Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Strength of both armies

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RE: Strength of both armies Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Strength of both armies - 1/10/2007 2:12:11 AM   
Queeg


Posts: 495
Joined: 6/23/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

What Civil War are you talking about? The North did mount multiple invasions of the confederate coast.


I meant as a main axis of attack. Outside of New Orleans, where? At least until very late in the war.

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 31
RE: Strength of both armies - 1/10/2007 2:34:10 AM   
chris0827

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

What Civil War are you talking about? The North did mount multiple invasions of the confederate coast.


I meant as a main axis of attack. Outside of New Orleans, where? At least until very late in the war.



McClellan's peninsula Campaign

(in reply to Queeg)
Post #: 32
RE: Strength of both armies - 1/10/2007 2:50:25 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

What Civil War are you talking about? The North did mount multiple invasions of the confederate coast.


I meant as a main axis of attack. Outside of New Orleans, where? At least until very late in the war.




With the exceptions of the Penninsula area and the New Orleans area, most of these landings were an "extension" of the "Anaconda" blockade...., designed to eleminate and/or isolate Southern ports.

(in reply to Queeg)
Post #: 33
RE: Strength of both armies - 1/10/2007 5:36:05 AM   
Queeg


Posts: 495
Joined: 6/23/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827


quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

What Civil War are you talking about? The North did mount multiple invasions of the confederate coast.


I meant as a main axis of attack. Outside of New Orleans, where? At least until very late in the war.



McClellan's peninsula Campaign


I was in a hurry before and probably wasn't clear in my point. Yes, the Peninsular Campaign was an amphibious one, but it was essentially an indirect extension of the larger land battle with the main CSA army. Garrisons were peripheral.

My point, and I think the records back me up, is simply that the South never had an extensive system of garrisoning at the expense of its field army. It simply couldn't afford the luxury. The North, on the other hand, had a much higher proportion of its troops in garrisons or other support roles. So comparing army vs, army figures is a bit misleading.

< Message edited by Queeg -- 1/10/2007 6:12:53 AM >

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 34
RE: Strength of both armies - 1/10/2007 5:37:41 AM   
Queeg


Posts: 495
Joined: 6/23/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


With the exceptions of the Penninsula area and the New Orleans area, most of these landings were an "extension" of the "Anaconda" blockade...., designed to eleminate and/or isolate Southern ports.



Yes. Ports which, outside of NC, SC and Mobile, weren't especially well defended, at least in terms of ground troops.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 35
RE: Strength of both armies - 1/10/2007 11:08:20 AM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline 		The only draw back to your notice that the Union had larger garrisons is the inherient design decision to LIMIT the population to prevent the actual armies raised. One can not possibly raise the troop strengths listed for the North using the default populations provided.

(in reply to Queeg)
Post #: 36
RE: Strength of both armies - 1/10/2007 11:32:16 AM   
christof139


Posts: 980
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline 		The South had tens of thousands of troops in garrison defending their coastline, and if those troops could have been freed for use in the field in the interior, then things would have been much more difficult for the North.

Overall though, for the length of coastline the South had to defend the number of troops defending it was low.

Chris

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 37
RE: Strength of both armies - 1/10/2007 4:11:18 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

The only draw back to your notice that the Union had larger garrisons is the inherient design decision to LIMIT the population to prevent the actual armies raised. One can not possibly raise the troop strengths listed for the North using the default populations provided.




Maybe the patch could put the correct population into the game. That would solve a number of problems...

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 38
RE: Strength of both armies - 1/11/2007 4:55:04 AM   
Queeg


Posts: 495
Joined: 6/23/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Maybe the patch could put the correct population into the game. That would solve a number of problems...


"Correct" it to what, exactly? What population numbers/ratios would you suggest?

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 39
RE: Strength of both armies - 1/11/2007 5:07:01 AM   
chris0827

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Maybe the patch could put the correct population into the game. That would solve a number of problems...


"Correct" it to what, exactly? What population numbers/ratios would you suggest?



How about using the number of men who fought in the war?

(in reply to Queeg)
Post #: 40
RE: Strength of both armies - 1/11/2007 6:49:41 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Maybe the patch could put the correct population into the game. That would solve a number of problems...


"Correct" it to what, exactly? What population numbers/ratios would you suggest?



Well, as the subject is population, how about using the population figures from the Census of 1860 for the cities/areas involved? They are available..., and even broken down into categories.

(in reply to Queeg)
Post #: 41
RE: Strength of both armies - 1/11/2007 6:51:06 AM   
chris0827

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Maybe the patch could put the correct population into the game. That would solve a number of problems...


"Correct" it to what, exactly? What population numbers/ratios would you suggest?



Well, as the subject is population, how about using the population figures from the Census of 1860 for the cities/areas involved? They are available..., and even broken down into categories.


I think that gives too big of a boost to the north. They enlisted a smaller percentage of their population. I would however increase the manpower of the north if Britain and France entered the war. I believe more would have volunteered to fight a foreign power.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 42
RE: Strength of both armies - 1/11/2007 7:01:22 AM   
Queeg


Posts: 495
Joined: 6/23/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Well, as the subject is population, how about using the population figures from the Census of 1860 for the cities/areas involved? They are available..., and even broken down into categories.


Seems like I've covered this before. Census figures are next to irrelevant to army size. Not much progress here. Oh well....

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 43
RE: Strength of both armies - 1/11/2007 7:14:35 AM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline 		We do, however know how many men served in the Union armies. The population provided does not even come close to those numbers, one must assume it is the same for the South. The designers have STATED they purposefully limited population in order to limit the size of the armies.

Not only is the population inadequete to raise anywhere near the size armies that were raised when you throw in using population to control production it is even worse. Add now the loss of popultaion for reinforcements and it just gets worse.

(in reply to Queeg)
Post #: 44
RE: Strength of both armies - 1/11/2007 11:38:21 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Well, as the subject is population, how about using the population figures from the Census of 1860 for the cities/areas involved? They are available..., and even broken down into categories.


Seems like I've covered this before. Census figures are next to irrelevant to army size. Not much progress here. Oh well....



Actually the census figures have a great deal to do with army size, as they define the maximum manpower available to either side. And as the North had almost 4 times the white population of the South it meant that even without enlisting negroes they could easily raise a much larger force with much less effort. And having both side's negro population to draw on beginning in 1863 just made the situation better for the Union. Starting in 1863, the South was fighting a losing battle just to maintain it's military numbers..., while the Union's Armies continued to grow until the end of the war.

(in reply to Queeg)
Post #: 45
RE: Strength of both armies - 1/11/2007 2:29:28 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline 		Actually, if you turn off population modifiers and make heavy use of Muster, Conscription and Production of units, you can come pretty close to the historical army sizes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
Not only is the population inadequete to raise anywhere near the size armies that were raised when you throw in using population to control production it is even worse. Add now the loss of popultaion for reinforcements and it just gets worse.



_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 46
RE: Strength of both armies - 1/11/2007 4:18:11 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline 		I disagree, while you may come close in 62 after you have exhausted the starting city populations they only replensish at 1 ior 2 a year ( according to the rules) meaning that in 64 youwill have nearly no population to exapnd with.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 47
RE: Strength of both armies - 1/11/2007 6:25:50 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Actually, if you turn off population modifiers and make heavy use of Muster, Conscription and Production of units, you can come pretty close to the historical army sizes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
Not only is the population inadequete to raise anywhere near the size armies that were raised when you throw in using population to control production it is even worse. Add now the loss of popultaion for reinforcements and it just gets worse.





One thing the game totally lacks is "Volunteers". Lincoln called for an got tens of thousands of them after the Bull Run defeat, and the South made several "calls" as well. The game makes us pay for all the troops we recieve, then makes us pay to arm and equip them as well. "Conscription" didn't even exist on either side until 1862, and was a big political issue for both. And I'm still damned if I can see why "mustering" (as close to volunteering as the game gets) COST players problems with the Governors. The Governors got to appoint lots of their friends and cronies as officers for the new Regiments (that's where many of the lunkheads on both sides got their starts) and were usually happy to have a new unit mustered as it gave them additional "patronage".

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 48
RE: Strength of both armies - 1/11/2007 6:43:47 PM   
regularbird

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 10/27/2005
Status: offline 		I do not understand the concept behind the muster.  What is the game trying to simulate with this?  I can understand the conscripting and it getting people and gov upset.  Mike is right volunteers made up the majority of USA forces.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 49
RE: Strength of both armies - 1/11/2007 6:46:09 PM   
regularbird

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 10/27/2005
Status: offline 		Mike this idea could help with the volunteer thing.  If camps deposited 500 or so men, per turn in a force pool that the player could use to either form new brigades or reinforce existing ones, you could remove the muster option and give the north several more camps to start with.

(in reply to regularbird)
Post #: 50
RE: Strength of both armies - 1/11/2007 8:10:37 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline 		Mike,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
One thing the game totally lacks is "Volunteers". Lincoln called for an got tens of thousands of them after the Bull Run defeat, and the South made several "calls" as well. The game makes us pay for all the troops we recieve, then makes us pay to arm and equip them as well. "Conscription" didn't even exist on either side until 1862, and was a big political issue for both. And I'm still damned if I can see why "mustering" (as close to volunteering as the game gets) COST players problems with the Governors. The Governors got to appoint lots of their friends and cronies as officers for the new Regiments (that's where many of the lunkheads on both sides got their starts) and were usually happy to have a new unit mustered as it gave them additional "patronage".


I'm not sure I follow. The "Muster" in the game is the call for volunteers. You don't pay for them, they just show up. They come with Improvised weapons, which many units early in the war had - basically very old muskets, etc. To equip them with a new type of musket only costs 10 Guns per brigade, which isn't exactly a major hit. The -5 you get for each muster with the governor is not a major penalty at all. The game separately models the Governor "crony" appointments - those are to the Command and Logistical staffs of Divisions, Corps and Armies.

Conscription is a much bigger risk, but a 100% guarantee as long as you have Men. Honestly, I don't get how the game is far off from what you are requesting. Everything you're describing is pretty much already in the design in one form or another.

Regards,

- Erik


_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 51
RE: Strength of both armies - 1/11/2007 8:27:27 PM   
chris0827

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Mike,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
One thing the game totally lacks is "Volunteers". Lincoln called for an got tens of thousands of them after the Bull Run defeat, and the South made several "calls" as well. The game makes us pay for all the troops we recieve, then makes us pay to arm and equip them as well. "Conscription" didn't even exist on either side until 1862, and was a big political issue for both. And I'm still damned if I can see why "mustering" (as close to volunteering as the game gets) COST players problems with the Governors. The Governors got to appoint lots of their friends and cronies as officers for the new Regiments (that's where many of the lunkheads on both sides got their starts) and were usually happy to have a new unit mustered as it gave them additional "patronage".


I'm not sure I follow. The "Muster" in the game is the call for volunteers. You don't pay for them, they just show up. They come with Improvised weapons, which many units early in the war had - basically very old muskets, etc. To equip them with a new type of musket only costs 10 Guns per brigade, which isn't exactly a major hit. The -5 you get for each muster with the governor is not a major penalty at all. The game separately models the Governor "crony" appointments - those are to the Command and Logistical staffs of Divisions, Corps and Armies.

Conscription is a much bigger risk, but a 100% guarantee as long as you have Men. Honestly, I don't get how the game is far off from what you are requesting. Everything you're describing is pretty much already in the design in one form or another.

Regards,

- Erik



But they did have to pay for mustered soldiers in the war. It cost a lot to equip a brigade even if you count the weapons separately. You should have to pay for mustering and conscription. It's the regular production that makes no sense. What is that supposed to model? When a regiment was raised in the war it took a few days to a few weeks not months. They often marched directly to the front training along the way. Of course they wouldn't do well in combat as 1st Bull Run showed by they could be used in an emergency. Drop they mustering, make infantry production take 1 month, and add costs to conscription and you have a much better representation of the civil war.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 52
RE: Strength of both armies - 1/11/2007 8:48:19 PM   
regularbird

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 10/27/2005
Status: offline 		Erik, thanks for the explanation, I thought muster was trying to represent the activation of militia units. The only thing I have trouble with is why if you call for volunteers is there a penalty to the govenor and a potential to cause unrest. I understand that conscription would cause unrest but why does a call for volunteers.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 53
RE: Strength of both armies - 1/11/2007 8:51:12 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird
Erik, thanks for the explanation, I thought muster was trying to represent the activation of militia units. The only thing I have trouble with is why if you call for volunteers is there a penalty to the govenor and a potential to cause unrest. I understand that conscription would cause unrest but why does a call for volunteers.


There is no potential for unrest with mustering, only with conscription and impressment. I assume the penalty to the governor may have to do with involving yourself in his state. If he supports mustering, there is no penalty. It's a minor penalty in any case.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to regularbird)
Post #: 54
RE: Strength of both armies - 1/11/2007 8:55:11 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827
But they did have to pay for mustered soldiers in the war. It cost a lot to equip a brigade even if you count the weapons separately. You should have to pay for mustering and conscription. It's the regular production that makes no sense. What is that supposed to model? When a regiment was raised in the war it took a few days to a few weeks not months. They often marched directly to the front training along the way. Of course they wouldn't do well in combat as 1st Bull Run showed by they could be used in an emergency. Drop they mustering, make infantry production take 1 month, and add costs to conscription and you have a much better representation of the civil war.


You do have to pay to arm them with more than improvised weapons and as soon as they are raised, you're paying supply costs each turn for food, clothing, ammo, etc. Mike thinks it should cost even less, you think it should cost more, let's say we have a compromise.

Regarding regular production, what I do is build a few manufacturing centers in my major cities. Once you get up to three, infantry is produced in one turn (two weeks). Conscription has a risk of unrest and otherwise has the same costs as muster, you need to arm and it's another unit added to your supply rolls. As far as I can tell, what you want is already in the game.

Regards,

- Erik


_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 55
RE: Strength of both armies - 1/11/2007 8:56:00 PM   
regularbird

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 10/27/2005
Status: offline 		Hmm, I could have sworn my musters have caused unrest. I may have imagined that one. If that is the case, I will double check, then it is not a huge issue, although I would do away with the govenor penalty.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 56
RE: Strength of both armies - 1/11/2007 8:59:06 PM   
chris0827

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827
But they did have to pay for mustered soldiers in the war. It cost a lot to equip a brigade even if you count the weapons separately. You should have to pay for mustering and conscription. It's the regular production that makes no sense. What is that supposed to model? When a regiment was raised in the war it took a few days to a few weeks not months. They often marched directly to the front training along the way. Of course they wouldn't do well in combat as 1st Bull Run showed by they could be used in an emergency. Drop they mustering, make infantry production take 1 month, and add costs to conscription and you have a much better representation of the civil war.


You do have to pay to arm them with more than improvised weapons and as soon as they are raised, you're paying supply costs each turn for food, clothing, ammo, etc. Mike thinks it should cost even less, you think it should cost more, let's say we have a compromise.

Regarding regular production, what I do is build a few manufacturing centers in my major cities. Once you get up to three, infantry is produced in one turn (two weeks). Conscription has a risk of unrest and otherwise has the same costs as muster, you need to arm and it's another unit added to your supply rolls. As far as I can tell, what you want is already in the game.

Regards,

- Erik



It cost the same to equip a volunteer regiment as it did to equip a conscripted one. This is not in the game. Conscripts only cost manpower.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 57
RE: Strength of both armies - 1/11/2007 9:08:05 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827
It cost the same to equip a volunteer regiment as it did to equip a conscripted one. This is not in the game. Conscripts only cost manpower.


I guess you can assume the Governor's footing the bill, hence the decrease in his attitude.


_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 58
RE: Strength of both armies - 1/11/2007 9:09:51 PM   
regularbird

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 10/27/2005
Status: offline 		Smoooooooth

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 59
RE: Strength of both armies - 1/11/2007 9:21:26 PM   
chris0827

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827
It cost the same to equip a volunteer regiment as it did to equip a conscripted one. This is not in the game. Conscripts only cost manpower.


I guess you can assume the Governor's footing the bill, hence the decrease in his attitude.



The state paid for the volunteers too.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RE: Strength of both armies Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.672