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 - 1/31/2007 12:03:46 PM   
Paper Tiger

 

Posts: 210
Joined: 11/15/2006
Status: offline
Another idea for you, to give something of a flavour of the problems with incompetants getting into higher command, add an option for governors to request that a specific general from the governors state be promoted. Could be linked to requests that he be promoted to command a specific division/corps/army which has an empty slot, or could be linked to replacing a commander in an army that just lost a battle.
Army of the Potomac losses a battle under Grant and some numbskull starts requesting that some useless 5%er be given a chance, easy choice you take the upset governor and keep Grant, same case and they are requesting Sherman, or Meade or Buford who are decent generals what do you do?
Early on and you have Gregg in charge and they are requesting McMuppet?

(in reply to Paper Tiger)
Post #: 301
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/31/2007 9:43:31 PM   
Artmiser


Posts: 179
Joined: 12/4/2006
Status: offline
Paper Tiger the only reason im argueing is because if camp limits are set they are changing some of the dynamics of the game.   As I have said Im happy with no camp limits, In which case this entire arguement is irrelivant.  Even though I have said it over and over again to Chris0827 he does not seem to get that I am talking about for the purposes of this game.   If the cap is set to low the north will match the south to quickly, if it set high enough it will become a moot point.  If the cap is set so the North will be able to match the camp totoal in mid 1863 that would be fine.

And Chris your last statement just showed me how little you know of the Civil War.

The union army had 90 day enlistments, 9 month enlistments, 2 year, and 3 year, the length of service changed as time went on.  The confederate army quickly went to for the duration of the conflict, it had no choice.   If you  read allot of the regimental histories allot of the what happened to the regiment is glossed over when its enlistment periods would have expired.  The few regimental histories that mention it say most of the regiment got out but many reenlisted.  Kinda confusing on how many "many" is.  I have read where two regiments were consolidated but both regiment histories continue on as if they were seperate regiments still.

Ive been reading more of Fox, try it, and for some states he was able to find data on reenlistments.  Highest was 1st  Indiana Heavy Artillary with 503 men, not sure what its total str so not sure what percentage that was. It also had the lowest the 23rd Indiana with 278 men.

In this game you dont lose any of those men in 1862/3/4.

Basicly you want all of the benefits of playing the North with none of its weaknesses.  Im putting my 2 cents in to try and keep the game balanced, with a historical feel.


< Message edited by Artmiser -- 1/31/2007 9:57:04 PM >


_____________________________

Former Marine
Retired Deputy Sheriff
Wargamer untill I die

(in reply to Paper Tiger)
Post #: 302
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/31/2007 9:47:06 PM   
Artmiser


Posts: 179
Joined: 12/4/2006
Status: offline
That would be interesting not sure how programmable it would be.

I would also like to see that now and then a person the governor wants on your staff is not incompetent.

_____________________________

Former Marine
Retired Deputy Sheriff
Wargamer untill I die

(in reply to Paper Tiger)
Post #: 303
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 2/1/2007 12:47:53 AM   
Paper Tiger

 

Posts: 210
Joined: 11/15/2006
Status: offline
If you add a cost for upkeep of camps then the north will have a choice use the extra money the north has to build units at morale 4 startup, or bring in reinforcements at morale 2.x which would you choose? If the north has the money to do it they will build troops and worry about camps way down the line, the south hasn't got the money they will build camps and hope that battle experience keeps the units morale up.
Of course this assumes that the north gets the extra money it should have historically.

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 304
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 2/1/2007 2:06:06 AM   
chris0827

 

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

The union army had 90 day enlistments, 9 month enlistments, 2 year, and 3 year, the length of service changed as time went on.  The confederate army quickly went to for the duration of the conflict, it had no choice.   If you  read allot of the regimental histories allot of the what happened to the regiment is glossed over when its enlistment periods would have expired.  The few regimental histories that mention it say most of the regiment got out but many reenlisted.  Kinda confusing on how many "many" is.  I have read where two regiments were consolidated but both regiment histories continue on as if they were seperate regiments still.

