Manpower Model

[DirkX]

Well desertion is really a different topic. There were definite patterns and peculuarites especially on the Southern side. For instance there is some evidence that many troops essentially took a unauthorized leave when the CSA moved into the North, not seeing it as part of their job.

?

in fact they claimed to have been "hired" for defending the CSA only and thus ran away when the Confederates invaded northern soil, as you said.

[Pocus]

perhaps the current model is working quite "well" when NM is very high - or even "VP" is very high. Remember that when the Union starts to take towns and cities from the CSA - it will effect their NM and VP - but not immediately their manpower.

perhaps manpower should get a negative modifier - both for the Union and CSA if =

- NM is lower then enemies NM AND NM is lower then 100 (-15%),
- VP is lower then enemies VP - AND the difference is 500 (-15%),
- VP is lower then enemies VP - AND the difference is between 100 and 500 (-5%),

in this hypothesis - the CSA might get a reduction at their manpower of 30% - but if they are doing well - both VP and NM spoken - they won't notice the setback in their manpower growth of the pool.

And this opens perspectives to balance the acutal "calling to volunteers", "mustering", "conscription acts" - if you call on volunteers - your NM and VP change - and you could get faced by penalties on your manpower !

Please look at the bigger picture here - numbers are numbers

There is already a subgame with that. The one who has more VP has 50% chance of gaining one FE point. The one with more NM has 50% chance of gaining one FE point. (each turn)

I'm unsure it would be a good thing to do that for recruitments. The AI is generally behind the player, so you create a downward spiral here

[johnnycai]

Pocus,
What are FE points??

[Rafiki]

"Foreign Entry"

In short, if it becomes +100, the UK and France intervene on behalf of the CSA.

[Spruce]

There is already a subgame with that. The one who has more VP has 50% chance of gaining one FE point. The one with more NM has 50% chance of gaining one FE point. (each turn)

I'm unsure it would be a good thing to do that for recruitments. The AI is generally behind the player, so you create a downward spiral here

I have to disagree with your stance - I have played more then 10 CSA games now - and never was able to trigger FE. So this FE is more a "stick behind the door". It's so rare it's more like a "vision" on the future that is not actually happening at all.

while the impact of NM and VP on manpower, could be working continuous in the game. Altough I agree it would be difficult to tune right - perhaps an option in the game ? And let's face it - a bad NM and bad VP (less cities you have in control) - the likelyhood of a negative impact on manpower seems to me a logical reasoning.

[McNaughton]

I have to disagree with your stance - I have played more then 10 CSA games now - and never was able to trigger FE. So this FE is more a "stick behind the door". It's so rare it's more like a "vision" on the future that is not actually happening at all.

I believe this is the point, that it should be an exceptionally rare occurance for foreign entry.

[Spruce]

I believe this is the point, that it should be an exceptionally rare occurance for foreign entry.

that was the beginning of my sentence - the FE is so rare - NM and VP barely have no impact on the manpower. As such their impact on the game is significantly toned down.

It's like saying that the american civil war was won by the yankees because the Confederate morale dropped below zero - but actually the rebels didn't feel that until the last second.

I do know that at least NM morale impacts production, but IIRC it does nothing to manpower (the same goes for VP).

.... and manpower is the only real bottleneck in the game ... both for CSA and USA. So I fear we have to think about this.

[Pocus]

morale influences everything, including manpower you get from regions (which is not that high for the CSA true). Morale influences also what you get from volunteers, but not from conscription (you don't ask people!).

Foreign Entry is really rare yes, as it has very few chances to happen in reality, but you can ease the setting in the Options Window.

[Spruce]

morale influences everything, including manpower you get from regions (which is not that high for the CSA true). Morale influences also what you get from volunteers, but not from conscription (you don't ask people!).

Foreign Entry is really rare yes, as it has very few chances to happen in reality, but you can ease the setting in the Options Window.

I apologize then - since I didn't know that ... leure:

[KillCalvalry]

If the Confederates do somehow trigger foreign entry, the game is over. It's probably over just to have won all the battles and done all the things to even get to that point, and then once you actually have British and French Units....forget it, game over for the Union.

Personally, I would be fine if it was just an abstract event, not a military intervention, because by then the war is effectively over.

Maybe there should be an interim step, where the British do not intervene militarily, but they more openly sympathize, and provide financial and shipbuilding aid.

[PBBoeye]

Interesting how ACW games model foreign intervention. It's always assumed to be heavy military intervention, but something makes me believe there likely would have been stages of any military intervention, and much more overt economic aid, protected by French or British naval power.

[runyan99]

I agree that multiple 'levels' of foreign intervention would be more interesting, and perhaps much more realistic. For instance:

1) Economic aid only
2) Naval intervention (raise the blockade)
3) Land intervention

But to get back on topic, it's worth mentioning that historically there was no draft at all by either side for the first year of the war until the CSA enacted the first conscription act around April '62.

So, whether a draft should be allowed at all in '61, or if the penalties for doing so should be greater, seems like an interesting design consideration.

In any case, the only thing I'm sure is 'off' with the manpower in the game is that it is far too easy to maintain units at full strength. That's because the game doesn't model expiring enlistments, sickness, straggles, desertions and the like, even in an abstract way.

Without detailed modeling for such reductions, I've suggested that reducing regiment size from 1000 to 700 would go a long way towards modeling the historical number of men actually present in a regiment, division or corps.

[KillCalvalry]

I like that idea of reducing the men in a regiment. 700 is closer to reality, and there weren't any 18,000 man divisions either. As it is, you can cram almost 60,000 troops in a corps with no penalties at all.

There are a ton of ways to cut it, if you restrict drafts, maybe you double volunteers. And significantly increase the draft penalties.

[Rafiki]

I agree that multiple 'levels' of foreign intervention would be more interesting, and perhaps much more realistic. For instance:

1) Economic aid only
2) Naval intervention (raise the blockade)
3) Land intervention

AFAIK, the CSA starts to see some support (money) from foreign sources as the FE goes up. I don't know the levels and the numbers, but I seem to recall a discussion about it previously.

[Clovis]

I'm not against draft possibility in 1861 but it should be costly in NM points.

on the contrary, volunteer cost should rise with the time, for decreasing numbers, as both sides experienced after the initial enthusiams the greatest difficulties to find volunteers from 1862.

[Pocus]

AFAIK, the CSA starts to see some support (money) from foreign sources as the FE goes up. I don't know the levels and the numbers, but I seem to recall a discussion about it previously.

right, as the FE goes, the chances to get covert subsidies augment. It can be enough to tide the war even if the actual entry is never reached.

[runyan99]

It is clear to me that the biggest restriction in AACW to total army size isn't the available manpower in the game, which is ample, it is the limitiation on the number of divisions, which makes additional manpower unusable.

In a long running 1.04 PBEM as the CSA, the game is advanced to September of 1864. I have long had all of my allowed divisions in the field. Once that was done, my need for manpower was mainly reduced to what I needed for replacements, and raising large brigades that I could use as mini divisions. In fact, I have been able to avoid using the draft at all once or twice, relying only on volunteers for the above.

Combat losses have been about 223,000 (pretty low) and I have a current manpower reserve of more than 500 conscript points, plus the option to draft which I have not used, which would bring at least another 590 conscript points.

If I had the ability to harness this manpower by forming more divisions, I could probably be in a position to recruit every brigade allowed by the game. Since I cannot form any more divisions however, this manpower reserve serves only as a deep well of potential replacements. There is no sense in recruiting brigades I cannot effectively put under command and into combat in an organized way.

This seems a little upside down from a historical perspective. I'm winning the war, sure, but such an abundance of manpower seems strange, especially from the CSA perspective.

There has obviously been a lot of modding of the number of divisions allowed, and the reason is clearly that the manpower is available in the game to recruit many more divisions than the artificial limit allows. If the manpower wasn't there, nobody would be asking how to increase the number of divisions.

This is more evidence to my mind that the game could use an upward revision in the number of divisions allowed, (I cannot afford to create CSA cavalry divisions for instance, because I need all of my divisions to be infantry) and a corresponding downward revision in the conscript points available, in order to reach some better balance between the two. As it is, the division limitation seems very artificial when my manpower reserve is overflowing.

[Jagger]

This is more evidence to my mind that the game could use an upward revision in the number of divisions allowed, (I cannot afford to create CSA cavalry divisions for instance, because I need all of my divisions to be infantry) and a corresponding downward revision in the conscript points available, in order to reach some better balance between the two. As it is, the division limitation seems very artificial when my manpower reserve is overflowing.

Or the reverse. More evidence that the available manpower should be significantly reduced.

My understanding is the CSA government used every possible method to maximize their manpower. What they were able to put in the field by the end of the war was the extreme max. If we are seeing the capability of creating much larger CSA armies than historically, then the manpower model is probably producing too much manpower for the rebs.

[runyan99]

Or the reverse. More evidence that the available manpower should be significantly reduced.

That's what I said. I think maybe you read it too fast.

[Jagger]

That's what I said. I think maybe you read it too fast.

Oops, you are right. It is getting too late at night. My mind started shutting down after the first sentence... Calling it a night.

[Henry D.]

Not to interrupt your discussion, gentlemen...

But one thing that always struck me as odd is that the Union receives no less than three generals with the "Recruitment Officer" Trait before 1862. Two of them (Banks and McClernand) are pretty useless in the field to boot, while the third (Burnside) as at least "debateable". If used for recruiting in the three largest northern population centers,that trio can raise the bi-weekly manpower output by about 30%!

And while I'm, being a Yankee at heart, very fond of those three, if I'm not mistaken, the CSA does only ever get ONE Recruitment Officer, with the 1864 batch of leaders! I really don't know what was the reasoning behind this decision, but as I said, it strikes me as odd and somewhat unbalanced. Did the South really lack Generals with the political or personal charisma to rally the more reluctant potential recruits round the flag? As most of You seem to have been involved in the early discussions about leader stats and traits, maybe You could take a minute to enlighten me about the "what for and why is" of this or, if has already been discussed at length, just point me to that discussions, please? Thank You in advance.

Regards, Henry

[McNaughton]

I really don't know if the AI uses 'recruitment officers' properly, but rather see them as just another commander (and fields them as such). I think that they may be too much of an advantage for the player (CSA or USA), as is. How about applying the trait troop trainer, or another trait, so the AI won't be so handicapped.

Regarding comparing USA and CSA ability to use 'recruitment officers', I think that the USA should have an advantage in regards to manpower, and ability to recruit (giving too many to the CSA will further increase its ability to raise men).

--ISSUE--

I am taking this issue with a different twist, that it isn't the manpower given, but, factors at play in regards to manpower loss which may be the problem.

Historically, by mid 1862, the armies on both sides plateaued. They remained constant, or declined slightly, from then on. Regiments were either replaced or had replacements attached to them, with very few new formations. There should be enough manpower by mid 1862 to build your armies, and afterward, there should be enough to maintain it.

However, currently, the only way to lose manpower is through...

#1. Combat
#2. Out of Supply
#3. Weather
#4. Disease Outbreak

Each of which is somewhat rare, and easily avoided (eventually you must fight though). Most players build up their armies to 100% cohesion and manpower, then send them to combat (historically most units were under-strength even before seeing their first engagement). What is missing is the everyday attrition units faced during war. This means that manpower can be used for extended builds after mid 1862 (not replacing losses). Here's what is missing.

A) Local Diseas and Accidents (took a daily toll of men, even while static)
B) Desertion (depending on situation, this affected troop numbers significantly)

I am testing a diseas/accident and desertion mod, which applies fixed losses with a random chance (50%) that every regiment takes 1 hit per turn. If your NM is less than 100, you could face an additional chance of 1 hit per turn at 50%, due to desertion. Each regiment has 20 hits. While this is relatively small, given the fact that half of your entire army, may experience 1 or 2 hits per turn (if low NM +1 chance), it results in country wide attrition. While it won't kill your regiments, it will cause a constant drain of replacements, meaning you cannot use conscripts for new builds once you reach a certain level (or else you cannot afford to replace attrition, let alone combat losses).

Here's how the 'daily accident/sickness event' works.

Take an army of 10 divisions (relatively small in AACW terms, one frontier's combat force).

Each division has around 3 brigades, or 12 regiments for a total of 120 regiments.

Each regiment has a chance of taking a hit (at 50%), which means that (on average) 6 regiments per division will be hit (at -1 Hit Point), for a total of 60 regiments taking a hit in the army of 10 divisions.

This equates to 60 hits, with each regiment consisting of 20 hits, meaning that, through general attrition, you have lost an equivalent of 3 regiments of men in a given 15 day turn.

The 'desertion event' works pretty much the same, except it only triggers if your NM is below 100. I am toying with the idea of increasing its potency the lower your NM gets, but that may slow down end of turn processing when events are cycled (more wait time is not a good thing!). If it doesn't slow things down, I will incorporate it, but, if it does I will keep it simple.

As you can see, with just your one army of 10 divisions, you lose about a brigade worth of replacements (money, conscripts and war supplies) every turn. This does not factor in the militia, garrison troops, your other field armies, and cavalry forces. I hope to get attrition levels to be high enough that replacements cover attrition, but combat can reduce regiment ToE down to historic rates (starting off at 1000 men per regiment, moving down to 3-400 due to all forms of attrition).

[James D Burns]

VOLUNTEERS: Should be an ever DECREASING amount.

Sorry but I would have to argue against any such change right now. When you have a game model that results in entire Corps or Armies getting wiped out in a very short period of time, what you need is more conscription points to keep things playable, not less.

Fix the overly-bloody combat results and I’d agree wholeheartedly, but right now one or two big Gettysburg sized battles will wipe out over a years’ worth of conscription points and leave you with no armies on the map.

Jim

[saintsup]

What is missing is the everyday attrition units faced during war.

I fully agree with that. Introducing attrition depending on weather, type of country and number of men would add a whole new layer to the game. Now you can be too late in creating your army but you never can be too early.

Introducing attrition would need a lot of balancing though (including reducing combat losses, adding more manpower, ...)

Anyway, I don't see a way to make a serious Napoleon's game without attrition. So perhaps for ACW Gold

[blackbellamy]

The manpower model is what keeps me from seeing this as a "serious" ACW game.

Don't get me wrong, I love the game and it's probably the best ACW effort of all time, but it's possible for both players to build and maintain totally ahistorical troop levels. This grates on me.

I don't believe there is enough attrition, whether due to disease, stragglers, or desertion. There is not enough a penalty for keeping exceedingly large forces - I believe costs should increase geometrically and should include rising attrition rates. Finally, there should be a number, visible to the player, which represents the total available "draftable" population - conscription should work against that number, and lowering it beyond certain points should bring certain effects into play, like draft riots, lowered troop quality, increased desertion, etc.

If manpower worked correctly there would be need to artificially restrict the CSA to a certain number of divisions, for example.

[runyan99]

If manpower worked correctly there would be need to artificially restrict the CSA to a certain number of divisions, for example.

I think you meant to say there would be no need. I agree. The division restriction is an artificial cap apparently placed to act like a governor on a liberal manpower pool.

[aryaman]

I really don't know if the AI uses 'recruitment officers' properly, but rather see them as just another commander (and fields them as such). I think that they may be too much of an advantage for the player (CSA or USA), as is. How about applying the trait troop trainer, or another trait, so the AI won't be so handicapped.

Regarding comparing USA and CSA ability to use 'recruitment officers', I think that the USA should have an advantage in regards to manpower, and ability to recruit (giving too many to the CSA will further increase its ability to raise men).

--ISSUE--

I am taking this issue with a different twist, that it isn't the manpower given, but, factors at play in regards to manpower loss which may be the problem.

Historically, by mid 1862, the armies on both sides plateaued. They remained constant, or declined slightly, from then on. Regiments were either replaced or had replacements attached to them, with very few new formations. There should be enough manpower by mid 1862 to build your armies, and afterward, there should be enough to maintain it.

However, currently, the only way to lose manpower is through...

#1. Combat
#2. Out of Supply
#3. Weather
#4. Disease Outbreak

Each of which is somewhat rare, and easily avoided (eventually you must fight though). Most players build up their armies to 100% cohesion and manpower, then send them to combat (historically most units were under-strength even before seeing their first engagement). What is missing is the everyday attrition units faced during war. This means that manpower can be used for extended builds after mid 1862 (not replacing losses). Here's what is missing.

A) Local Diseas and Accidents (took a daily toll of men, even while static)
B) Desertion (depending on situation, this affected troop numbers significantly)

I am testing a diseas/accident and desertion mod, which applies fixed losses with a random chance (50%) that every regiment takes 1 hit per turn. If your NM is less than 100, you could face an additional chance of 1 hit per turn at 50%, due to desertion. Each regiment has 20 hits. While this is relatively small, given the fact that half of your entire army, may experience 1 or 2 hits per turn (if low NM +1 chance), it results in country wide attrition. While it won't kill your regiments, it will cause a constant drain of replacements, meaning you cannot use conscripts for new builds once you reach a certain level (or else you cannot afford to replace attrition, let alone combat losses).

Here's how the 'daily accident/sickness event' works.

Take an army of 10 divisions (relatively small in AACW terms, one frontier's combat force).

Each division has around 3 brigades, or 12 regiments for a total of 120 regiments.

Each regiment has a chance of taking a hit (at 50%), which means that (on average) 6 regiments per division will be hit (at -1 Hit Point), for a total of 60 regiments taking a hit in the army of 10 divisions.

This equates to 60 hits, with each regiment consisting of 20 hits, meaning that, through general attrition, you have lost an equivalent of 3 regiments of men in a given 15 day turn.

The 'desertion event' works pretty much the same, except it only triggers if your NM is below 100. I am toying with the idea of increasing its potency the lower your NM gets, but that may slow down end of turn processing when events are cycled (more wait time is not a good thing!). If it doesn't slow things down, I will incorporate it, but, if it does I will keep it simple.

As you can see, with just your one army of 10 divisions, you lose about a brigade worth of replacements (money, conscripts and war supplies) every turn. This does not factor in the militia, garrison troops, your other field armies, and cavalry forces. I hope to get attrition levels to be high enough that replacements cover attrition, but combat can reduce regiment ToE down to historic rates (starting off at 1000 men per regiment, moving down to 3-400 due to all forms of attrition).

I wonder, could you relate that attrition somehow to cohesion? Right now it is cohesion what represents most of the temporary losses in an army submitted to stress, if you could relate attrition to cohesion, players would have a say in the attrition level and it would not be purely random. Equally, if epidemics could be related to large concentratiuons of troops in a region would be something more historcal and something in which the player has a say.

[Flashman007]

I seem to recall way back when, that disease was haveing a much greater adverse impact on Army stacks- I believe the developer toned this down after the community howled. If manpower income was not also toned down this would result in too many men on the board. Unintended consequences? So what you all are saying is that you would like to go back to the way the game was initially set up before some of us begged the developer to change it?

[Dan]

So what you all are saying is that you would like to go back to the way the game was initially set up before some of us begged the developer to change it?

Not really, I don't think. I think they are just trying to fine tune all of the inter-related parts to make the game even better. I see nothing wrong with that. Unless you like playing with massive combat losses/huge numbers of elements being destroyed in combat; missing/broken region links; missing generals/missing general traits and other things that some of us "begged" the designers change/fix.

Of course, opinions will vary.

[Flashman007]

Dan

Now, now, don't mistake me for a fanboy. I have been doing my share of bitching and many things here have been fixed for the better. But I am specifically adressing this point about attrition. I am serious -as i recall, when the game first came out, large army stacks would be subjected to random bouts of the flu or other such epidemics. These would require conscripts to replace the losses- soaking up some of the manpower in this game which some feel is a bit generous. I do find it ironic that we (the community) seem to be asking for more attrition of armies now. Nothing wrong with it - just ironic.

I actually have no idea if we have too many men in the game but it is an interesting discussion.