Divisions

[Mynok]

Another thought: maybe the ability to make brigades from these one-element militia units? That would make it more useful to put a brigade leader with them so he could affect a decent number of troops.

[tagwyn]

Reb divisions in 1863 were much larger than the average union division. The union formed new divisions our of replacements. Reb replacements were fed back into existing divisions. Much more efficient, don't you think. T

[denisonh]

You can add them into existing brigades if there is "room". Many larger brigade start understrength in the game and it is a good technique for replacing lost elements in brigades that have taken element losses. Keeping militia in a depot provides an opportunity for them to upgrade over time and then be fed into brigades with losses. Cheaper than buying replacement chits in the long run.

Another thought: maybe the ability to make brigades from these one-element militia units? That would make it more useful to put a brigade leader with them so he could affect a decent number of troops.

[arsan]

Another thought: maybe the ability to make brigades from these one-element militia units? That would make it more useful to put a brigade leader with them so he could affect a decent number of troops.

Besides the special cases Denisonh explains, two militia units can always be brigaded together. Just select both units and press control+c.
It makes for a nice small infantry brigade once both militias upgrade to regulars.
Regards

[Coregonas]

Unfortunately for those militia brigades, can not have a leader attached.

So they are more useful integrated into divisions.

Use the other "standard" brigades as independent ones if you feel so.

However, I try to NEVER leave single brigades (even brigaded) in first line, they are extremely weak facing even a very small corps.

[Brochgale]

Unfortunately for those militia brigades, can not have a leader attached.

So they are more useful integrated into divisions.

Use the other "standard" brigades as independent ones if you feel so.

However, I try to NEVER leave single brigades (even brigaded) in first line, they are extremely weak facing even a very small corps.

Single brigades always get massacred - especially if outnumbered heavily. Even single Brigades inside a Corps

[Jagger]

You have pointed out an idea to me however... Maybe the solution is to reduce the total number elements capable of being contained in a division, and then increase the number of divisions themselves.

For some time now, I have wanted to mod the total number of elements within a division. As far as I know, that value cannot be modded at this time.

Currently, a full strength division is approximately 13,000 men. The largest Union Corps at Gettysburg was approximately 13,000 men. Divisions are simply too large in manpower vs historical reality. Although historical attrition will help to some extent.

But then, Union divisions were typically smaller than CSA divisions due to smaller regiments but primarily because they contained less brigades. So reducing total number of elements within a division doesn't fully solve the problem of historical doctrine.

There are several possible solutions.

One is to reduce the number of elements within a division. But then CSA and Union divisions will still remain equal in size.

Another solution is to use a leader value which determines the number of elements within a division formed by that leader. By giving Union leaders smaller "element values", Union divisions would be smaller. Another advantage is you could differentiate leader capabilities further by designating certain leaders as capable of commanding either smaller or larger divisions. So some leaders would be capable of commanding large divisions and some could only command smaller divisions.

Another possibility is a value which simply defines the number of elements in a division by nationality. Example--A Union division can contain 6 elements while a CSA division can contain 9 elements--numbers picked out of the air.

Personally I like the idea of a leader value defining his ability to command x number of elements within a division because it provides the greatest flexibility.

Although a possible problem with reducing the size of divisions is the number of leaders. Are there enough leaders if we end up with more divisions?

Here are some issues that may be contributing to the "maxing" out of the divisions (I haven't had a major issue with it)

1. Players push all thier manpower forward.
- Players take risk by not keeping forces in garrisons or in depots as was done historically.
- Players replace strength by taking replacements in the division and continue to build more divisions rather than send individual brigades to a depot for replacement. 1.10a will accelerate this effect.

Easy solution is to mod total manpower available. I reduced available CSA manpower by 1/2 in the PBEM mod. Union reduced as well but not as much. Also adding severe penalties to early use of drafts. The end result are armies of historic size. Although with the new historic attrition, I may need to readjust manpower upward slightly-probably not by much.

[GShock]

Another solution is to use a leader value which determines the number of elements within a division formed by that leader. By giving Union leaders smaller "element values", Union divisions would be smaller. Another advantage is you could differentiate leader capabilities further by designating certain leaders as capable of commanding either smaller or larger divisions. So some leaders would be capable of commanding large divisions and some could only command smaller divisions.

I second this one. Flexible and allowing more realism imo. Probably all we need is Pocus to flip out another rabbit from his hat. I wouldn't exclude option 2 and 3 are both available with possibly the need of a new command string.

[Jagger]

Unfortunately for those militia brigades, can not have a leader attached.

