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: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch

 
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: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/30/2007 1:18:48 AM   
chris0827

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
From Oct 17th 1863 to Dec 19th 1864 the federal government made five calls for troops to serve for 3 years except for the last call which was 1 year. Illinois provided 97,662 men in those calls. They formed 18 formations during this same time period. These formations would require less than 17,000 troops leaving over 80,000. Where do you think these troops went? Are you still going to say the Union didn't reinforce existing regiments? More than 80% went to existing regiments.

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 271
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/30/2007 1:29:21 AM   
chris0827

 

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

And all this from me saying that the union should not get as many camps as the south, and you know what Im right.


You're right. The union shouldn't get as many camps as the South. The Union should get more.

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 272
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/30/2007 5:04:54 PM   
Paper Tiger

 

Posts: 210
Joined: 11/15/2006
Status: offline
Perhaps the Union should get less camps, but it should also have the resources to build many more units, and the camps of both sides should cost manpower and gun resources.

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 273
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/30/2007 7:32:15 PM   
Artmiser


Posts: 179
Joined: 12/4/2006
Status: offline
Nah let me and Chris argue

Anyway of those 97k men how many ended up not forming untill 1862, how many ended up in supply/support positions.  I never argue that the north cant out recruit the south, I just dont think it should be via camps.   Id rather the north Get free brigades during certain times of the years, or more multi manufacturing centers.   Though others have aruged against the  manufacturing centers because of local area impacts.

Also Chris answer  your own question if you dont like my answer.  Where did those 80k men go.  I have aruged my point well I think, instead of making me do your research why dont you tell me where they went.

On a side note have you also noticed the low casualties in a regiment due to disease, anyware from 7 to 15 percent in those that I studied for the north.  Nothing like in game and that neets some tweaking.


Edit note. I admit I used guys with PHD's to help me argue but I take what I can get.

< Message edited by Artmiser -- 1/30/2007 7:44:58 PM >


_____________________________

Former Marine
Retired Deputy Sheriff
Wargamer untill I die

(in reply to Paper Tiger)
Post #: 274
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/30/2007 7:36:13 PM   
Artmiser


Posts: 179
Joined: 12/4/2006
Status: offline
Although the way the game is written im not sure if that is possible, historical asside im not sure the in game north could survive without allot of camps.  Since its not regiment level there is no way to swap regiments in and out of formations as the north did to keep a unit up to strength.

_____________________________

Former Marine
Retired Deputy Sheriff
Wargamer untill I die

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 275
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/30/2007 7:50:58 PM   
chris0827

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Artmiser

Nah let me and Chris argue

Anyway of those 97k men how many ended up not forming untill 1862, how many ended up in supply/support positions.  I never argue that the north cant out recruit the south, I just dont think it should be via camps.   Id rather the north Get free brigades during certain times of the years, or more multi manufacturing centers.   Though others have aruged against the  manufacturing centers because of local area impacts.

Also Chris answer  your own question if you dont like my answer.  Where did those 80k men go.  I have aruged my point well I think, instead of making me do your research why dont you tell me where they went.

On a side note have you also noticed the low casualties in a regiment due to disease, anyware from 7 to 15 percent in those that I studied for the north.  Nothing like in game and that neets some tweaking.


Edit note. I admit I used guys with PHD's to help me argue but I take what I can get.


The 80,000 men went to existing regiments as I said. Why do you refuse to believe it? What research have you done? My numbers have come from well respected civil war historians. You have shown nothing that proves your point.

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 276
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/30/2007 8:33:52 PM   
chris0827

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
From Oct 1863 to the end of the war Connecticut raised 27,800 men for service of 9 months or longer. In that time period they only raised 1 regiment and 1 battery. 1200 men at most. That's another 26,600 men going to existing regiments.

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 277
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/30/2007 10:25:23 PM   
Artmiser


Posts: 179
Joined: 12/4/2006
Status: offline
so you say, I say they went to support and supply units. 


