Battle Reports, Casualties, Prisoners

Battle Reports, Casualties, Prisoners (Full Version)

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

Message

mike1962 -> Battle Reports, Casualties, Prisoners (1/21/2007 6:16:02 AM)
The battle reports seem to show a very high number of dead, and very lopsided. Historically the numbers were a lot closer. I have had battles where one side would have 30000 dead and the other less than 1000, Cold Harbor? I had 2 brigades(2000)men surrender and the battle report listed 2000 dead, I guess they took them out back and shot them. Just curious if this will be addressed in the up coming patch? It would be nice to see them shown as captured. A nice addition would be the option of having your prisoners sign an oath not to take up arms for the remainder of the war(they disappear from the game) or, if you have the resources to transport and feed them, keep them as prisoners. Then you could possibly have prisoner swaps like in the real ACW. The ones that don't die of disease that is. Mike

Gil R. -> RE: Battle Reports, Casualties, Prisoners (1/21/2007 6:19:49 AM)
The patch will deal with your first concern. As for POW's, we have them in our first game, "Crown of Glory," and most players didn't like that feature, so we left them out of this game. At this point, it would involve a lot more programming plus some new graphics, and it's not clear that there would be widespread support for adding it. (If there is a groundswell of support, of course, we would definitely consider ways to implement POW's.)

Drex -> RE: Battle Reports, Casualties, Prisoners (1/21/2007 6:53:02 AM)
If you have POWs then there should be some kind of exchange mechanism.

Hard Sarge -> RE: Battle Reports, Casualties, Prisoners (1/21/2007 11:32:13 AM)
yea, until the Union figures out that it was helping the CSA more then it was helping the Union and drops it

Mike Scholl -> RE: Battle Reports, Casualties, Prisoners (1/21/2007 12:51:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge yea, until the Union figures out that it was helping the CSA more then it was helping the Union and drops it True enough..., but in 1861, 62, and 63 it was a significant factor in releaving the strain on Southern manpower resources and keeping the war going. I was kind of suprised it had been left out.

Ironclad -> RE: Battle Reports, Casualties, Prisoners (1/21/2007 1:53:23 PM)
Its quite surprising what a difference they could make to Confederate numbers. In his decision to move on Corinth in October 1862 the Confederate commander Van Dorn chose not to wait for the arrival of reinforcements formed from exchanged prisoners - 12,000 or 15,000 of them. Typical of Van Dorn of course - when his total force excluding them was only 22,000. So the returned prisoners (a large number of whom were not yet organised or rearmed) would have upped his strength by over 50%. Needless to say he lost the battle and suffered heavy losses.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Battle Reports, Casualties, Prisoners (1/21/2007 2:43:35 PM)
I had the same "Huh?" feeling when I found Conscription in the game at the start. This was a real political "Hot Potato" for both sides during the war, with many "Home Front" ramifications and difficulties in it's passage and implementation (New York City Draft Riots anyone?). Still can't figure out how it got ignored as a game issue...

Hard Sarge -> RE: Battle Reports, Casualties, Prisoners (1/21/2007 3:24:43 PM)
quote: As for POW's, we have them in our first game, "Crown of Glory," and most players didn't like that feature, so we left them out of this game. I think that says it all, the players didn't like it in CoG so it was left out of FoF

Barrold -> RE: Battle Reports, Casualties, Prisoners (1/21/2007 3:42:05 PM)
I don't think it was the POWs as a concept that was a problem with COG, but rather the implementation and consequences. Having vast numbers of them that gobbled up resources able to become reconstituted armies in your rear area were a couple of the issues. Handling them more abstractly as perhaps an option for returning numbers of POW's based on political pressures with them being reinforcements. BFS5

Ironclad -> RE: Battle Reports, Casualties, Prisoners (1/21/2007 4:04:32 PM)
I agree. I like COG and having to deal with prisoners adds an extra touch of realism although the mechanism does exaggerate their effect. In fact I think that historically they had a bigger impact in the Civil War especially for the South as reinforcements and as targets to be guarded from invading Union armies. However this isn't a significant issue for me regarding the game.

chris0827 -> RE: Battle Reports, Casualties, Prisoners (1/21/2007 4:27:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge yea, until the Union figures out that it was helping the CSA more then it was helping the Union and drops it That's not what happened. The reason exchanges were stopped for a time was that the confederates refused to exchange black prisoners. When they agree to do so the exchanges resumed.

Ironclad -> RE: Battle Reports, Casualties, Prisoners (1/21/2007 4:52:03 PM)
Interesting I thought Grant had ended it to disadvantage the Confederacy but David Eicher in his "Longest Night" refers to the suspension in spring 1863 for the same reason you gave. He doesn't mention a resumption date. Was Lee's surrender the resumption date? He states that the Union army paroled and exchanged 329,963 Confederate prisoners of war during the war whilst the Confederates paroled and exchanged about 152,015 Union prisoners. Presumably that must include the end of war surrenders.

chris0827 -> RE: Battle Reports, Casualties, Prisoners (1/21/2007 5:01:37 PM)
The exchanges resumed in January 1865

Erik Rutins -> RE: Battle Reports, Casualties, Prisoners (1/21/2007 5:40:32 PM)
Camps are the catch-all that represent replacements, sick men returning to duty, exchanged prisoners and any other source of manpower that is not part of new unit creation. Conscription is also modeled as a significant source of unrest when used. There was nothing preventing conscription from being used early on, except wisdom, but if you make wide use of it in the game, you will have a LOT of unrest that will take a lot of effort to get under control. I don't see how this fails to model it. I generally avoid conscription until I've used up all muster possibilities as a result of the current implementation. Even then, I use it sparingly. A strategy based on conscription would generate riots left, right and center. Regards, - Erik

General Quarters -> RE: Battle Reports, Casualties, Prisoners (1/21/2007 6:00:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chris0827 The reason exchanges were stopped for a time was that the confederates refused to exchange black prisoners. When they agree to do so the exchanges resumed. I really enjoy the knowledgeability of many forum members. This is a good example -- some people know about what are often to me obscure corners of the war. EDIT: Farther down he gives us the exact date.

dude -> RE: Battle Reports, Casualties, Prisoners (1/21/2007 6:15:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge quote: As for POW's, we have them in our first game, "Crown of Glory," and most players didn't like that feature, so we left them out of this game. I think that says it all, the players didn't like it in CoG so it was left out of FoF I enjoyed COG and the prisoner aspect was fine excecpt as pointed out already.... the economic drain to keep them. It also made a big difference in COG where a surrendering country could be practically out of troops because vast numbers had been captured. Surrendering gave them some of their troops back. Then because of peace a decent chance to rebuild without having to start from scratch. I don't see prisoners adding too much to FoF though and am glad it's not in. As pointed out above Camps kind of take care of this... albiet in an abstract way.

Jakerson -> RE: Battle Reports, Casualties, Prisoners (1/21/2007 7:49:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dude I enjoyed COG and the prisoner aspect was fine excecpt as pointed out already.... the economic drain to keep them. It also made a big difference in COG where a surrendering country could be practically out of troops because vast numbers had been captured. Surrendering gave them some of their troops back. Then because of peace a decent chance to rebuild without having to start from scratch. I don't see prisoners adding too much to FoF though and am glad it's not in. As pointed out above Camps kind of take care of this... albiet in an abstract way. Yeah but in CoG prisoners also speed up building of economy in the territory where you deployed them. I never saw prisoners as problem as you always had option to make peace and get rid of prisoners or surrender and get your troops back or some of them. Actually I saw prisoners as on of those innovative new features that made me like CoG as there are no other war games on the market that simulated prisoners as more than just a number in scores. It sad that people wanted that part of game removed.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.140625