unhistorical and historical.

Unhistorical because draft doesn't take into account relunctance of draftees to comply the order. And the system is too much lenient for USA when the percentage of draftees was...6% of the total of men present in the Army.

Historical, because engine is getting right the dilemnas: volunteers against money, draft to the detriment of National morale.

So I balanced more the 2 mechanisms, introducing real difference between USA ans CSA, the latter being forced to rely more on draft, without complexifying the engine by a lot of events I fear AI will be unable to cope with and player will have difficulties to understand...

[Jagger]

So I balanced more the 2 mechanisms, introducing real difference between USA ans CSA, the latter being forced to rely more on draft, without complexifying the engine by a lot of events I fear AI will be unable to cope with and player will have difficulties to understand...

Have you calculated ballpark numbers of conscripts for timeframe of the war?

What sort of ratio were you able to produce with your changes between US and CSA manpower?

I would like to see a greater difference in troop numbers between the US and CSA. Also I would not have a problem with increasing the effectiveness of CSA infantry/cavalry to compensate to a certain extent for inferior numbers. IMO, the reb infantry and cavalry fought harder than Union troops primarily because they were fighting in the South-ie., defending their homes.

[Clovis]

Have you calculated ballpark numbers of conscripts for timeframe of the war?

What sort of ratio were you able to produce with your changes between US and CSA manpower?

I would like to see a greater difference in troop numbers between the US and CSA. Also I would not have a problem with increasing the effectiveness of CSA infantry/cavalry to compensate to a certain extent for inferior numbers. IMO, the reb infantry and cavalry fought harder than Union troops primarily because they were fighting in the South-ie., defending their homes.

What I added to the volunteer was removed from draft and vice-versa. I've not yet modified the whole numbers as I need more time and tests to see what changes have to be made and if AI can deal with...

[McNaughton]

From my point of view, I say that the most important thing is to balance out the USA and CSA numbers. Choose the 'historic' options for both, and try and replicate realistic numbers (including free units and such).

Here are a few links (from the same site) for a quick and general overview...

http://www.civilwarhome.com/themen.htm

http://www.civilwarhome.com/armysize.htm

By the end of 1862 the armies had finished 'growing'. Further influxes of troops were basically used to stabalize the fighting formations, to keep numbers up. The larger your armies get, the greater the strain of desertion and sickness.

A part of my mod deals with Desertions and Sickness, which basically results in a greater dran on manpower and resources as your armies get larger. In 1861 you spend, on average, about 5 replacement infantry regiments a turn based on sickness and desertion. As your armies get larger, the drain increases as well (not including combat losses). To keep your forces at a reasonable strength you have to devote more resources to replacements.

I personally believe that the 'number' of men gained in AACW to be correct. However, the loss rate is too low, and dependent only on battle, supply levels, outbreaks, and weather (all of which the player is good at managing, but the AI is not so good at). All too often players can get their forces to 100%, then attack, when in reality no force was ever at 100% (even after leaving camp right after mobilization they are hemmoraging men).

So, as a personal bias I suggest balance the ration between CSA and USA (IMO, this should be done by adding some to the USA, and removing some from the CSA), and work on the actual drains on manpower (rather than lowering the total to artificially replicate 'real' numbers).

[Jagger]

Thanks McNaughton! Those are two excellent links to manpower.

Here is a quick summary of the data from the two links.

Here is the manpower present for duty by year. For more detailed information, see the two links in McNaughton's post above.

-------------US-----------CSA--------Ratio
61 July------183K----------?
62 Ded/Jan--527K---------258K-------2.0-1
63 Dec/Jan--698K---------277K-------2.5-1
64 Dec/Jan--611K---------194K-------3.0-1
65 Dec/Jan--620K---------196K-------3.2-1

Peak CSA manpower documented was Mar 62 at 304K which was approximately a 1.75-1 ratio with US troops. Peak US manpower was in 63. Downward slope afterwards.

US drafts produce 6% of US troops-162K. According to article, drafts actually increased volunteers. Drafts occurred in July 63 and March, July and Dec 64.

CSA conscription produced 82K per incomplete records from territory east of the Mississippi. First CSA conscription was in April 62.

In July of 1862, the Federal Congress authorized the acceptance of Negroes for labor and military service. The first major recruiting began in Louisiana in September of 1862. A few units were organized by states, but for the most part they were considered Federal troops. A total of 178,892 Negroes officially served in the Union Army, of whom 134,111 were from slave states, with some 93,346 of these from seceded states. They participated in r66 regiments including 145 infantry regiments, 12 regiments of heavy artillery, 1 regiment of light artillery, 1 of engineers, and 7 cavalry regiments. Losses in Negro troops were 2,751 men killed or mortally wounded; 29,618 died of disease. Among the 7,122 white officers, 143 were killed or mortally wounded and 138 died of disease.