Ok maybe you didnt read this before

Division:
The second largest unit of the army.In theory, the division consisted of several brigades and sometimes battalions. The division was a unit 11 to 13 thousand men strong By mid-war few
divisions on either side had this many soldiers. A rare case was A.P. Hill's "Light Division",
which had at one point, 7 brigades or about 17 thousand soldiers. The "Light Division" was not
named so because it was light on soldiers as was the case with the famed British "Light Brigade".
On the division level, a Confederate division could be larger than its' Union counterpart.
The reason for this was a better organizational development on the part of the Confederates who would fill existing regiments with new recruits rather than creating new ones as the Union frequently did when attrition occurred. In the Confederate armies major generals commanded divisions, for the most part. In the Union armies a brigadier general could command a division

http://members.aol.com/awill84810/militaryterms.htm

I dont think I ever said the union didnt reinforce at all, The best I could find in illinoice was 157 men in a regiment of 1000.
After a certain point in attrition casualties the union didnt reinforce the regiment the confederacy did.
You do know about that unit called the Iron brigade? The regiments that composed that brigade and gave it its reputation got smaller and smaller.

< Message edited by Artmiser -- 1/30/2007 11:21:23 PM >


_____________________________

Former Marine
Retired Deputy Sheriff
Wargamer untill I die

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 278
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/30/2007 10:59:08 PM   
Artmiser


Posts: 179
Joined: 12/4/2006
Status: offline
From the Iron brigades webiste
In the union army, a group of four regiments, and a brigade general and his staff composed a Brigade.  The general in charge of a brigade was given one star and called a "Brigadier General".  Rufus King's Brigade, which was to become the Iron Brigad, started with the 2nd WI, 5th WI, 6th WI and 19th IN.  By the time the 7th Wisconsin showed up in Washington on October 1st, 1861 the 5th Wisconsin had already been re-assigned and the 7th admitted.  As time went on, and losses were taken, more regiments may have been added to attempt to bring a brigade back up to strength.  The 24th Michigan Regiment of Volunteers was added to the Iron Brigade for this reason.  The sad truth is, that after losses from illness and battle, most brigades could only field half as many men as they had on paper.  With new officers forming units back home and claiming new volunteers, few replacements made their way to existing regiments, and their numbers only dwindled.

http://www.ironbrigade.net/



Ok Chris I have showed you some of my research now let me see some of yours, with links if you would be so kind.

< Message edited by Artmiser -- 1/30/2007 11:20:24 PM >


_____________________________

Former Marine
Retired Deputy Sheriff
Wargamer untill I die

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 279
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/30/2007 11:35:08 PM   
chris0827

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
The armies of the civil war did not have supply units like armies do today . Supplies were moved by civilians and troops detached fom combat units. You have repeatedly said the Union had a policy of not reinforcing regiments and have offered no proof to support it. Since you brought up the Iron brigade I'll give some of it's numbers. The Iron Brigade consisted of the 2nd, 6th, and 7th wisconsin, the 19th indiana, and the 24th michigan. The 7th indiana was added for a few months in 1864 and a sharpshooter battalion in the fall of 1863. The brigade was not broken up just because of battle losses. It was broken up because the enlistments ran out in three of it's regiments in june and august of 1864. 1203 men served in the 2nd wis, 1940 in the 6th wis, 1630 in the 7th wis, and 1246 in the 19th ind. Those 4 regiments contained 4284 men when mustered in and 1735 men joined during the war.

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 280
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/30/2007 11:47:18 PM   
chris0827

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
My information comes from William Fox's Regimental Losses In the American Civil War, Frederick Phisterer's Statistical Record of the Armies of the United States, and Frederick Dyer's  A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion.

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 281
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/31/2007 12:33:57 AM   
Artmiser


Posts: 179
Joined: 12/4/2006
Status: offline
Ok according to one of your sources you site, Fox.

Concerning the Confederacy.

The Confederate Armies lost, in the aggregate, nearly 10 per cent. in killed or mortally wounded. The average loss in the Union Armies was 5 per cent. But in the latter there were over 300 regiments which were not in action, with as many more which were under fire but a few times. A large part of the Union Armies was used in protecting communications, guarding lines of supplies, in garrison duty, and as armies of occupation. The Confederate regiments were all at the front, and, although repeatedly filled up with recruits, were held there until many of them were worn out by the constant attrition.
      For these reasons it is evident that although the Confederate Armies were much smaller, their losses were not necessarily smaller in proportion. Their generals displayed a wonderful ability in always confronting the enemy with an equal force at the point of contact. What mattered Hooker's extra thousands at Chancellorsville? In two corps not a shot was fired. What if Meade did have 20,000 more men at Gettysburg than Lee? The Sixth Corps lay in reserve. But in these battles, as in others, every Confederate regiment was put in and not relieved until they had lost killed and wounded men by the score.
      The aggregate of killed and mortally wounded in the Confederate Armies during the war was 16,000 less than in the Union Armies; or, adding the usual proportion of wounded, a difference of about 60,000, killed and wounded, in favor of the Confederates. Up to 1864 the aggregate of losses on each side was substantially the same. There was a small percentage in favor of the Confederates up to that time; but, if their casualty lists could be subjected to the same revision as that recently applied to the nominal casualty lists of the Union Armies, it is probable that their official returns as thus corrected would show an increase which would largely offset the difference prior to 1864. The excess of 16,000 killed, in the Union aggregate --or, its equivalent of 60,000 in killed and wounded--occurred almost wholly in the campaigns of 1864-5.
      The severity of the losses among the Confederates, and the heroic persistency with which they would stand before the enemy's musketry, becomes apparent in studying the official returns of various regiments.






Concerning the Union
The number of men killed in a regiment during its term of service has thus far been considered only in respect to the maximum of loss, and the result is of value only so far as it defines the limit of casualties to which regiments of this size are exposed. But, though similar in formation, the regiments varied in numbers according to the recruits or transferred men received. Some regiments received large numbers of recruits to make good their losses, while other commands went through the war with constantly lessening ranks and carried only the original thousand, or less, upon their rolls. Some regiments which reenlisted at the end of their three years' term received large accessions from other commands which, returning home, left detachments in the field composed of recruits with unexpired terms, or reenlisted men. Distinction must be made, in the matter of losses in action, between the regiments whose ranks were always kept full, and the ones which received no fresh material.


I never said the union didnt reinforce, I said the confederacy reinforced more then the Union and if a limit on camps was going to be set the North should not get as many as the south.


Correction I did say early that historicly the Union didnt reinforce, in that I am somewhat mistaken. But they did not reinforce regiments at anywhere the same rate as the south.

Which I think I have proven, and I did enjoy using one of your own sources to do it.



< Message edited by Artmiser -- 1/31/2007 12:55:03 AM >


_____________________________

Former Marine
Retired Deputy Sheriff
Wargamer untill I die

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 282
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/31/2007 1:15:19 AM   
chris0827

 

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

Correction I did say early that historicly the Union didnt reinforce, in that I am somewhat mistaken. But they did not reinforce regiments at anywhere the same rate as the south.

Which I think I have proven, and I did enjoy using one of your own sources to do it.


You haven't proven it at all. It's true that nearly 100% of confederate enlistments went to existing units in 1863-1865 but so did 80% of the north's recruits. The North sent far more replacements to existing units than the south did. As weak as the average union regiment was in 1865 it was much stronger than the average confederate regiment. Terry's brigade in the ANV had 1,273 men in 13 regiments. York's brigade had 566 men in 9 regiments. Not a lot of replacements there.

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 283
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/31/2007 4:08:06 AM   
General Quarters

 

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline
An impressive debate. Remind me not to get into a factual argument with these guys. Are we getting near the ninth round? And the winner is, by a decision of the judges, ...

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 284
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/31/2007 4:32:01 AM   
chris0827

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

An impressive debate. Remind me not to get into a factual argument with these guys. Are we getting near the ninth round? And the winner is, by a decision of the judges, ...


He hasn't provided a single piece of evidence to back up his claim that the south should get more camps than the north.

In march of 1865 before the retreat from Richmond and Petersburg the average infantry regiment in the Army of Northern Virginia had 191 men present for duty. The Army of the Potomac's regiments averaged 351 men and they had suffered far heavier losses.

(in reply to General Quarters)
Post #: 285
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/31/2007 5:41:25 AM   
Artmiser


Posts: 179
Joined: 12/4/2006
Status: offline
Oh please I have proven it so many times.  Now your are just being obstinate

Ive even used your own source against you showing the the South used most of its recruits to reinforce excisting regiments and the north used most of its to form new regiments.

For THIS game if you put a cap on camps as has been requested by some players and it is the same as the north then the North will get an advantage that is not historical.

For arguments sake lets say you put a cap on camps at 5k or even 10k a month for both sides.  Now the north can reinforce all of its regular units to full strength which ias fast as the south, which it  didnt do historicly because it would rather form new regiments.  The north gets allot of manufacturing and population edge in game, the souths only advantage is its ability to make camps faster then the north.  If you cap that out then in around 1862 or 3 the north will be making 3 to 4 times the number of brigades as the south, and reinforceing its forward units to full strength.   If you put a cap on camps then the south will lose the one advantage it historicly had.  Which was at point of contact it had close to the same numbers as the North.    That changed with Grant but not because he was reinforing his regiments but because he just kept bringing more units forward and wore the south out, which you can still do in this game. 

We need to have people vote on it and put this to rest.

I have used your own sources to point this out, I have pulled records from the Iron brigade to point this out.  I have made links to these sights pointing this out.

In this game you will not be spreading your reinforments out to your 900,000 man army, which was the norths str in 1863. You will be reinforcing them to maybe 450,000 to 600,000 which is still vastly more then the south.



< Message edited by Artmiser -- 1/31/2007 6:02:07 AM >


_____________________________

Former Marine
Retired Deputy Sheriff
Wargamer untill I die

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 286
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/31/2007 5:53:52 AM   
chris0827

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
Bringing up the Iron Brigade does nothing for your argument. As I pointed out four of the Iron Brigades regiments received a total of 1735 replacements during the war. You said Illinois didn't send replacements to regiments. I showed that over 80% of the illinois long term recruits from oct 1863 to the end of the war went to existing regiments. I showed you similar numbers from Connecticut as well. These are numbers from the historical records. You've produced nothing to contradict them.

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 287
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/31/2007 5:55:52 AM   
Artmiser


Posts: 179
Joined: 12/4/2006
Status: offline
You have not shown me anything, give me a link, you tell me things, and I show you things.

If that is so why did the iron brigades own website say this?

With new officers forming units back home and claiming new volunteers, few replacements made their way to existing regiments, and their numbers only dwindled.


_____________________________

Former Marine
Retired Deputy Sheriff
Wargamer untill I die

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 288
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/31/2007 6:03:31 AM   
chris0827

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Artmiser

You have not shown me anything, give me a link, you tell me things, and I show you things.

If that is so why did the iron brigades own website say this?

With new officers forming units back home and claiming new volunteers, few replacements made their way to existing regiments, and their numbers only dwindled.



It's a website a guy made about the Iron Brigade. I'll take the word of the official records and Civil War historians.

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 289
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/31/2007 6:08:42 AM   
Artmiser


Posts: 179
Joined: 12/4/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827


quote:

ORIGINAL: Artmiser

You have not shown me anything, give me a link, you tell me things, and I show you things.

If that is so why did the iron brigades own website say this?

With new officers forming units back home and claiming new volunteers, few replacements made their way to existing regiments, and their numbers only dwindled.



It's a website a guy made about the Iron Brigade. I'll take the word of the official records and Civil War historians.


I did that with Fox but your ignoring that to. And remember im also saying for the purposes of this game, and if camps caps are implaced.

< Message edited by Artmiser -- 1/31/2007 6:22:35 AM >


_____________________________

Former Marine
Retired Deputy Sheriff
Wargamer untill I die

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 290
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/31/2007 6:13:57 AM   
chris0827

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
Your quote from Fox proved my point. Some union regiments received large numbers of recruits.

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 291
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/31/2007 6:55:26 AM   
Artmiser


Posts: 179
Joined: 12/4/2006
Status: offline
Lol now your reaching

For the North

He said "Some regiments received large numbers of recruits to make good their losses, while other commands went through the war with constantly lessening ranks and carried only the original thousand, or less, upon their rolls."
 
For the South

He Said "The Confederate regiments were all at the front, and, although repeatedly filled up with recruits, were held there until many of them were worn out by the constant attrition."


From this a reasonable person would be able to come to the conclusion that the south reinforced its regiments more then the north.
 
 
Since you are being stubborn and I am the soul of reason (insert sarcasm) we can let our fellow gamers decide from our discussion.

< Message edited by Artmiser -- 1/31/2007 7:07:46 AM >


_____________________________

Former Marine
Retired Deputy Sheriff
Wargamer untill I die

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 292
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/31/2007 7:22:06 AM   
christof139


Posts: 980
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline
There are several points being missed:

1) Every unit recieved replacements.

