AGEOD Forums

In the future will be possible a more accurate list of the casualities?
When you fight a battle, you don't know the number of wounded soldiers, or if you will have some wounded soldiers ready to come back to service after the disease. All of the casualities are KIA?
When you lost men for disease or lack of supply, you can't see them on the screenshot of casualities
But, as you told in a part of the game, 2/3 of the casualities where caused by disease.
Maybe is not important for the game, but I think could be an interesting particular.

Tex Willer wrote:In the future will be possible a more accurate list of the casualities?
When you fight a battle, you don't know the number of wounded soldiers, or if you will have some wounded soldiers ready to come back to service after the disease. All of the casualities are KIA?
When you lost men for disease or lack of supply, you can't see them on the screenshot of casualities
But, as you told in a part of the game, 2/3 of the casualities where caused by disease.
Maybe is not important for the game, but I think could be an interesting particular.

The computer does not use men in calculations. It uses a number called power. The men, horses, cannons on battle reports and other reports is a recent addition to the game, and are there to provide information only. I agree it would interesting, but getting a report each turn saying x number of men left/deserted/died would get a little long. Especially if you got a report for each unit.

Hey there Tex,

I will usually do my own calculations based on the casualties shown on the battle report. I love to use my own imagination...but I'll typically go off of a base Killed/Injured percentage of about 12% and 88%....

Whatever troops are captured I'll usually take out of the total number of wounded troops.

It's a neat way to make your own losses. .

Hi!

IIRC correctly 1/3 of the battle losses goes back to the conscript pool to represent lightly wounded men fit to fight again.
Also i remember reading somewhere that 2/3 o the attrition losses went back to the pool, but maybe i just dreamed it.
Could somebody confirm this??
So battle casualties are KIA/WIA/MIA and prisoners all together.

For reference this book could be useful, there is a wealth of information

Regimental losses in the American Civil War, 1861-1865. A treatise on the extent and nature of the mortuary losses in the Union regiments, with full and exhaustive statistics compiled from the official records on file in the state military bureaus and at Washington (1889)


http://www.archive.org/details/reglossescivilwar00foxwrich



Example page



[ATTACH]7348[/ATTACH]

That is a very interesting picture Nikel. What caught my attention the most was that only 2 of the listed regiments had more than 500 engaged. And, 1 has over 900.

Doomwalker wrote:That is a very interesting picture Nikel. What caught my attention the most was that only 2 of the listed regiments had more than 500 engaged. And, 1 has over 900.

Low numbers are normal for the periods of the war they were in. And even at Manassas, where most of the larger numbers are, you have to figure stragglers and illness had knocked out a good chunk of a lot of those regiments. The 950 is easy to spot because of the H.A. That was one of the Washington Heavy Artillery regments that were pushed forward late in the war. They were HUGE units. Didn't see much fighting until the last few months. If I remember correctly, this regiment was one that was pushed forward against the Petersburg trenches (The regular units were basically refusing to go at this point, or would only make token efforts) in their first action. They attacked a a pretty horrible spot, with a lot of open ground to cover and got caught right in the middle of it, unable to go forward or back. They simply didn't know any better, and paid very heavily for it.

Spharv2 wrote:Low numbers are normal for the periods of the war they were in. And even at Manassas, where most of the larger numbers are, you have to figure stragglers and illness had knocked out a good chunk of a lot of those regiments. The 950 is easy to spot because of the H.A. That was one of the Washington Heavy Artillery regments that were pushed forward late in the war. They were HUGE units. Didn't see much fighting until the last few months. If I remember correctly, this regiment was one that was pushed forward against the Petersburg trenches (The regular units were basically refusing to go at this point, or would only make token efforts) in their first action. They attacked a a pretty horrible spot, with a lot of open ground to cover and got caught right in the middle of it, unable to go forward or back. They simply didn't know any better, and paid very heavily for it.

That does make sense Spharv. I really didn't think about it till I re-read the entry. I do remember something about 12 or 24 companies for them. Then again that could have been some other unit also.

Not really central to the thread, but it is useful to keep in mind that the game does not really reflect historical practice when it comes to replacements. To be fair, I did see recently (somewhere) that the Union game engine 'fills in' your units at a slightly reduced rate compared to CSA units. I would like to think that this is a nod to historicity.

In case s. o. knows nothing about the subject, the practice then (at least for the Union), was to 'bleed 'em white.' Regiments were roughly 10 companies of 100 men each = 1,000 on paper when raised (BTW, the numbers, i. e., 1st Minn., 54th Mass., etc., were in the chronological order of raising - i. e., the 20th Maine Infantry was the twentieth infantry regiment raised in the state). The 20th Maine went into Gettysburg with approximately 300 on the rolls and had started with s. t. like 1,000. They didn't 'replace' like a modern army does - they just raised more regiments.

There is one advantage to this - those 300 in July of '63 were very experienced veterans.

I'm surprised to see that the count of casualities done by the North quotes the southern name of Manassas, instead of the northern name of Bull Run

GraniteStater wrote:Not really central to the thread, but it is useful to keep in mind that the game does not really reflect historical practice when it comes to replacements. To be fair, I did see recently (somewhere) that the Union game engine 'fills in' your units at a slightly reduced rate compared to CSA units. I would like to think that this is a nod to historicity.

In case s. o. knows nothing about the subject, the practice then (at least for the Union), was to 'bleed 'em white.' Regiments were roughly 10 companies of 100 men each = 1,000 on paper when raised (BTW, the numbers, i. e., 1st Minn., 54th Mass., etc., were in the chronological order of raising - i. e., the 20th Maine Infantry was the twentieth infantry regiment raised in the state). The 20th Maine went into Gettysburg with approximately 300 on the rolls and had started with s. t. like 1,000. They didn't 'replace' like a modern army does - they just raised more regiments.

There is one advantage to this - those 300 in July of '63 were very experienced veterans.

This brings up a question I've had about the game for some time. Something I haven't known about for sure since I first started playing.

When you have units that take losses, but gain experience...does taking on replacements dilute their level of experience??

Also a note on how the Confederate manner of better replaceing its losses led to better overall infantry units. When replacements came...they would be shown the "ins and outs" by the veterans.

GraniteStater wrote:Not really central to the thread, but it is useful to keep in mind that the game does not really reflect historical practice when it comes to replacements. To be fair, I did see recently (somewhere) that the Union game engine 'fills in' your units at a slightly reduced rate compared to CSA units. I would like to think that this is a nod to historicity.

In case s. o. knows nothing about the subject, the practice then (at least for the Union), was to 'bleed 'em white.' Regiments were roughly 10 companies of 100 men each = 1,000 on paper when raised (BTW, the numbers, i. e., 1st Minn., 54th Mass., etc., were in the chronological order of raising - i. e., the 20th Maine Infantry was the twentieth infantry regiment raised in the state). The 20th Maine went into Gettysburg with approximately 300 on the rolls and had started with s. t. like 1,000. They didn't 'replace' like a modern army does - they just raised more regiments.

There is one advantage to this - those 300 in July of '63 were very experienced veterans.

Well at Gettysburg the 20th Maine was reinforced by around 100 soldiers from that other Maine regiment that had been disbanded - maybe thats how the "replacements" shoudl happen.

This makes me wonder why they didn't consolidate regiments back then. For instance, looking at the Confederate OOB for Gettysburg. You can see how easily they could have turned brigades into "full strength" regiments.

I would think that this would have relieved admin and supply needs, but maybe not.

In my current game one of my CSA Divisions took horrible casualties. When the battle was lost and they were trying to reinforce and take replacements, I noticed that several decimated regiments were combined into one to bring some of them back up to strength.....Isnt that the way it is supposed to work?

Kglorberau

kglorberau wrote:In my current game one of my CSA Divisions took horrible casualties. When the battle was lost and they were trying to reinforce and take replacements, I noticed that several decimated regiments were combined into one to bring some of them back up to strength.....Isnt that the way it is supposed to work?

Kglorberau

Hmmm...will have to keep an eye peeled for that.

Banks6060 wrote:This brings up a question I've had about the game for some time. Something I haven't known about for sure since I first started playing.