Ive been reading more of Fox, try it, and for some states he was able to find data on reenlistments.  Highest was 1st  Indiana Heavy Artillary with 503 men, not sure what its total str so not sure what percentage that was. It also had the lowest the 23rd Indiana with 278 men.


The length of service for union troops did not change over time. In 1861 the union first called for 90 day men then 3 year men. In 1864 the union still had calls for both 90 day and 3 year men. There were also calls for  100 days, 6 months, 9 months, and two years.The reenlistment numbers you quote are the numbers of the original 3 year recruits from 1861 that reenlisted in 1864. To those numbers would be added the recruits added to the regiment during the war. Recruits had seperate terms of service depending on which call they were recruited under. If large enough numbers of men did not reenlist then the regiment would be disbanded and the remaining men assigned to other regiments. An example of this can be seen in the movie Gettysburg. The 2nd maine had large numbers of two year men who did not reenlist and the remaining troops were assigned to the 20th maine.

(in reply to Paper Tiger)
Post #: 305
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 2/1/2007 5:42:02 AM   
Artmiser


Posts: 179
Joined: 12/4/2006
Status: offline
Yes it did change, started small grew larger then as the conflict was coming to an end they went to short enlistments again.   Find me some 1862 regiments that signed for six months.  I have found remarks where regiments were disbanded for no given reason after short periods of time.  Not sure what that is about.

Anyway Nough said.

ARt


_____________________________

Former Marine
Retired Deputy Sheriff
Wargamer untill I die

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 306
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 2/1/2007 7:01:09 AM   
chris0827

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
Union Troop calls.
April 15th/May 3rd/ july 22nd 1861 - 91,816 men for 3 months
july 25th 1861                            - 2715 men for 6 months
                                              - 9147 men for 1 year
                                              - 30,950 men for 2 years
                                              - 657,868 men for 3 years
May/june 1862                            - 15,007 men for 3 months
Jul 2nd 1862                               - 421,465 men for 3 years
august 4th 1862                          - 87,588 men for 9 months
june 15th 1863                            - 16,361 men for 6 months
oct 17th 1863/Feb 1st 1864           - 317,092 men for 3 years
march 14th 1864                          - 292,193 men for 3 years
April 23rd / july 18th 1864              - 83,612 men for 100 days
july 18th 1864                              - 223,044 men for 1 year
                                                - 8,340 men for two years
                                                - 153,049 men for 3 years
                                                - 730 men for 4 years
dec 19th 1864                              - 151,363 men for 1 year
                                                - 5,110 men for 2 years
                                                - 54,967 men for 3 years
                                                - 312 men for 4 years
Provided by states not given quotas - 2045 men for 60 days
                                                - 1593 men for 3 months
                                                - 1895 men for 100 days
                                                - 42 men for 4 months
                                                - 1363 men for 6 months
                                                - 373 men for 8 months
                                                - 8,198 men for 1 year
                                                - 166,848 men for 3 years

Numbers from Frederick Phisterer's Statistical Record of the Armies of the United States

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 307
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 2/1/2007 1:15:32 PM   
christof139


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

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


In both the North and the South the majority of units that enlisted for the duration did not do so until late 1862 to 1863, and continued to do so through 1864 to 1865. Many Northern units enlisted for the duration during this time period.

In the South, enlisting and being forced to serve for the duration or another long term of service became mandatory in many age etc. classes due to the shortage of manpower. Initially Southern units were formed for time periods less than the duration, just as their Northern counterparts were. This info. is readily available in the OR, Livermore, etc., I do believe but maybe not as I can't remember exactly at the moment.

The North supplied more replacements to attrited units than the South did simply because the North had more and the South much less of an available manpower pool.

The South started forming official and officially titled 'Consolidated' units in 1862, and this is evidenced at murfreesboro, and at this time the North wasn't even consideing such a drastic measure because of its large manpower pool.

One reason some Northern Infantry units died on the vine, is that new regiments were being formed in the larger States even as the preceding and original units were being transported to the fronts, thus causing a lapse in readily available replacemnts for many of the existing units. however, even these exisiting units at one time or another received replacements, and many of these existing units disbanded at the end of their 2 or 3 year enlistment period, with those members that did reenlist going to new units or other pre-existing older units. The South could not afford the administrative time and lag to do this, and so kept exisiting units on the roles by consolidation of these existing units, conscripts, and fewer and fewer enlistments as the war progressed.

I just read a whole bunch of info. about this about a month ago, and this info. debunks the misnomer that the north reinforced older existing units less frequently than the South. When the Northern 2 and 3 year units reached the end of their nlistment time they eiterh didbanced, reenlisted to keep the original unit on the roles, or members of these disbanding units whose time of service had not yet expired ond reenlisted veterans and new recruits were simply assigned to other exisitng units of entirley new units.

At Antietam I believe it was, there was only one Northern regiment that was a Consilidated Regiment, two NY regiments I do believe, while the South had by means of necsessity temporarily and unofficially consolidated the regiments within the very small Brigades of the ANV numbering about 300 - 600 men each. In the West, the AoT had officially Consilidated Infantry regiments at the end of 1862 during the murfreesboro campaign, while the Northern XIV Corps (Dept. of the Ohio or Cumberland, I forget, with 3 Wings acting as Corps and the XIV Corps acting as an Army command) of Rosecrans had no such consolidated units.

Chris

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 308
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 2/1/2007 6:37:40 PM   
Paper Tiger

 

Posts: 210
Joined: 11/15/2006
Status: offline
Going back a few posts, the reason I am suggesting that introducing Governor requested promotions of General would result in getting the flavour of incompetents rising to higher command is that I am assuming that the player will already have picked the best generals ahead of time and so the only promotions available for the Governor to request would be a less able general.

(in reply to christof139)
Post #: 309
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 2/1/2007 6:46:43 PM   
Paper Tiger

 

Posts: 210
Joined: 11/15/2006
Status: offline
Note also that as supply and support costs for brigades in the game is not based on the brigade sizes, that having less very big brigades is by design a much cheaper army to support than one with a lot of depleted brigades. The result would be an advantage towards the CSA if the Union was forced into having many slowly withering brigades.
I would suggest that in this situation the level of money, iron and labour which is available to the Union would need to be lifted much closer to the historical levels.
Also if the reason that these brigades were historically withering was that the manpower was being directed into new brigades, then this is another factor towards upkeep costs for camps.

(in reply to Paper Tiger)
Post #: 310
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 2/1/2007 9:07:36 PM   
Artmiser


Posts: 179
Joined: 12/4/2006
Status: offline
I was on my 2nd paragraph of my rebuttal and my wife pointed out to me we have lost track of our original arguement.

1.  If there is a camp limit and it is set to low will it embalance the game.

Answer Yes

2.  Did a confederate regiment recieve more replacements then a northern one.(In General)

Answer Yes.

Now all our arguements have been about the 2nd question, because there is now doubt of the first one.



P.S. about 9 arguements back I conceded that the north recived some replacements per regiments just not as many as the south. You could easily argue that was becasue the Confederate regiments in there brigades were always up front, most southern regiments fought in more battles then there norther counterparts.



< Message edited by Artmiser -- 2/1/2007 9:37:26 PM >


_____________________________

Former Marine
Retired Deputy Sheriff
Wargamer untill I die

(in reply to Paper Tiger)
Post #: 311
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 2/1/2007 9:17:32 PM   
Artmiser


Posts: 179
Joined: 12/4/2006
Status: offline
Now after reading all of the info I have I'm well armed for an arguement about disease casualties in game.

The vast majority of Union regiments over its 3 year enlistment lost around 10 ti 5 percent to disease.   The confederates lost about 7 percent more.

So an in game brigade of 3000 men that is hit with a 400 man hit for disease should not get hit again, I have had northern regiemtents lose 40 percent of there men over the course of a year.


I will again put forth my bid that a regiment should get an invisible tag each time its hit by disease, and each tag cuts down future disease reults by half.   If the unit gets reinforcements take away one tag to a minimum of one.

< Message edited by Artmiser -- 2/1/2007 9:29:58 PM >


_____________________________

Former Marine
Retired Deputy Sheriff
Wargamer untill I die

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 312
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 2/1/2007 10:42:39 PM   
christof139


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

P.S. about 9 arguements back I conceded that the north recived some replacements per regiments just not as many as the south. You could easily argue that was becasue the Confederate regiments in there brigades were always up front, most southern regiments fought in more battles then there norther counterparts.

< Message edited by Artmiser -- 2/1/2007 2:37:26 PM >



Yes, but many Northern units received a lot of replacements, not just 'some'.

Many Northern units in both the east and the west fought from the beginning or early in the war unitl the end. Many Northern units fought in more battles than many Southern units, and the South had tens of thousands of troops guarding its coasts, and many of those did not see a whole bunch of action.

I couldn't determine why the North let many units die on the vine either, and just recently discovered explanations for this in Livermore and perhaps the OR and elsewhere including websites with Regimental rosters and total strength of men serving in them throughout the war. It was rather odd and not good both militarily and administratively.

I didn't hit the excessive Southern camp problem yet, because I lost my downloaded game when my computer went nuts and I had to rebuild yet again, and Digital River mailed my CD copy to an address without a streetname, even though I paid through Paypal which gives the correct address, so I am about ready to call this game quits, although I still want my CD copy since I paid $66 for it. The USPS investigated and confirmed that they sent the game back to Digital River per SOP about 16 - 17 days ago because it was undeliverable, but still not any notification from Digital River and apparently Matrix Customer Support is not checking on this with DR, so there is a free game out there somewhere for someone. I now don't trust DR etc. at all.

Chris

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 313
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 2/2/2007 2:10:27 AM   
Artmiser


Posts: 179
Joined: 12/4/2006
Status: offline
I'm not talking about the garrison forces for either side.

Longstreets Corps on Sept 17 1862.

Mclaws Division

Kershaws Brigade (Strength 825 Men)
2nd SC  250
3rd SC   250
7th SC   275
8th SC   50

Gettysburt July 1863

Kershaws Brigade (2183)
2nd SC 412 6
3rd SC  406
7th SC  400
8th SC  300
15th SC 448
3rd SC "James"Btn 203


Union I Corps at Antietam

Fourth Brigade(Iron) 1050
19th Indiana 200
2nd Wisconsin 325
6th Wisconsin 325
7th Wisconsin 200

Gettysburg Union I corps Gettysburg

Union First brigade(Iron brigade) 1829
19th Indiana 308
24th Michigan 496
2nd Wisconsin 302
6th Wisconsin 344
7th Wisconsin 364


Of the regiments each side had at both battles the union reinforced 224 and the Confederacy 693

This for the south was the first brigade in Longstreets Corp and for the north it was I corps with the brigade with the most regiments at both battles, which was the Iron brigade.  Sry to bring that one up again.

Also my first source rounded his numbers to the closest 25, Im not sure why but he did.  But since it can alter the numbers  as a plus and minus I will take them.

http://www.dimacleod.co.uk/history/antietam/us-1.htm

http://gburginfo.brinkster.net/unionorderofbattle.htm#first

(in reply to christof139)
Post #: 314
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 2/2/2007 2:17:16 AM   
chris0827

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Artmiser

I'm not talking about the garrison forces for either side.

Longstreets Corps on Sept 17 1862.

Mclaws Division

Kershaws Brigade (Strength 825 Men)
2nd SC  250
3rd SC   250
7th SC   275
8th SC   50

Gettysburt July 1863

Kershaws Brigade (2183)
2nd SC 412 6
3rd SC  406
7th SC  400
8th SC  300
15th SC 448
3rd SC "James"Btn 203


Union I Corps at Antietam

Fourth Brigade(Iron) 1050
19th Indiana 200
2nd Wisconsin 325
6th Wisconsin 325
7th Wisconsin 200

Gettysburg Union I corps Gettysburg

Union First brigade(Iron brigade) 1829
19th Indiana 308
24th Michigan 496
2nd Wisconsin 302
6th Wisconsin 344
7th Wisconsin 364


Of the regiments each side had at both battles the union reinforced 224 and the Confederacy 693

This for the south was the first brigade in Longstreets Corp and for the north it was I corps with the brigade with the most regiments at both battles, which was the Iron brigade.  Sry to bring that one up again.

Also my first source rounded his numbers to the closest 25, Im not sure why but he did.  But since it can alter the numbers  as a plus and minus I will take them.

http://www.dimacleod.co.uk/history/antietam/us-1.htm

http://gburginfo.brinkster.net/unionorderofbattle.htm#first



The confederates at Antietam had huge numbers of stragglers. You can't compare numbers like that. There are too many variables. On average union and confederate regiments received about the same number of replacments during the war and since the union had more than twice as many regiments they replaced more than twice as many men. Only 30% of union recruits from 1863 to 1865 went to forming new units.

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 315
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 2/2/2007 2:28:56 AM   
Artmiser


Posts: 179
Joined: 12/4/2006
Status: offline
If anything as the game stands now brigades are way overstrength, at its muster is probably the only time a regiments were at there full strength, if then.   Camp reinforcements need to be distrubted over larger numbers of brigades and disease needs to be toned down.   You want to balance it so average brigade size was around 1500 to 2000.  Heck some Divisions at Gettysburg were 4000 men strong.   Spread it out so you get about 100 men to different brigades,  And adjust disease so each brigade gets hit with a random number between 25 and 100 each turn.   Camps can only supply x amount of units, have disease hit all of them with mods for hospitals as it is now.   Historicly most regiments reported disease casualties at around 150 men for the north and 250 for the south.  Thats for the units total time in service, including the reinforcments each side recieved.   Over a 3 year period each Union brigade should lose 600 men and the South should lose 1000 men per brigade.   Play with the numbers and add some randomness to it.

Now its up to the player, and I bet you will get allot more of a historical feel to the game with this.



_____________________________

Former Marine
Retired Deputy Sheriff
Wargamer untill I die

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 316
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 2/2/2007 2:32:23 AM   
Artmiser


Posts: 179
Joined: 12/4/2006
Status: offline
You just dont want to admit im right about anything, I can live with that.


_____________________________

Former Marine
Retired Deputy Sheriff
Wargamer untill I die

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 317
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 2/3/2007 6:57:08 AM   
christof139


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



The Confederates at Antietam had huge numbers of stragglers. You can't compare numbers like that. There are too many variables. On average union and confederate regiments received about the same number of replacments during the war and since the union had more than twice as many regiments they replaced more than twice as many men. Only 30% of union recruits from 1863 to 1865 went to forming new units.


Yeah, you're right Chris. During the night of the Battle of Anteietam, the night of 9-17-62, eyewitness accounts estimate that between 5,000 to 10,000 or so stragglers reached Lee's army. Straggling was so bad that the Confeds. had a straggler collection center in the north end of the Shenendoah Valley, not too far from Sharpsburg. I was modding this into a Talon Soft scenario of Antietam, but about 5-months ago my computer puked again, and I only have some of the info. saved. I was still using Win98 5-months ago. I even had straggler units for each division or brigade, including stragglers on the field, not those arriving during the night. I think I had about 7,000 stragglers total to add to Lee's army for the morning of 9-18-62. Plus some more Cav. and Arty. I had the original TS full scenario of Antietam historically corrected concerning weapons, particularily Arty. pieces down to section level if necessary, and those known units with beligian rifles, etc. had them as Class 2 or 3 shoulder arms. Great and modified on the field sprites and troop icons in the control panel., with most Arty. types represented better in the icons.

