graydingo wrote:Yes, but doesn’t the CSA player receive replacements quicker than the USA player based on the historical fact that the Confederacy placed more importance on filling up existing regiments compared to the Union’s reliance on new regiments in order to take advantage of the higher rate of recruitment this brought, thus continually weakening their experienced units. While the veteran Confederate regiments were receiving newbies that were gradually being folded into their ranks, in effect maintaining their “veteran” status?
Gray Fox wrote:http://www.nellaware.com/blog/civil-war-army-organization-and-order-of-rank.html
This states that CSA Divisions were sometimes twice as large as the Union's. What if we only gave Union Divisions 10 slots? Until CW3, such a house rule might put some new life in the CSA.
Gray Fox wrote:http://www.nellaware.com/blog/civil-war-army-organization-and-order-of-rank.html
This states that CSA Divisions were sometimes twice as large as the Union's.
Blood and Thunder Brigade wrote:Will there be a CW3 though? And if so, when?
DrPostman wrote:Blood and Thunder Brigade wrote:Will there be a CW3 though? And if so, when?
Probably not for a few more years. It will have to appear economically viable for AGEOD.
Blood and Thunder Brigade wrote:DrPostman wrote:Blood and Thunder Brigade wrote:Will there be a CW3 though? And if so, when?
Probably not for a few more years. It will have to appear economically viable for AGEOD.
Does it not currently appear to be so?
coach wrote:And not until people stop buying Civil war II. As long as it’s profitable they won’t interfere. Once it runs its course they’ll give it a year and then use the built up base with a new one.
Bamilus wrote:I have no inside knowledge, but I can't imagine not seeing or at least hearing about a Civil War 3 in development in next few years.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests