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  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/27/2007 7:16:00 AM   
Artmiser


Posts: 179
Joined: 12/4/2006
Status: offline 		To fix that a few of the states that historicly produced the largest amount of troops for the North can start with multiple manufacturing centers and a larger population base to draw on.   You could also add a drain on weapon stockpiles for each camp, so camps use so many weapons each turn.  Not a bad balancer in itself, to many camps and all you could afford for your new units would be with IW.   To me its part of the flavor of the civil war and one of the things that stand out between the northern and southern armies.  We dont want to make things to the same or you end up with a game with the only difference being the color of the uniform.

You could also balance this by adding free units from the main three main northern states.  NY, OH and PA.  IL and IN are up there also but the first three contributed the greatest number of troops.  How ofter you get them and from how many would be up to the people trying to balance the game.  :)



< Message edited by Artmiser -- 1/27/2007 7:29:43 AM >

_____________________________

Former Marine
Retired Deputy Sheriff
Wargamer untill I die

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 241
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/27/2007 8:25:17 AM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline 		Totally disagree. Why is it that when one supports the South, anything goes, total free reign to do new things and at the same time demand hard and fast limits on the North?

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 242
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/27/2007 4:49:16 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Totally disagree. Why is it that when one supports the South, anything goes, total free reign to do new things and at the same time demand hard and fast limits on the North?


psst...

it's a conspiracy to destroy the United States, 2T!

_____________________________


(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 243
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/27/2007 4:53:43 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Artmiser

To fix that a few of the states that historicly produced the largest amount of troops for the North can start with multiple manufacturing centers and a larger population base to draw on.


Mmm, but whenever you raise a brigade the population loss causes your economic return on that province to go down some. It's not even a problem of the total number of men available, more a point that raising troops damages your economy.

quote:

You could also add a drain on weapon stockpiles for each camp, so camps use so many weapons each turn. Not a bad balancer in itself, to many camps and all you could afford for your new units would be with IW. To me its part of the flavor of the civil war and one of the things that stand out between the northern and southern armies. We dont want to make things to the same or you end up with a game with the only difference being the color of the uniform.


I agree with that. You'd have to be fairly careful with the camps maintenance costs though, sounds like it would be tricky to balance, to me...

Raising fresh brigades does have a point in its own right mind, as they have double the quality of camp reinforcements. I'm just a bit sceptical as to the balance of this though, after all raising a new brigade costs 50 cash, 50 labour, 2 men, and the management involved bringing it into action. Thats a lot. Whereas camps are the easy option, and all that cash, labour and men can be spent by the CSA on something else. (like even more brigades, more mansions, whatever.). You'd need to make the camp maintenance balance that out.

...and of course there wouldn't be much stopping the North from getting camps if the Union player so decided. The Union has masses of armories if nothing else.

_____________________________


(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 244
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/27/2007 8:01:30 PM   
Artmiser


Posts: 179
Joined: 12/4/2006
Status: offline 		The reason you have to be carefull with the north is because with competent leadership the north would have won the civil war in 43.  When you hand a wargamer the reigns of the norths manufacutring and population he will use those to hammer the south flat.  Then you dont have much of a game, They put those hard and fast limits on the north to represent the reasons the north didnt do historicly what a wargamer can do today.

Example after the harvest season of 1862 the state of illinoise contributed 125 Infantry Regiments, 16 Cavalry, and 35 Artillery batteries.

Give me that kind of production potential in this game and I would own any southern player in the world, including God if he was interested in playing.

< Message edited by Artmiser -- 1/27/2007 8:21:10 PM >

_____________________________

Former Marine
Retired Deputy Sheriff
Wargamer untill I die

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 245
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/27/2007 8:02:31 PM   
Artmiser


Posts: 179
Joined: 12/4/2006
Status: offline 		Also if it has not been mentioned you need to make ironclads a heck of allot tougher then they are in game.   10 Ironclads or monitors should smash 50 or even a 100 wooden hulled ships. The problems were that the guns mounted by each side at the time couldnt punch the armor. Maybe a luck hit would dismount a gun or knock out the stack, but other then that all wooden hulled ships could do was run.

< Message edited by Artmiser -- 1/27/2007 8:15:02 PM >

_____________________________

Former Marine
Retired Deputy Sheriff
Wargamer untill I die

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 246
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/27/2007 10:00:00 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline 		Well technically most Union Iron clads were ( especially the early ones) not suited for open sea travel. So technically they shouldnt be allowed to fight in the sea zones if one wants to get particular about it.

