Page 2 of 6

Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 10:52 pm
by FightingBuckeye
RickInVA wrote:In a current game I am playing as CSA I have over 2000 WS and I would be overjoyed to turn some of it into cash, but that isn't happening.


I'm not sure about the South getting this, but the North will have it happen. I want to say for the Union, the cutoff value is 200-300 WS. And this is calculated after you make any/all purchases and run the turn.

If it does happen, it'll be a notice in the scripted events messages. Something like 'Because a huge stock of untouched steel, private contracts have been cancelled.'

Posted: Sat May 16, 2015 2:54 am
by Paule3000
Very nice thread, indeed. I really think it should be stickied.

Posted: Sat May 16, 2015 6:10 pm
by willgamer
In my Union games, seems like over time, each of the industries grow their output of general supply and ammo.

Posted: Mon May 18, 2015 1:20 pm
by FightingBuckeye
The CSA fields cheaper but less effective cannon than the USA. Compared to Union batteries, the corresponding CSA battery* costs ~70-71% $, ~55-67% WS, & ~67% conscripts. This comes at a cost of only having ~67% of the hits, ~67% defensive firepower, & ~63-64% offensive firepower. *Used 12lbers & 10lbers with no stars for the numbers.

willgamer wrote:In my Union games, seems like over time, each of the industries grow their output of general supply and ammo.


Output will rise and fall with NM & Loyalty. So you're probably seeing the benefits of better loyalty in some border regions and an increase in production as your NM approaches or exceeds 100 NM.

Posted: Mon May 18, 2015 3:03 pm
by Captain_Orso
FightingBuckeye wrote:The CSA fields cheaper but less effective cannon than the USA. Compared to Union batteries, the corresponding CSA battery* costs ~70-71% $, ~55-67% WS, & ~67% conscripts. This comes at a cost of only having ~67% of the hits, ~67% defensive firepower, & ~63-64% offensive firepower. *Used 12lbers & 10lbers with no stars for the numbers.
8<


Actually, the Union has more guns in each battery vs the CS. In general 12 US vs 8 CS, with few exceptions.

Posted: Mon May 18, 2015 3:38 pm
by FightingBuckeye
Right, that's were the greater hits come into play. A CSA battery is more vulnerable to being destroyed outright than a Union one. And those extra guns come into play in other ways besides just absorbing more hits, they also boast greater effectiveness.

Just to post some of the research I've done with this in the past couple of days (just started my first CSA pbem not too long ago).

The left is a 12lber from the Union and the right is a 12lber from the CSA. Better firepower, hits, and slight increases in initiative and discipline for the North. Decreased costs for the South.
[ATTACH]33590[/ATTACH]

I ran 20 simulations pitting a single volunteer brigade and 12lber from both sides against each other. It was in a clear region with clear weather. No leaders were present as possible inactive/active variables would've invalidated the runs. Each side defended 10 times; O/O for attacker & B/O for defender. The same number of days were needed to reach the region for both sides and entrenchment was level 1, give or take ~15% depending on delays before movement or battle.

[ATTACH]33589[/ATTACH]
When defending; the Union enjoyed an almost 2 to 1 edge in casualty ratio and only lost 1 battle but still retained control of the region at the end of that simulation. Whereas the CSA force only had a ~4:3 edge in casualty ratio and actually lost the region 3 times in addition to losing an additional battle where they lost but retained control of the region. The biggest win for the Union defending was at 100% entrenchment and the one they lost they had 120%. It's not a large sample size and it was a low key affair for both sides, but I think some broad conclusions can be made from the simulations. The South needs to have strong defensive ground selected and trench works prepared as they will almost always be outnumbered in total batteries. And assuming equal experience and leaders; battery for battery, the North will hold an edge in effectiveness.

Posted: Mon May 18, 2015 4:27 pm
by Straight Arrow
Thank you,

Cardinal Ape , RickinVA, FightingBuckeye, Gray Fox, Captain_Orso, Paule3000 and willgamer.

