Athena's unrealistic mobilization

[hootieleece]

I started a new campaign as the CSA using 1.09E. Athena immediately used Full mobilization, 6% war bonds, and a graduated income tax. Historically this is unrealistic. Maybe a code could be put in for athena to not call for full mobilization for Union until January '63 or if NM dips below a certain level say 70. (since it starts at 85) I noticed playing as union ATHENA does the same for CSA. Maybe put in qualifiers for Full Mobilization after March 1862 or if NM dips below 85.

Everyones thoughts would be apreciated.

hootie

I guess I'm not a good general, I have a hard time winning.

[Clovis]

I started a new campaign as the CSA using 1.09E. Athena immediately used Full mobilization, 6% war bonds, and a graduated income tax. Historically this is unrealistic. Maybe a code could be put in for athena to not call for full mobilization for Union until January '63 or if NM dips below a certain level say 70. (since it starts at 85) I noticed playing as union ATHENA does the same for CSA. Maybe put in qualifiers for Full Mobilization after March 1862 or if NM dips below 85.

Everyones thoughts would be apreciated.

hootie

I guess I'm not a good general, I have a hard time winning.

Athena is right as Full mobilization is a no-brainer in the current system. Penalizing Athena will not solve the problem as player will use the option .

[hootieleece]

Just trying to play sort of accurately.

[Pocus]

Should be more along the line of: 'should the option be usable before historical date xxx' ... not Athena fault, on this one at least

[Brochgale]

Athena is right as Full mobilization is a no-brainer in the current system. Penalizing Athena will not solve the problem as player will use the option .

Player does not always use the full mobilization option - not when he does not have the WS to recruit elite regts anyway? However Feds going to full mobilzation immediately does present a challange?

[Coffee Sergeant]

Yeah personally I would lock all draft options until 1862. Perhaps I would add more events to give both sides troops they don't get from the draft.

And in addition, according to McPherson the Union did not actually get most of their troops from the draft (<10%, if I recall). It did encourage people to volunteer, however. I suppose you could model this by making the draft cost money in addition to morale and VPs.

[Clovis]

Yeah personally I would lock all draft options until 1862. Perhaps I would add more events to give both sides troops they don't get from the draft.

And in addition, according to McPherson the Union did not actually get most of their troops from the draft (<10%, if I recall). It did encourage people to volunteer, however. I suppose you could model this by making the draft cost money in addition to morale and VPs.

Exactly what I've done in my mod for the first point.

For the second, I just made mobilization less interesting for North side by diminushing number of recruits

That's the only way to give Athena the same possibility than player.

[barkhorn45]

I drive a truck and therfore am away from my library but the csa historically stayed away from conscription[don't know the date they started conscription] because this underminded the very reason they had secceded, a centralised gov.telling the states what to do!This presented quite a delemma later on as they adopted more and more centralized government policies which represented what they were fighting and dying to prevent

[soloswolf]

Just trying to play sort of accurately.

I know what you mean with your comment, and I am not trying to snipe, but playing accurately as the CSA would mean you would lose.

While I certainly wouldn't be opposed to a change in the draft options, they aren't breaking the game in it's current state.

[Coffee Sergeant]

I drive a truck and therfore am away from my library but the csa historically stayed away from conscription[don't know the date they started conscription] because this underminded the very reason they had secceded, a centralised gov.telling the states what to do!This presented quite a delemma later on as they adopted more and more centralized government policies which represented what they were fighting and dying to prevent

The CSA actually was the first to pass a draft law, in March of 1862.

[barkhorn45]

So actually allowing both sides to conscript in april '61 is completely ahistorical.this being the case i guess the dates while playing can be considered an abstaction otherwise you would have a much slower game but apparentlly clovis's mod will try to represent the historical pace more accuratly.Am waiting till his mod gets closer to completion before i ins.meanwhile am having a hard enough time with the the game as presented just am a history nut and would like to duplicate the dillemma that the historic figures had to face

[PDH]

Perhaps calling it conscription is part of the problem. Without using it, there is no way the Union can mobilize a historical number of men by 1862. Looking at the campaigns of 1862 one is struck by the sheer number of men the Union had by that time - and how poorly the command was to not simply steamroll over the Confederates at that time...

[soloswolf]

While command was certainly an issue...

Sheer manpower in itself rarely results in victory. There are countless examples and quotes reflecting this.