2) The number of replacements received by existing units on both sides depended and was subjected to many variables such as to what State the unit belonged and how that State's manpower procurment apparatus operated, the time of year and even the weather, the military and political situation at any particular time, the geographic location of a State and troop and supply and ordnance transportation availability, etc.

3) The South had fewer units per State and thus could usually einforce exisiting units better than the North, up to the time period when attrition began to take a great toll on eligible and available Southern military manpower, perhaps late 1863 or early to mid 1864 at the latest. Also, as the South lost more and more territory it became less and less capable of providing replacements to existing units and forming new units. The South did form new units throughout the war, and as the war and resultant attrition progressed the South was simply running out of manpower, and units were consolidated, and consolidated Confederate Infantry units existed as early as 1862 at the Battle of Murfreesboro.

4) Frequently, Northern Veteran units also lost potential replacements as veterans whose terms of service had expired with those Veteran Regiments returned home and then began to raise and serve in new units being formed. Many Northern veteran Regiments were consolidated into other exisiting units if enough of the troops in the veteran units did not renlist to continue the life of the original unit as a reenlisted and officially designated Veteran unit. I think the figure for an Infantry unit to continue its existance after reenlistment of its personnel was somewhere around 300 - 350 men per Infantry Regiment. If enough men didn't reenlist and newbies recruited into the original existing unit, then the personnel of said unit were transferred as replacements to other units, either old exisiting units or units newly forming.

5) With its superiority in manpower, the North could afford to do this, retire old units and form new ones on a large scale, the South couldn't. The South's answer to a dwindling manpower pool was the consolidation of old existing units into Consolidated Regiments and Battalions bearing the official designation 'Consilidated'.

6) The fact remains that many Northern units were formed early in the war and continued as a seperate organization until the end of the war with many replacements being assigned. These replacements came from different sources: a) Troops reenlisting and being reassigned from disbanding veteran units; 2) Recruits from back home and overseas and elsewhere; 3) Conscripts from the Draft; 4) Maybe Mars, I don't know.

It's all in the books as the other Chris is pointing out, and it is a general misconception that all Northern units were left to 'die on the vine' for whatever the cause. The North had no definitive policy in place to purposefully let existing units 'die on the vine', it just happened as explained, and it also happened in the Southern Army.

Chris, PFC, 1st Michigan Supply and Support Train, the 'Despoilers', our motto is 'You fight 'em and beat 'em, and we'll take de spoils.'



(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 293
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/31/2007 7:26:27 AM   
chris0827

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
2,677,097 men served in the union army in 2047 regiments. That's 1,308 men per regiment. We don't know how many served in the confederate army. Most estimates say less than 1,000,000. For the sake of the argument I'll give them 1,000,000. The confederates formed 764 regiments. That's 1310 men per regiment. If we assume the average regiment was formed with 1,000 men then the average union regiment got 308 replacements and the average confederate regiment got 310 replacements. 2047 regiments getting 308 replacements each gives the union  a total of 630,476 replacements. 764 regiments getting 310 replacements each gives the confederates 236,840 replacements. That's 630,476 to 236,840. Who deserves the most camps?

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 294
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/31/2007 8:28:52 AM   
christof139


Posts: 980
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Who deserves the most camps?


De Campfire Girls, and we'll despoil them, too, as long as they're a bit over 18. What are Campfire Girl Leaders/Adults called, Camp Flames??

I just don't know.

Chris, PFC, 1st Michigan Supply and Support Train, 'Despoilers'. Our motto is 'You fight 'em and beat 'em, and we'll take de spoils.

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 295
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/31/2007 8:44:27 AM   
Artmiser


Posts: 179
Joined: 12/4/2006
Status: offline
Because I cant resist to correct you.

There is no accurate means of determining just how many individuals served in the armed forces of either the Federal or Confederate armies. Many educated estimates utilizing official and unofficial figures are available. The figures herein accepted are the result of an extensive study of these estimates.
       Total enlistments in the Federal forces are officially put at 2,778,304, including, in the Army, 2,489,836 whites, 178,975 Negroes, 3530 Indians, and 105,963 in the Navy and Marines. Some scholars do not even accept these figures as authoritative and it must be borne in mind that many thousands who are included enlisted more than once. Also included are troops whose period of service varied from a few days to the duration. The important question is how many individuals served in the armed forces. Estimates run from 1,550,OO0 to 2,200,000 Federals. Probably something over 2,000,000 would be as accurate a figure as possible on total individuals in the Federal armed forces.
       For the Confederates, figures are even more in dispute. Estimates of total Confederate enlistments run from 600,000 to 1,400,000. Many Confederate scholars count 6oo,oco total individuals. After considering the numerous surveys made, perhaps 750,000 individuals would be reasonably close. Thus it can be said that Federals, counting Negro troops, outnumbered the Confederates about three to one in number of individuals.
       As to the navies, the Federals totaled 132,554 enlistments (105,963 credited to states, plus other sailors not so credited). For the Confederate Navy, in 1864 enlisted men totaled 3674, plus officers and marines, but no reliable totals are available.

Source: "The Civil War Day By Day" by E.B. Long

But this raw data does not break down as simple as you would like, Union units had 2 or 3 year enlistments.  Souther units were for the duration.

This game does a good job of representing the fighting armies both sides had, and for this game we have to keep that in mind.   The fighting army the south has in this game is pretty much the army it had historicly.  The same cannot be said for the north.  For arguements sake we can say half the northern camps are sending reinforcements to the half of the army not represented.   So each northern camp gets 250 men, there now they can have as many as the north.

Art



_____________________________

Former Marine
Retired Deputy Sheriff
Wargamer untill I die

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 296
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/31/2007 8:48:39 AM   
Artmiser


Posts: 179
Joined: 12/4/2006
Status: offline
And this entire arguement is moot if they dont have camp limits, I was fine with the way it is now.

Sorta fine. After doing all this research and argueing I want camp limts now dammit, and the north gets half of what the south gets. :P

< Message edited by Artmiser -- 1/31/2007 9:02:10 AM >


_____________________________

Former Marine
Retired Deputy Sheriff
Wargamer untill I die

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 297
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/31/2007 8:58:17 AM   
Artmiser


Posts: 179
Joined: 12/4/2006
Status: offline
Christof139 I like your post, my whole point of this debate is that reinforcement of excisting units was the way things were in the South.  Untill later in the war they fought in the same brigades, under the same leaders (baring deaths).

If they have camp cap limits the south with its horses will hit the cap first.  If the cap is to low then that will shift the game out of balance in favor of the north.   The north does reinforce more of its regiments then I first thought, but still no where the same as the south did.  The south reinforced the way it did probably because it had to.   It did not have the manpower/luxuory to have large units in its rear training up, those men needed to be on the front so it could try and meet the north on as equal of terms as possible.

< Message edited by Artmiser -- 1/31/2007 9:12:13 AM >


_____________________________

Former Marine
Retired Deputy Sheriff
Wargamer untill I die

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 298
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/31/2007 9:07:42 AM   
chris0827

 

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

But this raw data does not break down as simple as you would like, Union units had 2 or 3 year enlistments.  Souther units were for the duration


Dead wrong again. Soldiers had specific terms of enlistments not regiments. Most union regiments formed in 1861 and 1862 served until the end of the war. Many men reenlisted when their term expired and they along with replacements added during the war continued the regiment. The confederates also recruited men for short periods of time in 1861. If you don't like the numbers I posted above you can use the lower estimates. 2,000,000 union to 750,000 confederates. The ratios almost the same.

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 299
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/31/2007 10:30:42 AM   
Paper Tiger

 

Posts: 210
Joined: 11/15/2006
Status: offline
Quite simple answer to both of you really, isn't this a bit about personnal choice? The Union could have chosen to use the men it recruited into new units to bolster existing units, the confederates could have used the men it sent as replacements to create new units. This is a game both sides should be free to use the available men as they see fit, th CSA could even produce a large navy and attempt to contest the sea with the Union in the game if it so chooses. The current options are set to give the game some balance, if you are going to severely limit the Union in adding replacements then you would need to increase the amount of income for the Union to a much more historical level so that they could create more new units, you would also need to restrict the south by adding an upkeep cost to camps, otherwise the south could end up producing 20000 free replacements a turn without any affect on the southern economy, and it was the southern economy which was in virtual collapse at the end of the war.

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 300
Page:   <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   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

1.484