Comments noted and applied.

Posted: Mon May 18, 2015 6:23 pm
by Captain_Orso
Beyond the number of guns in a battery, Union batteries are simply 'better' in general. If you pitted 2 Union batteries --24 guns-- against 3 CS batteries --also 24 guns-- with both using the same type of gun, the Union would always have a quality advantage. This represents the fact the the Union had an abundance of ammo and supplies, which allowed them to not only maintain their batteries better, but also to practice far more that the Southern batteries ever could. In fact some batteries practically never live-fired for practice, because of their acute lack of ammo for training.

Posted: Tue May 19, 2015 9:00 am
by Pocus
This small sample is interesting indeed. Note though that as it is being small, a lucky hit is a significant impact on the whole battle.

Posted: Tue May 19, 2015 8:54 pm
by FightingBuckeye
Pocus wrote:This small sample is interesting indeed. Note though that as it is being small, a lucky hit is a significant impact on the whole battle.


Interesting how? How much more effective the Union cannon is? If it's a matter of getting a better sample, I could double or even triple the number of runs I do. I still have a saved file that I could run through if that helps. Let me know and I'd be glad to help.

Or I could try with larger troop numbers. It might be an issue trying to find completely identical troops on both sides though if you really want a much larger battle. Plus more troops = more variables that could throw off what's meant as a comparison between both sides' cannon. A larger number of runs with a simple battle should help ameliorate any luck factor.

Posted: Tue May 19, 2015 10:51 pm
by BattleVonWar
Was watching a Netflix history of CSA Artillery. They said they were poorly made. Reflecting the Souths lack of capability in manufacturing and Industry. Don't quote me but their cannon production in itself would have been similar to a firearm barrel that could be of cheap and weak.

Supposedly reflected here. Now the best CSA Artillery should be captured! Any CSA Artillery vs it's Union counterpart in strength is dwarfed a representation of this ... I have noted it's effect when used in mass.. CSA gets really really weak in 1862

FightingBuckeye wrote:Interesting how? How much more effective the Union cannon is? If it's a matter of getting a better sample, I could double or even triple the number of runs I do. I still have a saved file that I could run through if that helps. Let me know and I'd be glad to help.

Or I could try with larger troop numbers. It might be an issue trying to find completely identical troops on both sides though if you really want a much larger battle. Plus more troops = more variables that could throw off what's meant as a comparison between both sides' cannon. A larger number of runs with a simple battle should help ameliorate any luck factor.

Posted: Wed May 20, 2015 12:42 am
by Cardinal Ape
Captain_Orso wrote:Beyond the number of guns in a battery, Union batteries are simply 'better' in general. If you pitted 2 Union batteries --24 guns-- against 3 CS batteries --also 24 guns-- with both using the same type of gun, the Union would always have a quality advantage. This represents the fact the the Union had an abundance of ammo and supplies, which allowed them to not only maintain their batteries better, but also to practice far more that the Southern batteries ever could. In fact some batteries practically never live-fired for practice, because of their acute lack of ammo for training.


For the same reasons that Orso states as the difference between the CSA and Union artillery is why I find the stats of captured artillery to be a bit weird. If it really is more about the crew and ammo than the gun itself then one would think a captured artillery piece would not retain the exact same stats when manned by a different crew with different ammo.

Posted: Wed May 20, 2015 10:14 am
by Captain_Orso
FightingBuckeye wrote:Interesting how? How much more effective the Union cannon is? If it's a matter of getting a better sample, I could double or even triple the number of runs I do. I still have a saved file that I could run through if that helps. Let me know and I'd be glad to help.

Or I could try with larger troop numbers. It might be an issue trying to find completely identical troops on both sides though if you really want a much larger battle. Plus more troops = more variables that could throw off what's meant as a comparison between both sides' cannon. A larger number of runs with a simple battle should help ameliorate any luck factor.


I think Pocus' point of view is more how his code is working. Basically each side is plugging their element values into the code and the code is running them through to obtain the results you posted. I don't think there is any question of the results, just that seeing the results consolidated and posted illustrates the variance of results the code can generate.

If you are really interested in testing this further there is one suggestion I might make. Set the side you are moving into battle into PP the turn they move so that they don't attack on that turn. Then the next turn set them to OP and let the battle occur. This will reduce the affects of cohesion loss through marching. Also the region where the battle takes place should be as close to 50/50 loyalty and MC as possible, although MC will start to change as soon as the first force arrives without being in PP.

BattleVonWar wrote:Was watching a Netflix history of CSA Artillery. They said they were poorly made. Reflecting the Souths lack of capability in manufacturing and Industry. Don't quote me but their cannon production in itself would have been similar to a firearm barrel that could be of cheap and weak.

Supposedly reflected here. Now the best CSA Artillery should be captured! Any CSA Artillery vs it's Union counterpart in strength is dwarfed a representation of this ... I have noted it's effect when used in mass.. CSA gets really really weak in 1862


Much of the artillery the South had was of pre-war production, not only guns taken from federal arsenals, but also captured weapons.

I cannot remember ever hearing a discussion that the parameters of CS units reflected Southern weapons and equipment being substandard. In fact often the opposite was the case. As I stated much of the artillery was of US production in the first place. I've never read anything about how much was imported during the war, but I know that a large percentage of the firearms used by the South were imported from Great Britain. For example, after the surrender of Vicksburg the Pemberton's army stacked their weapons before marching off. These were of such higher quality than the muskets Grant's army had been issued that he allowed his army to trade their muskets for them, although this was not authorized by the war department.

Cardinal Ape wrote:For the same reasons that Orso states as the difference between the CSA and Union artillery is why I find the stats of captured artillery to be a bit weird. If it really is more about the crew and ammo than the gun itself then one would think a captured artillery piece would not retain the exact same stats when manned by a different crew with different ammo.


When a battery is captured, basically the control over that element is simply given to the capturing faction. The element itself does not change.

To be completely realistic the engine would have to replace a captured battery with one of an equivalent type but having the same number of guns. This would mean that a captured CS battery in Union hands would be a Union battery missing a number of guns. However a captured Union battery would actually be 1 1/2 CS batteries, but with slightly lower parameters.

Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 4:16 am
by Keeler
Captain_Orso wrote:I cannot remember ever hearing a discussion that the parameters of CS units reflected Southern weapons and equipment being substandard. In fact often the opposite was the case. As I stated much of the artillery was of US production in the first place. I've never read anything about how much was imported during the war, but I know that a large percentage of the firearms used by the South were imported from Great Britain. For example, after the surrender of Vicksburg the Pemberton's army stacked their weapons before marching off. These were of such higher quality than the muskets Grant's army had been issued that he allowed his army to trade their muskets for them, although this was not authorized by the war department.


The Confederates imported several foreign artillery pieces, including an unknown number of Austrian 6lb howitzers, at least 13 24lb Austrian howitzers, a pair of 3.75 in Austrian rifles, a Blakely rifle, and several Whitworth Rifles- which are perhaps the most well-known. More info here.

While the Confederacy did maintain an advantage or parity in small arms for a good part of the war, my understanding is it fell behind rather quickly in artillery. The South simply couldn't produce or obtain the caliber of weapons available to the North, and particularly suffered from a lack of rifled pieces and rifling equipment. There are also persistent claims the Confederacy increasingly suffered from poor quality control of fuses and shells. Based on what I've read over the years, I think one could argue North probably gained an advantage in artillery leadership and crew skill as the war continued, but I have no proof of that. At any rate some or all of these factors put Southern batteries at an increasing disadvantage during the war, as their opponents could fire more accurately and at greater distances. This help explains why, with the exception of Chancellorsville, Confederate artillery generally played a minimal role in the Confederacy's offensive victories and failed miserably in several instances, such as Malvern Hill and Gettysburg (both on July 2nd at Benner's Hill and on July 3rd during Pickett's Charge). While it is true artillery remained more devastating as a defensive weapon than as an offensive hammer, the North became more effective using that arm to project power across the battlefield- especially when it came to counter-battery fire.