I suggest the South is wasting money and resources building a Navy anyway.

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 247
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/28/2007 2:51:43 AM   
General Quarters

 

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline 		Yes, it has bothered me that ironclads in the game can roam all over. Ironclads not being very seaworthy could be modelled by having them at risk or suffering attrition any time they are at sea, or particularly in bad weather. Or they could be restricted to the sea hex next to the port they were built in. Or at sea only turn at a time after which they would need to return to port. Or very restricted sea movement, e.g., one area per turn.

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 248
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/28/2007 6:02:00 AM   
Artmiser


Posts: 179
Joined: 12/4/2006
Status: offline 		I like the one area per turn rule, would show that they are having to move carefully at sea.   I also want them tougher, im not sure the size of the gun needed to do any damage to them or that any of them were mounted on ships.   Pretty mutch it would take a critical hit to the smoke stacks or a gun dismount.  

_____________________________

Former Marine
Retired Deputy Sheriff
Wargamer untill I die

(in reply to General Quarters)
Post #: 249
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/28/2007 6:21:58 AM   
General Quarters

 

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline 		To follow up on Artmiser's suggestion, is it true that none of the guns in the game could hurt an ironside, short of a lucky shot?

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 250
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/28/2007 6:34:52 AM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline 		That depends on the Ironclad as they did vary quite a bit, but I think in most cases you'd need a lucky shot.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to General Quarters)
Post #: 251
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/28/2007 6:53:19 AM   
chris0827

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline 		11 ironclads were sunk in action. two by gunfire, 9 by mines.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 252
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/28/2007 11:19:19 AM   
Twinkle


Posts: 67
Joined: 12/16/2006
From: sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Artmiser
Id rather have a cap on camps then reduce the horses. And whatever the cap is decided the North needs to be half that of the south. Historicly the South reinforced units, and the North just let the regiments get smaller and smaller.

YES, but what relevance has that to do with brigades??? We use brigades in the game. Why not study the typical number of regiments per brigade as a function of months of war... :)

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 253
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/28/2007 9:08:13 PM   
Artmiser


Posts: 179
Joined: 12/4/2006
Status: offline 		What happened, and if you study Oders of battles you can see it.

Union I corps I Divison I brigade at battle of antietam

First Brigade   Col. Walter Phelps, Jr.
22nd New York (National Guard)
24th New York
30th New York
84th New York (14th NYSM)
2nd US Sharpshooters

Same unit at Gettysburg had these regiments

19th Indiana
24th Michigan
2d Wisconsin
6th Wisconsin
7th Wisconsin
 
It wasnt the same brigade anymore.
 
Longstreets Mclaw Division at Antietam
 
Kershaws Brigade
 
Kershaw's Brigade   Brig. Gen. Joseph B. Kershaw
2nd South Carolina Volunteers (Palmetto) 
3rd South Carolina
7th South Carolina
8th South Carolina

At gettysburg
2nd South Carolina:
3rd South Carolina:
7th South Carolina,
8th South Carolina,
15th South Carolina:
3d South Carolina Battalion, 

Longstreets Corps has almost all the same regiments, with a few new ones.

The Union I corps has few of the same regiments and mostly new ones.

The confederacy had a core of veterans that served it well, and with the unions habit of getting rid of regiments didnt.   However it did help the later on when a soild core of veterans reenlisted, giving some of that same effect to the Union army later in the war.



_____________________________

Former Marine
Retired Deputy Sheriff
Wargamer untill I die

(in reply to Twinkle)
Post #: 254
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/28/2007 9:51:07 PM   
chris0827

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline 		Your Union example shows two different brigades. Every union corps had a 1st brigade. Brigades would be renamed if they switched corps.

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 255
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/29/2007 3:03:57 AM   
Mike13z50


Posts: 344
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: New Orleans
Status: offline 		I've played a couple of games vs AI as each side, the most important change required is more Major Generals per academy.

Since you get only one MG per academy, that means you need at least 9 academies just to have a division commander for each of 9 divisions. Lee alone had 9 divisions at Gettysburg, each with a commander, not to mention the rest of the confederacy.

I know you say the two star rank does not equal the historical equivilent, but it is frustrating not having enough division commanders.

Change it to three MG per academy.

