RE: The historical test (Full Version)

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



Message

Mike Scholl -> RE: The historical test (1/1/2007 3:41:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg
I fail to see either the "realism" or the "game" in it.



What DO you consider "realism"? I can look at the picture in your ID and know where your sympathies lie..., but what do you consider "real"? IRL the Union was a lot larger, stronger, more numerous, more industrialized, and better equipped in general than the Confederacy. That's "real"..., you can look it up in the Census of 1860 and lots of other sources. Take it away and you might as well be playing "Candyland".

The South's advantages were stumbling on some good leaders (in the East) early, and being on the "strategic defensive". Like the American Colonies 80 years before, all they really had to do was not lose. You want the "leaders" guaranteed? The game has done that. Do you want the South to win just by not losing? The game does that as well. What else do you want? It sounds like you want the Union reduced to impotency so you can realize some "South will rise again fantasy". But you could do that even if the game reflected real historical reality by just adjusting the "bonus scale". So what to you want?



tevans6220 -> RE: The historical test (1/1/2007 3:53:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg

If by "simulation," you mean a game where the North has all of its historical advantages and the player is free to employ them in a manner that Union never actually did, then I fail to see either the "realism" or the "game" in it.

In FOF, the Union player has to think and plan and persevere to win. Turns out that's what the Union had to do in real life, too. Because, in real life, the war was decided by more than mere numbers.

And for those who want the "realism" of a Union cakewalk, no one has yet demonstrated that that result cannot be achieved by using the difficulty and power settings already in the game.


Difficulty settings should only be in the game to give players more of a gaming challenge. The neutral setting that gives no advantages to either side other than what they started with historically, should be the measure of how historically realistic the game is. I shouldn't have to put the Union on Power +3 and play on Major General difficulty in order to achieve somewhat historically realisitc results.

It's true that the Union player has to think and plan just as in real life but only because he's been handicapped in the name of game balance. The player isn't given the same resources or even faced with the same problems that Lincoln started with. One good example that comes to mind is the size of the Union navy. In every game I've played, I have not been able to achieve the type of blockade that the Union was actually able to plan and carry out. Another example is the leadership problem. Lincoln had problems finding good generals but in game terms you can promote at will with little to no repercussion. With the proper number of academies in place you could promote Grant or Sherman from a 1 star to a 5 star and never really have to deal with the likes of McClellan, Butler or Pope. One reason it took so long for the Union to win was that it took Lincoln time to find the right men. The game doesn't come close to representing that on any power or difficulty setting.



Queeg -> RE: The historical test (1/1/2007 4:54:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

What DO you consider "realism"?


A game model that imposes constraints on the North sufficient to accurately reflect the fact that never, ever, right up until the very end of the war, did the Union utilize more than a fraction of its numerical advantages. Anything else is "Candyland" in the sense of modeling something that never actually happened historically. You can't be faithful to history if you just model numbers.

quote:

It sounds like you want the Union reduced to impotency so you can realize some "South will rise again fantasy". But you could do that even if the game reflected real historical reality by just adjusting the "bonus scale". So what to you want?



I'm not the one complaining about the current set up. Though I'm not at all opposed to some tweaking here or there, I'm generally comfortable with most of the balancing choices the designers made.

Jonathan nicely framed the issue earlier in this thread: How do you model the base game? Do you adopt a model that achieves the historical result 9 out of 10 times and add options to tweak toward a more balanced game? Or do you adopt a balanced model that presents roughly equal challenges to both sides and add options to tweak toward a more historical set up?

I'm not sure it really matters much, so long as the options embrace both extremes. And I can certainly understand a designer opting for a model that provides a base game that is balanced and fun for the average gamer, with options for the grognard to tweak to his individual masochistic (or sadistic, as the case may be) delight.

And, again, for all the posting that has been done on the subject here, no one has yet shown that the game cannot be tweaked to provide the balance you advocate simply by using the options already built into the game.



christof139 -> RE: The historical test (1/1/2007 4:58:01 AM)

You know von Zepplin was with the AotP as an observer, and that is when he was inspired to to start thinking of his latter day Zepplins, when he saw the Union observation baloons in use. He was most impressed.