On another note, I have some spreadsheets for all unit costs and all free land units available to the Union in the April 1861 scenario. If there is an interest in incorporating them into this thread in some form, I can make them available.

Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 4:37 am
by Durk
Interesting discussion. Probably not quite spot on.
Up until Gettysburg, CSA maintained parity in the Eastern Theater with regard to artillery in the armies, not in forts or navies, just to qualify the coming claim.
Players get a bit too focused upon quality and caliber and not enough on how artillery was used. This is a bit like the discussion of ships at the Battle of Jutland. Theoretically, the Union was the boss with regard to quality and caliber, but practically the CSA was well served.
The real deal is, CSA held its own in the artillery contest in the East until very late in the war.
Source of ordinance, caliber and effectiveness are not like putting a pen to paper. CSA knew how to use the guns tactically.

Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 3:09 am
by Cardinal Ape
I have encountered another player that was confused with the CSA diplomatic option to Declare a complete cotton embargo. At first glance it can be difficult to read, the negative cost is not too intuitive. Clarifying it may help someone.

Declaring a complete cotton embargo earns the CSA 150$, 3 NM, and 5 VP. It's good.

Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 10:43 pm
by Straight Arrow
Excellent point Cardinal Ape.

It has been added to Points to Know.

When I was trying to learn the game, I remember being confused about this point. The dash in the rules is just a spacing device, but it really does look like a negative number.
And being a negative makes sense. Why would anyone do something as stupid as embargoing your main cash earner at the start of a war?

Is trying to blackmailing the rest of the world into helping you such a good idea?

Far better if the South had acted on a suggestion raised in their congress to purchase the cotton crop of 1861 for script or bonds. The bales could have shipped overseas before the blockade was effective.

The result? A mountain of hard cash in European banks that would have inspired confidence in the gray back and primed the pump for overseas bond purchases.

In my opinion, the embargo was one of the dumbest things the CSA did.

Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 3:00 am
by Stauffenberg
Straight Arrow wrote:Excellent point Cardinal Ape.

It has been added to Points to Know.

When I was trying to learn the game, I remember being confused about this point. The dash in the rules is just a spacing device, but it really does look like a negative number.
And being a negative makes sense. Why would anyone do something as stupid as embargoing your main cash earner at the start of a war?

Is trying to blackmailing the rest of the world into helping you such a good idea?

Far better if the South had acted on a suggestion raised in their congress to purchase the cotton crop of 1861 for script or bonds. The bales could have shipped overseas before the blockade was effective.

The result? A mountain of hard cash in European banks that would have inspired confidence in the gray back and primed the pump for overseas bond purchases.

In my opinion, the embargo was one of the dumbest things the CSA did.



Yes excellent point. Davis was an outstanding asset for the South in whipping an army together (with Cooper and Lee) out of nothing early on, vs the fumbling amateur Lincoln (but a calculated and steady learner as time would show). But Davis badly miscalculated the effect that denying "King Cotton" to Europe would have. He also sent over diplomats to Europe who were in over their heads and therefore ineffectual.

If he was too aggressive with the Euros, he was too passive aggressive with the gathering Yankee behemoth to the north. But he didn't mix well with intellectual equals, although he was always a true friend indeed to cover your back if you had his support. What was lacking in the South was a round table of intellectual equals, headed by Davis, to deal with specific points like the embargo. Instead you had a very techy President attempting to coerce and cajole the states into supporting higher aims--a workaholic suffering migraines attempting to do the impossible. Really it was the worst of possible jobs to end up with, given the inbuilt oxymoron of "States rights" vs a centralized federal command that was attempting to fight a war of liberation against the Lincoln tyranny of rule by force--submit or be crushed, to the point of burning down civilian farms and crops--scorched earth--which can surely be considered "war crimes." But Abe was getting pretty desperate by '64.