179K black troops fought for the Union. However most were used as garrisons and rear area troops as reflected in their low losses.

What is interesting is that US armies did not have 3:1 odd advantage when directly facing CSA armies. Large Union forces were used as civil control garrisons and protection of supply lines which significantly reduced frontline armies.

Of course, the real question is what sort of numbers would reflect the weaker garrisons needed in ACW and a reasonable ratio between frontline armies while still giving the CSA a 50-50 fighting chance. IMO if the US is given a 3-1 ratio of troops, they would completely destroy the CSA and fairly quickly. Not through direct attacks but through invasions. Entrenched CSA armies can defeat 3-1 odd attacks through attrition but they cannot defend everywhere.

I am going to think about it but any thoughts, ideas? Balance is very important.

[runyan99]

I read today that 50% of the eligible males in the north served during the war, compared to 80% of eligible males in the south.

I think looking at ratios first is the wrong way to approach it. Instead, try to come up with a historical number of total available conscript points for the whole war, like your analysis in the first post.

The CSA should be easier to figure out, since they attempted to draft just about every eligible male between 16 and 50. Find a historical number for the total number of men that served in the CSA armed forces over the course of the war (1.4 million according to Wiki). But of course, the CSA lost the war, so that number includes a lot of draft dodging and shirking. So, add 20% to that total to get the total number of eligible males the CSA possibly could have put in the field. That comes to 1.68 million. That's the max.

Now make a rough estimate as to how many men one conscript point represents. Most 2 regiment brigades in AACW require 20 conscript points, so let's just estimate one conscript point equals 100 actual men.

Divide 1.68 million by 100 and I come up with the figure of 16,800 conscript points. That should be what is available by maxing out all options for the entire war.

Now, different numbers plugged in will yield different totals, but that is how I would analyse the manpower for the game. As far as the ratios are concerned, the population differential between the north and the south will naturally give you a realistic ratio of points if you have the right numbers to plug in.

Now of course, you also have to put heavy enough VP and NM penalties in place to discourage actually using this maximum amount of conscripts, but that is a slightly seperate issue. That comes after you figure out what should be available.

[Jagger]

First thoughts has to do with strategic leadership.

If Union corps and army leadership have strategic leadership of two, only 33%of an army can carry out offensive operations. 100% of an army can be used defensively but have very poor mobility. Which means offensively, the Union is basically attacking at 1:1 odds with a 3:1 numerical advantage. Although attacking at 1:1 odds against entrenched troops with march to the guns is suicide. Regardless, the Union has the capability of successive attacks with the reserves available. In addition, the US can always advance wherever the rebs are not defending which is often the best choice. Assuming their is space to manuever.

If CSA corps and army leadership have an average strategic leadership of four, then 66% of an army can carry out offensive operations at one time. The CSA would have far greater mobility in both offense and defense. However the US can use 100% of their formations defensively. So offensively, the CSA would really have to pick weak points to attack if there are any.

And with 3:1 odds, can the CSA defend everywhere?

[Jagger]

Divide 1.68 million by 100 and I come up with the figure of 16,800 conscript points. That should be what is available by maxing out all options for the entire war.

That is in the ballpark of what the game provides now with max recruitment for the CSA. The US would need to be much higher to reflect their possibilities.

However IMO, the armies are way too large now for the map frontage and are able to defend very long lines. Although the defensive lines are a reflection of army control, march to guns and entrenchments which can be easily modded. As McNaughton points out, the attrition levels are not reflected as severely as it was historically. Also the Union need for rear area garrisons are not as high either. Those are factors which evened the odds when the US armies met CSA armies.

I think it might be easier to reduce total manpower rather than try to reflect attrition, create a need for large garrisons and whatever other factors might play a role in reducing the ratios when armies meet. Which is the reason I am looking at ratios. It is easier to adjust manpower up or down while maintaining ratios than try for exact manpower and then introduce mechanisms for reducing manpower accurately.

The question in my mind is how will the game respond to a 2/3-1 ratio of Union troops to CSA troops. Will the CSA have an approximate 50-50 chance of victory? Would we need to increase the effectiveness of CSA troops/leadership, etc to ensure the CSA is not simply quickly overwhelmed by numbers. What would need to be tweaked to give the CSA a good game?

[runyan99]

I think it might be easier to reduce total manpower rather than try to reflect attrition,

It could be done either way.

What would need to be tweaked to give the CSA a good game?

Increase the NM and VP penalties for the draft. Give the USA side a good reason NOT to draft for the first two years of the war, because doing so would be fatal to morale. I think Clovis is on the right track here with his mod, as he has radically increased the NM penalties for drafting.

At the same time, try to insure that historical choices field an historical number of troops in the game.

[Jagger]

Increase the NM and VP penalties for the draft. Give the USA side a good reason NOT to draft for the first two years of the war, because doing so would be fatal to morale. I think Clovis is on the right track here with his mod, as he has radically increased the NM penalties for drafting.

I suspect the best choice is to not allow the draft at all till 63 unless a disasterous situation occurs. If NM drops to x level, then the Union can draft. Although it might be best just to let the US lose if the CSA can beat the Union that badly early.

[Jagger]

Increase the NM and VP penalties for the draft. Give the USA side a good reason NOT to draft for the first two years of the war, because doing so would be fatal to morale. I think Clovis is on the right track here with his mod, as he has radically increased the NM penalties for drafting.

I suspect the best choice is to not allow the draft at all till 63 unless a disasterous situation occurs. If NM drops to x level, then the Union can draft. Although it might be best just to let the US lose if the CSA can beat the Union that badly early.

At the same time, try to insure that historical choices field an historical number of troops in the game.

The penalties would have to be very severe. I have never played a CSA opponent yet that didn't max out troop recruitment. And now, I do the same thing or I lose quickly.

[runyan99]

No, the Union needs morale to go UP so they can draft, not down so they can draft. The Union starts the game in the hole in terms of NM. The Union morale after the 10 point hit in July is down to the 80s.

If the penatly is severe, as I think it is in Clovis' mod, then the USA doesn't want to draft in 1861 or 1862 because doing so might lower morale to the 70s or the 60s.

There is a game within the game of AACW, a game of chicken between the USA and the CSA as to who can stay ahead in the VP and NM standings. The Union has some pressure to take the lead in at least one of these categories, because if they don't, the foreign intervention constantly increases. Unchecked, this leads to the triggering of foreign intervention sometime in 1864.

So, increasing the penalties puts the Union in the situation where drafting early puts the USA into a morale and VP hole they might not be able to get out of in time to prevent foreign intervention and win the war. Thus, there is an incentive not to use such drastic measures.

Shelby Foote liked to say the Union fought the war with one hand tied behind its back. Good design will give the Union player incentive to do just that, and not draft more men than the Union did historically.

[runyan99]

The penalties would have to be very severe. I have never played a CSA opponent yet that didn't max out troop recruitment. And now, I do the same thing or I lose quickly.

As the game now stands, I don't max out as the CSA. Because I like to play a defensive strategy, I think I can get by without paying bounties or resorting to a full mobilization. That's part of the NM game of chicken I'm talking about, and it should be an important part of the game. Maybe your CSA opponents have maxed out recruitment, but have also been very aggressive and wasted a lot of manpower fighting offensive battles. I don't know.

Also, NM affects the cohesion level of all of your units in the field, so maxing out your conscript points lowers morale and reduces the effectiveness of the troops you already have. That's another incentive to take every step to raise, not lower, NM.

This balance between NM, VP and manpower is a critical part of what makes AACW interesting. There shouldn't be one right answer.

[Pocus]

There is a game within the game of AACW, a game of chicken between the USA and the CSA as to who can stay ahead in the VP and NM standings. The Union has some pressure to take the lead in at least one of these categories, because if they don't, the foreign intervention constantly increases. Unchecked, this leads to the triggering of foreign intervention sometime in 1864.

Perfectly said, and I'm happy that some of you have seen this mini-game within the game, this is one of our pleasure when we design the game to add these game tricks

[McNaughton]

How about Player only events dealing with 'foreign occupation'. For example, you capture a Confederate VP city, it then requires that you keep X many combat units at the city, or else you lose NM, VP, and control (partisans/bushwackers appear and liberate the city). This way, the USA (and if the invader, the CSA) has to garrison the city, with substantial force, otherwize you lose control (thereby supply lines weakened).

It will require events for each VP city of the enemy, plus, these events only to trigger for human players (since the AI is not as abusive towards the system anyway).

I personally think that the AACW event system can cover a lot of the issues discussed (attrition, and garrisoning your lines of supply). There is a lot of potential in this system, and should not be overlooked.

[GShock]

It's the engine that has a huge potential. It's smart and also very flexible.

What runyan says is true, there's no sure way to categorize a situation only by judging VP and NM because too many options affect these values and they don't come from fixed parameters but by variables. (VP come in increments)

I believe it can't have been possible even for a big band of betatesters to assemble such a complex game in exact details. AgeOD picked a complex game to begin with...Atari started with Asteroids!
I wonder how many beta and hours were needed to find the correct values with the starting VP and NM.

The release of such frequent mini-patches is an indicator of the increased experience coming from the world of players applied to new ideas that couldnt' come from insiders and not just the result of a premature final release.

One thing is when you beta with what you have, you report problems, you propose solutions but then... there's an exact schedule ahead.
In this case you're forced to report what you find and only small steps can be done without altering the structure much (each new implement puts you potentially 10 steps behind in schedule, to counter drawbacks and rebalance the other variables).

Another thing is when the game is out, there is no pressure and what couldn't be achieved before, what there was no time to make perfect, can be achieved next, without risks for the project or risky (and costly) commitment of human resources better needed elsewhere.

That's when the mods kick in.

Both the ideas on manpower and sickness/desertions should be pursued and MC is bloody well right about events.

My xp with the '61 campaign showed me I could learn by trial and error.
I went back everytime to redo some moves after taking the comments explainign me...and modifying 1 move and redoing all the rest I found out 99% of times the same moves were working again and again and again.

If you think about this, it's like playing chess. The theory of the openings.

A fine mod could encompass random relocation of a % of some units at each game start so that your same tactic cannot always be replayed (of course exclude historical spawns).
Capturing Harper's Ferry at my first turn with a militia unit was a big hit. What happens if i restart the campaign and find a regular infantry unit there? See...

I'm very willing to help testing these mods when they are out. All of them, and i think they should be merged into a single mod to emphasyze history and accuracy in the simulation.

[Jagger]

Here is some background information on how manpower is generated:

Each state has certain cities which produce conscripts which are reflected in the number of monthly conscripts received. (Data can be modified in conscript column of the AACW_DB_regions13.xls file. )

Union
NY-8 CS
NJ-1 CS
DE-1 CS
MD-1 CS
Pa-3 CS
WV-1 CS
Oh-2 CS
Mi-1 cS
In-1 CS
Il-4 CS
Wi-1 CS
Io-1 CS
MO-1 CS
KS-1 CS
Total-35 Conscripts
85National Morale

CSA
VA-8 CS
NC-2 CS
SC-2 CS
Ga-2 CS
Fl-2 CS
Al-2 CS
Tn-2 CS
Ms-2 CS
La-2 CS
Ar-2 CS
Mo-1 CS
TX-2 CS
KY-1 CS
Total-30 CS
100NM

I am assuming national morale, loyalty and recruiting officers will all impact monthly conscript production by states.

---------------------------------------------------------------

The next two tables below give the modifiers for volunteers/draft choices and the quantity of conscripts produced from the AACW_inc_CMN_GamesOpt.xls file

--------Modifier--CSA/100NM---USA/85NM
---Vols| -40'''''''''''''''153Cs'''''''''''''''''''''138Cs
1k Vols| -10'''''''''''''''245Cs'''''''''''''''''''''256Cs
2k Vols| '''15''''''''''''''321Cs'''''''''''''''''''''355Cs
3k Vols| '''40''''''''''''''382Cs'''''''''''''''''''''433Cs

---------Modifier--CSA/100NM---USA/85NM
PartDraft| '''75'''''''''''''459Cs''''''''''''''''''''532Cs
Fll Draft| ''135''''''''''''''612Cs''''''''''''''''''''729Cs

-I am assuming these volunteer/draft conscription numbers use the state production numbers as a base and then a formula is applied to produce the above results. The modifier ranging from -40 to 135 can be adjusted to increase or decrease production per choice.
-I am assuming national morale and loyalty will impact the numbers produced by both volunteers and drafts.
-Note that if both the CSA and US choose unpaid volunteers at the start of the game, the CSA will receive more volunteers than the US. I assume this is because the CSA has a higher NM than the Union at the start of the game. (Explains why I was absolutley massacred in my first 2 Union PBEMs when I choose the historical unpaid Volunteers and no draft... )

If you want to adjust the monthly volunteers and manpower ratios between the CSA and Union, the state production numbers can be easily modded.

If you want to adjust the volunteers and draft manpower ratios produced by the CSA and Union, the modifier number can be modded. Although without the exact formula, you would need to trial and error to find the correct modifier to achieve the desired results.