The discipline required to advance on a fortified position, in hostile territory is not gained overnight. The men in the field, their commanders and national leaders all needed time to find the due course.

[Bertram]

"So actually allowing both sides to conscript in april '61 is completely ahistorical".

There is a difference between ahistorical and not following history.... In my view ahistorical is being able to do things that could not be done historically. Not following history is doing things that could have been done, but were not done, for one reason or another.

The question then is, was drafting men was impossible for some reason in '61, or was it not done out of choice (for fear of political repercussions, for example). If the later (which I think is correct), the game should reflect those repercussions, so the player can make his own choice. (The discussion then will focus on what those repercussions were, and in how far they were imagined and and in how far real).

This touches on one of my pet subjects: the more you make a game adhere to history, the less historical it is. Historically the Union had great difficulty to get its generals moving, but neither side knew that before. We do, so we plan strategies keepng that in mind. We know (especially when we played the game a few times) that Lyon needs to move fast, and that he then has a good chance of winning in the west. In reality he could just as well have gambled his command away. We know when there is a chance of an indian uprising, and how many troosp we need to contain them, and what their maximum effect is. For Lincoln it was probalby a total "Oh Shit" moment.

So, of you want to feel the uncertainty the high command experienced, you need to randomize much more, and drop in much more randomized events (some which historicaly did not happen, but could have happened). Of course the outcome might be very different then, and others (with an other definition of what is historical) might think this very ahistorical indeed.

[PDH]

While command was certainly an issue...

Sheer manpower in itself rarely results in victory. There are countless examples and quotes reflecting this.

The discipline required to advance on a fortified position, in hostile territory is not gained overnight. The men in the field, their commanders and national leaders all needed time to find the due course.

God is on the side of the strongest battalions.

While command is not the end all, a more driven force in 62 for the Union could have done far more. My point, of course, is not the Union winning in 62, but that they had really staggering numbers of men by then already under arms.

This is the trouble with the original post - to accurately reflect a more historical number of men under arms by 62, the Union has to resort to drafts. Really, it is trading one historical problem for another...

[Coregonas]

Its not possible finding the truth about most of the arguments telling about something is posible or not.

If BOTH sides WANT to simulate the HISTORICAL real EVENTS, surely it can be done to an extent.

One can check playing AGAINST itself, give orders both CSA and USA.

Dont call for mobilization... until 62... Call for volunteers.... and the such.

But this is a SIMULATION game. A WHAT IF...?

perhaps some corrections to the numbers can be done to adjust, in the long term the result values.

But seems perfectly factible than recruitment could be done somewhat FASTER than historically.
The MAXIMUM final recruitment values adding all
Starting troops + Free Reinforcements + Free Replacements + basic turn value + HISTORICAL mobilization/volunteers VALUE
is a little less (compared in the big numbers) than adding + FULL Mobilizations / 3k$ Volunteers

And remember there is a pay on this (NM/inflation extra...) so finally you can end not so high in the real games.

[tagwyn]

It is called survivial!!! T

[soundoff]

" the more you make a game adhere to history, the less historical it is.

So, of you want to feel the uncertainty the high command experienced, you need to randomize much more, and drop in much more randomized events (some which historicaly did not happen, but could have happened). Of course the outcome might be very different then, and others (with an other definition of what is historical) might think this very ahistorical indeed.

Echos my own thoughts Bertram though I could not have put it so well

[Sleestac]

It seems to me that there were two parts to drafting troops that the North and South had to deal with. First, each side had to establish the legal framework for drafting troops, and next, they had to conduct the drafts. ACW models the second part but the first is missing.

I'd love to see the establishment of the legal framework implemented as a political option with choices about how the draft will be conducted. One could choose to allow seconds or bounties, etc. which would impact the cost of making the decision. The costs could not only include national morale, victory points and money, but also states loyalty, states alignment (Kentucky, Missouri), and whatever else seems appropriate. This could be an option regularly renewed to allow changes to the legal framework and the drafting options costs and benefits could then derive from the political options selected.

This way, we would have to face the serious political fall out that the draft laws caused, as well as the costs of implementing these choices. Additionally, our hands would be tied a little more by the choices we make.

[PDH]

I would just like to see the Union reach historical 1862 levels of troops without the draft...

