Rifled Artillery Versus Third System Brick and Masonry Forts

[Jarkko]

badly I fear as AI isn't equipped with algorythm fiving it the possibility to take such suble changes into account.It will create and use militia like before, whatever the value of militia...

I am no programmer, in fact the peak of my computer know-how is that I know where the On/Off button is. Yet I would be very suprised if the AI didn't take into account the actual strength of the units/stacks involved when making the calculations. I am pretty sure it does not compute "Militia + Militia + Militia = Win" but rather uses the strength of the stack instead Notice, I may very well be wrong, but I would be quite suprised if the AI didn't use actual numbers

[Clovis]

I am no programmer, in fact the peak of my computer know-how is that I know where the On/Off button is. Yet I would be very suprised if the AI didn't take into account the actual strength of the units/stacks involved when making the calculations. I am pretty sure it does not compute "Militia + Militia + Militia = Win" but rather uses the strength of the stack instead Notice, I may very well be wrong, but I would be quite suprised if the AI didn't use actual numbers

AI builds units with computation based on units on map expected/present and a fixed ratio. So it will build militias without considering militia fighting value.

The AI will build divisions with militia units because Ai doesn't keep militias in garrison or in rear zones. So AI divisions will be weaker.

Then the use of WSU by CSA AI, considering their paucity, could lead to a slower rate of evolution in regular infantry...

[77NY]

Gray, you are absolutely right. I was confusing the two. Sorry about that. When I got home last night the replacement total was 20 and the total militia units in the field was 78.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Coregonas]

Re-reading the posts before, I believe Big Idea´s idea about avoiding militia respawn is really a very good idea to regulate the trick.

There are around 60-80 Militias available for the south (some more for the north of course, but with a limit)

If these do not regenerate, the trick is just that first round of militias, and not problems with replacements, buying 150-200 militias is not more posible.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Major Tom]

As a side thought however, there could be an argument that Militia/Volunteer model types were only available during the first few months or so of the war much like quick response "fire" brigades. After that period the initial state militia units were pretty much all included in the armies. After that initial, let's call it "Militia rush" almost all new infantry recruits were organized into companies to be trained as new Conscript Infantry. What this means is it's pretty much non-historical to allow gamers to continue producing Militia/Volunteer units after the first few months of the war anyhow.

This sounds like a very good, rational solution.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[aryaman]

One concern I have with limiting Militia/Volunteers using whatever method is that it will make cavalry raids even easier, IMO limiting cavalry raids should be coupled with the modification of Militia/Volunteers.

[Comtedemeighan]

One concern I have with limiting Militia/Volunteers using whatever method is that it will make cavalry raids even easier, IMO limiting cavalry raids should be coupled with the modification of Militia/Volunteers.

The Militia would become conscript infantry they wouldn't vanish basically what would happen is you would raise conscript companies this would represent the Militia's becoming more organised into a more cohesive army with better drill and training from the disorganised units at the beginning of the war. So the Militia's in theory don't dissapear there just a little better.

[Clovis]

This is not exactly clear to me. What exactly do you mean by "a slower rate of evolution in regular infantry"? Are your referring to a reduction in the conversion rate of Militia to Conscript Intfantry, or are you referring to a reduction in the direct building of Conscript infantry. Sorry, but your statement is rather vague to me.

The term paucity meaning "smallness of number", is a valid argument regarding the CSA WSu allocations, which quite possibly is too low and from my observation has been in need of some form of increase since the game's inception, BUT I have learned to do only one change at a time and observe effects prior to adding an additional change. This helps avoid bugs that can easily be introduced by over adjusting. So if this change indeed impacts the rate of evolution of regular infantry, a change in the per turn allocation of WSu would be warranted and would probably be the next adjustment to be made.



.

One of my first change in SVF was to lower the WSU production for both sides and I remain firmly convinced the vanilla version to be too lenient. Only in SVF I 'm feeling the lack of WSU at start to do all. And so the US player is forced to rely on naval shipping, CSA on blockade runners time needed to get results from industrial investments.

Surprinsigly, CSA AI was able to cope with this reduced capacity to build units. Of course, I helped it here and there, with some events, but nothing really significant. the point is CSA AI builds armies by using militia units converted.

Interestingly, the US AI, which gets more WSU, is building much less militias. So the unit creation algorythm forces AI to have much more WSU than needed to build only regular units. Certainly because AI is "thinking" : I need some units here and there, but I've only a few WSU so i will create militias.

Adding WSU to the militia creation cost could have side effects as I suggest and that's why I've chosen to just exonerate AI from militia conversion limits. Possible in this way because militias keep the same cost but an arbitrary limit for conversion is added by events applying only to human player.

Now of course, I don't know if the AI will not be able to cope with a WSU cost for militia. Maybe yes . In any case, removing militias totally would certainly hurt AI considering the construction process it uses.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jarkko]

I still kep on dreaming I would be omnipotent and could remove militia as recruitable units. "And on the third day the Omnipotent said: Let no man recruit militias, but let militia spawn from events under spesific conditions (early in the war, enemy hostile troops in the state or neighbouring state, state is raided (railroads/depots blown up by hostiles), etc)."

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[77NY]

I really only see 3 plausible realistic solutions

1.) Charge 1 WSu for the initial cost of these Militia/Volunteer units.

This gets my vote.

2.) Remove them from the Reinforcement Box altogether and as Jarkko suggests only allow them to be introduced by event.

I would worry that this skews too far to the sim side...

3.) A combination of the above charging 1 WSu for them, and gradually phasing them out for the player/gamer reinforcement box by the end of 1861, leaving only the event and AI reaction spawned Militia units.

This issue is close to my heart because I grew up in Upstate New York in the Saratoga area, where the storied 77th NY Vols (Cold Harbor, Gettysburg, Wilderness) were mustered. See link here.

So whether upgrades take place under McClellan's drilling in the AoP or through battle/time, the seasoning of homegrown units is part of my enjoyment.

See link to U.S. Army history site here. The volunteer/regular issue and reassignment of a professional officer corps to volunteer units was part of the C & C problems thru 1862 that I think the game nicely handles w/ unit formation limits.

Gray, what does your option #3 look like in terms of phasing out militia recruitment after 1861? This concerns me b/c at first glance it doesn't seem historical.

[aryaman]

, leaving only the event and AI reaction spawned Militia units.

I think that those militia forces are only State militia, not Volunteers.

[Major Tom]

You know I've "toyed" with this solution but I really don't like the "locked" arbitrary maximum of conversion because it really doens't make sense in the real world.

Here's the analogy... Currently the player/gamer has control over how many militia/volunteer units he wishes to produce with basically 0 WSu providing no brakes to the process. One player gamer may choose to only produce say 10 of these units, while another goes all out and concentrates his manpower into quite a bit more of these units, lets say 50 for example. Leaving things as is and providing a limit on how many can be converted each turn is too arbitrary and does not reflect any sort of historic rationale. In other words, the more Militia units starting out, the more would be trained in direct proportion. It does not make sense to allow a relatively large number of Militia units to be built and then not allow for a ramped up training capability.

I really only see 3 plausible realistic solutions

1.) Charge 1 WSu for the initial cost of these Militia/Volunteer units.

2.) Remove them from the Reinforcement Box altogether and as Jarkko suggests only allow them to be introduced by event.

3.) A combination of the above charging 1 WSu for them, and gradually phasing them out for the player/gamer reinforcement box by the end of 1861, leaving only the event and AI reaction spawned Militia units.

I like option 3. But if you start phasing out militia recruitment fairly quickly, vastly reducing the number available for recruiting even from the beginning, charging the extra 1 WSu for them might not be necessary.

I think Option 2 would work as well, but I would hope then that the event-based free militias would be increased.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[TheDoctorKing]

Has the issue with the forts being very vulnerable to passing ships been resolved in favor of making the forts much stronger? I just tried out a test with CSA ironclads and discovered that even six or seven have trouble taking out a fort with a vanilla garrison. The forts appear to be much more powerful than they were a couple of patches ago.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted