Manpower Model

[KillCalvalry]

First, I want to say excellent game, and I am probably nitpicking. But in my limited experience so far, it seems like Manpower availability patterns and costs aren't quite what they should be if the aim is historical accuracy.

In the game, Manpower is available in ever increasing amounts. Drafts and Call for Volunteers produce more in 1864 than they do in 1861. Reality is probably alot more like this:

VOLUNTEERS: Should be an ever DECREASING amount. The initial rush in 1861 was so large the CSA turned men away for lack of arms. By early 1862, the CSA was already experiencing enough of a manpower crunch to pass the nation's first conscription act. Volunteers should decrease every year, and for the CSA should be about Zero by 1864. Also, if you are drafting everyone, a Call for Volunteers is pretty redundant and likely to net little.

DRAFTS: Partial and Full are pretty good models; really, by those choices, Full seems like you are asking for greater age ranges and offering fewer deferrments and exceptions, all hard on Morale. Even Drafts should produce DECREASING levels, though probably not the drop off of volunteers.

You could go real far and start hurting production when the army takes on too much manpower. Industry in the CSA was particularly hurt by the Army taking everyone.

At any rate, not sure how it could be modelled, but it seems like you can get alot more men under arms on both sides than you could in real life.

Not sure if I am off base, and as I said, far be it from me to complain about a great game.

[blackbellamy]

Currently the best strategy is to take the most manpower you can. There's no real downside. The morale cost is so low I don't even consider it, and with the exception of the very first call for Volunteers, both sides can afford to pay 3,000 per point.

[Spruce]

Currently the best strategy is to take the most manpower you can. There's no real downside. The morale cost is so low I don't even consider it, and with the exception of the very first call for Volunteers, both sides can afford to pay 3,000 per point.

yeah correct, it's a no brainer for the moment

[PBBoeye]

At any rate, not sure how it could be modelled, but it seems like you can get alot more men under arms on both sides than you could in real life.

Not sure if I am off base, and as I said, far be it from me to complain about a great game.

It is a great game, but I think you are spot on in this issue. I am not really sure how the industry and manpower is related in this game - how one affects the other. Obviously they should.

[Jabberwock]

In the game, Manpower is available in ever increasing amounts. Drafts and Call for Volunteers produce more in 1864 than they do in 1861.

Currently, manpower is based on NM. If your NM is going up, so is manpower availability.

You could go real far and start hurting production when the army takes on too much manpower. Industry in the CSA was particularly hurt by the Army taking everyone.

At any rate, not sure how it could be modelled, but it seems like you can get alot more men under arms on both sides than you could in real life.

A percentage-based WS penalty each turn full draft is in effect?

[Clovis]

The volunteer system is sound, as variations are based on NM, a good way to portray recruitment difficulties.

I agree conscription drawbacks are too weak. I raised in the new version of my mod NM and victory costs. But beware: even with very high cost, AI is massively using conscription.... You have to keep the cost in lower range...

[PBBoeye]

RE: National Will and Manpower availability -

IMO, there needs to be a CAP on total manpower, and then the NW affects the percentage of manpower available as a function, say 75-100% according to various circumstances.

No way should NW be able to raise dead Confederates from their graves to strengthen the CSA past historical limits. The Union cannot industrialize every square inch of the North and suit up hordes of blueness. Forget this whole industrial thing - the folks were either there in the living flesh, or they weren't. Pushing this ahistorically is, IMO, beyond absurd. I can accept other things from an "Oooooo - isn't this cool that I can do this..." angle, but not this.

[KillCalvalry]

Good responses, and tying VOLUNTEERS to National Morale levels, though on surface a good idea, has some flaws.

The number of Volunteers was definitely highest in 1861, with the number decreasing steadily for both sides (and stopping almost altogether for the CSA). You could say Morale was highest in 1861 for both sides, certainly the CSA, but the game doesn't model that.

Conscription provided a bump for each side, but once you start to conscript, you're starting to capture folks who might volunteer anyway, so your volunteers should drop off.

Maybe this would be a good model:

1. Give each side a one-time batch of volunteers in 1861.
2. Model conscription so that each call or conscript produces fewer results
3. Calls for volunteers have reduced results if you conscript
4. Bonuses still a good idea

I would love if someone had actual volunteer and conscription data for each side

[PBBoeye]

Actually, I tend to think that NW is a great way of determining manpower available, whereas morale isn't really the best word. Here's why:

http://www.etymonline.com/cw/desert.htm

Here's a part of it - I seriously suggest people check it out, as it is extremely interesting and reveals much of what the Confederate soldier might have been facing. Quite different than what scholars suggest as 'reasons'.

[color="Sienna"]Gary Gallagher, in The Confederate War, calls attention to another point that ought to be obvious: "The presence of Union armies on southern soil generated a type of Confederate desertion unknown among Union soldiers -- and one that did not necessarily indicate weak will or unhappiness with the Confederacy." Devotion to homes and families, one of the most-often cited motives for the Confederate soldier's commitment, also drove the Confederate desertion rate up late in the war.

William Dickey, company commander in the Georgia State Militia on the outskirts of Atlanta in 1864, wrote to his wife on July 13 about the many "Tennesseans and up Georgians" leaving the army to get back to their homes, which the Northern slash-and-burn advance had overrun. "They know their families are left behind at the mercy of the yankies and it is hard to bear."

"I tell you it is enough to make any man desert. If the Yankees were to drive our army through our country & we were to pass on by you and the children, I could not say that I would not desert and try to get to you."

This was how Sherman's march did double damage to the South: not just in wreching its economy and devastating important agricultural regions, but in drawing off the best soldiers, men who had stood by the Southern cause for three years, by threatening the one thing they seemed to hold more dear -- hearth and home. Ella Lonn understood this, too. Late in the war, it wasn't the shirkers and weak-hearted who were leaving the South's ranks; it was the veterans, as Grant and Sherman both noted. "Soldiers, faced with the choice of serving the State or their families, when famine was stalking the land, obeyed the stronger of the two obligations." [/color]

So really, if the CSA is doing well, then there are a certain number of men to draw on. If not, and the Union is plundering the homeland, the will to fight - to be away from home, diminishes strongly. But regardless of how the war goes for either side, they should have some cap on total manpower ever available.

[KillCalvalry]

I'm not the only one then who feels the Manpower Model is maybe a bit off. How about these radical suggestions; I'm sure there are holes in them, and I'm sure it's not perfect, but maybe:

1. ELMINATE CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS as an Option: Instead, have 1 or 2 special events in 1861 with very large chunks of volunteers awarded. In 1861, you should have more men than weapons, like real life. After 1861, the steady stream of volunteers is represented by the base recruit production each turn. Give so many men that, CSA doesn't have crunch until Jan '62, and Union until mid-'62.
2. MAKE DRAFTS ONE-TIME CHOICES: Drafts are permanent, one-time only events. There can be 2 levels:
PARTIAL: Cost 1 NM PER TURN, and 25 VP's PER TURN. You get immediate one-time bump in troops, and PERMANENT increase in recruit production in each city/town accross the board.
FULL: Cost 2 NM, and 50 VP per turn, but the amount of PERMANENT increase doubles.
3. BOUNTIES: You can still do this, spend money for recruits, with no NM or VP penalties.
4. RECRUIT PRODUCTION: Maybe would need to be increased in this model. If so, I think all towns should produce at least +1. Grenada, MS, for example, though doesn't have much in the way of factories, the are recruits in that region for the CSA.

Someone good at math would have to work out the details. But thoughts?

[PBBoeye]

Well, at least with #1, the event idea, the problem is that events just happen in the game. There are no choices like in Paradox games, for instance. It's something that just occurs, or does not. My problem with that is a nationwide call for volunteers that I do not want to have happen. That really takes national direction out of my hands.

[KillCalvalry]

Well, at least with #1, the event idea, the problem is that events just happen in the game. There are no choices like in Paradox games, for instance. It's something that just occurs, or does not. My problem with that is a nationwide call for volunteers that I do not want to have happen. That really takes national direction out of my hands.

True, though there isn't much of a decision around Volunteers anyway, other than timing, but in real life they wouldn't "Wait". Aside from very early when there were not enough weapons, they were taking everyone. It doesn't change the decision making much, because you're probably calling for volunteers anyway; there is no reason not to in the game other than timing.

Looking at #2, the penalties are probably too harsh, but there should be some sort of diminishing return, particularly for the CSA.

I'm just trying to think of ideas to get the kind of Manpower Curve that is probably more realistic.

[Jabberwock]

2. MAKE DRAFTS ONE-TIME CHOICES: Drafts are permanent, one-time only events. There can be 2 levels:
PARTIAL: Cost 1 NM PER TURN, and 25 VP's PER TURN. You get immediate one-time bump in troops, and PERMANENT increase in recruit production in each city/town accross the board.
FULL: Cost 2 NM, and 50 VP per turn, but the amount of PERMANENT increase doubles.

I don't like the idea of making this permanent. For me, the game is about making choices and adjusting to developing situations. It is good to see some radical thoughts, though.

Refining my idea about a WS penalty, it could be based on an average of some % of conscripts, and/or some % of total WS produced, and a fixed number. That fixed number would make the penalty hit the Confederacy harder, as they have less industry and WS to begin with.

[Jagger]

2. MAKE DRAFTS ONE-TIME CHOICES: Drafts are permanent, one-time only events. There can be 2 levels:
PARTIAL: Cost 1 NM PER TURN, and 25 VP's PER TURN. You get immediate one-time bump in troops, and PERMANENT increase in recruit production in each city/town accross the board.
FULL: Cost 2 NM, and 50 VP per turn, but the amount of PERMANENT increase doubles.

Actually drafts were not one time events-at least for the CSA. There might be 3 or 4 drafts a year or 1 draft. It was a political and military decision whether and when a draft was implemented. And a draft might or might not result in men showing up. IIRC, there was a very large draft towards the end of 63 or 64 which resulted in only a very small percentage of the actual CSA draftees reporting for duty.

I don't really like allowing the option of partial/full mobilization at the start of the war for either side. Politically, neither side could afford either partial or full mobilization at the beginning of the war.

In PBEM game terms, both sides really only have one choice which is full mobilization immediately which produces extreme results particularly in the East.

I think an event triggering a mobilization option based on either a certain lower level of national morale or victory points would more accurately reflect the reluctance to implement conscription. Perhaps give the event a fixed date for automatically firing.

Desperation or realization of a long war is needed to create the political will to conscript.

[TommH]

Some of your conclusins here while logical are somewhat flawed. This is due in great measure to the illogical nature of mankind and some other factors.

a) The idea that drafts reduced volunteering is false, especially in the north. Being a draftee was considered a socially bad. Many men were motivated by the draft to volunteer rahter then risk the social stigma.

b) Volunteer numbers did fluctuate but the didn't always go downward. In particular the North was able to draw on two very large new pools to increase manpower, the arming of African Americans in increasingly large numbers and the recruiting in Europe of men to immigrate on condition of joining the Army.

From the South's point of view, liberating areas would often bring in new troops although often not in the number expected. These ranged from Jackson and Forrest's ability to basicly raise troops on the fly to more organized efforts as in Kentucky and to a lesser extent in Maryland.

In general its a complex problem. Several areas come into play - need for manpower in other areas of society, recruiting areas covered, ability to pay bounties, overseas recruiting, arming of Native Americans and African Americans, etc. etc.

I do feel that the ability to carry out even a partial Draft early in 61 is very ahistorical. It was simply not something that either side could have pulled off politically. I can see it if it had a trigger such as a capital being sieged or a specific low victory total.

Another thing that would increase the realism of calls for volunteers and drafts would be transparency and synergy. If your opponent triggers a call for manpower draft you should know about it and should be able to reciprocate for a lesser penalty. This simulates your move being seen as simply matching the other side.

Jeff Davis was able, (with quite some difficulty) to get his Draft act passed becasue the South was in a fix, and the well known calls of Lincoln for '300,000 more' had the Confedrate leadership understandably worried.

[Jabberwock]

I think an event triggering a mobilization option based on either a certain lower level of national morale or victory points would more accurately reflect the reluctance to implement conscription. Perhaps give the event a fixed date for automatically firing.

That is a good idea. I agree there should be a delay before drafting is possible. Since recruitment is based on NM, you would mitigate a power-shift to the drafting side.

I think most of these ideas are synergetic. Combine delayed conscription with decreasing conscription returns (modified by territory controlled and a manpower cap), add in some of the penalties discussed.

[PBBoeye]

Lots of really good ideas flowing around here on this subject. I think this is like beta work... again.

True, though there isn't much of a decision around Volunteers anyway, other than timing, but in real life they wouldn't "Wait".

I don't know what I was thinking - for some reason I was considering the concept of a draft, not a flood of volunteers.

I don't really like allowing the option of partial/full mobilization at the start of the war for either side. Politically, neither side could afford either partial or full mobilization at the beginning of the war.

In PBEM game terms, both sides really only have one choice which is full mobilization immediately which produces extreme results particularly in the East.

I think [color="Red"]an event triggering a mobilization option based on either a certain lower level of national morale or victory points would more accurately reflect the reluctance to implement conscription[/color]. Perhaps give the event a fixed date for automatically firing.

[color="RoyalBlue"]Desperation or realization of a long war is needed to create the political will to conscript.[/color]

Absolutely. I hate early mobilization at a player's whim. I do believe it should be only opened up by circumstances.

I do feel that the ability to carry out even [color="DarkOrchid"]a partial Draft early in 61 is very ahistorical[/color]. It was simply not something that either side could have pulled off politically. I can see it if it had a trigger such as a capital being sieged or a specific low victory total.

Another thing that would increase the realism of calls for volunteers and drafts would be transparency and synergy. [color="DarkOrange"]If your opponent triggers a call for manpower draft you should know about it[/color] and should be able to reciprocate for a lesser penalty. This simulates your move being seen as simply matching the other side.

Lesser penalty - that's interesting. I'd say 'modestly lower', not significantly lower, only for game play's sake, but good idea. I definitely think a game announcement needs to be made when a PBeM player makes a manpower draft. In fact, I think political and economic decisions need to be revealed to both players (points were discussed on the ramifications of keeping this info secret and how it affects game - none of those actions were historically 'secret' when they occurred).

That is a good idea. I agree there should be a delay before drafting is possible. Since recruitment is based on NM, you would mitigate a power-shift to the drafting side.

I think [color="SeaGreen"]most of these ideas are synergetic[/color]. Combine delayed conscription with decreasing conscription returns (modified by territory controlled and a manpower cap), add in some of the penalties discussed.

I agree with this completely. It would really make the manpower model quite sharp, at least in comparison to other games.

[Wilhammer]

I would go much, much further...

By State, we can know the population and the draft age men in it, with reasonable accuracy.

Thus, like unit purchase, manpower in function of each State's real world populations/demographics at the time.

The Drafts and Volunteers would be further affected by the loyalty and control of a region. higher control would give one a better chance at both draft and volunteer, but more control, while loyalty would more directly influence volunteers.

To make it accurate, each 'county' on the map would have some weight affecting the 100 percentage value of the State population.

----

Thats asking for a lot - but think about how it would add to the game, the more territory you take, the more manpower you take, bit by bit. I don't think the game models the incremental loss of control vs manpower.

Any NM/VP modifiers for drafts and volunteers would be applied at this level; many mentioned above are spot on.

I agree, the manpower is 'off' in this game.

----

[PBBoeye]

Well, I'll say that the concept of the North invading the South, and ever expecting to raise any troops is basically as unhistorical as anything in an ACW game could ever become. Not sure if that is what you were getting at or not.

I believe the ability to change the 'loyalty' of a region in the game is basically a supply issue or represents a lack of resistance. But loyalty as in taking up arms, the concept in the game if it were that, would be ludicrous.

[Jabberwock]

Well, I'll say that the concept of the North invading the South, and ever expecting to raise any troops is basically as unhistorical as anything in an ACW game could ever become. Not sure if that is what you were getting at or not.

I believe the ability to change the 'loyalty' of a region in the game is basically a supply issue or represents a lack of resistance. But loyalty as in taking up arms, the concept in the game if it were that, would be ludicrous.

Not so ludicrous in the border states. Perhaps this could work on a more limited level, say if one side has 85%+ control, and 75%+ loyalty, then that region's population would count towards recruitment for the state for that side. It would be very difficult for the Union to get those numbers outside of Kentucky, Missouri, or east Tennessee. I think a system like that would be great; but I agree it is asking for a lot.

[PBBoeye]

I do not, nor could you get any Southerner with much knowledge of the past, consider border states to be 'the North'. KY, MO, MD or DE I could see producing either Yanks or Rebs (there were some strong sympathies in MD and DE).

But in no way shape or form can I see any of the seceded southern states coughing up Yankee troops, aside from Northern Virginia, which does not even consider itself a part of Virginia anyhow. Now those border states, I can see producing units for either side, and did (except DE for the CSA - too far into the USA).

[McNaughton]

I do not, nor could you get any Southerner with much knowledge of the past, consider border states to be 'the North'. KY, MO, MD or DE I could see producing either Yanks or Rebs (there were some strong sympathies in MD and DE).

But in no way shape or form can I see any of the seceded southern states coughing up Yankee troops, aside from Northern Virginia, which does not even consider itself a part of Virginia anyhow. Now those border states, I can see producing units for either side, and did (except DE for the CSA - too far into the USA).

Actually, I believe that Tennessee (Eastern Tennessee) had strong Northern sentiments, and 50+ Tennessee units (batteries, regiments) served in the Northern Army (many raised in Kentucky, others in Tennessee). Amongst the 100 000 or so freed slaves. However, this would be limited to a set of small pockets within particular states.

[TommH]

I didn't mention any ability of the Union to do so as I agree that outside of the border states and a few isolated areas this wouldn't be very likely. The South did believe that they would gay significant troops if they were able to "liberate" Maryland. In the event, the numbers were somewhat disapointing but, of course, this could simply be the sresult of the specific circumstances (no major cities were captured and the presence of CSA forces wee relativly brief).

In any case, the North had a huge man power edge that was made up of several factors.

More people overall. The census totals are: 22 m for the North and 9 m (5.5 m free) for the South.

Less mainpower intensive Agriculture. The recent widespread introduction of the McCormick combine had made it possible to bring in huge crops of wheat with much fewer people. By contrast the South used a mix of incredibly inefficent plantations and small individual farms many of which were not much above subsistance level.

African Americans in the South were arguably a net minus as signifcant manpower was required to keep them under control. When the opportunity was presented large numbers joined the union cause. While slave labor was used to some effect by the South, (for instance in building fortifications), this hardy outweighed the negatives, especially the ~180,000 African Americans who served the Union.

Immigration was a huge factor. Immigration during the Civil War amounted to several million virtually all of which went to the North. Even before the war 8 out of 9 immigrants went to the North. For instance German American Immigrants alone provided 216,000 troops by wars end. Even apart from the many immigrants that voluntered or were actually recruited overseas, immigrants filled positions in factories and working on the Railroads making available more manpower for the armies.

Essentially once "full" mobilization occured the South was already significantly outnumered. After that the North should be able to keep that disparity growing through the use of the resources described above.

[TommH]

One issue with African Americans that should be mentioned is that unile the Army the Navy already had signicant numbers in the ranks at the start of the war. Ironicly the Navy of the time had integrated crews with segreation only coming later.

[Jabberwock]

But in no way shape or form can I see any of the seceded southern states coughing up Yankee troops, aside from Northern Virginia, which does not even consider itself a part of Virginia anyhow. Now those border states, I can see producing units for either side, and did (except DE for the CSA - too far into the USA).

Re-reading TommH's original post, what I think he was mainly getting at was a loss of recruiting power for territory no longer under your control. That is a good point. I was thinking mainly of border states (I include Virginia on the Potomac), east Tennessee, and the Ozarks. I don't believe the North ever achieved a loyalty rate equivalent to 85% outside those areas, and the chance of it happening in the game would be very slight. Loyalty rates move at a glacial pace.

In another thread I proposed slightly speeding up the loyalty change process. The two proposals are probably based on inconsistent ideas of what loyalty % signifies. Maybe my proposal wouldn't work well for other areas. We don't want two inconsistent rules - one for here, one for there.

How about if we modify what I came up with to say that you would lose a portion of a state's contribution to recruitment for each region in which MC or loyalty go below certain thresholds.

Anyway, that is probably a proposal for AACW Gold or whatever they call the next full iteration. The simpler ideas we came up with are more likely to get included in a patch to this game at some point.

BTW - The intention of my signature quote is to let Yankees know that as the Confederate commander, I intend to burn them out of their homes wherever they may reside, and chase the survivors into Canada. (As the Federal commander, I intend to build the world's most powerful navy, and let it get knocked around by shore defences; but I haven't come up with a good quote for that yet.)

[PBBoeye]

Re-reading TommH's original post, what I think he was mainly getting at was a loss of recruiting power for territory no longer under your control. That is a good point.

I was thinking that, too, to some extent. In which case I do think that is a good idea. A loss of recruiting power.

[WhoCares]

Just reading MCPhersons 'Battle Cry of Freedom' I just finished yesterday the chapter basically covering this part.
What he wrote is that for the confederacy losing its own ground is even worse than 'just' losing areas to recruit from, but in fact many soldiers in arms fighting somewhere else often left their units to be with their families once their home was overrun.

Would be 'funny' to see the rebel armies dimish without ever losing a fight just by ceding space for time

[TommH]

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 the North it was more of a steady drain with the reasons you'd expect causing it to go up and down (victory and defeat, high losses, bad living conditions, etc.).

I'm not positive that desertion is modeled at all in the game. Does anyone know?

[PBBoeye]

To be frank, both the manpower and industrial models are, on a certain level, enigmatic to me.

I am sure that sounds comforting.

[Spruce]

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