I ended up modding militia brigades so that leaders can be attached. I couldn't see a good reason not to attach a leader to militia brigades.

[W.Barksdale]

You have pointed out an idea to me however... Maybe the solution is to reduce the total number elements capable of being contained in a division, and then increase the number of divisions themselves.

This is not a good model. It seems to me that this division cap is an artificial way to simulate manpower shortages. The root of the problem is that there are too many conscription points given out to begin with.

If you are holding firm not to alter manpower you must get rid of the division cap. It really makes no sense whatsoever to be able recruit additional regiments and brigades and yet not be able to form them into divisions.

[Mynok]

You can add them into existing brigades if there is "room". Many larger brigade start understrength in the game and it is a good technique for replacing lost elements in brigades that have taken element losses. Keeping militia in a depot provides an opportunity for them to upgrade over time and then be fed into brigades with losses. Cheaper than buying replacement chits in the long run.

Ahhhh...I did not know that. I'll bet you have to split the division, combine the brigade and the militia unit, then recombine the division?

Besides the special cases Denisonh explains, two militia units can always be brigaded together. Just select both units and press control+c.

Very helpful keystroke. I believe I was remiss in not reading through the keyboard shortcuts better.

Unfortunately for those militia brigades, can not have a leader attached.

So they are more useful integrated into divisions.

Use the other "standard" brigades as independent ones if you feel so.

However, I try to NEVER leave single brigades (even brigaded) in first line, they are extremely weak facing even a very small corps.

Sounds like the game will let you combine any two units into a single one, but doesn't really treat it like a brigade but more like "unit A is attached to unit B".

So I could do that with a cavalry unit and a horse artillery I'll bet as well....which actually sounds very useful for raiding purposes.

[Mynok]

I would support a serious reduction in manpower, probably by drastically increasing the penalties for drafts, to include permanent reduction in production.

The old Victory Games boardgame Vietnam had a very nice method of dealing with Viet Cong manpower, accurately representing the effects on population attitude as well as the increasing difficulty of replacing losses with such a limited pool. I might go back and read up on those rules as it has been a while. There should definitely be an increasing cost to getting CSA manpower as losses progress.

[Shabaka]

You have to keep in mind though that the average manpower of a historical CSA division was considerably less than 5000 men on the average, but the game has divisions that can have up to 18 elements which allowing for a few artillery units have an average manpower size of 10,000 to 12,000 men when filled to capacity. This is significantly more overall manpower than was historically available to the entire CSA armed forces.

You have pointed out an idea to me however... Maybe the solution is to reduce the total number elements capable of being contained in a division, and then increase the number of divisions themselves.

Actually the ~35 divisions in place July 1, 1863 averaged 5900 troops per division. 6 to 8 of these were cavalry divisions and I have no idea how large the cavalry divisions were. This could mean the infantry divisions were more in 6500 range..dont have statistics on that as yet.

I would suggest something on the order of the following for CSA:
36 infantry divisions with 18 elements each.
9 cavalry divisions with 6 elements each (maybe somebody has info about the number of men in cav divisions).
Cavalry divisions could give bonuses of some kind when one army has advantage over enemy army in Cavalry elements/power?
Increase first fire chances?
Improve/decrease chance of surprise (think Shiloh)
improve retreat ability (minimize losses in defeat)
improve followup victory (maximize casualties on enemy after victory)
improve knowledge of enemies forces
Other?

Using too few divisions to cap the manpower problem only creates a second problem. The root cause problem is manpower generation. As such, it should probably be addressed separately from the "too few" Division problem, rather than linking them and causing 2 problems.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[arsan]

though I suspect that if the vanilla scenarios would delay the first drafts until 1862, as they were historically, this problem might be reduced considerably.

I think this delay of draft (also adding bigger NM and VP cost for drafts) and the use of the hardened attrition option would end the "too much manpower" situation of most people...
If one plays without realistic attrition enabled and "abuse" the drafts in a ahistorical way is normal to end with too much manpower and too big armies
About the 18 elements divisions... i don't think the problem is with the number of elements, Is more with the number of men per regiment (a pure stetic thing, with no game impact).
If one would decrease the men per regiemnt to more historical limits (around 500 fo infantry) 18 elemenst divisons would not be so huge... specially with hardened attrition enabled working on them each turn.
For what i had read the 1.000 men per regiment was a "on paper" number. On the field regments had mostly 500, 400... or even 250 men.

Regards

[Coregonas]

Thats really another good idea.

