Huge Confederate armies -- the draft?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jabberwock]

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.

Historical - Bad. The player has no choices.
Ahistorical - Bad. The player has impossible or anachronistic choices.
Unhistorical - Good. The player has choices that were possible, but didn't happen.

My fascination is not so much with what the rules are as with pushing the envelope of what the rules allow. If that leads to ahistorical situations, then there is room for improvement.

[Jabberwock]

Can you confirm the limitations of the James River past City Point. (source?). I'm currently reworking the naval/harbor/river JumpLink(s) much like the RR work.

I'm at work right now, and I don't recall where I read it, I think I posted about it in a thread Henry started last year. You could try looking up the battle of Trent's Reach, Drewry's Bluff, or CSS Virginia II at:

http://books.google.com

That is my usual meta-source.

[captainmatt]

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

Awesome idea, I love it!

-- Capt. Matt

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[captainmatt]

These pics were taken by me at Drewry's Bluff a few years ago.

You are looking East down the James River. Coming from that direction, this cannon emplacement was on the South side of the river where the James turns North towards the city of Richmond (which would be to your left, out of view of the camera). You can see the "spires of the city" in the distance from here, about 10 miles or so I would guess.

[ATTACH]2964[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]2965[/ATTACH]

Hope these help.

- Capt. Matt

[Clovis]

The vanilla version of AACW is much too lenient with WSU, money and conscription. Levels at start and endless possibilities to get more men, money and WSU make importations irrelevant and shortages unknown.

My own modifications ( and contrary to my expectations) show AI is able to cope with much lower levels ( with howewer some events to give here and there the bonus needed to fix occasional blunders).

The second point is where to draw the line between historical and impossible. I personnally consider draft was totally impossible in 1861, because of the almost universal belief in short war and relunctance to conscription. I may be wrong but Here I'm feeling I had to prohibit draft the first year because of this impossibility.

Last, any change must take into consideration both history and game system. By exmaple, draft accounted for 6% of recruitment during the war for the North. But, considering money at hand to finance bounties, reducing draft to this level would let Federal with an almost impossible task. Here I prefer the choice to give CSA a much better draft results than for North which in return can get more volunteers. The historical difference is here as flavor more than copy but produces the same dilemnas as historical.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Brochgale]

In my latest game on hard settings it is late June 62 - I have as CSA suffered 130,00 losses to Feds 200,000. I have lost 4 blockade runners and 1 Ironclad. 3 Generals killed and another 8 locked as being wounded.At this point in time I consider I am winning war but the scale of losses in relation to what I can replace those losses with means I am stretched to limit and hoping yanks will dither as they tended to do historically. I cant replace my battle losses so quickly but it does make for an exciting game agaist Athena.

[Jabberwock]

Last, any change must take into consideration both history and game system. By exmaple, draft accounted for 6% of recruitment during the war for the North. But, considering money at hand to finance bounties, reducing draft to this level would let Federal with an almost impossible task. Here I prefer the choice to give CSA a much better draft results than for North which in return can get more volunteers. The historical difference is here as flavor more than copy but produces the same dilemnas as historical.

I don't disagree with your point that drafting may have been impossible in 1861. I dont know enough to agree or disagree, because I haven't studied that point in depth. I do know this though. A large percentage of the army was made up of men who "volunteered" to avoid being drafted. It made good sense from a morale and propaganda standpoint to make sure those men were counted as volunteers, and not as conscripts. For most of those men, it made very good sense from a personal financial standpoint to volunteer, whether bounty money came from the federal government, the state government, the local government, a public group, or a private individual.

[Brochgale]

I don't disagree with your point that drafting may have been impossible in 1861. I dont know enough to agree or disagree, because I haven't studied that point in depth. I do know this though. A large percentage of the army was made up of men who "volunteered" to avoid being drafted. It made good sense from a morale and propaganda standpoint to make sure those men were counted as volunteers, and not as conscripts. For most of those men, it made very good sense from a personal financial standpoint to volunteer, whether bounty money came from the federal government, the state government, the local government, a public group, or a private individual.

I dont know about social and economic conditions in 1860 America. In the case of my mothers generation in WW2 - My uncles volunteered enthusiastically partly as they saw it as thier duty to do so. Also in part to avoid the Bevan Boys option - none of them wished to spend the war down a coal mine or be stuck in a reserved proffession for the duration. Also for many of my Uncles generation grinding poverty was the norm for Highalnd Scots and military careers was seen as an escape or failing that emmigration to perhaps even the States.
One of my Uncles even committed a criminal offence so that he could get sent to the Army by the local Sherrif? Usually you were given a choice - go and fight or face jail - most chose the Army which is what many of them actuallly wanted.
Usually when wars break there is an initial enthusiasm amongst many men to go and fight - the longer the war lasts though that enthusiasm declines and drafts become the only option for States to keep fighting. So perhaps initially there is not a need for drafts?

[Drakken]

I tend to agree with Clovis.

While in 1861 the enthousiasm to serve under the flag was there on both sides, everyone in the Union expected the war would be over by Christmas. An analogy with WWI would be more appropriate than WWII: In 1914 millions of young men enlisted voluntarily to join in a war that, they thought, would be an adventure lasting only a few months, yet in fact dragged into an four-year infernal cauldron. The same thing happened in the American Civil War, because the people both in the North and in the South were itching for a showdown.

Calling a draft was out of the question in 1861, because there was no real need to force people into service at first. Almost everyone expected the Union army to crush the Confederates "rabble" at the first engagement and march into Richmond in a matter of weeks. Remember, Richmond and Washington are only around 50 miles apart. That is why the defeat at Bull Run was such an enormous blow to the Union morale, because the opinion's bubble about the amateur Confederates had been shattered and Washington was now at risk of being besieged. Nonetheless, there was still a great flow volunteers who kept enlisting for 3-6 monthes, so the need for a draft stayed low for a while. It's only when, as the war dragged on and casualties were mounting, volunteers and bounty recruits weren't sufficient a source of manpower and more and more volunteers wanted to return home and had to be kept in service after their enlistment length were expired, that the draft became more and more of an necessary option.

[Coregonas]

This seems an excellent resume.

Thinking in game terms, this should mean something like:

We (Both sides) have a lot of Conscription companies to equip for free (dont know what is a lot, lets say a crazy number-> 800/1200!), since the very beginning of the game.

But I have not enough money, WS and the such. (So lets say a lot less resources than now).

So I could draft, but I dont want to do it, because a lot surpluss manpower on 1861... why lose my morale points to get unnecessary men?

edit-> although less "historically probable".. the game seems more fun as it is than this way I ve written now...
The model can be adjusted a bit, but remember we players like to re-re-play our first 10 turns and see the results...

I believe ALL the options should be playable (with a penalty) but not so high penalty to say -> Im never doing this option it is totally unuseful.

[Clovis]

This seems an excellent resume.

Thinking in game terms, this should mean something like:

We (Both sides) have a lot of Conscription companies to equip for free (dont know what is a lot, lets say a crazy number-> 800/1200!), since the very beginning of the game.

But I have not enough money, WS and the such. (So lets say a lot less resources than now).

So I could draft, but I dont want to do it, because a lot surpluss manpower on 1861... why lose my morale points to get unnecessary men?

edit-> although less "historically probable".. the game seems more fun as it is than this way I ve written now...
The model can be adjusted a bit, but remember we players like to re-re-play our first 10 turns and see the results...

I believe ALL the options should be playable (with a penalty) but not so high penalty to say -> Im never doing this option it is totally unuseful.

Don't forget both sides get large numbers of free units in the first months... With them, we're certainly around the 800/1200 points...

[denisonh]

I tend to agree with Clovis.

[snip] Remember, Richmond and Washington are only around 50 miles apart.[snip].

Ahhhh, not quite that close. Double that. ~100 miles.

[runyan99]

I found those pics of Drewry's interesting. Gives a very good sense of the (point blank) range, assuming the river was as wide in 1862 as it is today. When I visited Virginia and took a look at many of the rivers, it seemed apparent that water levels were higher 140 years ago than they are today.

[Drakken]

Also, remember that there was a huge political argument against the draft in 1861: That would have pushed even more States to secession.

Only six States seceded when Lincoln got elected; the remaining five other States seceded when Lincoln asked for Volunteers after the fall of Fort Sumter. Other slaves States, like Kentuky and Maryland, remained undecided until the Crittenden-Johnson Compromise was passed by the Congress.

While the domino effect of secession situation is sadly not simulated in AACW in April scenarios, the fact is that Lincoln would have lost all the seceeding states plus the border slave states to the CSA if he had gone as far as to promulgate the draft in 1861.

[Banks6060]

Also, remember that there was a huge political argument against the draft in 1861: That would have pushed even more States to secession.

Only six States seceded when Lincoln got elected; the remaining five other States seceded when Lincoln asked for Volunteers after the fall of Fort Sumter. Other slaves States, like Kentuky and Maryland, remained undecided until the Crittenden-Johnson Compromise was passed by the Congress.

While the domino effect of secession situation is sadly not simulated in AACW in April scenarios, the fact is that Lincoln would have lost all the seceeding states plus the border slave states to the CSA if he had gone as far as to promulgate the draft in 1861.

Very good point.