As you point out again, the North had more regiments, and thus the replacements were spread out more in comparison to the South. Some Southern regiments had over 2,000 troops serving in them throughout the entire war, and few Northern regiments hit that high number, but some were close.

No bifg deal for the game, since the game is an abstraction, and is not concerned with replacemtns to individual brigades but rather concerned with the overall number of replacements being gathered and then sent to the armies. So, a limit should be placed on the number of camps each side can have, with the North having the ability/choice to build more camps than the South.

****Here's a tidbit that could be worked into the game. Both North and South recruited in and encouraged immigration from Europe etc. It's estimated that maybe 200,000 - 250,000 European recruits (may be off a bit here as it has been a long time since I read this), mainly Irish, German, Scottish, British, and Slavic were recuited into the Northern military, and maybe 80,000 into the Southern. So, as one or the other's influence with European powers increase or decrease in the game, perhaps a little tweak, a bonus of a given number of reinforcements per turn could be given. Just take a simple average of the approximate number of foreigners that were recruited and served in each sides' military, then divide it by the number of turns in a full game to give an approximate number for this influx to both sides of European manpower. Plain and simple.

I GOT A COPY OF THE GAME TODAY, WITH THE GREAT MANUAL AND STORAGE CASE DELIVERED BY UPS!!!! THANK YOU ALL AT MATRIX!!! VERY NICE PRODUCT!!!

One problem though, the delivey fellow was wearing brown, butternut, so I plugged him. Oops. Thought I was at Murfreesboro, the weather here is similar to then but a wee bit colder but still above 0F degrees in the single and low double digits. Elvis' Jail House Rock' may be a familiar tune shortly.

Chris in Detroit, Michigan, the Water and Winter Wonderland, but I never understood what is so 'wonderous' or 'wundebar' about the Winter anyway. At least we haven't hit -10 to -20F yet. Been a warm Winter s far. Glad it doesn't drop to -30 - 50F her ike it does in Minnessota, the UP (Upper Peninnsula) and northern part of the LP in Michigan, Canada, Montana and Wyoming, Maine, the Adirondacks at Ft. Drum, Alaska, and Siberia etc.






(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 318
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 2/3/2007 7:01:33 AM   
christof139


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

Ive been reading more of Fox, try it, and for some states he was able to find data on reenlistments. Highest was 1st Indiana Heavy Artillary with 503 men, not sure what its total str so not sure what percentage that was. It also had the lowest the 23rd Indiana with 278 men.


There were 12 Companies, 4 battalions of 3 Companies each in a Heavy Arty. regt., so that's 1,200 troops, give or take, at initial muster and activation.

Chris

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 319
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 2/3/2007 7:42:48 AM   
chris0827

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: christof139

quote:

Ive been reading more of Fox, try it, and for some states he was able to find data on reenlistments. Highest was 1st Indiana Heavy Artillary with 503 men, not sure what its total str so not sure what percentage that was. It also had the lowest the 23rd Indiana with 278 men.


There were 12 Companies, 4 battalions of 3 Companies each in a Heavy Arty. regt., so that's 1,200 troops, give or take, at initial muster and activation.

Chris


Actually the heavy artillery had 150 man companies with 3 battalions of 4 companies each.

(in reply to christof139)
Post #: 320
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 2/3/2007 7:51:53 AM   
chris0827

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
At least 35 union regiments had more than 2,000 men serving in them during the war. 14 of those had more than 2500. The highest I could find was the 1st Maine cavalry with 2,895; The 28th Pennsylvania Infantry with 2665 men, and the 9th New York Heavy Artillery with 3227 men. So much for the myth that the union didn't reinforce.

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 321
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 2/3/2007 5:58:04 PM   
General Quarters

 

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: christof139

****Here's a tidbit that could be worked into the game. Both North and South recruited in and encouraged immigration from Europe etc. It's estimated that maybe 200,000 - 250,000 European recruits (may be off a bit here as it has been a long time since I read this), mainly Irish, German, Scottish, British, and Slavic were recuited into the Northern military, and maybe 80,000 into the Southern. So, as one or the other's influence with European powers increase or decrease in the game, perhaps a little tweak, a bonus of a given number of reinforcements per turn could be given. Just take a simple average of the approximate number of foreigners that were recruited and served in each sides' military, then divide it by the number of turns in a full game to give an approximate number for this influx to both sides of European manpower. Plain and simple.



Interesting idea, Christof.

(in reply to christof139)
Post #: 322
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 2/4/2007 9:09:09 PM   
Artmiser


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

At least 35 union regiments had more than 2,000 men serving in them during the war. 14 of those had more than 2500. The highest I could find was the 1st Maine cavalry with 2,895; The 28th Pennsylvania Infantry with 2665 men, and the 9th New York Heavy Artillery with 3227 men. So much for the myth that the union didn't reinforce.


Dammit IE just crashed and took a very long post with it.

Here is now the short of it.

Since you singled it out the 28th Penn Goldstream Regt was formed in June 1861 by John Geary, it was one of those privately formed regiments. They were issued Enfield rifles with Sword bayonets and were orignal issued a grey uniform, quickly changed to blue. The Regt formed was formed with 3 year enlistments and was composed of 15 companies, numbering 1551 men. Also enough men left over to form Knaps Battery.

The Regiment mustered out in Aug of 1865. This means that a good many of those men left after 3 years and your total of 2665 men inclused those added to the Regt after it reformed.

Now if you want large regiments look at the ones Grant pulled from the washington garrison during the Wilderness campaign in 1864. Also while your there look at the number of regiments that were forming the brigades of grant. There are Brigades with over 10 regiments in them. Small undersized union regiments that were getting toward the ends of there enlistments and were poorly reinfoced heh had to add that.

My info on the 28th Penn Regt obtained from

http://www.pa-roots.com/~pacw/infantry/28th/28thorg.html






_____________________________

Former Marine
Retired Deputy Sheriff
Wargamer untill I die

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 323
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 2/4/2007 9:56:56 PM   
chris0827

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Artmiser


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

At least 35 union regiments had more than 2,000 men serving in them during the war. 14 of those had more than 2500. The highest I could find was the 1st Maine cavalry with 2,895; The 28th Pennsylvania Infantry with 2665 men, and the 9th New York Heavy Artillery with 3227 men. So much for the myth that the union didn't reinforce.


Dammit IE just crashed and took a very long post with it.

Here is now the short of it.

Since you singled it out the 28th Penn Goldstream Regt was formed in June 1861 by John Geary, it was one of those privately formed regiments. They were issued Enfield rifles with Sword bayonets and were orignal issued a grey uniform, quickly changed to blue. The Regt formed was formed with 3 year enlistments and was composed of 15 companies, numbering 1551 men. Also enough men left over to form Knaps Battery.

The Regiment mustered out in Aug of 1865. This means that a good many of those men left after 3 years and your total of 2665 men inclused those added to the Regt after it reformed.

Now if you want large regiments look at the ones Grant pulled from the washington garrison during the Wilderness campaign in 1864. Also while your there look at the number of regiments that were forming the brigades of grant. There are Brigades with over 10 regiments in them. Small undersized union regiments that were getting toward the ends of there enlistments and were poorly reinfoced heh had to add that.

