Historical Division manpower

[Coregonas]

Hi everybody.

I ve read in some other forums about this, but I wish to add some ideas.

I believe most of USA divisions were considerably smaller than their CSA counterparts.

I believe this was a very important difference between both armies, so CSA CORPS were better coordinated ...

So Why not change the 18 element - unit to(well apart from problems to the programmers ):
another kind of division groupings --- for instance
- 3 brigades & 2 other units
- 2 brigades & 4 other units

So the results should be: if CSA has bigger brigades in the construction set --- Bigger divisions & bigger corps

What about this?

[arsan]

Maybe it would be easier to do do it having, for example, 18 elements limit for CSA divisions and 14 for USA.
What i would really like is to have regiments with a smaller men count.
It would be just a cosmetic thing, no need to change hits or stats. But with the 1.000 men per standard regiment one ends with huge divisions and corps, very far from the historic sizes.
It seems on reality regiments rarely had more than 500 men.
I think there is some mod that do this change
Somebody knows which one ?? Leader Mod?? Clovis one?

Regards

[W.Barksdale]

I think that standard Union regiments did number 1000 men when they were first formed. However, there was only one state which regularly provided replacements to their regiments in the field. I can't remember which one off the top of my head.

[Jabberwock]

Maybe it would be easier to do do it having, for example, 18 elements limit for CSA divisions and 14 for USA.
What i would really like is to have regiments with a smaller men count.
It would be just a cosmetic thing, no need to change hits or stats. But with the 1.000 men per standard regiment one ends with huge divisions and corps, very far from the historic sizes.
It seems on reality regiments rarely had more than 500 men.
I think there is some mod that do this change
Somebody knows which one ?? Leader Mod?? Clovis one?

Regards

I think it was Stonewall.

[Coregonas]

I should prefer some kind of link between
a Division has
x Brigades

As now it does not matter at all if a unit is a brigade, a single line infantry regiment... in a division

It is only useful the independent brigade when compared to single militia regiments, more costly in CPs (although these can be formed 2 in 1)

Perhaps mi idea of limiting the number of independent units to 5 for instance, could allow MEGA-BIG divisions but WILL force also some smaller ones.


In Gettysburg, Lee had (not 100% sure) 3 CORPS against 7 of Meade (dont know exactly)...

Every CSA corps had around 3 divisions, while USA got 2-3 (apart from some extra units such as independent artilleries)

So CSA had 9 DIVs, USA around 18... and were similar manpower in all

[Coregonas]

leure:
Oh I am a a very important general and I want my own troop.
leure:

Another crazy of my ideas should force some kind of penalty (NM/VP/Seniority...) if a general is without a proper command too much time.

Well... Not sure how to implement, but this should represent the Political need of giving every general a satisfaction.

[Coregonas]

If the generals cry enough, they should demand their own divisions, forcing Lincoln & Davis to reduce divisions-size if not army enough.

Perhaps the Aide de Camp could be a "enough position for me" prerequisite. Only for the biggest seniority leader. Also giving even bonuses & maluses as an extra to the army...

Some kind of "total-demotion" could be then allowed, if lots of seniority are lowered.

Then, having a lone general only for adding CPS should not be "free"... it could cost VPs!

Well just adding some imagination for the next improvements

[Rafiki]

To me, that would a lot more micromanagement than game enjoyment. There is a sizable number of generals provided, in part to keep things flexible, then some more when the division system was revised in 1.04. If I have to keep my generals occupied, that will just add to the "book-keeping" of the game and little else.

[Aurelin]

Hi everybody.

I ve read in some other forums about this, but I wish to add some ideas.

I believe most of USA divisions were considerably smaller than their CSA counterparts.

I believe this was a very important difference between both armies, so CSA CORPS were better coordinated ...

So Why not change the 18 element - unit to(well apart from problems to the programmers ):
another kind of division groupings --- for instance
- 3 brigades & 2 other units
- 2 brigades & 4 other units

So the results should be: if CSA has bigger brigades in the construction set --- Bigger divisions & bigger corps

What about this?

Forge of Freedom does it that way. A Union division can have up to 5 brigades, a Confederate 6. For corps, its 3/4 divs. It can be modded IIRC. And the Union brigades are smaller.

[Banks6060]

I think what you end up with is a natural transition to more divisions for the Union and fewer for the CSA the way the game is now.

Considering the limits on the number of Divisions for each side.

as the CSA....you are forced to have only 24 divisions....requiring you to pack all of your manpower into a smaller number of packages...which IMO is historical.

As the Union, you've got 48 divisions to spread into. Naturally leading to more, smaller divisions because of the HUGE number of generals you end up with at every level. Personally, as the Union, being required to maneuvre in enemy terrain almost the entire game...I think it makes more sense to have a higher number of formations anyway. You can exert control over more territory every turn. Which I also believe is historically why the Union had more divisions.

Command was not as centralized, and suffered in battle....but at the same time it allowed autonomous command at the operational level, which was an advantage.

I think it's funny actually.....comparing the politics of both sides to their military organization.

Union:
More Corps, more divisions, able to operate independent of Army Command if need be.
as opposed to their politics....a centralized and strong Federal Government that supercedes the powers of individual states.

CSA:
Fewer and more centrally controlled corps and divisions
as opposed to their politics....individual states operating and legislating the way they want with more powers than the federal government.

[Coregonas]

...USA...
More Corps, more divisions, able to operate independent of Army Command if need be.
as opposed to their politics....a centralized and strong Federal Government that supercedes the powers of individual states.

CSA:
Fewer and more centrally controlled corps and divisions
as opposed to their politics....individual states operating and legislating the way they want with more powers than the federal government.

In my current CSA - PBEM late-1862 I have 24 divs created, several of of them out of corps, 100-120 additional regiments in the corps (CP limited) as I can not create more divisions and and a draft a few turns ahead--- 1000 conscripts are around 130 extra regiments (mixed inf / cav / arty)

Im short perhaps 15 Divs!

USA has surely near his max-48 divs and will be short in a few months

[Jabberwock]

I think it's funny actually.....comparing the politics of both sides to their military organization.

Union:
More Corps, more divisions, able to operate independent of Army Command if need be.
as opposed to their politics....a centralized and strong Federal Government that supercedes the powers of individual states.

CSA:
Fewer and more centrally controlled corps and divisions
as opposed to their politics....individual states operating and legislating the way they want with more powers than the federal government.

If you look at it from a cultural perspective (i.e. McPherson), it makes more sense.

USA:
An industrializing democracy with a strong tradition of patronage.
More units and levels in the heirarchy give more patronage opportunities.

CSA:
An aristocratic agricultural oligarchy with a strong military tradition.
Less units and levels put the "right sort of people" clearly on top.

[beefcake]

I agree that historical division strength was much lower than what AACW allows. When I play the game, I normally cap my division strength around 6000 men, which usually is 2 brigades+plus artillary and a few extra regiments to round off. Clovis' Coming Fury Mod adjusts the default size of regiments, making it easier to fit three brigades in a division and still come in around 6K.

But I like the flexibility of being able to create a larger division if necessary. For example, Samuel Curtis' command at the Battle of Pea Ridge was called the "Army of the South West." It was complete with four divisions, with two brigades apiece. But the entire command was just over 10000 men. In game terms that is an over-sized division. And with Franz Sigel as his 2NDnC, there are no command penalties. Being able to create a larger than normal division is nice when a normal Corps structure is not possible.

[Jabberwock]

I agree that historical division strength was much lower than what AACW allows. When I play the game, I normally cap my division strength around 6000 men, which usually is 2 brigades+plus artillary and a few extra regiments to round off. Clovis' Coming Fury Mod adjusts the default size of regiments, making it easier to fit three brigades in a division and still come in around 6K.

But I like the flexibility of being able to create a larger division if necessary. For example, Samuel Curtis' command at the Battle of Pea Ridge was called the "Army of the South West." It was complete with four divisions, with two brigades apiece. But the entire command was just over 10000 men. In game terms that is an over-sized division. And with Franz Sigel as his 2NDnC, there are no command penalties. Being able to create a larger than normal division is nice when a normal Corps structure is not possible.

All four division commanders are also in the game: Carr, Davis, Osterhaus, and Asboth.

If you go by command structure and operational behavior instead of troop strength, you could model it as Army (Curtis) w/ 2 very small divisions (Carr, Davis) + Corps (Sigel) w/ 2 very small divisions (Osterhaus, Asboth)

Or you could say it was two divisions (Curtis, Sigel) w/ Asboth as an 'also there'. (The other three were promoted to brigadier generals after Pea Ridge).

Depends on how you want to look at it.

But yes, the brigades numbered 1000 - 1500 men, so it would be hard to fit AACW sized regiments into those models.