Just change all those DB files or code telling a single infantry/cavalry "pip" is 50 men, to 35 men (as an example)..

So a "normal" full 12.000 men would be reduced to 8000 without real changes at all.

This solves the problem of the "apparent" too big manpower total, without changing the game really.

The only question here is... Does the USA/CSA manpower RATIO in vanilla using at the maximum (both) those tricky draft options is still REALISTIC?

Seems approximately yes, as real raised USA manpower was not in the 5-1 ratio, but more in the 1,5 / 2-1 ratios...

Again I m not expert in those values, but seems some modders have altered a bit (favouring USA) the vanilla ratios...

[Heldenkaiser]

For what i had read the 1.000 men per regiment was a "on paper" number. On the field regments had mostly 500, 400... or even 250 men.

The regiments started with 1,000 men--they were recruited that way. But since they never got replacements, as far as most Northern states were concerned (Wisconsin being the notable exception), they started to shrink from the first day and usually after a year or two consisted of the hard core of 200 to 300. I believe the game is already taking care of the odd replacement policy of the Union states in some way (halving the chance, or the number received, or something like that?). But the way from 1,000 to 500 or 300 hundred was a downward development over time. 1,000 men was not a mere paper strength.

[arsan]

The regiments started with 1,000 men--they were recruited that way. But since they never got replacements, as far as most Northern states were concerned (Wisconsin being the notable exception), they started to shrink from the first day and usually after a year or two consisted of the hard core of 200 to 300. I believe the game is already taking care of the odd replacement policy of the Union states in some way (halving the chance, or the number received, or something like that?). But the way from 1,000 to 500 or 300 hundred was a downward development over time. 1,000 men was not a mere paper strength.

Yes i know many were raised at 1.000 strength (not sure if all) but by the time they were deployed at the front, even before they saw combat, i suspect the number was much lower because of sickness, deserters, stragglers, men not destined to the combat line...
IMHO the best and easier (this is important too) way to represent units with historical numbers would be to reduce the max men number of elements a lot (maybe 600 men per infantry regiments).
Of course it would be a simplification, but it is very easy to do and would look much better than the current 1.000 men regiments, 5.000 men brigades and 14.000 men divisions.
As it is now, brigades have the size of historical divisions, and divisions the size of corps...

Regards

[Coregonas]

The regiments started with 1,000 men--they were recruited that way. But since they never got replacements, as far as most Northern states were concerned (Wisconsin being the notable exception), they started to shrink from the first day and usually after a year or two consisted of the hard core of 200 to 300. I believe the game is already taking care of the odd replacement policy of the Union states in some way (halving the chance, or the number received, or something like that?). But the way from 1,000 to 500 or 300 hundred was a downward development over time. 1,000 men was not a mere paper strength.

Unfortunately, seems every body can hold all their troops to the maximum size during most of the war. (Even playing historic attrition? i dont know... dont played too much this way)

Again, CSA problem is: as there are so few CP available to the troops to command (ie corps 2*/divisions, etc), the only way to go on upgrading army combat power is replacing to the max every troop.

[Jagger]

Seems approximately yes, as real raised USA manpower was not in the 5-1 ratio, but more in the 1,5 / 2-1 ratios...

Again I m not expert in those values, but seems some modders have altered a bit (favouring USA) the vanilla ratios...

The Union Army was 3.2 times as large as the CSA army by the end of the war.

-------------US-----------CSA--------Ratio
61 July------183K----------?
62 Ded/Jan--527K---------258K-------2.0-1
63 Dec/Jan--698K---------277K-------2.5-1
64 Dec/Jan--611K---------194K-------3.0-1
65 Dec/Jan--620K---------196K-------3.2-1

Total manpower in Union Army vs CSA army approximately 3-1 advantage.

From here: http://www.civilwarhome.com/armysize.htm

Total enlistments in the Federal forces are officially put at 2,778,304, including, in the Army, 2,489,836 whites, 178,975 Negroes, 3530 Indians, and 105,963 in the Navy and Marines. Some scholars do not even accept these figures as authoritative and it must be borne in mind that many thousands who are included enlisted more than once. Also included are troops whose period of service varied from a few days to the duration. The important question is how many individuals served in the armed forces. Estimates run from 1,550,OO0 to 2,200,000 Federals. Probably something over 2,000,000 would be as accurate a figure as possible on total individuals in the Federal armed forces.
For the Confederates, figures are even more in dispute. Estimates of total Confederate enlistments run from 600,000 to 1,400,000. Many Confederate scholars count 6oo,oco total individuals. After considering the numerous surveys made, perhaps 750,000 individuals would be reasonably close. Thus it can be said that Federals, counting Negro troops, outnumbered the Confederates about three to one in number of individuals.

More old discussion here on manpower: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=5934

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[GShock]

Whatever the big number, the base is always on 100. A company, in all the military corresponds to 100 men more or less, for example the italian navy has companies set on 120 men. I'd say for sake of simplicity to make companies on 100 men.

Then, for a 3-elements unit,each with 1000 men, that's 30 companies. I guess the real problem is not in the reinforcements but in the replacements.

These are price/man categorized...i could never accept the difference in man bc one man is one man whatever soldier-type he is, but the price difference is ok.

As of the special soldiers, such as engineers, hq, supply, i guess even a 1 company price would do....anyway it's a tough change to make and test.

[Heldenkaiser]

Yes i know many were raised at 1.000 strength (not sure if all) but by the time they were deployed at the front, even before they saw combat, i suspect the number was much lower because of sickness, deserters, stragglers, men not destined to the combat line...
IMHO the best and easier (this is important too) way to represent units with historical numbers would be to reduce the max men number of elements a lot (maybe 600 men per infantry regiments).
Of course it would be a simplification, but it is very easy to do and would look much better than the current 1.000 men regiments, 5.000 men brigades and 14.000 men divisions.
As it is now, brigades have the size of historical divisions, and divisions the size of corps...

I concur.

[tagwyn]

Rebel divisions were much larger than Union divisions! A Reb division was almost as big as most Union corps. Pocus, you and Phil shoud bear this in mind if you make any future changes. apy:

[Coregonas]

I m sure it is nearly not posible to be exactly Historical. Just see again Wiki. Yes I know this is not the best data on the world, but JUST quick to copy / paste.

Comparison of Union and CSA
Total population 22,000,000 (71%) 9,000,000 (29%)
Free population 22,000,000 5,500,000
1860 Border state slaves 432,586 NA
1860 Southern slaves NA 3,500,000
Soldiers 2,200,000 (67%) 1,064,000 (33%)
Railroad miles 21,788 (71%) 8,838 (29%)
Manufactured items 90% 10%
Firearm production 97% 3%
Bales of cotton in 1860 Negligible 4,500,000
Bales of cotton in 1864 Negligible 300,000
Pre-war U.S. exports 30% 70%

Yes as those figures tell... TOTAL POPULATION ratio was, at the start 2,4 - 1. Around half of CSA pop are SLAVES... They could not fight (well they even could if Laws were changed). Half are women.

This leaves for CSA army around 1.750.000 men. Well these are 0-99 years old. So perhaps 25% or so should be reduced. Simplifying this is 17.500 conscript points. Reduced 30% perhaps 12.500

I d had a looking on numbers on old threads. These are based on "initial" CSA values, with high NM/VP/cities still in CSA possesion... Around 10.000 for CSA and 14000 for USA.

Once wars starts going bad to the CSA, morale gets under 90 or so, conscripts monthly drop from 29 to 18 month. 3 years with this 10 pip reduction is 750 conscription.
Again, A free volunteer on NM 110 can be 200 consc. but on 90 it can be around 140. So 3 years with low NM(6 vols draft) can be again around 400 consc. less. The same with mobilizations.So finally perhaps 2000 companies less will be recruited once NM gets down. So 8000

This is the other way in USA, perhaps 2000 extra can be earned.

... winning NM allows you for more troops be raised and finally overwhelming the enemy.




But this has nothing to do with the CP limitations on the thread.

If CSA does a lot more best than real (ie raises his NM to 140), mercenaries could join them, foreigners, I dont know.... But still not enough CPs to lead them

Sure you ageod team did had all of this into account... Perhaps the first year has been played 100 more times than late years... As we extrapolate 61/62 results on 64/65...

My conclusion is than VANILLA CSA total figures seem OK to me AS THEY ARE.... Perhaps a small redone could be made, of course to allow a bit more manpower to USA. USA did not raised more due to political problems, not economical. And the what if? tells me than more troops/leadership/... could be raised on both sides if they could have done better than real.

[GShock]

Good figures and good conclusion on the reasons that prevented USA to commit more troops especially at the beginning.

Thanx Coregonas.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Banks6060]

Indeed, I don't think there should be any kind of draft option at all in 1861. There are currently two.

[Franciscus]

So, the conclusion here, is to possibly just eliminate the 1861 ahistorical drafts and see how the game plays out with just that one adjustment?

I agree

[arsan]

I think it would be a at least a good start.