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 256
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/29/2007 6:41:38 AM   
Artmiser


Posts: 179
Joined: 12/4/2006
Status: offline 		I stand corrected, However It does seem that the North had a tendency to move regiments around from command to command. This would contribute to its lack of unit cohesion at brigade/division level.   After your comment I took a closer look at some of the northern regimental histories.  The level I wargamed you never looked much beyond brigades, since that is the normal unit you would move on the table top.   But having served in the military I would say the constant change in command  in the North would have been demoralizing, you would never develop a trust for your brigade or division commanders because they were changing every three months to six months.  You would know little about the units gaurding your flanks and I could very easily see how this could contribute to allot of the Norths early defeats.

< Message edited by Artmiser -- 1/29/2007 6:54:25 AM >

_____________________________

Former Marine
Retired Deputy Sheriff
Wargamer untill I die

(in reply to Mike13z50)
Post #: 257
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/29/2007 7:35:15 AM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline 		Which has absolutely nothing to do with replacements , camps or creating new Brigades.

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 258
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/29/2007 8:00:47 AM   
Artmiser


Posts: 179
Joined: 12/4/2006
Status: offline 		First I was responding to Chris.

However it doesnt change the fact that the Union had a policy of not reinforcing regiments, this is historical fact.  And the South did, also fact.  So get over it.  IT also doesnt change my comments that reinforced regiments had a core of veterans to rely on.  This whole back and forth resulted in camp comments and my belief that if you want the game to be somewhat historical you should not allow the north to have as many camps as the south.   If you want everything to be the same and no side to get any advantages over the other you shouldnt be playing an ACW game.

_____________________________

Former Marine
Retired Deputy Sheriff
Wargamer untill I die

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 259
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/29/2007 9:05:47 AM   
chris0827

 

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

ORIGINAL: Artmiser

First I was responding to Chris.

However it doesnt change the fact that the Union had a policy of not reinforcing regiments, this is historical fact.  And the South did, also fact.  So get over it.  IT also doesnt change my comments that reinforced regiments had a core of veterans to rely on.  This whole back and forth resulted in camp comments and my belief that if you want the game to be somewhat historical you should not allow the north to have as many camps as the south.   If you want everything to be the same and no side to get any advantages over the other you shouldnt be playing an ACW game.



You're wrong. The union did reinforce regiments. Why do you think they didn't?

A regiment at full strength was 1025 men. Some mustered in a few more or a few less. Here are the numbers of men who served in some union regiments.

44th New York 1585 men (560 reinforcements)
97th Pennsylvania 2004 men (979 reinforcements)
82nd Ohio 1721 men (696 reinforcements)
89th Illinois 1318 men (293 reinforcements)

Not all regiments were reinforced especially the short term ones but a majority of the long term regiments were. Some received well over a thousand new men during the war. It was largely up to the states whether to reinforce existing regiments or raise new ones. Raising new regiments allowed greater numbers of prominent citizens to serve as officers rather than enlisted men. A man is much more likely to join up if he has a chance at being an officer.

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 260
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/29/2007 9:09:42 AM   
chris0827

 

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

ORIGINAL: Artmiser

The reason you have to be carefull with the north is because with competent leadership the north would have won the civil war in 43.  When you hand a wargamer the reigns of the norths manufacutring and population he will use those to hammer the south flat.  Then you dont have much of a game, They put those hard and fast limits on the north to represent the reasons the north didnt do historicly what a wargamer can do today.

Example after the harvest season of 1862 the state of illinoise contributed 125 Infantry Regiments, 16 Cavalry, and 35 Artillery batteries.

Give me that kind of production potential in this game and I would own any southern player in the world, including God if he was interested in playing.


Those Illinois numbers are what they raised for the whole war, not 1862.

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 261
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/29/2007 9:38:16 AM   
christof139


Posts: 980
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline 		Phelps' Brigade was I do believe the Eastern Iron Brigade, and Phelp's Brigade was never composed of the 5 Regiments that composed the better known Western Iron Brigade, or Gibbon's, Meredith's etc. Brigade.

At Antietam, the Western Iron Brigade, then composed of only 4 Regiments without the latter arriving 24th Michigan, was, without looking in the few Antietam books lying at my feet, the 4th Brigade of the 1st Division (Doubleday) of Hooker's I Corps. At Gettysburg, the Western Iron Brigade now including the 24th Michigan, was the 1st Brigade, 1st Division, I Corps, of the Army of the Potomac, and was given that position as a mark of honor and respect.