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Clovis]

This is easily done, but I'm not completely convinced yet that this is the right way to go about it. Basically, you just eliminate/delay the first draft until its first historical implementation, and for the start of the game itself, you just increase the starting resources.

The correct way is to suppress th e draft but raise the number of volunteer when exercizing the options. There's even a nice side effect as North has some financial difficulties which ( for totally different reasons in reality) exoited in late 61 and aren't depicted in the vanilla version ( difficulties which can be solved by use of printing money option).

[Coregonas]

I believe it is going to be a mistake FORBID 1861 mobilizations. This is a what if game... not a follow history game.

I ve been looking at conscription ratios, seems to me the main problem is on the MORALE PENALTY been too LOW.

Volunteers 0$ and 1000$ are MORALE FREE. THIS seems OK for me. Around 150-280 CSA volunteers for cost 0.

Volunteers 2000$ and 3000$ are HEAVILY penalized on MORALE. This seems not OK for me. Only around 80 Conscripts per just 1 NM (or 2 NM for 160).

Finally Mobilizations are LOW penalized on MORALE. I can get 650-700 recruits for only 4 NM -> this is a ratio 170 conscripts per morale.

It has no logic (for me, sure others can explain the reasons behind) than MORALE hit be greater under volunteers than under draft.

PROPOSAL: If it could be coded, I would do something like this...

The FIRST side calling for a DRAFT on 1861 could be hit with a 3 or 4 (or 5) NM penalty. The second one would get only a 1 NM penalty.

Once 1862 starts, normal rules could be followed.

This should encourage both players to delay draft, to avoid this penalty.

[Banks6060]

I'd take it a step further...people really don't like drafts.

I don't know exactly what it was like at the time...but I sure know how they feel about it now. Which couldn't have been much different back then.
I'd say a 8 NM hit for drafts would be appropriate.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Franciscus]

Let me add to this discussion to say that I do not agree with the idea of forbidding the draft in the first year of the game. As Gray said:

(...). I don't believe either Lincoln or Jefferson had even the remotest chance of successfully implementing a draft until the conditions made it known that one was needed and those conditions did not arise until 1862.

the draft was introduced when needed in real history, and the conditions of need may appear earlier (or later) during a game - that is not intended to be a faithful recreation of "what happened" but more, in my view, of "what could have happened".
So, my view is somewhat similar to Coregonas: A higher NM penalty for the first to draft in 1861 - although I think that the best way would be to tie the penalty to how the war is going - maybe a lower NM penalty if VP is low, and higher if VP is high (to reflect the fact that the populace would better understand the need for a draft if the war is going bad)

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Franciscus]

Sorry Gray, but I simply do not agree with the idea to "set in stone" that there drafts can not exist in 1861, but only in 1862 (when? 1st January ? 28 March ? ) . In real life they happened in 1862 because circunstances dicated so. But in our game circunstances can be different.
IF this is to be changed (who said it should, by the way ? ), the way to go is to increase the penalties and ideally to tie them with how the game is going.

Regards

[Clovis]

Sorry Gray, but I simply do not agree with the idea to "set in stone" that there drafts can not exist in 1861, but only in 1862 (when? 1st January ? 28 March ? ) . In real life they happened in 1862 because circunstances dicated so. But in our game circunstances can be different.
IF this is to be changed (who said it should, by the way ? ), the way to go is to increase the penalties and ideally to tie them with how the game is going.

Regards

It couldn't have been different. Period. It was as possible than an alien invasion in late december 61.

First because the American tradition was to have a small professionnal armyfor peace periodand militia/volunteers units for bigger conflicts than chasing Indians. Draft was highly despised and remained so during the whole Civil War. IF CSA implemented quickly a draft system, it was under the direst necessities and this decision was highly controversial ( and the initial list of exemptions very large). Most studies shows a large part of draftees deserted in the South. For the North, the situation was yet more accentued, as the existence of the North was never menaced. On the whole, 6% of the Noorthern troops resulted from draft.

Secondly, the problem in 1861 wasn't having troops but equippoing it. Volunteers were much higher than the possibility to arm them adequatly. So in any case, draft wasn't needed in 1861.

So to represent adequatly draft possibility in 1861 with historical flavour, we would need to give it malus like -50 NM because it's the only way to represent how much such a measure would have been politically suicidal. And with such a penalty, no player would seriously considering using it.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted