The CSA get two conscription acts spread over three years. the first in March 1862 and the second in Feb 1864. But a middle Act seems to be missing in 1863. Also the events are called First Draft Law and the Third Confederate Conscription Act- hinting that a second act should be included between these two.
In Late March 1862 there is an event: Confederate Government Passes its First Draft Law. +5WS and +100 CP.
NO costs in NM- which is good.
Late Feb 1864
Third Confederate Conscription Act:
+5WS and +100 CP
costs -10NM
There doesn't seem to be an event for the Confederate's Second Conscription Act. at maybe
+5WS and +100Cp
cost should be-5NM or something like that
around March 1863.
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
Take any troops from the CSA gray, and in my view they wont even last out '62.
With the latest changes in the rules this game is extremely challanging as a CSA player, but to further weaken them would make it impossible to play as them in my view.
I only mention this so you bare it in mind when you do your testing in future weeks and months.
Regards
MrT.
With the latest changes in the rules this game is extremely challanging as a CSA player, but to further weaken them would make it impossible to play as them in my view.
I only mention this so you bare it in mind when you do your testing in future weeks and months.
Regards
MrT.
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
You guys should really just try it before pushing all this doomspeak. I have played in PBEMs where we used historical draft dates (read: the ones Gray is using). Everything was fine. Further, it becomes more about making smart choices than having the luxury of being able to absorb some losses.
I'll be testing to see how things go.
I'll be testing to see how things go.
My name is Aaron.
Knight of New Hampshire
Knight of New Hampshire
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
found my own answer. Of course Gray you would reduce the Union assets and ledgers too. It's just that the CSA is very lean now.
I have played three PBEM games where we had restrictions on mobilisation in version 1.12 before your KY add-on trying to find some historical context and also reduce the early CP advantages of the USA.
The CSA had none in 61, partial in 62 and full in 63 and on
The USA had none in 61, none in 62, partial in 63 and full in 64 and on.
Obviously the two conscription acts weren't changed. (I don't know if the USA has these events like the CSA does.
We used raw money, and taxes, and bonds, and PP, CP, WS, food, and ammo as we didn't know how to mod these. And the other ledgers were playable too. I played the Confederates.
My general feelings about these changes is that it isn't enough to just reduce the number of CP alone as all the other assets build up allowing the CSA to build heaps of arty and ships earlier than I normally would. I also used a lot of militias in the first game- they didn't cost any WS. If we have reduced dollars, WS, and food to help balance out the economy. I think these games had a lot fewer cavalry than other games I have played as they are too expensive in CP to buy for more than one per div and were used to defend rails.
I didn't do any industrialisations as there wasn't a need. Rails and river assets were always very high as I could avoid these CP free purchases.
NM remainder higher than vanilla games as both sides didn't take hits for mobilisations and money options to spend all those CP points. This of course ensured the CSA got full CP each turn.
In the first game I chose the volunteers +2
in the first game it ended on may 63 after continuous USA defeats- but I think the USA wasn't as aggressive as he could have been.
For the second game we had a few restrictions to give the USA a bit more of a head start and made CSA volunteers only +1 and I had to buy more regular inf and fewer printing money to reduce arty and other high cost units being over purchased. Unfortunately the second game ended in Apr 62 with the total destruction of a USA landing at Charleston.
The third game was started with 1.13b but we haven't made it past Jan 62 for as my opponent has become ill for the last few weeks and hasn't been able to use computer etc.
Changing the CP available to both sides can be an important way to give you some variations to the game and increase it's replayability. But you need to reduce other parts of the economy to help balance out any changes to reduced CP.
I'm sure I have mentioned all this in another thread a few months ago.
At the moment though I prefer the vanilla as it puts more pressure on both sides.
But I'm always looking for more historical game- the reason for these three games for me.
I have played three PBEM games where we had restrictions on mobilisation in version 1.12 before your KY add-on trying to find some historical context and also reduce the early CP advantages of the USA.
The CSA had none in 61, partial in 62 and full in 63 and on
The USA had none in 61, none in 62, partial in 63 and full in 64 and on.
Obviously the two conscription acts weren't changed. (I don't know if the USA has these events like the CSA does.
We used raw money, and taxes, and bonds, and PP, CP, WS, food, and ammo as we didn't know how to mod these. And the other ledgers were playable too. I played the Confederates.
My general feelings about these changes is that it isn't enough to just reduce the number of CP alone as all the other assets build up allowing the CSA to build heaps of arty and ships earlier than I normally would. I also used a lot of militias in the first game- they didn't cost any WS. If we have reduced dollars, WS, and food to help balance out the economy. I think these games had a lot fewer cavalry than other games I have played as they are too expensive in CP to buy for more than one per div and were used to defend rails.
I didn't do any industrialisations as there wasn't a need. Rails and river assets were always very high as I could avoid these CP free purchases.
NM remainder higher than vanilla games as both sides didn't take hits for mobilisations and money options to spend all those CP points. This of course ensured the CSA got full CP each turn.
In the first game I chose the volunteers +2
in the first game it ended on may 63 after continuous USA defeats- but I think the USA wasn't as aggressive as he could have been.
For the second game we had a few restrictions to give the USA a bit more of a head start and made CSA volunteers only +1 and I had to buy more regular inf and fewer printing money to reduce arty and other high cost units being over purchased. Unfortunately the second game ended in Apr 62 with the total destruction of a USA landing at Charleston.
The third game was started with 1.13b but we haven't made it past Jan 62 for as my opponent has become ill for the last few weeks and hasn't been able to use computer etc.
Changing the CP available to both sides can be an important way to give you some variations to the game and increase it's replayability. But you need to reduce other parts of the economy to help balance out any changes to reduced CP.
I'm sure I have mentioned all this in another thread a few months ago.
At the moment though I prefer the vanilla as it puts more pressure on both sides.
But I'm always looking for more historical game- the reason for these three games for me.
Return to “Help to improve AACW!”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests