American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Ok, it's been discussed a lot about how in these games losses are higher than historical losses. I, and others, have sort of put this off by thinking/saying that not all of these are "real" casualties. Stragglers, minor wounds, helping fellow wounded and some troops becoming non-participants for whatever reason could add numbers to the "real" casualties.

So, I submit these ideas (and maybe they've been brought up before).

1) In a campaign the recovery rate should be a LOT higher, mostly because of the HIGHER losses recorded in the game engine.

2) (Less likely I realize) During long battles with overnight turns, there should be a troop recovery option. If men can be recovered during a campain, why not overnight. This, of course, would be a lesser number, but once again serve as an offset to the higher than historical losses in this game engine.

Thoughts and discussion welcomed...

Major General Thompson
Chief of Staff
AoS

The Panzer Campaigns series has a feature where losses are very slowly and gradually regained when units are rested. It (along with fatigue recovery) gives you an added incentive to pull units out of the action to rest and recover and can result in periods or sectors of less intense fighting...


[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/acwgc/acwgc_personal_record.htm"]General Antony Barlow[/url]
[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/acwgc/western_theater.htm"]Commander, Western Theater, Union Army[/url]

I like both ideas. I'm not sure that JT will want to do too much with #1. Perhaps a tweak would pass.

Here are the rates:
1 to 6 days is 10%
7 to 13 days is 20%
14 to 30 days is 30%
31 to 59 days is 40%
60 days or over is 50%

As for #2, I would vote yes. Of course, I would have to see the details before a final opinion.


Lt. Col. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rich Walker</i>
<br />I like both ideas. I'm not sure that JT will want to do too much with #1. Perhaps a tweak would pass.

Here are the rates:
1 to 6 days is 10%
7 to 13 days is 20%
14 to 30 days is 30%
31 to 59 days is 40%
60 days or over is 50%

As for #2, I would vote yes. Of course, I would have to see the details before a final opinion.


Lt. Col. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Thanks Rich...

It seems the first set of values has to just be in a data statement of some type and would be easy to tweak. A bigger fix would be to include in the pdt file for the campaign. Maybe just starting at 20% and bumping that up in 10 - 15% steps. Might get kinda high at the 2 month end though.

The 2nd, overnight, option would be a little more difficult to code.
My feeling is that around 10 - 15% may be reasonable... up for talk.

Thanks...



Major General Thompson
Chief of Staff
AoS

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by P.A.T.</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rich Walker</i>
<br />I like both ideas. I'm not sure that JT will want to do too much with #1. Perhaps a tweak would pass.

Here are the rates:
1 to 6 days is 10%
7 to 13 days is 20%
14 to 30 days is 30%
31 to 59 days is 40%
60 days or over is 50%

As for #2, I would vote yes. Of course, I would have to see the details before a final opinion.


Lt. Col. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Thanks Rich...

It seems the first set of values has to just be in a data statement of some type and would be easy to tweak. A bigger fix would be to include in the pdt file for the campaign. Maybe just starting at 20% and bumping that up in 10 - 15% steps. Might get kinda high at the 2 month end though.

The 2nd, overnight, option would be a little more difficult to code.
My feeling is that around 10 - 15% may be reasonable... up for talk.

Thanks...



Major General Thompson
Chief of Staff
AoS
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I'd like to add a counter point to this: There appears to be an assumption that troops always return to their units. I think if you study the various campaigns you will find this is not necessarily true. In some cases you might even have negative gains (losses) depending on the location, duration and season of the campaign and also on previous results. You might have higher rates in 1863 vice 64 or 65. Higher in ANV under Lee than in the Army of the Tennesee Under Polk or Bragg. I am not against your idea, just questioning the validity of the basic assumption in all circumstances. JMHO[:)]

Brig. Gen. Phil Driscoll
1st Brigade/1st Division/VCorps/AoP

On average, there are about 8-9 night hours in a 2 day game. It could be that for each hour a unit does not move and would normally gain FA, that the strength of that unit be increased 1%. So theorically, a unit would gain about 8% strength from a complete overnight rest.

As for the Campaign recovery rate, I could envision a 5% tweak for the 1st two lines. From 10% to 15% and 20% to 25% respectively.

Lt. Col. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"

General Thompson's statement about the different types of non-wound "casualties" incurred in a battle is certainly appropriate to the idea of manpower recovery. But as to <i>overnight</i> recovery in a battle I'm a little hesitant, especially considering those units at rest in near proximity to the enemy. One can easily imagine the confusion and organizational displacement caused by a Civil War fight that had gone into the early night hours and then abruptly ceased. In many of these cases the soldiers who had left the ranks due to straggling, minor wounds, assisting the wounded, etc. would not be able to find their way back to their regiments until daylight. This was, I think, especially true for the first two years of the war, and would probably have been less of a problem among the veterans at a later date. If I understood him correctly, some of what General Driscoll states in regards to campaign recovery is also applicable to overnight recovery!

I've no problem with the overnight <i>fatigue</i> recovery for "resting" units, but the overnight manpower recovery might be a stretch to implement. However, I suppose that if the concept were implemented that it just might be easier and more realistic to automatically increase the unit's manpower by a specific percentage (certainly a low percentage) at the beginning of dawn; if, that is, the unit has actaully sustained losses above that percentage!

Maj. Gen. Jos. C. Meyer
Second Division, 14th Corps,
Army of the Cumberland

I'm not sure an automatic manpower recovery rate reflects all that may occur in the days between battles. Some manpower may be recovered by replacements. Depending on the battle, one side may have an advantage that ought to be reflected in the recovery rate. Sickness killed more than battlefield wounds, right? Wouldn't it be more likely that Lee in Pennsylvania or Sherman in Georgia would have lower recovery rates than the defending army in their own territory? Just wondering...

Lt. General Dirk Gross
XIV Corps/AoC