AGEOD Forums

Hi
As I was thinking about the various types of troops in regards to the brigade composition problem(look here if interested: viewtopic.php?f=331&t=50924 ) it came to my mind that beside the brigade composition the overall differences could or should be depicted stronger.

I didn't find any info for the Union but for the Confederates I found this on wikipedia:
- The Provisional Army of the Confederate States (PACS) was authorized by Act of Congress on February 23, 1861, and began organizing on April 27. Virtually all regular, volunteer, and conscripted men preferred to enter this organization since officers could achieve a higher rank in the Provisional Army than they could in the Regular Army. If the war had ended successfully for them, the Confederates intended that the PACS would be disbanded, leaving only the ACSA.

- The Army of the Confederate States of America (ACSA) was the regular army, organized by Act of Congress on March 6, 1861. It was authorized to include 15,015 men, including 744 officers, but this level was never achieved. The men serving in the highest rank as Confederate States Generals, such as Samuel Cooper and Robert E. Lee, were enrolled in the ACSA to ensure that they outranked all militia officers. ACSA ultimately existed only on paper. The organization of the ACSA did not proceed beyond the appointment and confirmation of some officers. Three state regiments were later denominated "Confederate" regiments but this appears to have had no practical effect on the organization of a regular Confederate Army and no real effect on the regiments themselves.

- Confederate States State Militias were organized and commanded by the state governments, similar to those authorized by the United States Militia Act of 1792.

- Confederate Home Guard – a somewhat loosely organized though nevertheless legitimate organization that was under the vague direction and authority of the Confederate States of America, working in coordination with the Confederate Army, and was tasked with both the defense of the Confederate home front during the American Civil War, as well as to help track down and capture Confederate Army deserters.


Now in the game we only have the militias to build or the normal troops. I guess the former should depict the State Militias and maybe Home Guard(or maybe that is depicted by the auto garrison feature), and the later should depict PACS & ACSA units.
I would not mind to see these various branches separated strongly, so the player is able to build:
1. Home Guard(that could be depicted as fixed garrison in a region/city, it should have lower values than militias and should be unable to change there element type).
2. State Militias(confined to the state but maybe with a way to temporarily be used outside or even by the government, they are unable to change there element type).
3. PACS units(those should appear on map as conscript element only because the conscript companies depict men with basic training while the early volunteer units should be something between Militias and PACS units, they should be able to be changed to a normal line element by training).
4. ACSA(These elite elements should not be build as they should be depicted the original US Army units, if wikipedia is correct there were almost no Confederate units of this type).


Now you likely point out that these things already somehow in the game, and yes they are butt just "somehow".
1. There are no Home guard units that you could build to convert loyalty/MC or act as simple garrisons. You have to use militias or even better units for it.
2. Militias are not really confined to their home state, the negative impact of using them outside their home state is just minor(btw I think saw a thread that even notes that this negative impact does not work but that state militias get stronger instead of weaker outside their home state). They are usable just like any other unit by the player although their "job" should be within the state only.
3. PACS unit come in different combinations of qualifications, besides the trouble with the mixed brigades, the brigades often have conscript elements with line elements mixed, what in my view makes no sense at all. It would be best to form brigades of conscript elements only so that it's ready as fast as possible, but afterwards it should be up to the player what to do with these freshly formed units. Either throw them into battle because you desperately need them or let them gain experience in the hope of getting them from green conscripts to regular line elements.
Currently, especially with the much more numerous mixed brigades, the players usually build militias if they need troops fast because the very few pure conscript brigades are quickly used in the game.
4. ACSA units with their elite elements don't seem to depict the professional original US Army or what was meant to be the later Confederate States Army, but also depict the very good regiments of the volunteers what they should not do. The exceptional volunteer units should be depicted by starting with higher experience levels or maybe with a special ability.

Comments?

Excellent discussion topic, but difficult to have precision in any discussion of troops and units in the American Civil War as in all wars where professional armies were essentially meaningless. Your survey and explanation is indeed one way to think about manpower.

How to characterize what militia means in context of the American Civil War is difficult. The initial levies north and south were largely drawn from the existing state militia formation as states met the quotas required from the federal and confederate governments. These formations should likely just be called regulars as they are in the game. The Union calls for additional volunteers represent people who were so much more untrained than the state militia called up at the first rush. In the north troops were raised in regiments. Initially this was true in the south, also.

Here is where modeling raising units gets complicated, essentially the game will need one method for the North and a different one for the South. Players can actually follow the differing approaches by not raising new CSA infantry units after 1862; while the Union can take no infantry or cavalry replacements after the same time.

Trying to drill down to replicating what actually happened is tough. For example, what do you do with the Union Heavy Artillery which Grant pulls our of the fortress around Washington, D.C. and put in a battle as infantry at Cold Harbor? These men had mostly been in service for one to two years, but Cold Harbor was their first battle. Should a realistic rule allow conversion of Hvy Art to weak infantry be added to the game?

Militia is much the same confusing difference. Home guards were raised in the North by states for short service in response to moves like Lee's invasion of Pennsylvania. However, in the South, militia held out of national service were mostly done as a political expression. A few games have tried to model this, but most games assume the player controls all unlocked units. To write a rule about Southern home guards one would need to take into account proximity of Norther troops and the governors attitude toward Jefferson's centralization of power. The current garrison rules model this well.

Long way of saying, studying the raising of troops is always helpful, and suggestions for game implications are always worth examining. But so far, your proposal would lead to a less historical representation.

Well Big Duke, it seems to me that you left out the vast majority of Regiments fighting for the CSA. State raised and authorized units, i.e. the 28th Louisiana Infantry Regiment, the 38th Tennessee Infantry Regiment and the Washington Artillery (a unit from New Orleans). These ended up being what I would call "Regular Army". Just think of Hood's Brigade and its constituent regiments. They were some of the best the Rebs had.

These units would be brigaded with other like units to make the those big brigades we get in the game.

Louisiana Home guard units, and the state militia were nothing compared to Gray's Brigade of the 28th LA, 18th LA and the Consolidated Crescent Regiments that fought at Mansfield in 1864. Dick Taylor never let the Militia units get near the field and never considered them a part of his OOB.

Its likely just me, but I consider the "State Regiments" make up the "regular units" making up these Brigades we recruit in the game.

2 Cents.

There really was a plethora of military organizations active on both sides during the war. It would be far beyond the scope of the game to realize each and every one specifically, and questionable whether their individual consideration would bring much, if anything, to the game.

What one can do, to some extent, is to represent how most of these organizations functioned. The game does to some extent already do this with the affect on cohesion for militia units outside their state territory.

As has been noted, there were units raised on both sides, which were specifically, or later, assigned to their respective national military organizations. The former is represented by regular and volunteer units the player purchases or raises. The latter is not really represented in the game, and I cannot really say to what extent this is an issue. From reading Grant's memoir, I know for example that his first assignment for the federal government was to travel around Illinois and federalize state militia regiments, one from each state department, which were actually raised in response to Lincolns call for volunteers. One could in game terms raise them as state militia and then federalize them, but since they were earmarked for federalization at their inception, it would really be much ado about nothing.

But the states did raise militia units, which were specifically for the defense of the states themselves, and were not to leave the state as a part of a federal force, although--and I don't really know anything about this--they may have been under the command of the federal military district command. I recall reading about one of the battles during Price's Missouri Raid of 1864, when one or more Kansas militia regiments, under the command of Curtis I believe, refused to cross the Kansas state boarder to enter Missouri and assist in defending a river crossing. Curtis couldn't command them to do so, because as state militia, they were bound by oath to remain in Kansas, although the battle was so close to the border, that it could have been justified in some eyes.

However there were also state militia regiments of Arkansas which operated in Missouri and the other way around. I would say that they were more fanatical, and were not concerned with the border, as long as they were fighting federal troops. I've never read anything actually dealing with this phenomena, specifically if there was any bad feelings among Arkansas militia going into Missouri, or visa-versa, but that doesn't mean there wasn't.

So the game allows for state militia units to cross into other states, although demonstrably, at least for the Union, at times it did not happen, and decreases cohesion for all out-of-state militia, although it may have not always been the case--although this is speculation on my part.

So within what the game currently allows and covers with rules, it is not 100% historical, but it does fairly represent the feel of the situation.

Could the historical situation be represented more closely? Sure, but would it be worth the effort?

@Durk
My ideas were not meant to represent the structure through the entire war.
It's obvious when looking at the beginning of the War that there was a special situation that would have to be represented differently. The drawing of volunteer from existing long standing militia units for the fighting forces of the first few months is this kind of situation, we may have others too.
We may could represent them with the volunteer element that should have higher ratings that the later militia and conscript elements. The later raising of volunteer or drafting should come in as conscripts only.

I had already looked a bit into the handling of units by the North & South, and I'm aware that the north seems to have build new units rather than filling up old regiments. I would have acted that way too but the way the game works just does not justify this.

In regards to such special units like the converted artillery, I guess best would be to use a special ability that changes the values of a line element so that it depicts these units better. Of course you could do a model & unit too but I guess that would be more work.

Home Guards, well maybe the unlocking of such units with northern troops are in proximity could work in the engine. AFAIk the game forms units if the enemy enters the state, I guess it could also unlock existing Home Guard units.

Overall it's clear that the differences of both sides have to be depicted individually, but I think this would lead to much more interesting game if both sides really model their forces closer to history. I don't see this currently as I mentioned and so we are already off history. May steps may not be perfect but modeling the differences stronger would be a first step to correct this.


@CajunNavy
AFAIk the units you mention would in my eyes be state troops that were handed over to the government and by that could be depicted right away as units of the PACS.
I would like to see and way of allowing this handing over by the player. We currently have the training officers that do that for free but I would prefer that it somehow cost something.
Your view of state regiments is just what I would like to see separated stronger, obviously there is a difference between State Militias and regiments that the state formed but that got part of the Governments armed forces.


@Captain_Orso
I guess such differences of behavior of Militias could maybe be depicted too. I'm not sure what the engine can do but as the regions are marked to a specific state maybe the movement out of such a state region could be blocked. If added as special ability each state Militia could get their individual special ability and be depicted in the way they acted, either strictly confined to the state or more freely acting.

AFAIk the units you mention would in my eyes be state troops that were handed over to the government and by that could be depicted right away as units of the PACS.
I would like to see and way of allowing this handing over by the player. We currently have the training officers that do that for free but I would prefer that it somehow cost something.
Your view of state regiments is just what I would like to see separated stronger, obviously there is a difference between State Militias and regiments that the state formed but that got part of the Governments armed forces.

Big Duke,

I see your point, agree with you and think you are right that it might make the game more historical. I don't know if it would be worth the effort as Captain Orso points out.

Yes, many things discussed lately are maybe not worth to be put into CW2 but are surely something to consider for a CW3. Still one could always try these ideas in CW2 to test them and see if they are worth to be put into CW3.

BigDuke66 wrote:2. Militias are not really confined to their home state, the negative impact of using them outside their home state is just minor(btw I think saw a thread that even notes that this negative impact does not work but that state militias get stronger instead of weaker outside their home state). They are usable just like any other unit by the player although their "job" should be within the state only.

Yup, militia are still borked. Its probably the biggest outstanding bug I can think of at the moment. Militia outside their home state currently have more cohesion than those in their home state. Its impact can sure be seen in the initial fight for Missouri; Prices' force would be quite a bit better if his militia properly received the home state bonus.

If you want you can fix it by deleting a single '-', here is the post with the details: http://www.ageod-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=343&t=43617

That is interesting about out of state militia actually getting a boost, and I agree they should not in the game as designed.

To understand militia and the war it is important to look at the Georgia state militia during the Atlanta campaign. And, conversely the Pennsylvania troops called up in the emergency of the Gettysburg campaign.
Normally in the South the militia were much like the National Guard during America's involvement in Vietnam, refuge for the well-to-do, that is - politically connected. While in the North they were emergency forces raised from those until the moment exempt from military service due to being below the state's quota for Federal service. (to continue the Vietnam analogy, like those whose draft number was below the call up number)

So in the South, these militia were being shielded by powerful political figures from service 'at the front.' While in the North they were hastily raised, usually 90 day men. This difference in recruitment pools might justify a high rating for Southern militia called into national service, but a lower rating for Federal militia called into service; if you are looking for a more historical rationale. So if you would have different game rules for North and South, in the South there would not be a penalty for these militia raise late in the war for leaving their state, they would be prohibited from doing so. While in the North, they would be allowed to pursue, in conjunction with other Federal forces, the CSA invaders.

As a side note: in the North, militia raised for emergency service were put under the Federal Department commander to be used at his disposal. Incidentally, this was not always the army commander charged with repelling the incursion resulting in game terms with a failure to activate.
In the South, these militia were intentionally held from national service. This is why I suggest looking at the Atlanta campaign and how Governor Brown finally acceded to national control as a model for game changes.

One way to do this is to use the 1860 male census figures of ages groups per state, of males of mil age, then use enrolled militia ( age group 18 to30) and unerrolled militia (all males over 16 not on the enrolled militia rolls), this is the meaning of the two types of militia service. then since we know it took 2 to 1 to put and maintain a civilian in military service in this period, we then have the manpower number of each state, which can be used as a pool to draw enrolled militia/unerolled militia from. Enrolled would serve out of state without penalty as they are federalised into service by the general government, while unerolled militia have a high out of state penalty as they are they are only called on for service in their state and composed of the general pop who do not usually serve in the armed forces. Regulars and enrolled milita, which are accepted into federal service are pretty much a wash in this respect, except of course regulars had long term active service( experience) and generally better equipment. make the cost of a brigade be a value of enrolled unerolled manpower and your done, but then game balance goes our totally as the current system in no way reflects the manpower reality of the WBTS. not enough gain for the pain in would seem to me!

Cardinal Ape wrote:

BigDuke66 wrote:2. Militias are not really confined to their home state, the negative impact of using them outside their home state is just minor(btw I think saw a thread that even notes that this negative impact does not work but that state militias get stronger instead of weaker outside their home state). They are usable just like any other unit by the player although their "job" should be within the state only.

Yup, militia are still borked. Its probably the biggest outstanding bug I can think of at the moment. Militia outside their home state currently have more cohesion than those in their home state. Its impact can sure be seen in the initial fight for Missouri; Prices' force would be quite a bit better if his militia properly received the home state bonus.

If you want you can fix it by deleting a single '-', here is the post with the details: http://www.ageod-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=343&t=43617

excellent catch