Brigades were frequently moved around in nymerical sequence within a Division and also when transfered to anothe Division, and the brigade Staff went wwith the Brigade wherever it was assigned within the Army. There were not permanet Brigade Staffs attached to a brigade slot within a Division of an Army. When the Brigade ws reassigned the Brigade Staff was reassigned with their Brigade. The Brigade Staff was composed of officers and enlisted personnel from the Regiments and other subunits within that Brigade, although rarely Brigade Staff members could be reassigned, either and usually temporarily and more rarely, to other duties and units by a higher HQ.

The Brigade was a flexible organizational asset, and when a Brigade was moved within a Division or reassigned to another Division, it did not carry its numerical designation with it. Hence, the Western Iron Brigade at Antietam, the 4th Bde., 1st Div., I Corps, became the 1st Bde., 1st Div., I Coprs by the time of Gettysburg.

I believe Phelps' Brigade was the 2nd Brigade, 1st Div. I Corpr at Gettysburg and was comanded by Cutler maybe, off-the-top-of-my-head, could be different though, would have to check.

Chris

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 262
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/29/2007 9:41:38 AM   
christof139


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

Your Union example shows two different brigades. Every union corps had a 1st brigade. Brigades would be renamed if they switched corps.


Every Union Division had a 1st Brigade, and every Union Corps had a First Division. Thus, a Union Corps had more than one 1st Brigade.

Chris

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 263
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/29/2007 9:48:01 AM   
christof139


Posts: 980
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline 		The Union did not have an official policy of not reinforcing existing regiments and other units with replacements, because they were reinforced, and sometimes in substantial numbers. It is not known why many Regiments were left to 'die on the vine' due to lack of continuing substantial replacements. Something that will never be known, but perhaps it may have to do with what State the Regiment came from, because some States like Michigan and Rhode island etc. did send many replacemnts to exisiting units, but not always, while other States didn't. jat a stupid and inefficient oddity.

Chris

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 264
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/29/2007 2:35:02 PM   
Paper Tiger

 

Posts: 210
Joined: 11/15/2006
Status: offline 		Given the discussion, perhaps there is a case for maintaining a home state detail for every unit and only allowing camps to contribute men to units from their home state. At this point you could also count every 500 men as 0.5 population points. 2000 is a starting brigade at 2 population, in addition I would agree that replacements should also cost guns.
I would also suggest that when a unit is removed for being below strength that whatever strength remained should be treated as "free" replacements at the end of the turn, or they should be immediately merged into the next lowest size unit in the army and the morale levels averaged. As things stand without manpower costs I tend to regard camps as soaking up all the straglers and wounded who are coming back into action. If this is no longer the case then some effect would need to be added so that a percentage of pursuit losses and a percent of combat losses return to the camps automatically over time. Say a third of whatever the temporary losses are return to the general replacement pool every turn to represent men recovering from illness or straggling in behind the army.
To detail army A fights a battle and loses, 6000 men are lost in the fight a third of these are "light wounds" that will later return to active service (the other 2/3rds are KIA or invalided out for good.) 2000 added to the temporary losses pool. After the battle a further 9000 are dispersed or left straggling in the retreat. One third of these are regarded as captured or killed and 2/3rd will again join the pool. The pool is now 8000 strong. The following turn the army is then hit by disease and loses a further 6000 men of these only 1/3rd die (33% mortality rate is pretty high for any disease but it only includes those so affected as to be unfit for service.) 4000 more are added to the pool which is now 10,000 men. Provided no other factors come into play the player will recieve 3333 "free" replacements next turn. the other 6667 will remain in the pool. Note these replacements will come in at the lowered replacement morale level and this could be regarded as modelling the fact that they may be still suffering from the after effects of illness, exhaustion etc.
How does that sound people?

(in reply to christof139)
Post #: 265
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/29/2007 2:39:45 PM   
Paper Tiger

 

Posts: 210
Joined: 11/15/2006
Status: offline 		Also I think the level of losses to men from within the union ranks should affect governor attitude. The affect of all those voters who have lost sons and husbands or seen them returned maimed and broken.
Not the same for the south they were defending home, and that is modeled by the affect of pillaging.
BTW don't think the South should be able to pillage, they have raiders and partisans to do the same affect and had they attempted to it would I think have been more likely to have a Pearl harbour affect and harden Union resolve.

