Huge Confederate armies -- the draft?

[TheDoctorKing]

Playing as the Union, I'm noticing that the Confederate armies are _humongous_. I just fought a battle in August 1862 near Harper's Ferry where 115000 Rebs kicked butt on my 75000 Yankees. And they had another army down by Fredericksburg (don't know how big it is but intel reports that it has a strength of 500 or so). And they've got a pretty big army in the West, too. And 40000 or so of them have been getting shot to pieces at Fort Pickens every couple of turns.

At first I had a thought - maybe this is McClellan overestimating the strength of his opposition. But sure enough I loaded the game up as the CSA and they have four large field armies, about 1500 strength points each, and ten smaller but still respectable detachments in the 3-500 range. The CSA army is considerably larger than the USA army, even if you count all those annoying garrisons I'm obliged to keep sitting around in the rear area looking for the blasted suicidal cavalry raiders. I don't think there was ever a time during the war when the CSA had more troops in the field than the USA.

Is this because the AI Confederates routinely start the draft right off the bat? I wonder about this. It is too easy to choose to have a draft. The draft options should be very costly in terms of victory points and NM. They should provoke riots and lead whole sections of your country to threaten secession or start raising partisan units for the enemy. Americans (both sides) hated the draft. They still do...

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Banks6060]

I think the ability of filling divisions to their complete potential should be possible in this game....but I don't think it should be quite as easy as it is. I dunno...when playing a Civil War era game and fighting with divisions of more than 14,000 troops (the size of an average Union Corps mind you). Somethin' just doesn't feel right about that.

Maybe I'm splittin' hairs though.

[Coregonas]

Hi Gray... I dont agree exactly with this superabundance of WS.

Check GC. Jabber is blockading us just with a single fleet in Richmond since the very start of the game, reducing a 50%? capitol production (including our WS) .

USA must use his fleets.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Coregonas]

As another question I am sure CSA limit is not WS, but money instead.

However, printing money can be done every round, adding thousands of coins once a year Victory points go up.

If CSA builds up his army with just "non-WS-costing" troops, it doesnt matter the total WS available... (well it does, but not so hard)

65 militia + 20 cheapy arty are just 40 WS costly -> 5 divisions for 40 WS. This is just a LOW turn production-> Once they upgrade (after a year nearly all of them) we got 5 full strength divisions.

AS commented some time ago... perhaps the Totally free upgrading is part of the problem... if these troops were to be built fully "upgraded" the WS cost could be 65 *2 + 20 * 5 = 230 WS.

I got 190 WS for free.

some USA players are not counting on this, they feel as an overabundance on resources and buy directly the creme of the creme... and end up finally with even "smaller" sized armies than south...

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[arsan]

Hi
IMHO, we must also be very careful to not tweak the game to just fit the "power gamers" (no offense intended at all, guys ).
It could be ok for a mod, but not for an official change for everybody.

I bet most of the players (the silent majority's and some others like myself) had more than enough with the current divisional limits and have problems to fill them out completely.
Not everybody knows or like to use all the tricks and possibilities of the engine to be overflowed by conscripts, WS, money and create tons of units (massed drafts, massed runners/transports, massed money printing...).
I think the changes should be gradual and based on history, making the "gamey" option more costly that they are now. Still an interesting possibility, but not a no brainer strategy lik they are now.
For example, increasing the political cost of drafts (NM losses) or money printing would be better that cutting WS by half or by 70% across the board.

About the huge 14.000 divisions, this is not a problem of too much conscripts or WS. Its just a flavour number.
Make each regiment 500 or 700 men strong instead of the ideal and unusual on real ACW 1000 men per regiment and you will have much more reasonable divisions. Well, using the historical attrition option will help too.

Regards!

[arsan]

65 militia + 20 cheapy arty are just 40 WS costly -> 5 divisions for 40 WS.

For me this is an example of "Power gaming". Of course its totally legal and sure is the cheaper and most effective option to build CSA divisions... but just the though of putting together 65 separate militia regiments from all over the map (and maybe sending them somewhere to be trained by some leader with training abilities) seems micromanaging hell to me leure:
Some players love this kind of things but others like me prefer the play with less efficiency and just build 3 or 4 normal brigades and some guns and put them toghether on a "normal" division.
If we tweak down the WS production too thight the 65 militias powergaming and micromanaging option will be the only viable option... and the game will be a hell for the casual gamer.
Just my two cents!

[Coregonas]

I believe these FREE upgrades from militia to Line infantry are a beautiful thing for the game. I believe this must be part of the game. We must have some gamey trick to use.

Just they should be somewhat reduced. Perhaps one of the steps (upgrading to LATE line infantry) should cost 1 WS. leure: This should reduce part of the free WS, changing TIME for equipment.

We can asume those troops get cheap rifles (i.e. from his home), earning half of the WS cost by getting all they find around as equipment...

Remember USA can do the same... As some do of course.

[Coregonas]

USA has still more tricks in their hand.

It can do exactly the same militia tricks, AND build 30 transports to earn a nearly infinite number of money... AND block main WS production centers...

I feel like playing CSA is easier to micromanage, but harder to win if USA does micromanage.

But perhaps few players do micromanage so much.

[Jabberwock]

Something to keep in mind. I played a PBEM earlier this year against someone who likes to print money every turn. I was CSA, he was USA. Printing money costs 1 NM for CSA, 2 NM for USA. I printed just enough to keep adequate armies in the field to cope with his onslaught, and he couldn't figure out why my troops won every fight. I had double his NM by turn 12. If you're going to use this kind of trick, you will pay a penalty.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Coregonas]

Yes NM is the key in the game. (NMC even more) Just try to keep it over 95... or 105 if posible

Thibaut and his colaborateurs likes a lot this National morale concept. Really a countrys mood adds a lot to the efective power of the nation. Here in Spain we ve been 15 years floating in a (somewhat unreal) 150 NM value... now is going down due to a lot of questions, as most of the planet...

Print money in the very first turn gives perhaps 200-300 k $ with 0 VPs.

But Printing once 1000 VP are earned can give 800k$?

[Jabberwock]

Hi Gray... I dont agree exactly with this superabundance of WS.

Check GC. Jabber is blockading us just with a single fleet in Richmond since the very start of the game, reducing a 50%? capitol production (including our WS) .

USA must use his fleets.

I must've missed this post before. This is totally ahistorical behavior on my part, I should be using my fleet to bombard and take forts along the east coast. I don't even know how the ships got that far up the James. Thank you for pointing that out.

Reminder to self - build more ships.

[Banks6060]

I must've missed this post before. This is totally ahistorical behavior on my part, I should be using my fleet to bombard and take forts along the east coast. I don't even know how the ships got that far up the James. Thank you for pointing that out.

Reminder to self - build more ships.

I sense a hint of sarcasm.....perhaps.

[Jabberwock]

USA has still more tricks in their hand.

It can do exactly the same militia tricks, AND build 30 transports to earn a nearly infinite number of money... AND block main WS production centers...

You forgot to mention the USA can build every independent 6lb & 12lb battery in the game (the ones not attached to brigades) during the first year, which upgrade fairly rapidly to 10lb and 20lb rifled batteries.

[Jabberwock]

I sense a hint of sarcasm.....perhaps.

Indeed, but I'm just being true to form. Arguing in the forum about what is historical or ahistorical (or what is a historical cause versus a historical effect) is much less effective than demonstrating what is ahistorical. I usually only have an audience of one (the current PBEM opponent). They are usually pretty quick to point out my ahistorical gamey behavior in the forum, and sometimes it helps lead to improvements in the game. Look how much time I've spent arguing about the James River issue recently. How many people here would disagree that what I'm doing there is ahistorical and gamey? I expect not too many. Now that attention has been called to it, it is much more likely to get fixed quickly than some other items that require argument in addition to more complex demonstrations. Now I have an audience of many, and in the meantime, it is a lot of fun. My idea of fun, anyway.

Now look through the forums and AARs to see how many players are using their fleets historically. There are very few positive demonstrations of ahistorical situations, because most players have enough sense not to attempt significant operations once they realize how the rules work. So there is no demonstration of any interaction, except when Athena does something a little silly, or a player does something almost everyone recognizes as gamey.

Now that I've gone completely off on my own favorite tangent, lets go back to ahistorically huge armies. The point of this thread is that there are ways to take advantage of the game mechanics and produce armies that are more powerful than what could have been produced historically. Counting bodies is one of the easiest jobs a historian ever faces, so there is plenty of evidence. As much as Gray and I disagree about some things, we entirely agree about others. I applaud his efforts to fix this situation in a manner that is historically accurate and does not negatively affect gameplay.

War is a serious business. Too serious to worry about whether operations will be noticed or ignored by popular history (the kind that is taught in public schools). In a war simulation, I will use every tool available to the best of my ability, (making the mechanics, not what is in the history books, the limit of my imagination) and not worry about what historians will write or argue about until after I've won. Just like I would in real life.

[TheDoctorKing]

I'm happy to see that other folks have noticed what I in my newbiehood saw. I don't actually mind that divisions are "14000 men" -- as somebody pointed out, just redefine a regiment as 500 men and all of a sudden those divisions are "7000 men", a more reasonable figure, without changing any game mechanics at all. But the ability to draft right off the bat without paying any serious morale cost is probably not right. Starting the draft was a big decision for both sides. There were serious repercussions. It shouldn't be easy and it shouldn't happen in 1861.

Now I'm playing as the CSA (I started anew) and I am surprised to discover that most of my WS production comes from domestic sources. Is this right? it seems to me that most of the Confederacy's heavy industry was located in the UK. Perhaps the WS production of port cities represents imports but then why have a separate procedure for sending runners out to the shipping lanes?

[Jabberwock]

"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.

From this thread: Athena's unrealistic mobilization

[Banks6060]

Indeed, but I'm just being true to form. Arguing in the forum about what is historical or ahistorical (or what is a historical cause versus a historical effect) is much less effective than demonstrating what is ahistorical. I usually only have an audience of one (the current PBEM opponent). They are usually pretty quick to point out my ahistorical gamey behavior in the forum, and sometimes it helps lead to improvements in the game. Look how much time I've spent arguing about the James River issue recently. How many people here would disagree that what I'm doing there is ahistorical and gamey? I expect not too many. Now that attention has been called to it, it is much more likely to get fixed quickly than some other items that require argument in addition to more complex demonstrations. Now I have an audience of many, and in the meantime, it is a lot of fun. My idea of fun, anyway.

Now look through the forums and AARs to see how many players are using their fleets historically. There are very few positive demonstrations of ahistorical situations, because most players have enough sense not to attempt significant operations once they realize how the rules work. So there is no demonstration of any interaction, except when Athena does something a little silly, or a player does something almost everyone recognizes as gamey.

Now that I've gone completely off on my own favorite tangent, lets go back to ahistorically huge armies. The point of this thread is that there are ways to take advantage of the game mechanics and produce armies that are more powerful than what could have been produced historically. Counting bodies is one of the easiest jobs a historian ever faces, so there is plenty of evidence. As much as Gray and I disagree about some things, we entirely agree about others. I applaud his efforts to fix this situation in a manner that is historically accurate and does not negatively affect gameplay.

War is a serious business. Too serious to worry about whether operations will be noticed or ignored by popular history (the kind that is taught in public schools). In a war simulation, I will use every tool available to the best of my ability, (making the mechanics, not what is in the history books, the limit of my imagination) and not worry about what historians will write or argue about until after I've won. Just like I would in real life.

And I understand your motive for your "gamey" play style. Honestly....the move up the James River was very clever....that's a big river....I didn't have a problem with that at all.

and frankly, the moves in the Carolinas aren't all that implausible either. Masted ships DID make it up the Mississippie to Vicksburg in 1862.

So really...I think I have yet to feel the full effect of your gamey nature.

[Brochgale]

I dont know what the complaint is about CSA Athena with large armies - surely Feds with thier resources can more than compensate. However playing as CSA I never have such huge armies. I have usually a huge Army in Virginia usually with 3 quality Corps and several divisions in each Corps. In the west I am stretched The Army of Tennessee and its 2 Corps is perpetually under strength as I am mostly under pressure in East. I have One Army Command west of Missisippi with virtually no troops under its command, but that to all purposes was to give ASJ a command and put Joe Johstone under command of Tennessee to make space and promote other eatesrn generals to Corps command - EK Smith and Longstreet in my latest game. Avoiding payment of political costs?
Lee although released has nothing to command. He does not have THE SENIORITY TO REPLACE BEAUREGARD. So it just seems impractical from player point of view to have so many armies not that the reources really exist from conscript point of view - I am curious as to how Athena can build such huge Armies as previous writer claims?

[W.Barksdale]

Let's not forget that the bulk of civil war armies consisted of volunteers and not regulars. However, over time, through drill and fights, they became just like regular soldiers. 'Volunteers' to 'Line Infantry'. Do not take this feature away! No 'power gaming' about it.

Everyone wants to fix the manpower problem by having a division cap. And now it is tweaking WS. The problem is MANPOWER and NOT any of the above.

[Coregonas]

However, Remember CSA did raise (perhaps unexact) 1.000.000 men

USA raised 2 milions

1.000.000 men is 100 divisions. (10000 men sized).

Even 500.000 ! -> 50 divisions

Perhaps Half of these died or were lost in another way. yes...

I dont feel as UNREALISTIC to raise these men during the war... THEY WERE RAISED IN FACT.

The problem is on using or not ATTRITION, having MORALE penalties enough to disregard some tricky uses on Money/Conscript & other resource build ups... and so on.

Dont know where read it, but around 200.000 men were asking to enter the CSA army in the very beginning, just the government decided not to enrole them due to various problems.

[Coregonas]

re: Totally free upgrading: This is great information... It kinda confirms my thoughts that other "happenings" are affecting the situation besides Conscripts and War Supplies. This probably should be addressed first, prior to making any other changes, just to see the actual effects.

Tonight I found why NMC 105 doubles CSA War supply production. I simply tried to hold it so high... but just found the solution.

Most CSA WS production cities are a basic 1 WS point.

With the 100% control -> a 50% boost is gained.

So 1,5 points (as pocus said time ago this rounds to the nearest so seems in exact 1,5 is just 1)

But with the extra 105% National Morale boost this 1,5 turns into 1,55 SO ROUND UP to 2.

This turns the basic 30 CSA WS production into 60 (an aproximation)

In order to get these MAXED armies, if CSA holds his NM high for a couple years perhaps adds a bit to the Question...

AGAIN, the same goes exactly for USA.

[captainmatt]

Reminder to self - build more ships.

One of the things I was very pleasantly surprised about when I began to play this game was that there was, indeed, a great role for the Navy to play. Remember, that the North began the Civil War with around 40 ships TOTAL, and the South had little to nothing that resembled a Navy.

However, in four years of war, the Union Navy grew to about 700 ships (35 or 40 of which were ironlads) and the Southern Navy built or crewed about 130 ships (of which 24 were ironclads).

Just out of curiosity, is there any plans in the future to build "torpedo" units. Perhaps, something like fortress artillery, but they can not be removed once placed on the map and have a % chance of sinking a ship once the enemy moves onto that Naval square?

- Captain Matt
http://www.portcolumbus.org

[Banks6060]

I think this issue is pretty well handled when using historical attrition...which I would strongly reccommend any player utilize should they feel it appropriate to understand exactly how tough it was to maintain formations in the field.

Now, I do think WS is still pretty forgiving for the south....and even for the north to some extent within the scope of the game....but I don't think it needs to be changed necessarily...you don't want to just re-fight the war as it was.

[Coregonas]

...

In a war simulation, I will use every tool available to the best of my ability, (making the mechanics, not what is in the history books, the limit of my imagination) and not worry about what historians will write or argue about until after I've won. Just like I would in real life.

I ve had to re read 3 times your previous words...

As another question, when playing a BOARDGAME (such as World in flames or Grande Guerre) players know ALL the EXACT rules. I know how the rules work, what is posible or not... and I try for instance Czechs to join my third Reich... This is not HISTORICAL, but it could be a posible History.

In a computer game, part of the flavour is finding how the game rules, but the learning curve gets too hard for some of us, a lot of players just skip over these rules even playing for 6 months.

[Jabberwock]

And I understand your motive for your "gamey" play style. Honestly....the move up the James River was very clever....that's a big river....I didn't have a problem with that at all.

and frankly, the moves in the Carolinas aren't all that implausible either. Masted ships DID make it up the Mississippie to Vicksburg in 1862.

So really...I think I have yet to feel the full effect of your gamey nature.

You might not have a problem with the James move, but the river was too darn shallow most of the year for that fleet (mostly steam frigates). City Point (the new harbor northeast of Petersburg) should be the limit for blue-water ships. Late in the war, during the battle of Trent's Reach, the Confederate river fleet (specifically designed for use on the James) had problems getting through the area upstream of City Point. There were batteries on Drewry's and Chaffin's bluffs that commanded the river beyond that point, even for ships that could physically get there. They did not command the river because they were land batteries fighting ships, they did not command the river because they were in a fort (they weren't). They commanded the river because they were on bluffs 100-150 feet above the river and could deliver plunging fire (more accurate than vertical fire, but still close to vertical when it gets to the target) out to a distance of almost two miles, and most naval platforms didn't have guns that could elevate enough to answer effectively.

I understand that there is a problem with blockading the James (which is historical) if this move is not allowed. That doesn't make the actual move less gamey. I'm no expert on those Carolinas rivers, having not read specifically about them, and only driven across on modern bridges.

I think you are right about not feeling the full effect. Of course the effect somewhat diluted ...

Now I am done with the James River subject, hopefully ...

[Jabberwock]

One of the things I was very pleasantly surprised about when I began to play this game was that there was, indeed, a great role for the Navy to play. Remember, that the North began the Civil War with around 40 ships TOTAL, and the South had little to nothing that resembled a Navy.

However, in four years of war, the Union Navy grew to about 700 ships (35 or 40 of which were ironlads) and the Southern Navy built or crewed about 130 ships (of which 24 were ironclads).

Just out of curiosity, is there any plans in the future to build "torpedo" units. Perhaps, something like fortress artillery, but they can not be removed once placed on the map and have a % chance of sinking a ship once the enemy moves onto that Naval square?

- Captain Matt
http://www.portcolumbus.org

At least the navy exists and has a role. I've seen far too many civil war games where the effort was never made.

Torpedoes proposal:

River Obstructions?