AGEOD Forums

A thought has just occured to me due to a stupid mistake I made early in my PBEM game. As the CSA player I was led to believe that war supplies would be the big problem I would have in the game. In fact it has turned out to be manpower that I am lacking (I have far more war supplies than I can use).

One reason for this is that I created many militia units and worse - 35 militia
replacements in the first few turns having a huge number of conscripts but little money or war supplies at that time. Pretty daft - but when you first start the main campaign you have little idea about how the economics will work out or even how to play the game.

It's now late 1863 and I still have 32 militia replacements ready for action. I doubt I will use more than 5 - 10 of them in the course of the game.

The thought that I had is why are these units tied up as militia replacements?
I should be able to change my mind and remove them and get back the manpower I so sorely need. It would be nice if the game allowed you to right click on replacements to put the cost back into the pool and not penalise a new player so harshly for an early mistake. Maybe there should be a cost to do this but that manpower should not be lost for the entire game I think.

What do you think? This could also apply for only a unit or two - when you realise you need more cavalry than infantry?

Cheers, Chris

I think this sound reasonable. Perhaps for a small cost in either manpower or war supplies. Interesting to read your post just has I have began my first PBEM. The economics are trial and error for everyone I suppose and from the first few turns I also thought War supplies were going to be the problem it seems from your post that will not be the case.

the most of the militia replacements are generated "by event", you get replacements even if you dont buy them (thus making militia replacement buying void).
i see the generated replacement as "volunteers" which are willing to defend their hometown/homestate and thus i dont think it would be correct to use them in another build as for example as infantry brigade.

if you just mean of redeploying the replacement you bought by yourself, thats another thing though.

typhoon wrote:I think this sound reasonable. Perhaps for a small cost in either manpower or war supplies. Interesting to read your post just has I have began my first PBEM. The economics are trial and error for everyone I suppose and from the first few turns I also thought War supplies were going to be the problem it seems from your post that will not be the case.

Be careful though, war supplies are fairly scarce in the first year or two and I could probably have used up all I had if I had more conscripts. I did invest very heavily to start in Brigs and more recently in industry which has given me a fairly healthy return in war supplies.

Cheers, Chris

Maybe it would be best if replacements were not diveded into so many different types? To me, "replacements" mean only individual raw recruits that are sent to existing outfits to replace losses and get most of their training there, not entire companies or even regiments waiting at Camp Nowhere in Neverland County, fully equipped and already trained well (or, in case of militia, not so well) to fit into one specific type of unit.

I think it might have been better to design the replacement system much more simpliefied, but twofold: On one hand just the number of conscripts called up to replace losses of all kind of units, and on the other hand replacement of lost war material and equipment. So you would not decide how many men to be assigned to be replacements for militia, inf, elite et al, but "only" how many men are dedicated to replace losses at all (as opposed to those available for forming new units). Likewise You should have to decide, how much newly produced war material is dedicated to replace lost equipment, as opposed to being used to outfit new formations. Being able to set priorities for replacement (like regulars before militia or field arty before light) would suffice. But I guess it's too late for that for AACW, maybe in one of the next games using a replacement system?

Or maybe it should just be possible that militia replacements in the forcepool could upgrade into regular inf replacements by themselves, at the same rate as units on the map do?

Sidenote: I think replacement is overall far too easy in the game, for both sides. Units get back to full strength even after suffering heavy losses way too fast, much faster than historically.

Regards, Henry

Henry D. wrote:Maybe it would be best if replacements were not diveded into so many different types? To me, "replacements" mean only individual raw recruits that are sent to existing outfits to replace losses and get most of their training there, not entire companies or even regiments waiting at Camp Nowhere in Neverland County, fully equipped and already trained well (or, in case of militia, not so well) to fit into one specific type of unit.