(in reply to Paper Tiger)
Post #: 266
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/29/2007 5:00:12 PM   
chris0827

 

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

ORIGINAL: christof139

quote:

Your Union example shows two different brigades. Every union corps had a 1st brigade. Brigades would be renamed if they switched corps.


Every Union Division had a 1st Brigade, and every Union Corps had a First Division. Thus, a Union Corps had more than one 1st Brigade.

Chris


Correct. I mistakenly wrote corps instead of division.

(in reply to christof139)
Post #: 267
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/29/2007 11:34:39 PM   
Artmiser


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

ORIGINAL: chris0827


quote:

ORIGINAL: Artmiser

The reason you have to be carefull with the north is because with competent leadership the north would have won the civil war in 43.  When you hand a wargamer the reigns of the norths manufacutring and population he will use those to hammer the south flat.  Then you dont have much of a game, They put those hard and fast limits on the north to represent the reasons the north didnt do historicly what a wargamer can do today.

Example after the harvest season of 1862 the state of illinoise contributed 125 Infantry Regiments, 16 Cavalry, and 35 Artillery batteries.

Give me that kind of production potential in this game and I would own any southern player in the world, including God if he was interested in playing.


Those Illinois numbers are what they raised for the whole war, not 1862.



Actually I was wrong, regiments 7-12 were 3 monthers, and the 131st regiments was the last one formed in Nov 1862. So that would be 119 regiments and the 15th Regiment Cavalry was formed in Dec 1862, and ill stand by the artillary numbers. Now some of those Infantry regiments were formed in 1861, about 25 of em. Total numbers for the entire war was 256,000 or there about.

That did burn up most of the young men willing to fight, only another 25 infantry regiments were formed during the rest of the war.

And I guess I was a little hard corp on the camp issue but the majority of the north didnt reinforce its regiments, prefering to form new ones. And look at the way the south was set up, the same regiments were there, under the same leadership.

I can just remember in allot of my readings how it was difficult at time to determine the union strength based on unit flags because there size varied so widely due to the unions dislike of reinforceing excisting regiments.

< Message edited by Artmiser -- 1/29/2007 11:52:46 PM >

_____________________________

Former Marine
Retired Deputy Sheriff
Wargamer untill I die

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 268
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/30/2007 12:00:01 AM   
chris0827

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline 		Illinois formed 32 artillery batteries
17 in 1861, 13 in 1862, 2 in 1863

Illinois formed 17 cavalry regiments
11 in 1861, 2 in 1862, 3 in 1863, 1 in 1864

Illinois formed 131 infantry regiments that served longer than 100 days,
60 in 1861, 59 in 1862, 2 in 1864, 10 in 1865

Where did all of those men called up in 1863-1865 go? Not to a lot of new regiments.

From Regimental Losses in the American Civil War by William F. Fox.

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 269
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 1/30/2007 12:43:11 AM   
Artmiser


Posts: 179
Joined: 12/4/2006
Status: offline 		Im not going back and forth on this anymore its taking up way to much of my time. However feel free to check the Tareton University web sight where I snagged this.

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.

Thats from people who have allot more time to stare are rosters then I do, feel free to argue with them.

By August of 1861, Illinois had enrolled men in the 7th through 55th Infantry Regiments. Some men had difficulting getting into Illinois Regiments and joined Regiments from other states. By the end of August 1862, Regiment Numbers through 116 had been or were forming. Just one month later, the number was up to the 129th.

By late November 1862, after the harvest season, Illinois had 125 Infantry Regiments, 16 Cavalry, and 30 Artillery batteries. The total was 20,000 men in excess of the Union's requested quota for the State of Illinois

http://www.illinoiscivilwar.org/units_num.html

Part of the reason my numbers were off in the last post when I double checked the regiments formed out of order so it through me off.

Also from what I could find, and its not easy, one regiment of 1000 men recived 157 replacements during its 3 year enlistment.

And lets not forget how the Iron brigade got smaller and smaller and smaller as time went on.

Confederate regiments strenghts fluctuated allot, from what I coud find, but from the regiments that I could find they went through about 1500 or more replacments to there 1k men

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

< Message edited by Artmiser -- 1/30/2007 1:21:55 AM >

_____________________________

Former Marine
Retired Deputy Sheriff
Wargamer untill I die

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 270
Page:   <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   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  7 8 [9] 10 11   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

1.531