Experimental mod for AACW

[runyan99]

First, draft option will be delayed until 1862.

Two, I will give both sides some free conscript points in the first turns of the game, simulating the afflux of volunteers at the eve of the war ( before the real side of war revealed itself...)

Last, I've created a great difference between USA and CSA volunteer number results. Basically, USA will get 1.5 volunteer for 1 CSA at the same bounty level. But USA drafting will be slighty less proficient than CSA one...

So USA should rely more on volunteers and less on draft but will need a lot of money, or choose an alternative path with more drafting proportion... On the contrary, CSA should have more incentive for drafting.

There has been a lot of talk about the manpower availability, but very little analysis of exactly how far 'off the mark' AACW is with respect to recruitment and men under arms. Before I'd monkey around with the manpower to such a radical extent, I'd try to get some hard and fast numbers, so I have an idea of how to achieve historical results. I don't think anyone has done anything like that yet.

When trying to get historical recruitment numbers for the CSA, keep in mind that historically the CSA lost the war, and that undoubtedly kept recruitment down. While the CSA called the draft for all men 16-52, only about half of the eligible men actually responded to the draft. There was a lot of desertion and draft dodging. If the CSA was winning the war, and national morale was higher, surely more of these men would have responded to the call or volunteered. So, the historical numbers of men under arms for the CSA shouldn't be the absolute ceiling possible in AACW. The maximum possible in AACW should be the historical number plus some unknown X percent, in the event that the war is going well for the CSA.

Finally, simply disallowing the draft until 1862 isn't nearly as interesting from a gameplay perspective as tripling the VP and NM penalties for drafting too early. Maybe that isn't possible to do, I don't know.

[Clovis]

There has been a lot of talk about the manpower availability, but very little analysis of exactly how far 'off the mark' AACW is with respect to recruitment and men under arms. Before I'd monkey around with the manpower to such a radical extent, I'd try to get some hard and fast numbers, so I have an idea of how to achieve historical results. I don't think anyone has done anything like that yet.

When trying to get historical recruitment numbers for the CSA, keep in mind that historically the CSA lost the war, and that undoubtedly kept recruitment down. While the CSA called the draft for all men 16-52, only about half of the eligible men actually responded to the draft. There was a lot of desertion and draft dodging. If the CSA was winning the war, and national morale was higher, surely more of these men would have responded to the call or volunteered. So, the historical numbers of men under arms for the CSA shouldn't be the absolute ceiling possible in AACW. The maximum possible in AACW should be the historical number plus some unknown X percent, in the event that the war is going well for the CSA.

Finally, simply disallowing the draft until 1862 isn't nearly as interesting from a gameplay perspective as tripling the VP and NM penalties for drafting too early. Maybe that isn't possible to do, I don't know.

I came to this solution considering after much reading draft was simply impossible in 1861 for social and cultural reasons and both sides suffered most of enforcing it in the next years. It's interesting to consider US army got 600,000 men size in March 62 and this number was never really raised in the following years in reality ( official numbers continued to raise but the number of absents too...)

My point is exactly this: draft is the worst of option but CSA needs it from 1862 and USA will have too use it during the war, even if it's a rather bad option( as proportionally US will get less for the same NM cost).

But with higher volunteers results, US will have to get the money for ( at 100 NM level, US gets 609 conscript points at 3,000 bounty cost). And the more NM will be low, the less volunteers both side will get, forcing them to go on draft which will cost more NM...

So CSA will need to win battles to keep NM at reasonable level, and US will need much more money than now if player wants to choose the costly volunteer options.

But I think too the impression of too much troops is tied to the failure of AACW to portray accurately the first months of the war. I tried to slow the start, and this new modification is aimed at the same objective.

Last, I find unit building to be too quick. Getting a drilled regiment is simply made too shortly. So I raised too the number of turn necessary to get units. So in any case armies should be slower to be formed at start; I'm hoping to get a REAL difference between 1861 and 1862 by this way.

[runyan99]

Well, I'd like to see some one choose historical options in AACW and see how many men that puts in the field, and then compare that to the historical numbers for each year, 1861, 1862, 1863, etc.

For example, if the CSA does not draft but calls for volunteers twice in '61 (once before June and once after June, right?) and with all of the 'free' units available, and the manpower gained each turn, how many soldiers can the CSA have in the field by the end of '61, as compared to what they had at that time historically? That's the kind of comparison I'd like to see.

I don't have historical numbers for Jan '62 on hand though for the entire CSA.

[Clovis]

Well, I'd like to see some one choose historical options in AACW and see how many men that puts in the field, and then compare that to the historical numbers for each year, 1861, 1862, 1863, etc.

For example, if the CSA does not draft but calls for volunteers twice in '61 (once before June and once after June, right?) and with all of the 'free' units available, and the manpower gained each turn, how many soldiers can the CSA have in the field by the end of '61, as compared to what they had at that time historically? That's the kind of comparison I'd like to see.

I don't have historical numbers for Jan '62 on hand though for the entire CSA.

The fact is currently draft is IMHO a no brainer option: you get more conscript for no money and a so low NM and VP points it would be insane to not use it ( And the AI does use systematically).

[runyan99]

The fact is currently draft is IMHO a no brainer option: you get more conscript for no money and a so low NM and VP points it would be insane to not use it ( And the AI does use systematically).

Obviously. That's not my point.

My point is - how far off the mark is AACW if you choose historical options? How many men does that give?

You have to answer that question before you can decide how to CHANGE what manpower is available in your mod, otherwise you're just guessing. You might end up making it so that you cannot even have armies as large as historically existed in your mod. You don't know.

[Clovis]

Obviously. That's not my point.

My point is - how far off the mark is AACW if you choose historical options? How many men does that give?

You have to answer that question before you can decide how to CHANGE what manpower is available in your mod, otherwise you're just guessing. You might end up making it so that you cannot even have armies as large as historically existed in your mod. You don't know.

That's why I named it Experimental mod

But from the games I played I got 2 conclusions:

1) CSA recruit potential is too high
2) USA is too low with historical option and needs to go after draft immediatly.

That's some impressions. Now as any impressions, they have to be confirmed by experiment. We'll see

[runyan99]

Actually, I just found some numbers on Wiki I had previously overlooked that seem reasonable:

Reports from the War Department began at the end of 1861 (326,768 men), 1862 (449,439), 1863 (464,646), 1864 (400,787)

To these numbers, you would also have to add cumulative casualties for each year of the war to get a total number put under arms to that time in the war.

I'll do a quick run through of 1861 to start, to see how many men I get in AACW by calling for volunteers twice, plus free brigades, etc.

[Clovis]

Mine from History of Military Mobilization in the United States Army 1775-1945 and Official Records

dec 61 confederate present 258,680
Janv 62 Union present 527,204
dec 62 Confederate 304,015
Janv 63 Union 698,802
dec 63 Confederate 277,970
Janv 64 Union 611,250
dec 64 Confederate 196,016
Janv 65 Union 620,924

[runyan99]

Okay, I did the following test.

I started up an April '61 game with 1.07. I called for volunteers twice, filled up replacements as needed, raised a smattering of different VA, NC and SC brigades, then counted all the men on the map at the start of the Jan '62 turn.

I ended up with an imprecise total of........ 235,668.

Of that total, many thousands are immobile garrisons and militia.

[Clovis]

Okay, I did the following test.

I started up an April '61 game with 1.07. I called for volunteers twice, filled up replacements as needed, raised a smattering of different VA, NC and SC brigades, then counted all the men on the map at the start of the Jan '62 turn.

I ended up with an imprecise total of........ 235,668.

Of that total, many thousands are immobile garrisons and militia.

That's why I just disabled Draft for 1861 without great modification to volunteer numbers for CSA . Your test should give slighty lower results with some battles and attrition. That's why I added some more conscript points by event.

[Jagger]

Double post

[Jagger]

If I were to look at manpower issues, I might start by looking at leaders.

The leaders determine the size of active armies. For example, Grant in 1864 had 4 corps in his Virginia army. I know by the end of 62, I will have far more than 4 corps in the East. Who knows how many I will have in the East by 65.

It might be useful to look at the number of campaigning armies and the active divisions/corps for each year. Add and remove by event the available leaders within certain boundaries. Then look at the manpower vs leader ratio.

A little off subject but....

To me, the game very quickly reminds me of WWI rather than the ACW-especially in the East but also the West to a certain extent. Corps entrenched from the coast to the mountains and neither side able to attack as defense is so strong. Too many troops and corps.

It seems there are way too many troops available and there isn't a reason for armies to remain concentrated. With spread out entrenched troops, there is no room left to maneuver. By the beginning of 61, the fighting is similiar to 1864 but without the maneuver space available in 64. I wonder if the the "march to the guns" feature should be eliminated. As it is, "march to the guns" encourages players to spread their troops in an ahistoric manner and helps produce the WWI style trench warfare. Although even without "march to guns", a single entrenched corps can easily beat off two or three corps while inflicting very heavy casaulties. Should army leadership radius be massively reduced forcing armies to concentrate????

IMO, there are just too many troops, too much entrenchment and not enough maneuvering room.

[McNaughton]

If I were to look at manpower issues, I might start by looking at leaders.

The leaders determine the size of active armies. For example, Grant in 1864 had 4 corps in his Virginia army. I know by the end of 62, I will have far more than 4 corps in the East. Who knows how many I will have in the East by 65.

It might be useful to look at the number of campaigning armies and the active divisions/corps for each year. Add and remove by event the available leaders within certain boundaries. Then look at the manpower vs leader ratio.

I don't think that the event system can tell if a leader is unassigned or assigned to a unit/command. Therefore, entire divisions may disappear this way. Historically, the Army of the Potomac reached a size of about 9 corps (at its peak), and consolidated into smaller units (plus formations detached to other commands) due to attrition. The entire army size actually remained the same, at around 120 000.

The actual size of the Army of the Potomac, and Army of Northwest Virginia remained the same throughout the war. The Army of the Potomac ranged at 100-120 000 (on average) from 1862-1865. The Army of Northwest Virginia ranged from 60-80 000 (on average) from 1862-1864 (with numbers dropping off significantly due to territorial losses in 1865).

A little off subject but....

To me, the game very quickly reminds me of WWI rather than the ACW-especially in the East but also the West to a certain extent. Corps entrenched from the coast to the mountains and neither side able to attack as defense is so strong. Too many troops and corps.

It seems there are way too many troops available and there isn't a reason for armies to remain concentrated. With spread out entrenched troops, there is no room left to maneuver. By the beginning of 61, the fighting is similiar to 1864 but without the maneuver space available in 64. I wonder if the the "march to the guns" feature should be eliminated. As it is, "march to the guns" encourages players to spread their troops in an ahistoric manner and helps produce the WWI style trench warfare. Although even without "march to guns", a single entrenched corps can easily beat off two or three corps while inflicting very heavy casaulties. Should army leadership radius be massively reduced forcing armies to concentrate????

IMO, there are just too many troops, too much entrenchment and not enough maneuvering room.

The problem, in my opinion, is the lack of desertion losses. Even sitting there, a unit will face attrition due to desertion and illness deaths, yet since players only have to worry about it during winter months, or when out of supply, or during some of the rare 'disease' events, they can afford more resources for new builds rather than replacing current losses.

Increasing the 'disease' events to have greater effect, or even having 'attrition' due to weather attached to even calm weather in clear territories will add greater 'realism' to troop losses in non-combat situations.

Or, have conscript numbers based on an already-predetermined loss of men (difficult to predict, but assuming that a certain % of men will die of disease, reduce manpower gains by that amount will result in a more historic gain of men).

[Clovis]

Here's the situation for both sides early June 61 with manpower changes (draft delayed until 1862, more volunteers for USA):

USA: I choosed the 2,000 bounty option as the 3,000 was too costly. The inflation is ranking high. Numerous men but too few money to build many units...



CSA ( by AI):



CSA has about half men, lacks money to build units, inflation is on par with USA.

Feel free to comment

[Clovis]

Example of raised time of construction: we're early June and this unit won't be ready to be used until early July:

[daddytorgo]

Clovis...not to whine, but it'd be helpful if you could update the first post in the page with what the current changes and plans are, so new users don't have to read the entire thread...

edit: although maybe you've already done this? it just doesn't seem clear to me where the mod is at and what changes it makes.

*confusion*

[tyrex]

I've got a real big trouble with your mod.
It's a excellent one I enjoy play to. But when the year 1861 ended everything goes wild. The game simply crash and never pass to 1862 ...which is rather annoying.
As anyone encounters such a problem?

[Clovis]

I've got a real big trouble with your mod.
It's a excellent one I enjoy play to. But when the year 1861 ended everything goes wild. The game simply crash and never pass to 1862 ...which is rather annoying.
As anyone encounters such a problem?

Very curious as I didn't had such annoyance on my 2 computers. I can't help about that. I just hope the new version will be sufficient for you.

[Clovis]

Clovis...not to whine, but it'd be helpful if you could update the first post in the page with what the current changes and plans are, so new users don't have to read the entire thread...

edit: although maybe you've already done this? it just doesn't seem clear to me where the mod is at and what changes it makes.

*confusion*

I hope to uopload a new version in the next days. I will certainly start a new thread...with all things presented more clearly...I should have named this mod "quick and dirty mod"