Reinforcement Locations

[bboyer66]

Just a suggestion

When recieving reinforcements you pretty much dictate in what State the reinforcements will become available in. Not all that realistic when it comes down to it.
Is there a way possibly in the future to have reinforcements show up in a more realistic fashion, instead of recieving them in the geographic areas that you have chosen?Maybe a way to do it would be to assign a certain number of reinforcement points per state. The game I am playing now, almost all my reinforcements I have coming from Virginia and Tennessee, none from Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, etc.. Obviously if I run out of unit types in Virginia and Tennessee, THEN I will start using regiments from other states. But it seems there is no point in recruiting in the other states untill the states on the frontlines run out of recruitable regiments or brigades.

Just my thoughts on what could make a great game even better.

[blackbellamy]

I'm fine with choosing a state, but I've ran into an ugly problem during these reinforcements due to the random city pop up.

I've had a state's entire reinforcement go poof because of a wandering enemy unit. For example, first couple of turns as the CSA, I bought a bunch of MO units. They all arrived in the same, ungarrisoned city, just as a Union unit stumbled by, and they were all killed right away with hardly a fight. Think like 3 inf, 2 cav, an arty, and 4 mil just died right away to a single unit.

I'd think if I was going to gather 30,000 men somewhere it wouldn't take a 1000 Yankees to scatter them and keep them scattered so I had to pay for the whole lot again.

I actually find myself having to buy far away units, like the Georgians and the SC/NCers because I can control their arrival at the front line. All it takes is some rail action and they're exactly where I want them the next turn. But these guys that spawn the front-line states, those guys I have a problem with, like when they all die

[Jacek]

Well, you gambled down in MO. Raise i.e two militia units in MO instead of regulars and merge them to make a 30 strength unit. They will repel the Unionists.

[jimwinsor]

It would be nice to maybe have manpower be state specific, so as to have builds spread out rather than concentrated from just a few key states.

Or maybe do away with recruitment by states...have the state of origen for new units be totally random, weighted by state population?

Or here's a third idea...increased construction delay based number of units recruited per turn per state. For example, 8 units built in Virginia would take more days to become active, as 1 unit in each of 8 states would take.

[bboyer66]

Some good ideas, obviously a little research needs to be done as far as how many men were available from each state.

[Conhugeco]

I don't really mind the system as is. In my opinion the one thing that would help would to be able to designate one or two cities in each state as muster centers. All reinforcements except militia would show up in these cities.

Dick

[denisonh]

Some good ideas, obviously a little research needs to be done as far as how many men were available from each state.

Also as a function of time when the units were mustered and locations within the state as well.

I would say that before any major undertaking in redesign of the reinforcement process, that the research on the process of mustering units for both the North and South get researched in this kind of detail.

[aryaman]

I think an obvious solution would be to limit the units available per state, right now we have all available since 1861 I think, if we limit that per years then we will be forced to recruit in other states

[Johnny Canuck]

I actually find myself having to buy far away units, like the Georgians and the SC/NCers because I can control their arrival at the front line. All it takes is some rail action and they're exactly where I want them the next turn. But these guys that spawn the front-line states, those guys I have a problem with, like when they all die

I find myself recruiting in a similar fashion - I usually only recruit new regiments in Virginia & Missouri during the winter months when the chances of an enemy offensive destroying units before they are ready is smaller.

[Spruce]

obviously it really doesn't matter were you recruit forces as long as your front is "static".

I mean, you'll need to transport anyway - either by rail or by foot - and coming from the deep South is something that takes some time - but overall your troops will get there.

If your front is not "static", f.e. you are losing your border states, or the Union has made a naval incursion in GA, SC, NC - I choose to draft local units.

Most often I first build my AR, TN and VA units - because they are the ones you lose access to if you lose border states.

But I agree - there's little incentive to draft AL, MS, LA units. Most often I build AR, TN and off course VA. Sometimes I build TX, GA, SC and NC.

I think for flavour I like to build everywhere. But I think the "level" of recruitment for a specific state should be taken into account. I can understand that the governor of VA and TN will become very upset if the majority of the forces are coming from their states.

[bboyer66]

obviously it really doesn't matter were you recruit forces as long as your front is "static".

I mean, you'll need to transport anyway - either by rail or by foot - and coming from the deep South is something that takes some time - but overall your troops will get there.

If your front is not "static", f.e. you are losing your border states, or the Union has made a naval incursion in GA, SC, NC - I choose to draft local units.

Most often I first build my AR, TN and VA units - because they are the ones you lose access to if you lose border states.

But I agree - there's little incentive to draft AL, MS, LA units. Most often I build AR, TN and off course VA. Sometimes I build TX, GA, SC and NC.