Perhaps the inclusion of some loyalty gain for Kentucky, MO and WV...and perhaps IA should the Union draft? Similar to the event that fires for upon one sides invasion or the other?

Interesting idea. props dude.

[Coregonas]

Also, remember that there was a huge political argument against the draft in 1861: That would have pushed even more States to secession.

Only six States seceded when Lincoln got elected; the remaining five other States seceded when Lincoln asked for Volunteers after the fall of Fort Sumter. Other slaves States, like Kentuky and Maryland, remained undecided until the Crittenden-Johnson Compromise was passed by the Congress.

While the domino effect of secession situation is sadly not simulated in AACW in April scenarios, the fact is that Lincoln would have lost all the seceeding states plus the border slave states to the CSA if he had gone as far as to promulgate the draft in 1861.

Seems as readed before CSA did not had these political problems for draft... as they simply didnt needed could not afford to organize all volunteers presented.

So, according to your explanation, in morale terms, if 81 drafts allowed, USA draft should be more penalized than CSA in early 1861.

Without remaking all the resources flow (as Clovis MOD proposes), giving a MEDIUM BIG penalty on MORALE to the first one who drafts in 1861 (3-5 NM?--- a bit more for USA?) should allow but discourage players to do it the first (until the Winter).

[Drakken]

Seems as readed before CSA did not had these political problems for draft... as they simply didnt needed could not afford to organize all volunteers presented.

So, according to your explanation, in morale terms, if 81 drafts allowed, USA draft should be more penalized than CSA in early 1861.

Without remaking all the resources flow (as Clovis MOD proposes), giving a MEDIUM BIG penalty on MORALE to the first one who drafts in 1861 (3-5 NM?--- a bit more for USA?) should allow but discourage players to do it the first (until the Winter).

Indeed. The problem in calling an early draft is not with the CSA, but with the Union.

The problem of the draft in CSA was different, because the CSA's official reason to exist was to defend the States' rights against a strong, tyrannical government. Calling a draft is a centralizing decision which Davis, as former War Secretary, obviously knew he had to take. However it would be met with resistance and malaise at the States' capitals. The States were even adamant that their arsenals be used by their own militia, and not the CSA army. However, there was at least a sense that a draft was necessary to be able to mobilize enough men to protect the new country, but it was a move contrary to the ideology behind the creation of the CSA.

In the Union, however, the draft in 1861 would have met with outrage in the States which were in a more sympathetic position toward the CSA because of they were slaves states : the five 2nd-step seceding states plus Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. But as the 11 States are already seceded in April game-wise, the only problem remains with Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. That is why the Crittenden-Johnson Compromise was so important, because it stated the official position of Lincoln that this war was about the protection of the Union, and not abolishing slavery.

In these last three states, the historical consequence of an draft being called too early is quite simple: calling a draft in 1861 should destroy the % of loyalty of these States all the way down to 0-15%, and control should pass to the South.

[Spruce]

As for the game, I tried many CSA games - here are my conclusions =

- War Supply is very easy - a few upgrades early game might give you +10 to +15 extra war supply each turn. All right - it also depends on luck - perhaps I got lucky in all those games. But honestly in 90% of my games war supplies are no problem (given the fact CSA holds onto its defenses). Another thing I see that the Union abandons its blockading boxes at some times - so the percentage of capture goes from 35 to 0%

- Real constraint for CSA is manpower management - I mean the balance between standing army and reserves. Anyone who says money and war supply are bottlenecks, needs a few hands with the game. Basicly - you can recruit a slender army with a huge manpower reserve - an army you can always count on. On the other hand, you can keep on happely recruiting new brigades. In that case you are building a paper tiger - until the full Union blast hits your armies - after a few turns you'll have holes everywere ... and the Union will find its ways to the strategic cities,

I think war supplies and money should be a little more difficult. That means less money from counterfeiting - the blockade runners should bring in more in relation to the counterfeiting. Ans also less basic war supply - so if you are lucky to get some good upgrades on war supply early game, it should mean you are safe (if you hold your lines). On the other hand, if you don't get those needed upgrades, your army will be in chronical deficit of war supplies, as historical was the case,

I think manpower (reinforcments and new recruits) is handled nicely.

[Brochgale]

As for the game, I tried many CSA games - here are my conclusions =

- War Supply is very easy - a few upgrades early game might give you +10 to +15 extra war supply each turn. All right - it also depends on luck - perhaps I got lucky in all those games. But honestly in 90% of my games war supplies are no problem (given the fact CSA holds onto its defenses). Another thing I see that the Union abandons its blockading boxes at some times - so the percentage of capture goes from 35 to 0%

- Real constraint for CSA is manpower management - I mean the balance between standing army and reserves. Anyone who says money and war supply are bottlenecks, needs a few hands with the game. Basicly - you can recruit a slender army with a huge manpower reserve - an army you can always count on. On the other hand, you can keep on happely recruiting new brigades. In that case you are building a paper tiger - until the full Union blast hits your armies - after a few turns you'll have holes everywere ... and the Union will find its ways to the strategic cities,

I think war supplies and money should be a little more difficult. That means less money from counterfeiting - the blockade runners should bring in more in relation to the counterfeiting. Ans also less basic war supply - so if you are lucky to get some good upgrades on war supply early game, it should mean you are safe (if you hold your lines). On the other hand, if you don't get those needed upgrades, your army will be in chronical deficit of war supplies, as historical was the case,

I think manpower (reinforcments and new recruits) is handled nicely.

In the actual war the CSA had huge rate of inflation - in my own latest game I have inflation at 16% - probably less than the CSA had at the same time in July1862? I would need to check the economic studies papers I have on CSA inflation.
I have bought some things like artillery on cheap and hope they upgrade to something better, and tried to get my free militias up to line infantry status but it is a slow process - it has something I have only been able to do as I have all but destroyed the Fed Army of the Potomac with my army of NVA. However Grant has not yet appeared and when he does I suspect he will walk all over me?

[Jabberwock]

I found those pics of Drewry's interesting. Gives a very good sense of the (point blank) range, assuming the river was as wide in 1862 as it is today. When I visited Virginia and took a look at many of the rivers, it seemed apparent that water levels were higher 140 years ago than they are today.

+1 about the pics.

Water levels in rivers and lakes throughout Virginia are generally lower than they were 140 years ago. As the cities have grown, there has been a lot of competion between them to see who can put their water pipes closer to the sources of the rivers. This has also caused some disputes with neighboring states. As in: "Hey, where did our lake go? Whaddya mean you drank it all?" Sneaky Virginians.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jabberwock]

However, lower appearance, does not necessarily mean lower draft capabilities. There has been a lot of dredging going on over the last century. This deepens the useful channel, but narrows the river itself. It also results in faster running rivers which proves rather negative in flooding circumstances as the current news is showing.

As an aside, I work at the Osage Dam in central Missouri, and the US Army Corps of Engineers (on Monday) directed us to hold back all our water into the Osage River which flows into the Missouri River, in order to reduce the overall height of the crest heading down the Missouri River towards St. Louis and the Mississippi River. This would not be such a problem if it were not for the "narrowing" of the flood plains. Thing is, these flood plains are always there, but since people don't see water there, sometimes for decades, they foolishly build into them and then complain like hell when they get flooded.

As a "Hurricane Floyd survivor" ... Indeed.

[Banks6060]

However, lower appearance, does not necessarily mean lower draft capabilities. There has been a lot of dredging going on over the last century. This deepens the useful channel, but narrows the river itself. It also results in faster running rivers which proves rather negative in flooding circumstances as the current news is showing.

As an aside, I work at the Osage Dam in central Missouri, and the US Army Corps of Engineers (on Monday) directed us to hold back all our water into the Osage River which flows into the Missouri River, in order to reduce the overall height of the crest heading down the Missouri River towards St. Louis and the Mississippi River. This would not be such a problem if it were not for the "narrowing" of the flood plains. Thing is, these flood plains are always there, but since people don't see water there, sometimes for decades, they foolishly build into them and then complain like hell when they get flooded.

Dangit! I work in news radio and I was looking for a really good contact on the ground for that story! There were apparently some pretty ticked off people when you guys did that.

I work down in the Joplin, MO market . hooray for Mizzouray.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[captainmatt]

I found those pics of Drewry's interesting. Gives a very good sense of the (point blank) range, assuming the river was as wide in 1862 as it is today. When I visited Virginia and took a look at many of the rivers, it seemed apparent that water levels were higher 140 years ago than they are today.

Some rivers were a little deeper, but most were about the same level. Also remember that rivers, over time, accumulate silt, sand, and can also change their direction.

For example, the Mississippi no longer flows right below Vicksburg. The main channel is now West...

- Capt. Matt

PS-We sure did go off an a tangent here didn't we??

[Jabberwock]

PS-We sure did go off an a tangent here didn't we??

Can I draft James Truman or Floyd Joplin in 1861?

[Banks6060]

I've been doing quite a bit of reading about the draft in the mid-19th century and man...I have to say it had a huge affect on the morale of the nation, the morale of the troops....the quality of the troops....a lot of different things.

By the way, kudos to the dev team for including the very historical mode of replacement for both sides. Union units were hardly ever filled back to full strength with replacements...instead the green troops were formed into entirely new units. Part of the reason for their struggles early on I think. Confederate regulats had a chance to teach the "greenies" the ropes. Just another very well simulated facet of this outstanding game!