Bowever, as you say, he wasn't on lincoln's or anyone's Staff. We had the Communist/Marxist German Revolutionaries such as Sigel and his friends. So, we can say the US Military did indeed have Communist/marxists in its ranks, and usually more akin to Groucho Marxists they were in many performances. [8|]

Great thread BTW.

Chris



Queeg -> RE: The historical test (1/1/2007 5:07:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tevans6220

It's true that the Union player has to think and plan just as in real life but only because he's been handicapped in the name of game balance.


Yes. That's my point exactly. The game offers the Union player a real challenge. Why is that bad?

Funny, the pro-Union players here sound much like I suspect the Union press did during the war. "Why aren't we winning easily? We're supposed to have all the advantages!"

quote:

Another example is the leadership problem. Lincoln had problems finding good generals but in game terms you can promote at will with little to no repercussion. With the proper number of academies in place you could promote Grant or Sherman from a 1 star to a 5 star and never really have to deal with the likes of McClellan, Butler or Pope. One reason it took so long for the Union to win was that it took Lincoln time to find the right men. The game doesn't come close to representing that on any power or difficulty setting.


Actually, the game nicely models that very issue. Play with random leader abilities. Then you can experience precisely the sort of frustration Lincoln did. Of course, your "Grant" may end up being named "Pope."

You have to choose: Do you want a game that accurately reflects the historical fact that Grant was the North's best general? Or do you want a game that accurately reflects the historical fact that Lincoln had no idea who his best general was until he had been cursed with a few duds? To my way of thinking, the latter is the most "realistic."



Queeg -> RE: The historical test (1/1/2007 5:31:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg
Yes. But then you end up with a glorified game of pinball. "Woohoo, I got 1000 points!" The bane of most "historical" wargames.


Quite a lot of different games are scored in points of some kind. That doesn't mean that there's any other similarity between them. I don't see what you're trying to say here.


I should have addressed this earlier. I recognize the fact that many games - especially wargames - use the convention of Victory Points for balance purposes. It's just that I hate that convention.

A grand historical strategy game shouldn't require that you consult a scorecard to figure out if you won. Victory or defeat should be apparent from the organics of the game itself. A pipe dream perhaps, but I like to see game designers who try to use something other than VPs to provide balance.

Seriously, guys, it would have been far easier for the designers here to have given the North all of the numerical advantages it had on paper without any regard for the more intriguing historical question of why, despite all its advantages, the North had such a hard time winning the war. It's far easier to model hard numbers than it is intangibles.

In the end, were a game to be modeled such that one side pummeled the other 9 times out of 10, I'd find little solace in knowing that the losing player could still "win" by getting more "points" than did his real-life counterpart - who, after all, was never playing for "points" to begin with.



Thresh -> RE: The historical test (1/1/2007 6:09:00 AM)

Queeg,

Any settings you want.

Heres three main goals that the Union achieved

In April 1862, they took New Orleans.
In June 1862, they took Memphis.
In February, 1862, they took Nashville.

Now, IMO I should, on any level of play, come close to achieving those results in game, maybe not exactly on those dates, but within a month or two would be reasonable, yes?

Now, mind you historically they took New Orleans and New Orleans pretty much without firing a shot. That can't happen in game unless your opponenet or the computer is quite dumb.

Thresh



quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg


quote:

ORIGINAL: Thresh

Ultimately, this can be solved with one simple test:

Play a game as the Union and come as close as possible to recreating the progress of the war as it happened.
There are certain events that happened historically that are almost impossible to do in game currently, at least IMO.



At what settings? Impossible under all difficulty and power settings? I doubt anyone can say that with any certainty.




Queeg -> RE: The historical test (1/1/2007 6:21:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Thresh

Now, IMO I should, on any level of play, come close to achieving those results in game, maybe not exactly on those dates, but within a month or two would be reasonable, yes?



On ANY level of play? So the Union player should achieve near historical results on ANY settings?

I guess I just don't see the "game" in that.



Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: The historical test (1/1/2007 8:37:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg
The game offers the Union player a real challenge. Why is that bad?

Funny, the pro-Union players here sound much like I suspect the Union press did during the war. "Why aren't we winning easily? We're supposed to have all the advantages!"


Of course the game should offer the Union player a real challenge. But the challenge it offers should ideally consist of the difficulties that were present historically.

I don't think I should be classed as a "pro-Union player". The Confederates had some serious faults, but I sympathize with their fundamental claim of the right to secede. And I usually prefer to play as the Confederates.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg
Actually, the game nicely models that very issue. Play with random leader abilities. Then you can experience precisely the sort of frustration Lincoln did. Of course, your "Grant" may end up being named "Pope."

You have to choose: Do you want a game that accurately reflects the historical fact that Grant was the North's best general? Or do you want a game that accurately reflects the historical fact that Lincoln had no idea who his best general was until he had been cursed with a few duds? To my way of thinking, the latter is the most "realistic."


Here I agree with you completely. Though I'd prefer to combine the advantages of both options, by hiding the generals' names initially and revealing them later, as I believe will be possible in the AGEOD game.



Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: The historical test (1/1/2007 8:53:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg
I recognize the fact that many games - especially wargames - use the convention of Victory Points for balance purposes. It's just that I hate that convention.

A grand historical strategy game shouldn't require that you consult a scorecard to figure out if you won. Victory or defeat should be apparent from the organics of the game itself. A pipe dream perhaps, but I like to see game designers who try to use something other than VPs to provide balance.


I have some sympathy for this point of view. If you come out of a game feeling beaten but the game says you've won, it doesn't seem right. However, if the Confederates prolong the war until 1866, that may not be a victory but at least it's an achievement (and it's an achievement that's very clear to everyone without counting up points). Perhaps ACW games should distinguish between Relative Victory and Absolute Victory.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg
Seriously, guys, it would have been far easier for the designers here to have given the North all of the numerical advantages it had on paper without any regard for the more intriguing historical question of why, despite all its advantages, the North had such a hard time winning the war. It's far easier to model hard numbers than it is intangibles.

In the end, were a game to be modeled such that one side pummeled the other 9 times out of 10, I'd find little solace in knowing that the losing player could still "win" by getting more "points" than did his real-life counterpart - who, after all, was never playing for "points" to begin with.


I agree that the task of modelling the war accurately is difficult. But if you give the North all its historical advantages and the result is a walkover, that means you've left out some factor that should have been included. You should go looking for that missing factor rather than deliberately falsifying the numbers.



Twotribes -> RE: The historical test (1/1/2007 8:53:28 AM)

It is really quite simple, Take the economy.... The North had something like 7 times the capability of the South.... Yet in game they are nearly equal with the only clear advantage ( horses) going to the South.

Take the troops... In reality the LEADERS, not the troops were better for the south. The Northern troops were just as good but required a little more training as they lacked the militia mentality of the South. In Game the South has a CLEAR and decisive advantage for the entire game. Toop quality and Leaders.

Take manpower, in game the North may have an advantage but it is no where near as big as it should be. In fact Muster should IMPROVE Governor standing as it allows said Governor the ability to appoint more Officers and so gain more status and power in his State, tieing people to him. In the South a number of States ABSOLUTELY refused to allow their troops out of State or to be considered part of the "national" Confederate Army, even as late as 1864. In game there is NO restriction save manpower and the economy on raising troops for the Confederate Army.

Name ANY specific tangable item of the historic war and you will find in the Stock game the North is hamstrung and the South is not. In the name of "balance".

Take diplomacy... Historicaly there was nearly NO chance England or France would ever have sent troops to the US, much less their Navy. But routinely in the stock game the Union is forced to decalre emancipation early to prevent JUST that happening. And on top of that a LARGE chunk of available cash has to be spent by the North in the forlorn hope of preventing intervention. The routines for grants of materials and research for Europe to the CSA are WAY off. A couple good turns and the South gains 2 or 3 research levels for free. I have seen 70 plus research delivered to the South on a single turn even when the Union was spending every dime it could to bring down the support of Europe AND had emancipated. Which brings up another point, the money spent seems more likely to increase European opinion towards the side spending but doesnt seem to affect nearly as much what the rules say it should, drawing down support for the other side.

Try to advance in 1862 with the Northern forces on anything representing a historical time line and watch as the Southern "super" troopers cut you a new pooper hole. Add in the Disease rule, since the South is mostly on defense, their forces dont leave friendly provinces as much as the Northern ones, watch as the Northern Armies get hit with crippling diseases because no matter how good their hospital support and medical techs are, since they move into enemy territories the hospitals have zero ability to help them. If the North cant conquer an enemy province in a single turn ( which wont happen in any province with forts or cities with Garrisons npoormally, these "reasonable" disease epidemics can and do strike heavily against the force on offense.

Your options? Turn off all the bells and whistles cause they hamstring an already hamstrung Union even more.

You argue that the North must be restricted ( and I would agree to a degree and have already done so) but see no problem with not only NOT rstricting the South but giving them advantages they simply didnt have. And you call this "realistic"

Your absolutely right, the game, it appears, can do both. But it is currently arranged to favor the South unhistorically as the default scenarios and one must modify and give clickable advantages to the North to get a semi reasonable historically similiar condition to the actual war.

The arguement is NOT that the provided scenarios are unacceptable, nor that parity shouldnt be considered in the game, the arguement is IF your going to use in the Title that the game is about the American Civil War, then there should be a baseline of what REALLY was the conditions in that war as a standard scenario.



Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: The historical test (1/1/2007 9:22:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
Take the economy... The North had something like 7 times the capability of the South... Yet in the game they are nearly equal with the only clear advantage (horses) going to the South.


And I think the reason for this is that the game exaggerates the military importance of the economy. In real life there was a limit to what money could buy. The North had some technological advantage over the South, but it wasn't an overwhelming advantage -- because, in the space of a few years, you can't achieve a massive leap in technology just by throwing money at the problem.

It was obvious at the time that the North had more money. Despite having to support larger armies, those armies were far better equipped and supplied than the Southern armies. But did all that money buy major military advantages? Not really.

When I brought this up some time ago, someone replied that if you downgrade the military effect of the economy, it wouldn't be worth the trouble of including the economy in the game.

Rather than include an economic model that's all wrong, I think it would be better to remove it altogether.



Berkut -> RE: The historical test (1/1/2007 11:26:18 AM)

It sinteresting to see people talking about "balance" in the context of playing the AI.

I mean really, a game like this? Not worth the trouble except against another human.

And the issues I have with balance so far seem to be the rather serious Southern bias in the game. The Southern generals are better (and not just some of them, most of them). This means they train better, so the Southern staffs and solidiers quickly become better as well. Not historical at all.



Hard Sarge -> RE: The historical test (1/1/2007 12:21:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thresh

Queeg,

Any settings you want.

Heres three main goals that the Union achieved

In April 1862, they took New Orleans. didn't bother, I went after the ANV instead
In June 1862, they took Memphis. Done it
In February, 1862, they took Nashville. Done it

I wasn't the Union tester, I was bored while waiting on the next patch, so give the Union a try

Now, IMO I should, on any level of play, come close to achieving those results in game, maybe not exactly on those dates, but within a month or two would be reasonable, yes?

Now, mind you historically they took New Orleans and New Orleans pretty much without firing a shot. That can't happen in game unless your opponenet or the computer is quite dumb.

Thresh



quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg


quote:

ORIGINAL: Thresh

Ultimately, this can be solved with one simple test:

Play a game as the Union and come as close as possible to recreating the progress of the war as it happened.
There are certain events that happened historically that are almost impossible to do in game currently, at least IMO.



At what settings? Impossible under all difficulty and power settings? I doubt anyone can say that with any certainty.





Twinkle -> RE: The historical test (1/1/2007 1:02:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

It is really quite simple, Take the economy.... The North had something like 7 times the capability of the South.... Yet in game they are nearly equal with the only clear advantage ( horses) going to the South.

Well for starters, the confederate armies cost a lot less dollars to field... they were poorer equipped but it worked for them anyway. Just giving the North lots and lots of more money, iron, horses etc would be completely unhistorical as they didn’t managed, could not, had no chance to use that advantage for full. Fact is that the South fielded an unbelievable lot of men (if comparing resources), and the game has to allow for that. Another fact is that a rather large part of the Northern army was used for guard duty, something a player under current system would not do at all.

All of us who read books like “Statistical Record of the Armies of the United States” by Frederick Phisterer (first published 1883) known that about 1 of 65 men in the Union Army was killed by action and 1 of 56 died from battle wounds... compare that with percentages lost during battles and you will see that only a fraction of the Union army was used in the way a FoF player will use his computer men. I take it for granted that members of the FoF design team have access to all relevant data (not opinions) and have considered them while setting up the game economy system.

(1 in 13 died from disease and unknown causes, but I still think that the disease system in FoF is way wrong... possibly not in number, but for sure in way it works. About 350 men were as an average missing per 1000 men fielded strength, and ONLY 90 of them were in sick beds. The remaining 260 were absent from duty.



Mike Scholl -> RE: The historical test (1/1/2007 1:48:50 PM)

A few basic problems with your arguements.

As a percentage of men in the field, Southern armies had at least as many men down "sick" as the Union did. And they lacked the basic foodstuffs and medicines the Union provided in abundance. so the recovery rate was not as good.

Your basic premise seems to be that though the North had several times the manpower and resources that the South had, and though on average they had twice as many men "under arms" (not to mention fielding and supplying a Navy) as the South did---they were unable to bring this mass fully into play until the Summer of 1864. So the game shouldn't give them any of these "advantages" at all ever to make it "realistic".

But by the same rational, the South LOST the War. So by your reasoning they shouldn't recieve any resources at all. Then they would lose, which would be "realistic". That's the problem with your "it happened this way, so that's the way it should always happen" arguement.




christof139 -> RE: The historical test (1/1/2007 1:54:19 PM)

Twinkle,

I haven't seen Phister in print except for the old Sid Meijer's game Antietam. Is that where you read Phister??

Livermore's Numbers and Losses in the Civil War in America 1861-65' is also very good. It is obtainable on Ebay and that is where I got my copy cheap.

Chris, Sibling of Sibley maybe at one or more times in the wet, drunken past. [:'(] [8|]




Twinkle -> RE: The historical test (1/1/2007 2:01:30 PM)

Mine is a reprint from 2002, published by Castle Books, ISBN 0-7858-1585-6



chris0827 -> RE: The historical test (1/1/2007 2:02:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Twinkle


quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

It is really quite simple, Take the economy.... The North had something like 7 times the capability of the South.... Yet in game they are nearly equal with the only clear advantage ( horses) going to the South.

Well for starters, the confederate armies cost a lot less dollars to field... they were poorer equipped but it worked for them anyway. Just giving the North lots and lots of more money, iron, horses etc would be completely unhistorical as they didn’t managed, could not, had no chance to use that advantage for full. Fact is that the South fielded an unbelievable lot of men (if comparing resources), and the game has to allow for that. Another fact is that a rather large part of the Northern army was used for guard duty, something a player under current system would not do at all.

All of us who read books like “Statistical Record of the Armies of the United States” by Frederick Phisterer (first published 1883) known that about 1 of 65 men in the Union Army was killed by action and 1 of 56 died from battle wounds... compare that with percentages lost during battles and you will see that only a fraction of the Union army was used in the way a FoF player will use his computer men. I take it for granted that members of the FoF design team have access to all relevant data (not opinions) and have considered them while setting up the game economy system.

(1 in 13 died from disease and unknown causes, but I still think that the disease system in FoF is way wrong... possibly not in number, but for sure in way it works. About 350 men were as an average missing per 1000 men fielded strength, and ONLY 90 of them were in sick beds. The remaining 260 were absent from duty.


Those numbers are not accurate. About 4% of all union soldiers died as the result of combat and about 9% fom disease.



elmo3 -> RE: The historical test (1/1/2007 2:17:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

It is really quite simple, Take the economy.... The North had something like 7 times the capability of the South...


Please cite your sources for this statement. According to the Civil War Wiki the North had nowhere near a 700% economic advantage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Long-term_economic_factors



Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: The historical test (1/1/2007 2:20:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twinkle
Just giving the North lots and lots of more money, iron, horses etc would be completely unhistorical as they didn’t managed, could not, had no chance to use that advantage for full.


It would be historical to give the North whatever resources it actually had. If doing so unbalances the game, there's something wrong with the way the game handles those resources. As I already said, I think the game system exaggerates the military effect of economic superiority.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twinkle
Another fact is that a rather large part of the Northern army was used for guard duty, something a player under current system would not do at all.


In which case, this is another defect in the current system. But it has nothing to do with the economic resources available to the North.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twinkle
I take it for granted that members of the FoF design team have access to all relevant data (not opinions) and have considered them while setting up the game economy system.


I think you're greatly overestimating the research resources of Western Civilization, which is a small company operating on a presumably limited budget. Also, I get the impression that its design aim was to produce an interesting game with a Civil War theme, rather than an accurate representation of the war. The interest of some of its customers in historical accuracy seems to have taken it by surprise.

To put it in context, FoF seems to have been mildly influenced by Sid Meier's Civilization, which is a popular game that has only a very superficial resemblance to anything in real history.



Twinkle -> RE: The historical test (1/1/2007 2:36:16 PM)

In reply to JP

Well, it could always work with all Union things costing a lot more to build (wouldn’t that make people scream in angst)... so the net effect would be the same (not saying that it is perfect as it is, lots of tweaking could be done. As well as to force players to keep lots of brigades in taken territory, maybe as many as the territory has manpower plus two as well as forcing players to keep men in all own forts, cities etc... probably more so for the Union side, as that were in south more done by state militia and that is a force I do not think the game include.

One thing I currently do not like is that a province in unrest due to recently being capture is not reverted back to original owner if all enemy troops move out.



Twinkle -> RE: The historical test (1/1/2007 2:44:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

Those numbers are not accurate. About 4% of all union soldiers died as the result of combat and about 9% fom disease.

1/65 = 0.0154 and 1/56 = 0.0179 gives about 3.3% dead as a result of combat, 1/13 = 0.0769 which gives about 7.7% dead by diseases... Men captured are not included in the latter figure, as they are noted for dead in capture something certainly not simulated in the game.



christof139 -> RE: The historical test (1/1/2007 3:21:39 PM)

Twinkle,

Thanx for this:

Mine is a reprint from 2002, published by Castle Books, ISBN 0-7858-1585-6

I didn't know this and will look on Ebay. I asked some other people a few month's back and apparently they didn't know this was now published.

Chris





elmo3 -> RE: The historical test (1/1/2007 3:24:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twinkle


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

Those numbers are not accurate. About 4% of all union soldiers died as the result of combat and about 9% fom disease.


1/65 = 0.0154 and 1/56 = 0.0179 gives about 3.3% dead as a result of combat, 1/13 = 0.0769 which gives about 7.7% dead by diseases... Men captured are not included in the latter figure, as they are noted for dead in capture something certainly not simulated in the game.



You both are way too low in your disease numbers according to this site:

http://www.civilwarhome.com/civilwarmedicine.htm

"While the average soldier believed the bullet was his most nefarious foe, disease was the biggest killer of the war. Of the Federal dead, roughly three out of five died of disease, and of the Confederate, perhaps two out of three. One of the reasons for the high rates of disease was the slipshod recruiting process that allowed under- or over-age men and those in noticeably poor health to join the armies on both sides, especially in the first year of the war. In fact, by late 1862, some 200,000 recruits originally accepted for service were judged physically unfit and discharged, either because they had fallen ill or because a routine examination revealed their frail condition." My bolding above.



chris0827 -> RE: The historical test (1/1/2007 3:31:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twinkle


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

Those numbers are not accurate. About 4% of all union soldiers died as the result of combat and about 9% fom disease.