When you have units that take losses, but gain experience...does taking on replacements dilute their level of experience??

No, in the game it does not dilute the level. A 2 star unit stays 2 stars. If the element is destroyed, then it comes back at NO experience. For generals however, I have noticed that if their command is wiped out, and they are sent packing (to recover from wounds), they lose most if not all of their experience.

kglorberau wrote:In my current game one of my CSA Divisions took horrible casualties. When the battle was lost and they were trying to reinforce and take replacements, I noticed that several decimated regiments were combined into one to bring some of them back up to strength.....Isnt that the way it is supposed to work?

Kglorberau

Can't say that I have ever noticed this. I will also keep my eye peeled for this.

kglorberau wrote:In my current game one of my CSA Divisions took horrible casualties. When the battle was lost and they were trying to reinforce and take replacements, I noticed that several decimated regiments were combined into one to bring some of them back up to strength.....Isnt that the way it is supposed to work?

No, and it doesn't, I'm afraid.

Elements (regiments) don't get combined. Units that have room in their TO&E's can merge in other units to fill in the empty element slots, but this doesn't have on the element level.

Rafiki wrote:No, and it doesn't, I'm afraid.

Elements (regiments) don't get combined. Units that have room in their TO&E's can merge in other units to fill in the empty element slots, but this doesn't have on the element level.

Thanks for the clarification Rafiki. I started a new game last night trying to see this one happen for myself.

Doomwalker wrote:This makes me wonder why they didn't consolidate regiments back then. For instance, looking at the Confederate OOB for Gettysburg. You can see how easily they could have turned brigades into "full strength" regiments.

I would think that this would have relieved admin and supply needs, but maybe not.

They did, especially towards the end.

kglorberau wrote:In my current game one of my CSA Divisions took horrible casualties. When the battle was lost and they were trying to reinforce and take replacements, I noticed that several decimated regiments were combined into one to bring some of them back up to strength.....Isnt that the way it is supposed to work?

Kglorberau

I'd convinced myself that this did happen too , but I think some scenarios and some 'event' brigades have combined regiments so the historical TOE fits into the game TOE

would be a nice feature tho.

S! EC

I have only seen it happen once.......when the unit was almost wiped out.......actually, several of them almost wiped out in the same brigade or division........but only saw it once.

Kglorberau

I don't think it was the Union's intention to let their regiments to degrade so much as they did. But they were hit by a sequence of events that forced them to allow their regiments fall grossly understrength until late 64.
In Dec 61 after a successful response to the call for volunteers the USA army numbered 700,000. The War Department told the states not to send any new regiments- only replacements to keep the existing regiments up to full strength.
In Jan 62, the War Department tied to take the recruiting powers away from the states and implement a Federal control and sending the new recruits to central depots to be trained and doled out as replacements.
In April 62, Secretary Stanton closed down the recruiting system with his General Order 33. This remained in effect until 6th June.
On 2nd July 62, Lincoln called for 300,000 three year volunteers. The response was not as eager as the 1861 call ups and $25 of the $100 bounty had to be paid up front to encourage enlistments.
On 4th August 1862 Lincoln announced the requirement for a further 300,000 militias for a 9 month term.
On 15th Aug 1862 the War Department returned responsibility to the states because it didn't have the necessary infrastructure to handle such numbers. The states just created new regiments, neglecting to forming any replacements.
With the draft in the spring of 1863, initially the army did not want to combine volunteers with conscripts in the same regiments as it would cause resentment between the different recruits.
In 1864 the USA faced the re-enlistment of over 250,000 troops who had signed up in 1861 for three years. 100,000 returned home- having enough of army life- leaving the army with continued man power problems. About 166,000 did re-enlist though.
After these administrative roundabouts the USA army gave more attention to replacements to keep their regiments up to full strength.

BI

In the Ambrosia Cellar an Ultima Fan perhaps Big Ideas?

IIRC, the Union practice of raising regiments was in a large part the playing of the political patrronage game.

While Grant did consolidate low strength regts on up, not all the soldiers were happy with the loss of identity that entailed.