I think for flavour I like to build everywhere. But I think the "level" of recruitment for a specific state should be taken into account. I can understand that the governor of VA and TN will become very upset if the majority of the forces are coming from their states.

Well put, I believe for example North Carolina provided 35% of the men for the Confederate Armies throughout the war. In my games there is no reason at all to recruit from North Carolina except for defense from seaborne invasion. Florida and South Carolina even more so.

[Pocus]

Slowing down units raising would be intersting. One of the beta tester, Lee Sphar also proposed some time ago to have a chance to take some production penalty if a state draw too much men at once.

[bboyer66]

Slowing down units raising would be intersting. One of the beta tester, Lee Sphar also proposed some time ago to have a chance to take some production penalty if a state draw too much men at once.

Obviously the problem is not a game breaker in any way. But I do hope you look into incorporating a possible optional rule for more historical reinforcement locations in the future. After seeing the quick action that was taken to correct Shermans hair color, my expectations are set very high.

[jimkehn]

I like Aryaman's suggestion. Limit the number from start and add to the totals available for each state each year.

[gbs]

I'm in the April 61 game as CSA now in late July, early in the campaign. My paln this time is to have only the AoP in the east with eventually 3 or 4 Corps. I will slowly fill AoP with recruits from Va. and NC. Some from SC if needed.
In the west, I want two Armys in order to cover more territory. I will have the Army of Tennessee to be commanded by Johnson once he arrives from California with his army HQ in tow. His initial orders will be to defend the Tennessee border. He can be more aggressive into Kentucky once things shake out a bit and I tell just where the enemy is strongest. I will attempt to fill his Army with recruits from Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama. Georgia, like SC in the east, will provide backup.
Also, I plan to give Polk command of the Army of Trans-Mississippi. He will concentrate his efforts in Arkansas and Missouri. (I have never tried to be agressive there before so it should be fun) If successful this army will eventually combine with AoT for advances into the union heartland of Indiana and Illinois. For that Army i plan to recruit Louisiana, Arkansas and Texas. Later I will see what help I can raise in Missouri.
As Jeff Davis, my challenge as I see it, will be to provide adequate leadership in the west. This should be no problem in the east so I will look hard at transfering some tallent into the western theatre. I wonder how Lee would fare in Kentucky and Missouri? Well this game allows me to find out .

[Aragos]

I like Aryaman's suggestion. Limit the number from start and add to the totals available for each state each year.

We can use the actual numbers for this. When I was working on my doctorate, I remember using the 1860 census data to determine (in general terms) the number of available men (as a percentage) that any state could provide for conscription. If I recall correctly, it was about 31-35% of the available manpower, ages 15-45. This should give us the raw numbers to base the pop on for mobilization.

For example, lets say Arknasas had a pop around 300,000 in 1860. Male population (total) would make up around 55% of that number. Of the 165,000 males, lets say 50% are "recruitable" (aged 16-45). That leaves 82500. Of that number, 35% could actually serve (accounts for illness, injury, buying a replacement, deserters and draft dodgers, etc.).

That would mean Arkansas' manpower would be 28875 in 1860. Lets round it up to 30,000. Add in another 10% annual increase to that (for 61-65, reflecting new men reaching 16). That means, in general, you could raise around 30 1000 man regiments in 1861 (30 militia, inf or cav, or 75 or so artillery batteries if you had the resources, or any combo thereof).

Now, the reality was in the Civil War that the border states and states of the upper South were split in loyalties. In Missouri, the split was around 70/30 (Union/CSA); in Arkansas, it was the opposite (30/70). The same for Kentucky & Tennessee. So that should be reflected as well (either by allowing the other side to recruit units if they hold sufficient areas of the state, or by tying manpower directly to provinces).

[bboyer66]

Lets not forget that when Lincoln or Davis called for volunteers that they did not have much choice in where the hell they came from. There has to be records on how many troops each state provided, which obviously would be a good starting point.

[Carrington]

Lets not forget that when Lincoln or Davis called for volunteers that they did not have much choice in where the hell they came from. There has to be records on how many troops each state provided, which obviously would be a good starting point.

Yes, average loyalties by state would a variable in this equation; Vermont, for instance, contributed disproportionate numbers and casualties, partially because it was an abolitionist stronghold. I think North Carolina was the big contributor on the southern side.

(This may argue for a more nuanced set of starting loyalties as well: there are an awful lot of regions (say Manhattan/New York) which are rated at near 100% loyal -- a better rating might be on the basis of election returns from 1860)

Such a revision would likely re-balance a Northern force structure which in the game is skewed toward Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland/Penna troops -- rarely does one recruit volunteers/militia from Maine, Vermont, or Massachusetts.

