veji1
Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ace1
I am not sure Union had 2:1 advantage so early in the war. At the battle of Pea ridge it was the other way around, 1,5:1 in favor of CSA. In 61, CSA had manpower advantage in the West and almost on equal terms in the East. Later, US got to 2,5:1 advantage in men, but closer to 2:1 if we count front line troops with garrisons keeping peace at home and in occupied areas.
There is no big battle in which US had more than 2:1 advantage almost all the way to 1865. At Chancellorsville there the biggest disparity in numbers up to '65, and it was 2:1, and only because Lee had detached Longstreet due to supply problems.
Since CSA historically failed to capitalize on it, people do forget how close the war was in the first year. Only later, it turned into one way alley.
Jim posted a strength chart, and I will find and post later one that takes out men who are AWOL, but it doesn't change the overall ratio.
The South did outnumber the Union at Pea Ridge, but that was the only major battle of the Civil War where that happened.
In the remainder of the Western Theater, the Confederates outnumbered in early 1862. AS Johnston struggled to establish a viable line with Polk's forces, Ft Henry/Donelson, and his own 18,000 or so at Bowling Green.
In the east, the Union had nearly 200,000 troops in Virginia by March of 1862. The Confederacy was able to even-up the odds by tying down large formations in the Valley, Northern VA, Norfolk, and other places to guard against Confederate offensives.
The Union did have to allocate large detachments to guard supply lines and on coast expeditions, so getting 2-1 on the field at all points never did happen, that's true. Southern numbers likely do not include certain state troops, militia, and partisans. 2-1 should not be an in-game objective anyway, because the Union player can play more aggressively than real life one.
But the Confederacy overall, at no point, had anything approaching parity in numbers in the field with the Union. The numbers just don't bear that out.
I tend to agree with Qball here, as well as with what Michael T said : There is a rebalancing need, with the Union having significantly more men, maybe mainly militia.
If you give the Union 50 000 extra militia (ie 100/120 regs in general) say in 2 events in august 61 and february 62, then they can use those troops to garrison their cities (add an arty and some militia can stop a coup de main). The fact that they are only somewhat efficient on their own states also makes that more realistic : If you have quite a bit of pennsylvania militia protecting Pittsburgh, it becomes a tougher nut to crack. Same for Cincinnati, Cairo, etc...
I think that could really be a simple yet quite efficient solution. It is worth trying and probably easily modded. It allows the Union to build more quality troops for the actual "bringing the war to the south" but gives it lots more soldiers to protect its rear, dig entrenchments, garrison, protect railways, etc...
_____________________________
Adieu Ô Dieu odieux... signé Adam
|
Printable Version
RE: Early Nov - turn 15 - 
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