1/65 = 0.0154 and 1/56 = 0.0179 gives about 3.3% dead as a result of combat, 1/13 = 0.0769 which gives about 7.7% dead by diseases... Men captured are not included in the latter figure, as they are noted for dead in capture something certainly not simulated in the game.



You both are way too low in your disease numbers according to this site:

http://www.civilwarhome.com/civilwarmedicine.htm

"While the average soldier believed the bullet was his most nefarious foe, disease was the biggest killer of the war. Of the Federal dead, roughly three out of five died of disease, and of the Confederate, perhaps two out of three. One of the reasons for the high rates of disease was the slipshod recruiting process that allowed under- or over-age men and those in noticeably poor health to join the armies on both sides, especially in the first year of the war. In fact, by late 1862, some 200,000 recruits originally accepted for service were judged physically unfit and discharged, either because they had fallen ill or because a routine examination revealed their frail condition." My bolding above.


The figure I gave was 70% dead by disease which is 10% more than what you have. How is my number too low?



christof139 -> RE: The historical test (1/1/2007 3:42:20 PM)

One thing about the statistics of KIA and DFW and DFD, is that the records are incomplete, especially the CSA records but also the USA records.

Even the total deaths during the war at 600,000 plus must be low, as many civilian and slave deaths were also unreported as were many military deaths, Many MIA were also KIA, and not all bodies were not found and counted on battlefields.

Same for bayonet and sword and clubbed musket wounds; what was recorded was only those directly observed and counted at hospitals ans in a veryfew instances by examination of the dead on the field of battle. many times the combat did come to close quarters with bayonet and clubbed musket. The number of deaths and wounds from these weapons was higher than that recorded. There was much hand to hand combat, plenty of it. The same misconception is applied to Vietnam, where there was indeed much close and hand to hand combat than most people realize. Same for WWII and Korea. Not everything is recorded, and records are also lost. I know of wounded from Vietnam w/o records of wounds and lost records etc.

Almost every battle, including many smaller ones, involved hand to hand and close combat. I think I posted a link to a very good primary source account of the battle of Lone Jack, MO and it was a nasty affair with a very high caualty rate, including hand to hand and close combat fighting. For the number of troops involved it was bad. many smaller battles and raids were like this, and the casualties just continually piled up and were not recorded in full.

I believe closer to one million deaths were the result of the war, including those that died of wounds and sickness days, weeks, months and some years after being wounded and/or discharged from service, and all the civilians and slaves. No way to prove it, but it may not be too far off the mark. I include the pre-ACW fighting along the Kansas-Missouri Border and elsewhere, and all casualties from Draft Riots etc. I would extend the time period to about 1870, and if you were African-American to maybe the mid 1960's.

Cold Harbor in 1864 is a good example of incomplete casualty lists etc.

Chris



elmo3 -> RE: The historical test (1/1/2007 3:47:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

The figure I gave was 70% dead by disease which is 10% more than what you have. How is my number too low?


Here is what I saw you post:

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

Those numbers are not accurate. About 4% of all union soldiers died as the result of combat and about 9% fom disease.


The way I read that you are saying 9% deaths from disease not 70%.



chris0827 -> RE: The historical test (1/1/2007 3:50:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

The figure I gave was 70% dead by disease which is 10% more than what you have. How is my number too low?


Here is what I saw you post:

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

Those numbers are not accurate. About 4% of all union soldiers died as the result of combat and about 9% fom disease.


The way I read that you are saying 9% deaths from disease not 70%.


9% of the soldiers who served in the union army died from disease.



elmo3 -> RE: The historical test (1/1/2007 4:18:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

9% of the soldiers who served in the union army died from disease.


Ok I see what you meant. According to a couple of sites (Civil War Wiki and the Civil War medicine site posted above) the number is more like 11% but that is close enough.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
5.984863