Replacements

[TheDoctorKing]

This is sort of a historically-based question: is or should there be any political cost to using manpower for replacements instead of for raising new units? The reason I asked is that historically, the Union mostly refrained from replacing losses in existing units, preferring to raise new regiments, which gave state governors an opportunity to promote political supporters to colonel more frequently. As a result, the "standard" Union regiment in the field was only a few hundred strong, and some really veteran outfits got down to a few dozen men. Occasionally, Union units would be sent back to their home states to recruit themselves up to strength but in game terms that would almost be recruiting a new unit too since the cadres were generally so small as to be valueless in game terms. The Confederates, on the other hand, preferred to keep their regiments as full as they could, given the general shortage of (white) manpower. They either didn't feel the political pressure as much or else ignored it (Jefferson Davis was good at ignoring political pressure if he felt he needed to). Maybe there ought to be some simulation of this -- if you buy more than three or four replacement points a turn, you pay a cost in victory points.

Just a suggestion.

[Crimguy]

In the game the union rate of replacement is 1/2 that of the confederacy. Personally, I think it's too low and should be 1/3 or possibly 1/4, forcing the Union to have more green units by having more new units. I can see room for other penalties, such as having a victory point cost for the North. Not a great cost though . . .

[TheDoctorKing]

Does a Union replacement only provide 1/2 the strength points of a Confederate? Or do they cost twice as much?

Maybe it would be smart for the Union to just not buy any replacments and just pound out new units?

[Rafiki]

The Union replacement rate is half that of the CSA; the cost of replacements is the same.