Hopefully events can be used to adjust both the state and the vol/draft modifier at key points throughout the game.

[McNaughton]

Here's another spot, all about Confederate enlistment, military population, losses, and disease divided out by state (may be convenient to determine monthly conscript ratios and such). One thing you learn is that it sucked to be from South and North Carolina...

http://www.civilwarhome.com/confederatelosses.htm

One interesting note is that there should be as many killed by disease as there were killed by battle. Which, to me, stresses the importance of having 'daily attrition'.

[Jagger]

Ok, here is the recalculation of numbers using vols every 6 months and drafts once a year. The ratio does improve but still a long way from historical but perhaps best for gameplay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

CSA manpower over 5 year time frame.

CSA Monthly conscripts are approximately 29 conscripts per turn.
29csx24=754cs 754 conscripts per year.

1k or 2k volunteers every 6 months produces:

1K volunteers: 245csx2=490cs each year
2K volunteers: 321csx2=642cs each year

Partial or Full mobilization once per year.

Partial mob: 455cs each year
Full mob: 612cs each year

Total conscripts over 5 year period assuming state provided conscripts every turn, 2K volunteers every 6 months and full mobilization once per year--

Times 5 for five years of annual production:
[754x5]+[642x5]+[612x5]= 3770+3210+3060=10040 conscripts over five years

---------------------------------------------------

US
Monthly conscripts: 55csx26=1430cs

1K volunteers: 256csx2=512cs
2k volunteers: 355csx2=710cs

Partial mob:
Full mob: 729cs

Total conscripts over 5 year period assuming conscripts each turn, 2K volunteers every 6 months and full mobilization once a year-
5 years:
[1430x5]+[710x5]+[729x5]=7150+3550+3645=14345 conscripts over five years

----------------------------------------------------
CSA---US total conscripts
10040/14345
10.4 CSA divisons per 14.3 Union divisions

Assume 120 Conscripts= 1 division

CSA--10040cs/120cs=manpower for 84 divisions [restricted to 24 divisions]
US---14345cs/120cs=manpower for 119 divisions [restricted to 48 divisions]


The ratio is definitely better than previous numbers with vols every 6 months and drafts once a year.

(Redone to reflect April 61 recruitment numbers with Union national morale of 85 and CSA national morale of 100.)

[McNaughton]

I do not like your measure based off of 'divisions' as you do at the end. In all reality, you should have more men than buildable divisions, since, probably about as many 'men' served in divisions as did outside of divisions (garrison duty, brigades, etc.). Limiting manpower to be based on building X many divisions is not going to get correct results.

I believe that modelling attrition is better than artificially capping manpower to hide this aspect. It is 'truer' to the goal, plus the AI already suffers from this, so reducing total MP will mean that the AI will be reduced in its ability.

[Jagger]

I do not like your measure based off of 'divisions' as you do at the end. In all reality, you should have more men than buildable divisions, since, probably about as many 'men' served in divisions as did outside of divisions (garrison duty, brigades, etc.). Limiting manpower to be based on building X many divisions is not going to get correct results.

I believe that modelling attrition is better than artificially capping manpower to hide this aspect. It is 'truer' to the goal, plus the AI already suffers from this, so reducing total MP will mean that the AI will be reduced in its ability.

I use the number of divisions just as a simple "eyeball" comparison of the manpower ratio. I agree many troops don't end up in divisions.

If attrition can be easily and effectively modeled, I don't really have a problem with it. Although in terms of player psychology, I wonder how many players will enjoy the attrition aspect of the game. For me, either way is fine.

[Jagger]

Here's another spot, all about Confederate enlistment, military population, losses, and disease divided out by state (may be convenient to determine monthly conscript ratios and such). One thing you learn is that it sucked to be from South and North Carolina...

http://www.civilwarhome.com/confederatelosses.htm

One interesting note is that there should be as many killed by disease as there were killed by battle. Which, to me, stresses the importance of having 'daily attrition'.

Another excellent site! In particular, the manpower by state is interesting.

NC and SC have always had a tough time. The mortality rate of the first settlers was extremely high as well due to disease. Swampy low lands...

[Pocus]

As a side, personnal note, I don't believe in game mecanism which caps in a hard way, manpower in games. Show me a country at war who was not able to find meat shield for armies, even if the soldiers we teenage or sixty years old (Germany in 44-45 and CSA 64-65).

So you should get a diminished return in quality and quantity, but an hard cap is both irrealistic and very 'screwy' for the AI.