[aryaman]

I like also the idea of a production penalty, especially supply penalty, because if you recruit heavily in the border states you can suffer then from a supply shortage (too many recruits, too few workers in the border states). I think that could be handled by loyalty, so that the more you recruit in a state the lower the loyalty, with all the penalties linked to that.

[Carrington]

I like also the idea of a production penalty, especially supply penalty, because if you recruit heavily in the border states you can suffer then from a supply shortage (too many recruits, too few workers in the border states). I think that could be handled by loyalty, so that the more you recruit in a state the lower the loyalty, with all the penalties linked to that.

Yes... That's an excellent idea -- I assume the NYC draft riots show up as an event, but I suspect they'd be better represented by a dynamic interaction between loyalty and conscription levels.

[Spruce]

I support that idea !

[Aragos]

I like also the idea of a production penalty, especially supply penalty, because if you recruit heavily in the border states you can suffer then from a supply shortage (too many recruits, too few workers in the border states). I think that could be handled by loyalty, so that the more you recruit in a state the lower the loyalty, with all the penalties linked to that.

To be realistic, the penalty for recruitment should be tied to two things:

1) if the points are used to build replacements instead of new units (the political benefits of naming your best buddy to the command of the 196th NY vice just sending replacements)

2) The level of losses the state has taken (if Vermont hasnt lost anyone, they should be nice and loyal; if NY has lost 2/3 of all Union losses, however...)

[Aragos]

Yes, average loyalties by state would a variable in this equation; Vermont, for instance, contributed disproportionate numbers and casualties, partially because it was an abolitionist stronghold. I think North Carolina was the big contributor on the southern side.

(This may argue for a more nuanced set of starting loyalties as well: there are an awful lot of regions (say Manhattan/New York) which are rated at near 100% loyal -- a better rating might be on the basis of election returns from 1860)

Such a revision would likely re-balance a Northern force structure which in the game is skewed toward Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland/Penna troops -- rarely does one recruit volunteers/militia from Maine, Vermont, or Massachusetts.

A short note: The states Lincoln asked for volunteers from had a quota to meet based upon their white male population (New York had to send more than Minnesota).

[Stonewall]

I think the game works just fine as it is. I'm not seeing any problems with how the game works. Changing things just for the purpose of changing them is bad in my opinion. Especially when it impacts how the game is played. I suppose I go by the old adage, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

[bboyer66]

I think the game works just fine as it is. I'm not seeing any problems with how the game works. Changing things just for the purpose of changing them is bad in my opinion. Especially when it impacts how the game is played. I suppose I go by the old adage, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Sure the game is fine, but we want better, we want great. There is a reason they release patches bi-weekly, to make the game even better.
No we are not talking about changing things just to change them either. We are talking about improving an aspect of the game that needs improvement, especially if one is into realism.

[Stonewall]

I suppose I'm just not sure whether this additional element of "realism" will add anything to the game. We are already restricted as to how many regiments/brigades of a unit can be built in any given state.

And I would definitely disagree as to whether this "improvement" is even needed. If the game works fine as it is, this is more of a flavor improvement than anything else.

I'd prefer things be improved that actually matter. Like UI improvements. Getting Athena to perform better.

That said, I'm not sure I want to argue about it. Different people have different tastes. I suppose my opinion is that this "improvement" is unnecessary and I'd rather AGEOD spent more time improving the things that matter and getting Vainglory out as soon as possible.

[McNaughton]

Basically this entire discussion is 'how can we force players to build in a particular way'. Realistically, if you want to build historically, then build historically, nothing will stop you from doing this (I have priority for fixing things you cannot do that you should do, over things that you can do but can be 'abused' if you like the term).

There are reasons to build border state units, as mentioned, if you lose the state, you lose the ability to build the troops (so build them first, so you have the unit later in the game, even if you lose the state). Also, there are a lot of us who want to build brigades based on regionality. They like to have a mixed army of Tennessee Brigades along with Arkansas units. While building Mississippi troops is 'safer', it isn't going to get you a diverse military.

While I consider this to be an improvement (the proposed changes), I see it well behind that of improving the AI, and other, more pressing, gameplay issues (weather and rail lines to speak of a few).

[Franciscus]

I absolutely agree with Stonewall and McNaughton

[jimwinsor]

Yeah it's definitely a flavor improvement. If something clean and uncomplicated can be done to encourage builds being spread out more, I'm all for it.

[bboyer66]

Exactly, I dont want to re engineer the wheel here. Just something simple that does a better job of simulating where the reinforcements actually came from historically.
I also agree that there are other improvements that need to be done before this is even considered. But I believe it would add a great deal of historical flavor and an added amount of historical realism to the game.