I think it might have been better to design the replacement system much more simpliefied, but twofold: On one hand just the number of conscripts called up to replace losses of all kind of units, and on the other hand replacement of lost war material and equipment. So you would not decide how many men to be assigned to be replacements for militia, inf, elite et al, but "only" how many men are dedicated to replace losses at all (as opposed to those available for forming new units). Likewise You should have to decide, how much newly produced war material is dedicated to replace lost equipment, as opposed to being used to outfit new formations. Being able to set priorities for replacement (like regulars before militia or field arty before light) would suffice. But I guess it's too late for that for AACW, maybe in one of the next games using a replacement system?

Or maybe it should just be possible that militia replacements in the forcepool could upgrade into regular inf replacements by themselves, at the same rate as units on the map do?

"Heavies" (former garrison troops mainly trained for artillery) were assigned regular infantry duties in the AoP under Grant. It is arguable whether they adapted quickly, or whether the ones who survived from the Wilderness through Cold Harbor adapted. By the siege of Petersburg, most could be considered veteran infantry.

Jabberwock wrote:"Heavies" (former garrison troops mainly trained for artillery) were assigned regular infantry duties in the AoP under Grant. It is arguable whether they adapted quickly, or whether the ones who survived from the Wilderness through Cold Harbor adapted. By the siege of Petersburg, most could be considered veteran infantry.

Yes, I knew that, but I'm not quite sure what part of my way to lengthy and quite possibly unclear post You are referring to?

Sorry.

Regards, Henry

I do understand what you're getting at. Reading your post made me realize that by specifying what type of replacement units we stock up on, we are in a sense directing flow into those types of units.

Let's say we just had a generic pool of replacement power. Well, the system may fill up the militia and weaker units first before doling it out to 1st Line and Elite units. Yuck.

OTOH, I do believe that one should be able to withdraw infantry-type replacement power back into the manpool by right-clicking on the unit type. I'm not talking about purchases made before the turn is resolved, but previous purchases/allotments.

PBBoeye wrote:I do understand what you're getting at. Reading your post made me realize that by specifying what type of replacement units we stock up on, we are in a sense directing flow into those types of units.

Let's say we just had a generic pool of replacement power. Well, the system may fill up the militia and weaker units first before doling it out to 1st Line and Elite units. Yuck.

Indeed, and therefor it should be possible to set priorities for which kind of units get replacements first in each "family".

OTOH, I do believe that one should be able to withdraw infantry-type replacement power back into the manpool by right-clicking on the unit type. I'm not talking about purchases made before the turn is resolved, but previous purchases/allotments.

I concur with you. That suggestion should be added to the wishlist.

However, the whole rambling about a different replacement system was more of a... well, I'm not quite sure what it was myself, but I lay the blame on the fact that I should have gone to bed at least two hours ago.

Regards, Henry

Henry D. wrote:However, the whole rambling about a different replacement system was more of a... well, I'm not quite sure what it was myself, but I lay the blame on the fact that I should have gone to bed at least two hours ago.

... was perhaps because you were up at 1am on a Monday?

PBBoeye wrote:... was perhaps because you were up at 1am on a Monday?

2am, or, to be honest, more like 2.30...

Regards, Henry

Hope you took your long vacation.

You're fired. leure:

PBBoeye wrote:Hope you took your long vacation.

You're fired. leure:

I'm old and don't need that much sleep anymore. Plus, I have a part-time deskjob that is not that... eeh, demanding...

Regards, Henry

Henry D. wrote:Yes, I knew that, but I'm not quite sure what part of my way to lengthy and quite possibly unclear post You are referring to?

Sorry.

Regards, Henry

Hi Henry,
Im sorry. I was "muddying the waters." I like your idea in general, I was just pointing out that it could be argued either way. If the system is simplified, we might not end up with situations like Hobbes had, but which would be a more accurate model to historical reality? I'm on the fence on this one, so I was just trying to provide some historical information for those who might not be aware.

