Disease?

Disease? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865

Message

nmleague -> Disease? (12/4/2006 11:08:50 PM)
After playing 3 games, each up to about 2 years before the siege bug hit, as the Union, I hardy ever saw disease. just started a game as the South and by the 3rd turn disease has hit twice both times hitting 20 or more brigades. Has anyone else had this experience? Is the South more likely to get hit by disease? The south is already a a disadvantage man power wise and this really exasberates it.

Artmiser -> RE: Disease? (12/5/2006 12:19:19 AM)
I ended up turning off disease, from what I have read disease did happen, but usually when new units were formed, or during sieges ect. The problem was back then nobody traveled much. When units were put togeather, all those bugs they had gotten over had new bodies to try it out on. But they didnt all die, there is no tool for recovering. There may have been a percentage of the brigade down, but unless a brigade took casualtiles there was usually the same amount of men able to fight at any given time. Maybe a slow drop off but nothing like whats in the game. They need to cut back on the losses unless in a siege situation.

Gil R. -> RE: Disease? (12/5/2006 12:47:42 AM)
I disagree. In the Civil War, three out of every five Union soldiers who died succumbed to disease, and for the CSA it was two out of three. Overall, 224000 Union officers/soldiers died from disease, and 164000 CSA. Now, those numbers are a bit misleading because records from the time don't distinguish between someone who died of a contagious disease and something that was the direct result of a battlefield injury. Still, those numbers give an idea of how serious a problem disease was. During the Civil War germs and bacteria still weren't understood, so measures were not taken at first to ensure proper sanitation, which led to large outbreaks of disease -- and not just among green soldiers. This is why sanitary efforts were increased during the war (and why we have a related logistics upgrade in the game). Furthermore, soldiers from isolated, rural areas had not built up immunity to big-city diseases earlier in their lives, and when exposed to them succumbed in large numbers. Overall, both armies faced epidemics of typhoid, diarrhea, dysentery, scurvy, and venereal diseases. (Scurvy just one of the problems caused by improper nutrition.) I think that disease is just as devastating in the game as it should be.

Temple -> RE: Disease? (12/5/2006 12:51:36 AM)
Nope, as the Union I got hammered at Washington in the Army of the Potomac. You're just luckly/unlucky.

Titanwarrior89 -> RE: Disease? (12/5/2006 1:10:11 AM)
I agree with Gil. He is correct. Attrition was very bad in both armies. More so in the south.[:)] quote: ORIGINAL: Gil R. I disagree. In the Civil War, three out of every five Union soldiers who died succumbed to disease, and for the CSA it was two out of three. Overall, 224000 Union officers/soldiers died from disease, and 164000 CSA. Now, those numbers are a bit misleading because records from the time don't distinguish between someone who died of a contagious disease and something that was the direct result of a battlefield injury. Still, those numbers give an idea of how serious a problem disease was. During the Civil War germs and bacteria still weren't understood, so measures were not taken at first to ensure proper sanitation, which led to large outbreaks of disease -- and not just among green soldiers. This is why sanitary efforts were increased during the war (and why we have a related logistics upgrade in the game). Furthermore, soldiers from isolated, rural areas had not built up immunity to big-city diseases earlier in their lives, and when exposed to them succumbed in large numbers. Overall, both armies faced epidemics of typhoid, diarrhea, dysentery, scurvy, and venereal diseases. (Scurvy just one of the problems caused by improper nutrition.) I think that disease is just as devastating in the game as it should be.

jchastain -> RE: Disease? (12/5/2006 3:11:57 AM)
The great thing about options are that people can choose to play the game in the way that they most enjoy. If you find yourself getting upset or not having fun when hit with disease, then turn it off! There is no right or wrong config. At the end of the day, enjoying the game is what is most important and all those little option boxes are included so that people can find the configuration that they most enjoy.

Queeg -> RE: Disease? (12/5/2006 3:22:11 AM)
I like how the game handles disease. FOF is one of the few games that requires you to handle your armies realistically in terms of breaking them up and sending them to winter quarters. In most games, you can just use perpetual uber-stacks.

Artmiser -> RE: Disease? (12/5/2006 6:22:40 AM)
http://www.dimacleod.co.uk/history/antietam/us-1.htm Just for those that find interesting reading. The union had 2024 regiments by 1864, approx 1650 inf, 300 cav and 78 artillary. so based on the numbers above each brigade had about 100 me die of disease during its time of service, four inf regiments to a brigade. So during its time of service the average brigade lost 400 men to disease. I got that in the first month. Dont get me wrong disease was worse early in the war, most especially in the volunteer regiemnts. Maybe I need to mess with the techs a bit, but you see what I'm trying to get at. 224,000 dead to disease is allot, but there were allot of men serving in uniform. Ah found it Total enlistments: Union: 2,670,000 Confederacy: 1,000,000 (a greatly uncertain figure!) Died in action: Union: 364,000 Confederacy: 260,000 Wounded: Union: approx. 400,000 Confederacy: approx. 400,000 What im trying to say is under normal circumstances a regiment would lose an average of 10 Percent of its men to disease, during the war.

Steely Glint -> RE: Disease? (12/5/2006 6:30:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Queeg I like how the game handles disease. FOF is one of the few games that requires you to handle your armies realistically in terms of breaking them up and sending them to winter quarters. In most games, you can just use perpetual uber-stacks. Exactly. Putting a big stack in winter in a zone where there are no hospitals is asking for it...as it should be.

AU Tiger_MatrixForum -> RE: Disease? (12/5/2006 7:39:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Steely Glint quote: ORIGINAL: Queeg I like how the game handles disease. FOF is one of the few games that requires you to handle your armies realistically in terms of breaking them up and sending them to winter quarters. In most games, you can just use perpetual uber-stacks. Exactly. Putting a big stack in winter in a zone where there are no hospitals is asking for it...as it should be. Yup.

pixelpusher -> RE: Disease? (12/5/2006 9:22:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gil R. and venereal diseases 'Fighting Joe' Hooker's divisions get a +20 modifier in this variable. [:D]

ericbabe -> RE: Disease? (12/5/2006 4:28:01 PM)
Remember too that we use "casualty" in the military sense -- people who are unable to continue fighting for any reason, not necessarily people who are killed -- so casualties from disease don't necessarily mean dead folk. For what it's worth, I set the level of disease by figuring out what the historical loss to disease as a ratio of the historical loss to combat casualties was, then I looked at average battle casualties in a game of FOF and set the amount of disease casualties so that the game's ratio would approximate the historical one.

mhjohann -> RE: Disease? (12/5/2006 4:47:56 PM)
Here's a thought. For those who like the disease concept but think the losses are a little extreme. Could you make the upper limit to losses configurable rather than hard coded at 28%?

ericbabe -> RE: Disease? (12/5/2006 6:36:15 PM)
Not a problem, mhjohann. They're not player moddable now, but I'll make the numbers so in a patch.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.171875