My info on the 28th Penn Regt obtained from

http://www.pa-roots.com/~pacw/infantry/28th/28thorg.html







What's your point? The 28th penn still received over 1100 reinforcements during the war.
The regiment was not reformed. The original 3 year men went on furlough after they reenlisted while the rest of the regiment stayed on duty in Tennessee. I'm looking at the organization of the Army of the Potomac on dec 31st, 1864. I see one brigade with 10 regiments. I also see a confederate brigade with 10 regiments and another with 13 regiments. The Army of Northern Virgina has more regiments than the Army of the Potomac at this time despite having 30,000 fewer troops. Where are their reinforcements?

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 324
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 2/5/2007 7:22:49 AM   
christof139


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

Actually the heavy artillery had 150 man companies with 3 battalions of 4 companies each.


Yup, you're right, I reversed my digits, and they HA Companies did have more men in them.

Chris

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 325
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 2/5/2007 7:27:51 AM   
christof139


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

What's your point? The 28th penn still received over 1100 reinforcements during the war.
The regiment was not reformed. The original 3 year men went on furlough after they reenlisted while the rest of the regiment stayed on duty in Tennessee. I'm looking at the organization of the Army of the Potomac on dec 31st, 1864. I see one brigade with 10 regiments. I also see a confederate brigade with 10 regiments and another with 13 regiments. The Army of Northern Virgina has more regiments than the Army of the Potomac at this time despite having 30,000 fewer troops. Where are their reinforcements?


Plus, the average strength of Union Rets. in the east was higher than that of the Confeds. in 1864, due to all these factors an the fact that the Confeds.' manpower pool was drying-up.

Chris

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 326
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 2/5/2007 7:30:47 AM   
Artmiser


Posts: 179
Joined: 12/4/2006
Status: offline
yes it was in 1864, not to mention the loss of some states.

_____________________________

Former Marine
Retired Deputy Sheriff
Wargamer untill I die

(in reply to christof139)
Post #: 327
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 2/5/2007 7:35:55 AM   
christof139


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

yes it was in 1864, not to mention the loss of some states.


In the West, one Sherman started his 1864 campaign, the average strength of an USA Inf. Regt. was only 305 men in his 3 Armies, and I don't remember what the average strength was in the CSA AoT, but I think it is in Livermore, and I haven't delved heavily into Phisiter yet, and probably will do so gradually, but there are differences in figures and data used. between Phisiter, Livermore and Fox etc., and that just figures.

Chris

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 328
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 2/5/2007 7:37:47 AM   
Artmiser


Posts: 179
Joined: 12/4/2006
Status: offline
Im trying to figure out what you were saying in regards to the 28th. What furlough? reading the very detailed account of the regt I dont see anythign about it, which is typical of regimental histories. I do know that if 28th reenlistments was average for the northern 3 year units that would be around 30%. And 30% of 1552 is 450, plus 1100 brings it back to Strength. The Regt was never more over Str then it originally was, and the 1100 is the number of men it took to bring it back up after most of the orignal discharged.



< Message edited by Artmiser -- 2/5/2007 8:02:44 AM >


_____________________________

Former Marine
Retired Deputy Sheriff
Wargamer untill I die

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 329
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 2/5/2007 8:12:12 AM   
Artmiser


Posts: 179
Joined: 12/4/2006
Status: offline
Contradictory information regarding the civil war is something you have to get used to.  The bias of the researcher factors in, they can scew there research numbers to show what they want to show.  I was in combat, and the histories of the battles I was in are so screwed up its not funny and thats today.   I imagine how things were back then the only thing you could count on is yes the North did win, and yes Lee and Grant were generals.

No not quite that bad but always keep that in mind when reading said researchers data.   And the information they are using is from reports that were made by people with, in many cases, there own agendas.  Sounds familiar doesnt it?    You can read newspapers from back then for some information but keep in mind we know how reporters always tell the truth.

Always keep that in mind.  Think like Sherman, you will not be far from the truth.

_____________________________

Former Marine
Retired Deputy Sheriff
Wargamer untill I die

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 330
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

2.375