Historical Attrition Unclear to Me

[soundoff]

GraniteStater,

Soundoff, i don't think this is getting that bad, those two just need to take a step back and take a deep breath. It's all good.

Mike

Agreed. But there was a danger of it heading that way. Much better now we've returned to discussing


And just so I participate properly is this debate my stance on replacements is one of ambivalence. There are many other aspects of the game that make my sensibilities cringe, that if it were up to me I'd alter. Truth to be told its not up to me and for the time being at least I find the game and the fraternity of the boards enjoyable so I grudgingly go along with those aspects that I dislike. Fortunately the issue of replacements is not one of them. If anything I'd have units losing troops at a far higher rate to sickness, desertion etc than is currently programed. Trouble methinks with that attitude is that if it were to be the case I'd be the only one playing the game .......so not a good idea

[RebelYell]

Ok, you state the reasoning is specious.

The Northern method of replacements was just to roll depleted units together. That works and insures a level of combat experience is maintained but it is disruptive to unit cohesion overall. These things are not done in the field and would require some safe place like a depot. Southern solders were more likely to fit into a unit than a northern recruit and live in the field and largely off the land. Bringing new men into a unit would have some derogatory effects but would more rapidly recover once the troops were integrated. It worked better for the south because of the life experiences of their troops had them better trained for that environment and familiar with arms and shooting. If you don’t see this part and want examples we can go into lots of folksy antidotes about possums, coons, hunting, and visiting relatives living 300 miles away.

The south had less of a morale problem but more of a manpower problem than the north. The unrest in the north was just as bad, if not worse, than in the south. Both had draft systems that were unfair and both sides had peace movements. But in the south they were being attacked, so wanting peace only gets you so far.

Many of the advantages given the north in the game are themselves specious. As in the part about the force pools, cavalry penalties etc. There are others, but it is not what the thread is about.

South went to war as families and clans, that is a very powerful way to form military units and should raise cohesion and morale.

Winter War was fought like that by the Finns, it worked OK.

They did move away from it in the next war as there where those incidents when the fallen were all the sons from one family or many men from the same town

[GraniteStater]

Both sides did, this is well documented.

To restate it - afaics, there is no outstanding historical reason, solely on its own merits, why the CSA should enjoy a heightened replacement rate; certainly not 2:1, imo. I think it's mostly a design decision based on other criteria or reasons. Whatever I may think, that's what it is and that's how it works. It ain't gonna change, I would say.

*****

Just for the record, all I wanted to do was ask a question, which was answered. Others may not do it my way, but my practice of building Depots as needed in place to recover hits seems sensible, pari passu.

The reasons for the 2:1, etc., and if there is any real big historical justification is another discussion, as far as I'm concerned. Anyone wanting to delve into this on the History forum, I'm willing to listen.

[Ol' Choctaw]

This is historical attrition. The south replaces in the field, the north replaces at depots.

This is a convention of the game. Actually unless on a depot there should be no replacements beyond wounded recovery. So that 2:1 is generous to the north.

If it were actually historical there would be none in the field and replacements would go to forming new regiments while you combine your damaged regiments into new ones.

But you still think it is over balanced to the south?

Think it over.

[GraniteStater]

Wait a minnit - now, I'm just getting confused again. Let me read ACG again before I post a question.

[aariediger]

I don't understand the 2:1 problem. If you really wanted to be historical, the north shouldn't be able to buy replacements at all, and be forced to spend their conscript companies on new brigades. One of my favorite Civil War games was Sid Meier's Gettysburg, and in that game the South had much larger regiments compared to northern ones. Further, the few huge blue regiments were all green, while veteran units were small, some under 100 men.

Because of all this, a Confederate division had almost as many men as a northern corps! This made the two sides play differently, Southern brigades being stronger could bull-rush Union brigades one on one, but generally there were more Union brigades in combat, so you had to flank them to keep things even. Throw in Rebels having almost all Smoothbore cannon while the North had rifles, and it was practically asymmetric warfare.

[GraniteStater]

It's straightforward - I really don't see why CSA elements get to recover hits twice as fast as the Union elements. I've seen some historical facts mentioned here, all well and good, but personally, I haven't seen anything that is that convincing, some Ueber-fact that would just settle the reservation once & for all.

It's an abstraction - I don't insist that we raise regiments, for instance, and not brigades. I think it's much more of a design decision, and I'm sure there was a discussion about the historical modelling, but it just strikes me as a weighting, if I may, more than anything else. I don't even really care about the justifications that much, to tell you the truth. The ratio just seems a bit much to me. It really penalizes the Union and ameliorates the manpower advantage more than a little, imo.

You collect your intel, do everything you should be doing, prep, rest up, feed 'em steak & eggs in the morning and then attack. Wow, that was close! Just one more push...

uh-uh. Not so fast, buddy. While you're trying to recover Strength, the CSA is doing it twice as fast - and improving the fortifications.

It gets to the point where, if you don't Win Every Battle on a certain campaign, most especially during the spring and summer, well, your Union NM goes in the wastebasket, the CSA NM shoots up, and at a certain point, by mid-game, even, you're spending all your money on Hit Recovery, you can't raise any new units and by the time you can attack again, the CSA is just sitting back, fat, dumb & happy, just egging you to come & fight. I would, too, as a CSA player.

You might as well take the 'manpower advantage' and file it under Bad Jokes. You want history? 22 million base to 5 million, effective (4 million were slaves). The AotP on 17 September 1862 had a 5:2 advantage in the vicinity of Sharpsburg - Lee was excreting paving tiles, you could put that in the bank, especially with the Potomac at his back a mile away. A jumped up colonel could've put fini to the ANV that day; lucky for Lee, he was facing McClellan, who not only attacked piecemeal, but didn't even use some of his reserves.

22:5 - the Union should be able to not only field bigger armies by mid-game, but be able to raise enough to assemble Expeditionary Corps to land and attack at places where the CSA ain't, can't be, and won't be.

The base advantage is at least three to one in manpower, but letting the CSA recover hits twice as fast essentially whittles that down very, very sharply.

It is what is & I'll have to work with it, but I think that it's really a bit much - it's only one of the most fundamental advantages the Union had, after all.

[soundoff]

the Union should be able to not only field bigger armies by mid-game, but be able to raise enough to assemble Expeditionary Corps to land and attack at places where the CSA ain't, can't be, and won't be.


I don't really know how to say this GraniteStater without appearing to sound rude which is not my intention at all but the truth is the game is set up usually for the Union to win. By mid game (early 63) as the Union you should have far larger armies....just as ably led and have conducted some key amphibious landings that the CSA cannot combat. If that is not the case then either you are up against an Uber CSA player (and there have been one or two) or you are not playing the Union position well or have just been extremely unlucky with the dice rolls.

[John S. Mosby]

the Union should be able to not only field bigger armies by mid-game, but be able to raise enough to assemble Expeditionary Corps to land and attack at places where the CSA ain't, can't be, and won't be.


I don't really know how to say this GraniteStater without appearing to sound rude which is not my intention at all but the truth is the game is set up usually for the Union to win. By mid game (early 63) as the Union you should have far larger armies....just as ably led and have conducted some key amphibious landings that the CSA cannot combat. If that is not the case then either you are up against an Uber CSA player (and there have been one or two) or you are not playing the Union position well or have just been extremely unlucky with the dice rolls.

In other words GS...you and the North have never had it so good so stop complaining.

[GraniteStater]

I've thought about that, but I'm not that shabby a player. havi has gone from a minor oops here & there in '61 to an accomplished player who is seeing the board well and using the Cards well, etc. Per Mr. T, "I pity the fool who tussles with havi!" after this. He won't be making the small tactical errors in the beginning - he learns really quickly.

We've gotten to spring of 1864 and I don't think anyone else has in a PbeM, at least not posted that I've seen.