Davis, confronted by intellectual equals in his office arguing for an immediate all-out assault on the North, would have had to realize the inevitable early on and show the North he meant business with repeated invasions. Most of the best generals in the previous federal Army had gone South, and were leading men with superb élan. Green, both sides were green, as Lincoln said to McDowell, but the South had the best generals immediately in play. Lee was ready to do this in a heartbeat; the other variant was Longstreet's war of defensive attrition. War is politics by other means and Davis needed to understand this but was overwhelmed with the minutiae of a new presidential office and fractious state governors. The moment was lost. Lee was a far better politician than Davis I submit, in understanding this about the war--hence his two northern invasions, which he pushed for himself.

It was an inbuilt dilemma that finally undid things. The wonder of it all is that they fought so hard and for so long--no other nation in modern history has seen such a high percentage of their men killed and maimed in a drawn-out war--no, not even Britain, France, Russia or Germany in WW I. The flower of enlistable men was cut down defending their new country, and some (like myself) would argue that the US lost a chivalrous (if perhaps misguided in ways) part of their national spirit in pursuing total war against one's own people.

It was decimation, no other word for it. Furthermore, the Franco-Prussian War fought 15 years later, did not see either side stoop to the depths that Lincoln went to in giving Sheridan and Sherman carteblanche to pursue a complete scorched earth policy, pitilessly visited upon southern non-combatant civilians. The casualty figures for the South were horrendous. The precedent of "total war" was a pernicious doctrine unleashed; and therefore note Sheridan was sent out West after the war to visit genocide upon First Nation peoples, having learned his trade in the Shenandoah.

Lincoln's final victory was Pyrrhic. A very Yankee outcome: "NN had to be destroyed in order to save it."

I wandered off-topic, and I am sure this point of view will not be popular for some here, but there you have it. :gardavou:

Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 9:04 am
by BattleVonWar
Thanks Ape for clarifying the value of the embargo. I think that the actual effect would have been what you think it is(negative) at first glance.

Durk, I known little about the actual tactical aspects of the Civil War. Very limited knowledge in comparison with the wealth offered here by you and other contributors. Plus this is a game and what I do garnish is you learn the provinces, you learn what can be done by repetition like any war game or what not and flanking will get harder and harder. As your opponent can predict the best and most likely possibilities. I would like to see a little more ebb and flow in offensive/defensive capabilities in the East. The Union got to the Gates of Richmond and the CSA was able to strike out deep into Pennsylvania.(I doubt many players in game would allow that after 1861 unless they want lose or trap you)

Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 9:12 am
by BattleVonWar
Stauffenberg, any side is bound to have it's strengths and weaknesses in any conflict, region and given time situation. Remember reading schoolboy level Civil War texts saying that the delay of the Civil War saved the Union. Had it happened before industrializing that things would have run a whole different course. Perhaps history... The advantages the North held with immigration and such just overwhelmed the South as time went on in the 1800s.

Also read how Lee may have been more like Grant, had he been in Grant's shoes. That he may felt he had to gamble. I would not want to step into either man's shoes and lose men the way they did and have to live with myself. Understanding their extremes is strange. Very religious people back then(even today) ... The American people may not endure losses so well now due to what we had faced in the Civil War. Though our Wars following though fairly ugly and high casualties given the comparisons were nothing like The Civil War. Perhaps we were the first to learn, the first to suffer on that sort of scale and with total war as you mentioned... The horror was first visited here in modern industrial warfare anyways. Though of course, in brutality you can look back at the Mongols or the Huns.(or many others, war is a terrible thing) That is sort of equal. Salting the soil, poisoning the wells and killing everyone almost.

Very fine post you made indeed, I enjoyed the perspective !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 9:29 pm
by Stauffenberg
BattleVonWar wrote:Stauffenberg, any side is bound to have it's strengths and weaknesses in any conflict, region and given time situation. Remember reading schoolboy level Civil War texts saying that the delay of the Civil War saved the Union. Had it happened before industrializing that things would have run a whole different course. Perhaps history... The advantages the North held with immigration and such just overwhelmed the South as time went on in the 1800s.

Also read how Lee may have been more like Grant, had he been in Grant's shoes. That he may felt he had to gamble. I would not want to step into either man's shoes and lose men the way they did and have to live with myself. Understanding their extremes is strange. Very religious people back then(even today) ... The American people may not endure losses so well now due to what we had faced in the Civil War. Though our Wars following though fairly ugly and high casualties given the comparisons were nothing like The Civil War. Perhaps we were the first to learn, the first to suffer on that sort of scale and with total war as you mentioned... The horror was first visited here in modern industrial warfare anyways. Though of course, in brutality you can look back at the Mongols or the Huns.(or many others, war is a terrible thing) That is sort of equal. Salting the soil, poisoning the wells and killing everyone almost.

Very fine post you made indeed, I enjoyed the perspective !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Thank-you, and some excellent points yourself, especially pondering an earlier Civil War. I also take the view that slavery was as dead as the dodo, likely within decades anyway. If Lincoln had had a clear anti-slavery mandate in 1861 (he surely didn't, not by a long mile) he might have applied Scott's Annaconda Plan and simply throttled the South economically with no attempted military invasions, gone ahead with immediate freedom and citizenry for those blacks who came to the North, financial incentives (and technology and workers) for southern agribusiness. Sort of an early embargo South Africa style... another historical what-if.

"Lee in Grant's shoes". Interesting thought. You know that after the war Lee and Grant were together and Grant attempted to get friendly and chummy about their shared war memories, and Lee would have none of it. Why? It wasn't that he "lost" in my view, it was the terrific burden he bore of the tremendous losses his countrymen suffered.

And yes we are afforded the luxury of wisdom in hindsight.

Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 9:45 pm
by tripax
Sorry to be a party pooper, but can you guys move your discussion to its own thread or maybe to the history subforum?

Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 10:01 pm
by khbynum
Hey, tripax, you're right. I was going to post a ringing endorsement of Stauffenberg's views, which would probably have been a waste of time.

Stauffenberg, I didn't know Lee and Grant ever met after the war. I'd like to hear more about that.

Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 10:08 pm
by Stauffenberg
khbynum wrote:Hey, tripax, you're right. I was going to post a ringing endorsement of Stauffenberg's views, which would probably have been a waste of time.

Stauffenberg, I didn't know Lee and Grant ever met after the war. I'd like to hear more about that.



lol, and yes I believe Lee and Grant did as stated, but will dig the source up.

And tripax, np I will start a thread in the history sub forum--I wandered off topic to be sure--mea culpa. :innocent:

Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2015 10:20 pm
by cmdrsam
Playing csa. Couple questions.

1. Places to look for that are perhaps holes in a supply line. Places that should have a depot but don't.

2. I never really use these rgd card. Clearing and build road. Ideas on using them.

Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2015 10:21 pm
by cmdrsam
Double post sorry

Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 11:34 am
by veb_yw
I got this game during the recent Steam sales. Would like to say these Points to Know are great! I was floundering at the beginning (still am, just a bit less) Wish this was stickied! :thumbsup:

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 4:25 pm
by Straight Arrow
Just pulling the thread up front for new members; any thoughts to add?

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 4:42 pm
by Gray Fox
Perhaps I could offer the thought that it should be a sticky thread?

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2015 12:11 am
by grimjaw
Movement:
- Mud wrecks movement, often in the spring and fall, and is especially detrimental to cavalry. Plan accordingly when organizing deployment or retreat.