Jabberwock wrote:Hi Henry,
Im sorry. I was "muddying the waters." I like your idea in general, I was just pointing out that it could be argued either way. If the system is simplified, we might not end up with situations like Hobbes had, but which would be a more accurate model to historical reality? I'm on the fence on this one, so I was just trying to provide some historical information for those who might not be aware.

Ah, I understand.

But would the example You have given above really describe an issue of replacements, gamewise? In the game, those Heavies would already have been on the map, as (fixed) garrison units, for a long time, wouldn't they? Having them unlocked and partly changed from arty to infantry would be more of an event issue? (I don't know, if such an event may already exists, I never ventured into 1864 yet, but it would certainly be nice to have it... )

Regards, Henry

I doubt it's an event. Although it could be, we have to be cautious about events in this game. Reason is that they are never given to a player as an option - they are just enforced. Conditions met - done; not - not done. Never does the player get a chance to decide if they want to do something like that. So in the above instance, it would just happen if the conditions were met. Can you imagine how a player might react to that?

If done for the AI only, these kinds of things aren't so bad. But strategical events - I'm having a hard time categorizing it - are loaded with peril.

I was under the impression that when you combine militia units, you get manpower added back to your militia replacement pool? I have never added replacements to my militia pool. Yet it is always the highest number in the pool. Usualy 35-50 replacement units by '63'. I don't know if there are other occurences that add manpower back to the replacement pool.

Should you be able to utilize that extra manpower? Historicaly, there were units used for duties other than what they were trained for. But it would not be an efficient use of manpower to use say trained arty for infantry. Nor would you want to unless you had no choice. ( Say no guns for them, or disbanded do to losses.)
I guess Im wondering how you can justify shuffling your higher trained units into inf. divisons, or whatever your short of. What is the downside to offset this greater flexibility. Especialy considering we all agree that manpower is the biggest restriction in the game.

And would we be taking an occurance that happened rarely in history and making it an everyday ho hum event.

Nial

Replacements and reinforcements (trained soldiers) are not the same thing. Reinforcements receive drill and tactics training. Replacements are dudes handed a gun (when fortunate) and told, 'go there'. There's just no training involved. They receive on-site training.

Then why are they designated into categories? Hvy arty, light arty, so on and so forth. I read replacement pool. Is that not what we are discussing? The units we designate to the pool to reinforce divisions. Inf. yes....hand them a gun and point in the right direction. Doesn't work that well, but hey its a body, right? No winning army operates that way from choice. When talking about Cav. and arty? That is a whole nother beast. Training of some sort is deff. required. So........you spend money, time, and resources training them only shuffle them to an inf unit? Im just currious. But it seems a bit too
unhistorical for me. But of course. Tis only my very humble opinion.

Nial

Part of it is the game's convention vs. what occurs historically. Let's look at it from the standpoint of, not the game, but if you were an actual officer in charge of such tasks.

You have 10000 men in a manpower pool. You'd like to assign 75% to infantry, 15% to cavalry forces, and 10% to artillery. However, a huge battle occurs and lo and behold infantry forces take a massive beating. The cavalry and artillery remain pretty much unscathed.

Do you continue at that original percentage? Or do you shift them over and utilize some men for infantry?

It's not like cavalry and artillery replacements sit back and wait for months on end to be used. If there is no need for the replacements, they won't be sitting back on vacation. It's 'to the front'. Which is why most replacements, I think, are infantry-oriented.

The whole concept is difficult to deliver in the context of the ACW anyhow. Each side had some different concepts of how to build and repair their forces. From the standpoint of the game, we have to look at what these replacements are doing in the pool for perhaps months on end. They simply would not be sitting there like that.

So for me, the replacement categories are really our way as players of stipulating how to funnel manpower into various specialties. However, as I said, I'd like to see the infantry types with the ability to deduct and reassign them to other areas. No one is going to load up with a ton of artillery, cavalry and support replacements (at least I hope not)...

Thanks for the replies chaps. It's seems we are on a similar page with this issue.

Cheers, Chris