AS I wrote above, I am telling you, flat out, I am, essentially, stuck with the Union forces that I had at the close of '62. Yes, there has been some growth, but not much at all, maybe, maybe, four Divs, max, for land and a paltry increase in the navy. You can't raise forces when your entire budget is going to Replacements, Turn after Turn, month after month. And that's from actions you had almost six game-months ago!

It's not quite as bad as the raw words here convey, but it's pretty darn close. I have had some RR&R; made some mid-game Industry builds to goose $$, I hope, and, this last Turn, issued Requisition Cards in high Loyalty non-producers to raise more $$. And built TPs some to goose $$ in Shipping - I'm at around $80 per Turn now, better than nuttin', but far from a Solution. You can burn thru $800 Bond Issues in one Turn, just doing housekeeping and buying chits.

Wow, it's April, can hit 'em hard now! Oh, no, I lost, and not only lost, I've got 1325 hit to recover in Line Infantry alone - just Line Infantry. Good thing I built those Depots...geez, gonna need more Wagons, if I can ever build 'em...looks like September for the next attack...

Yes, my last two Turns have been better, in spring of '64, and I'm hoping the bloodletting has hit havi hard - developments in Memphis and Richmond lead me to think I might have a small justification for this hope.

But the cycle I describe is, woefully, all too true. Even when I'm at roughly twice his overall Combat Power and have been most of the game, except for a couple of times when he's been at 60%, those ratios obtaining after gore-fests - because he recovers hits twice as fast as I do.

"Extra forces?" Extra forces? It's a joke, really. There are no extra forces, I'm still at my force structure from December 1862, in essence. Don't you think I'd build them if I could?

[Highlandcharge]

Ive been reading from the sidelines and one thought occurred to me, it may sound dum but hey... yes the south can and does recover faster than the north.. but the south's manpower pool is much smaller and will eventually dwindle, at double the rate?

[GraniteStater]

That's how I'm crossing my fingers. Maybe the base advantage will finally start to kick in, maybe, maybe, he's burning thru Hit Chits himself.

But you better win your battles, darn near all of 'em - you had better, because otherwise, at 140/105 NM, CSA, single Divs, under Bragg even, hold off three Div Corps with two 3-1-1s and Meagher - at 1625 Pwr. With all the Support. And two Wagons. And sharpshooters. And two 20-lb loose Corps arty battys. And Bragg was maybe a level 3 trench - maybe.

To be fair, that was in a Marsh. And in the winter of 63-64, I campaigned, which you can do if you're far enough south.

But you want to build More - and you really can't. It's the $$ Crunch - I haven't mobilized at all and haven't recruited in a year, Men are aplenty, even with Hits burning thru 'em. WS are going for 25 cents a bushel. It's the Money, honey.

So, all I can see, is sit tight until mid-62, maybe, build Industry, build Shipping TPs, build a Big Blockade navy, build a huge river fleet, build & train, Turtle, turtle, turtle, until you have the Blue Behemoth and then strike. I really don't want to do that, but...I'm open to suggestions.

[soundoff]

In other words GS...you and the North have never had it so good so stop complaining.

Tongue in cheek but could not have put it better

[GraniteStater]

The next patch is supposed to implement the increases in Money from Raising Taxes, I believe - IIRC, didn't get implemented in 1.03. Dunno 'bout increasing the yield from Paper Money. Bonds do bring in $800.

Earlier and more frequent, and intelligent use of Requisitons could help.

If one can raise the $$, then a Union player isn't going to go quite as nuts about Replacement rates.

[soundoff]

That's how I'm crossing my fingers. Maybe the base advantage will finally start to kick in, maybe, maybe, he's burning thru Hit Chits himself.

But you better win your battles, darn near all of 'em - you had better, because otherwise, at 140/105 NM, CSA, single Divs, under Bragg even, hold off three Div Corps with two 3-1-1s and Meagher. With all the Support. And two Wagons. And sharpshooters. And two 20-lb loose Corps arty battys.

To be fair, that was in a Marsh. And in the winter of 63-64, I campaigned, which you can do if you're far enough south.

But you want to build More - and you really can't. It's the $$ Crunch - I haven't mobilized at all and haven't recruited in a year, Men are aplenty, even with Hits burning thru 'em. WS are going for 25 cents a bushel. It's the Money, honey.

So, all I can see, is sit tight until mid-62, maybe, build Industry, build Shipping TPs, build a Big Blockade navy, build a huge river fleet, build & train, Turtle, turtle, turtle, until you have the Blue Behemoth and then strike. I really don't want to do that, but...I'm open to suggestions.

Ahh I start to see a light at the end of the tunnel. As the North unless your opponent is Athena or a particularly inexperienced human you have got to....just got to.....sit tight (at least in the East) as the Union player in 61. If you seriously try to go on the offensive you get stuffed. In the West you can do tolerably well but in the East its just suicide as it was in reality. You just cannot overcome the bonuses of those wonderful starting Confederate leaders and the difference in troop quality and the NM effects. If that sort of strategy goes too much against the grain then play as the CSA. I've seen too many players overlook the fact that the game is a game and is 112 turns long....... and no I'm not suggesting employing gamey tactics just suggesting that Union players take a reality check and realise that even though manpower, money, and weapons are in their favour it does not make the CSA a walkover.

I could also make a strong case for suggesting that the Union (in reality) only really began to achieve supremacy once it realised that defeating armies in the field was not necessarily the way to do it......better to cripple the infrastructure.

Just my ignorant take on how to play the game.


edited to add the following ....... I should also have said that IMHO the move to historical accuracy in respect of when divisions and corps can be created has not aided the Unions ability to wage war particularly in the East in 61 . Even with McDowell active you are virtually always advancing with a 35% command penalty.

[soundoff]

The next patch is supposed to implement the increases in Money from Raising Taxes, I believe - IIRC, didn't get implemented in 1.03. Dunno 'bout increasing the yield from Paper Money. Bonds do bring in $800.

Earlier and more frequent, and intelligent use of Requisitons could help.

If one can raise the $$, then a Union player isn't going to go quite as nuts about Replacement rates.

You are right but don't forget that the CSA will get extra dosh as well.

[GraniteStater]

That's fine, I agree. But we're way beyond '61.

I haven't been able to do any serious building or raising for a game year, almost. I had one Turn where I briefly was above water, then, poof! back to mega-red - gee, don't fight any battles, huh? Never mind winning or losing 'em, although NM ratios are more than a little pertinent to this equation - it's the hits that kill you, 'cuz the $$ is so tight. FYI: we are using 10% Auto-build for hits, so some checks are cashed before I ever see them. Maybe No Auto-Buy is better?

Maybe the next patch - like I said, if you can just pay for the hits, then a Union player wouldn't have the Grumpy Gee Whizzes.

*****

FWIW, I think this a harder game than AACW. Even the over the board maneuvering is more subtle. It is, indeed, a better game. With all my grumbling, I'm still having a blast, although I'm having another look at taking up serious drinking again.

[soundoff]

That's fine, I agree. But we're way beyond '61.

I haven't been able to do any serious building or raising for a game year, almost. I had one Turn where I briefly was above water, then, poof! back to mega-red - gee, don't fight any battles, huh? Never mind winning or losing 'em, although NM ratios are more than a little pertinent to this equation - it's the hits that kill you, 'cuz the $$ is so tight. FYI: we are using 10% Auto-build for hits, so some checks are cashed before I ever see them. Maybe No Auto-Buy is better?

Maybe the next patch - like I said, if you can just pay for the hits, then a Union player wouldn't have the Grumpy Gee Whizzes.

My point would be that if you get behind the gain line in 61 and Mid 62 then you have the devils own job of trying to recover no matter how well you play. You might still do it but it becomes a heck of an ask. Give the CSA player an inch and before you know it ......it isn't just a yard they take its a country mile. As I said before the CSA is not a walkover. To basically stay intact and building up in 61 is vital for the Union......don't loose the advantage.

I still reckon (all things being equal) that if the CSA is still doing relatively well into 64 (by that I mean more VP's than the North) I'd concede victory and congratulate them for a game well played. That's just me though and the way I play.

[GraniteStater]

Oh, for heaven's sake, he's 600+ VP in the lead. I dunno if that's the biggest criterion; though, if it comes down to Jan 66, that's how the win is awarded.

I am at a net +1 in VP per Turn at the moment - woo hoo!

Even Athena will be hundreds of VP ahead into late 62; the big Turnabout comes with capturing Objectives. If I can bag Memphis and Little Rock soon, that will help. Richmond in the quasi-near-future is a possibility. I'll risk it and say openly that the Sea Island campaign has been about Charleston, although if I have to settle for Savannah, I will.

The CSA can't be everywhere at once. What does hurt is a string of good innings for the CSA and then NM starts to be a Big Problem, 'cuz NM affects combat.

[John S. Mosby]

My hat is off to havi as it sounds he has played a good game.

I read a lot of frustration in GS's posts. I have nowhere the experience as you fine players but would be hesitant to make changes to CW2 based on one current game. I certainly would not make changes to my golf swing based on one round of golf. I think one should look at the entire balance of the game as a whole.

The points appear interesting but I would prefer to see GS in other Pbem games and hear his opinion before contemplating changes. If GS routes havi in the next game, would his opinion of attrition be less critical? I don't know.

I will say with confidence that if havi and GS do play again down the road, I as well as many others would enjoy an AAR.

[GraniteStater]

He did catch the 10%er, 'Kentucky Secedes' in August, 1861. Maybe this goes to show how powerful it can be, although I did recover most of it fairly quickly.

It is the Money. You're paying for chits with about 450 $$ a Turn available, unless you issue Bonds, Raise Taxes or Paper it Up. Bonds are the best choice. Paper's hit is inflation, which I'll gladly trade for victories. Taxes are bad for NM. So there you are. Every six months, you can issue Bonds - 12 turns or so. Paper is a bit more often and the Union is risk averse to NM loss. Still, if Taxes were $800, instead of $400, I'd trade a bit of NM for the loot.

I built Heavy Industry three times before late 63, have built about eight or nine Shipping TPs. Just issued some Requisition Cards. Maybe more turtling and investment the first year...navy and Industry, you'd almost have to, the naval builds take a good amount of time, except for a couple.

On second thought, not getting 'KY secedes' does let the Union turtle in L & L in Northern KY. Maybe catching KY Secession is a bigger deal than thought.

[GraniteStater]

My hat is off to havi as it sounds he has played a good game.

I read a lot of frustration in GS's posts. I have nowhere the experience as you fine players but would be hesitant to make changes to CW2 based on one current game. I certainly would not make changes to my golf swing based on one round of golf. I think one should look at the entire balance of the game as a whole.

The points appear interesting but I would prefer to see GS in other Pbem games and hear his opinion before contemplating changes. If GS routes havi in the next game, would his opinion of attrition be less critical? I don't know.

I will say with confidence that if havi and GS do play again down the road, I as well as many others would enjoy an AAR.

havi is in the tournament.

[John S. Mosby]

havi is in the tournament.

havi withdrew from the tournament a few days ago.

[lycortas2]

I feel the Confederates are getting too many conscripts; i have been perusing the AARs and i see Confed forces in the West that AS Johnston would have drooled over all the while threatening Washington.

When it comes down to it, how do you conquer a country that doesn't want to be conquered? That was the fundamental question the North was asking in '62 particularly. In Vietnam in I Corps we put a squad in every village but that was against an opponent with no real army and we had helicopters to move forces quickly. In '62 the Union could not occupy every foot of ground without being fatally spread out.
One thing i find fascinating is the drought of the summer of '62. Never modeled in a game but both sides were afraid to move their armies away from controlled water sources.

Mike