graydingo
Conscript
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 7:08 am

Re: Civil War III

Wed Aug 08, 2018 6:04 pm

Yes, but doesn’t the CSA player receive replacements quicker than the USA player based on the historical fact that the Confederacy placed more importance on filling up existing regiments compared to the Union’s reliance on new regiments in order to take advantage of the higher rate of recruitment this brought, thus continually weakening their experienced units. While the veteran Confederate regiments were receiving newbies that were gradually being folded into their ranks, in effect maintaining their “veteran” status?

User avatar
Gray Fox
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1452
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:48 pm
Location: Englewood, OH

Re: Civil War III

Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:51 am

http://www.nellaware.com/blog/civil-war ... -rank.html

This states that CSA Divisions were sometimes twice as large as the Union's. What if we only gave Union Divisions 10 slots? Until CW3, such a house rule might put some new life in the CSA.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5721
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Civil War III

Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:38 am

graydingo wrote:Yes, but doesn’t the CSA player receive replacements quicker than the USA player based on the historical fact that the Confederacy placed more importance on filling up existing regiments compared to the Union’s reliance on new regiments in order to take advantage of the higher rate of recruitment this brought, thus continually weakening their experienced units. While the veteran Confederate regiments were receiving newbies that were gradually being folded into their ranks, in effect maintaining their “veteran” status?


I believe it had more to do with politics. Everyone and their brother wanted to lead a regiment, bc after the war it would be something they could draw upon as showing their leadership skills and advance their political careers. Many who already enjoyed political contacts were allowed by their states to raise their own regiments and then take command of them, often under the guise of being voted by the regiments to lead them, bc they had raised the regiments. Thus a large portion of the Union military was introduced to the federal government already organized into regiments. Thus fewer troops were available to be divvied up to reinforce depleted regiments.

The South did this as well, but quickly ran out of persons to raise new regiments, as their population was much smaller and many were much quicker to raise a regiment early in the war. The South was also far more divided in their ideologies. IIRC in Georgia you could not raise a regiment other than for the state militia. The state government would have to pass an act to allow for a state militia regiment, even if raised privately, to be turned over to the Confederate government. So troops raised by the CS government were more likely to be distributed by the CS government, and used to replenish depleted units already in existence.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5721
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Civil War III

Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:55 am

Gray Fox wrote:http://www.nellaware.com/blog/civil-war-army-organization-and-order-of-rank.html

This states that CSA Divisions were sometimes twice as large as the Union's. What if we only gave Union Divisions 10 slots? Until CW3, such a house rule might put some new life in the CSA.


Without having looked deeper into it, that might be a good house rule. It would certainly help the South, especially later in the war.

graydingo
Conscript
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 7:08 am

Re: Civil War III

Thu Aug 09, 2018 8:22 am

Captain_Orso, yeah, you’re probably right about those Northern regiments. I guess I was just assuming “citizen-soldiers” would rather be part of a new unit with their friends then to sign up and be shipped to a unit with a bunch of strangers.

graydingo
Conscript
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 7:08 am

Re: Civil War III

Thu Aug 09, 2018 8:43 am

Gray Fox, this works great to replicate 61-63, but by the time the Overland Campaign starts the Army of the Potomac is cramming more regiments into brigades and more brigades into divisions (and more divisions into corps). With the element cap (both the house rule and/or the vanilla game) this isn’t possible. In the end it really doesn’t matter, I suppose, as Captain_Orso said about replacements being bought or new units being created is up to the player. I was overthinking the way one would handle shortages in the field. The player still couldn’t cram any more regiments into the division unit though after hitting 18 elements.

graydingo
Conscript
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 7:08 am

Re: Civil War III

Thu Aug 09, 2018 8:46 am

And thanks to both of you for responding. You guys always have some of the best and most thoughtful responses. Good on both of you.

User avatar
Citizen X
General of the Army
Posts: 671
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:34 pm

Re: Civil War III

Thu Aug 09, 2018 5:43 pm

Gray Fox wrote:http://www.nellaware.com/blog/civil-war-army-organization-and-order-of-rank.html

This states that CSA Divisions were sometimes twice as large as the Union's.


That was due to lack of high ranking Generals. On the battlefield however, the largest tactical unit was still the brigade on both sides.
Also, after the '62 campaigns both sides reorganized their brigade-structure from mixed arms to single arms brigades. Would be nice to have that de-facto reform implemented, too.

Return to “Civil War II”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests