Erik Rutins
Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Twotribes
And as I have pointed out, at that point you had gutted your population. Yet by 64 the Union had 4 times that number in uniform. Where are you going to get population for those increases?
Well, I actually had recruited about 450k and had about 350k left. My production of camps and manufacturing centers put me in a good position to replace losses due to disease and attrition and maintain strength through the further rounds of recruitment. My production facitilies put me in a position to start cranking out a brigade per turn from my largest cities which had untapped manpower. As I posted earlier, I don't think I would have hit a million men, but 750k was well within reach. When you factor that as "available effectives", it's pretty darn close to the historical numbers and then you have to add in the garrison troops in FoF. The numbers are darn close.
quote:
Also as has been pointed out you totally ruined any standing you had with at least several of your Governors in order to muster that many troops. Pennsylvania and New York are devestated by muster and conscription, the Governor quickly becomes your worst nightmare if you muster heavily in those states ( one has 5 cities the other 3). I do it as I can, though I wont waste a muster attempt on anything under 70 percent usually.
None of my states felt "devastated". I turned population modifiers off, which meant that the manpower pool now represented the maximum "recruitable" population and would not eat into my economy as I depleted it. I had a few governors upset with me, but not to the degree you suggest. I was mustering 50% and above, but I was also trying to meet every governor request as far as new buildings or garrisons, which helped keep their attitudes up higher than the muster penalties alone would suggest.
quote:
Even assuming your 8k reinforcements every 2 weeks, thats only 192 thousand troops a year, so your still short over 1 million troops that simply can not be mustered, raised or conscripted, not to mention a navy ( ships take one population as well) tie in the new plan to tie population to replacements and it gets worse.
I was well over 8k from my camps by the time I won and I was mainly building Frigates to fill out my navies, as they blockade as well as ships.
quote:
Using the default economy even with power plus 3 the Union can not realisticly build whats necassary to approach anything historical. They may, by ignoring other things, get one part right, but that leaves a whole slew of things that cant be duplicated to anything approaching an historical level.
I was able to build up my army, build up artillery and cavalry, build up navy. I did turn of European Diplomacy to free up funds for this, my settings are all in the historical test thread.
quote:
Take the method you use to promote generals. In order to have 4 4star generals ( which only gives 9 3 star and 18 2 star) you need 15 academies, that means the Union has to build 12 academies, thats 1200 money and 12 building slots that cant be used for anything else. And I would argue they need at least 20 academies ( allowing 6 4 star, 12 3star and 23 2 star Generals). I realize you are addressing this in a manner in the patch.
Yep, already addressed in the patch.
quote:
One needs to build at least 20 hospitals as well, and one needs more horse farms, mines and all this means more mansions as well. Not to mention the abysmal state of research, one must buy at least 8 to 10 research buildings as well. Also one needs probably 30 to 50 armories to have any chance to actually outfit his troops with anything other than blunderbusses, not to mention his navy, a few important forts, any siege artillery he buys ect ect. Tie this to the very low allowance for numbers of rifles allowed before beginning to pay out the nose for more.
I did fine in all those categories, but that did include some "next patch" cost reductions to containers and fleets which also helped and may have made the difference between your test and mine.
quote:
Fortunately ALL of this is modifiable.
Very true, though I think in the next patch at the defaults, less will need to be for those that want to really crank things up.
Regards,
- Erik
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
RE: Strength of both armies - 
I think the different choices work from a game design/game balance standpoint and are close to historical. Although conscription is guaranteed to work, fast and cheap, I don't use it much because of the realistic risk of unrest. If it also took out of my economy as much as building a unit normally did, I'd never use it at all. Muster also has a plus in being less costly and a minus in not being guaranteed and in slightly reducing the governor's attitude - I'd say muster is still the best way to raise troops thogh. 
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