Army Take II

[Desertfox]

The problem I see is that in some areas you can't conduct combat with anything larger than a brigade. The entire American southwest is such an area. Combat there would be with forces considerably smaller than brigades, and small military outposts.

[Tanthalas]

the rules are what they are, you simply take em and move on.  Simplicity dictates some level as the cut off point and I tend to agree with the mod crew that this is likley the best of such available points.

[miketr]

The problem I see is that in some areas you can't conduct combat with anything larger than a brigade. The entire American southwest is such an area. Combat there would be with forces considerably smaller than brigades, and small military outposts.

You also have many provinces to cover and odds are not a huge army to do it with. 

Again no system is perfect, the more detail added the harder to resolve combat it will become.


Michael

[Ithekro]

At which point you have the basic level armies in the region, but you can describe efforts of smaller units in the news section.  While the results are dictacted by the rules and limitation of the gaming system, the fluff and RP elements can be filtered in based on those results.

(Such as is someone takes two corp into Arizona.  It is defended by one Corp and a fortress.  The lone corp gets destroyed, by the fort holds because the two corps were weakened by the one corp first.   The details could picture this simple action as a dozen or more battles or a campaign over the course of whatever it is we are using report to report.   A small platoon holes up in a small Mission and holds off the advancing forces for two days before the artillary wreck the place, or a Cav. lance manages to run the supply lines of the invaders for a week allowing the fortifications to build up.  Or A division of the defenders gets caught moving from their forward (now abandonded) fort to a rearward fort by one of the enemy corps and is cut to pieces in open ground, but gets harrassed as they try to advance on the fort due to them having to pass though canyons.

That sort of thing.

The rules are there to make the gaming easy and simple.  The lower level stuff can be worked out after the gaming is done so the news is more interesting.

[Nobody]

The only problem I see in the smallest unit being 2500(?) men is transportation. How many additional men can be transported on a 10 kt warship?(a few hundred maybe) And how many of its crew can be part of a landing party. As a result how many ship does one need to transport even the smallest unit?

[Ithekro]

Sea lift capacity is a terrible thing.  I recall having to form up the merchant ships and all for a year to transport a few corps down to Central America.  After that is was pretty much we had the capacity to move a Corp unless we built large vessels (or many vessels) to transport more than that.

[Nobody]

After looking at the numbers, I have to ask: Am I the only one who thinks that these number are unbalanced?

• Upkeep: a Regular unit costs more than twice as much as a Conscript, and the only difference is 10% of fighting power?
  
• Modernization: Since the cost of building units hardly change (only by 2.5$ per level, compared to price of 20$ for the first generation), updating armies appears to be extremely cheep.
  And further why can't I man a fort with Conscripts? It would be cheaper and more useful to dig in 2 conscript brigades instead of supplying a citadel. (aside from the special effects)

[Walter]

Upkeep: a Regular unit costs more than twice as much as a Conscript, and the only difference is 10% of fighting power?

So that would mean that you are better off buying 2 conscipt units instead of 1 Regular...

[Nobody]

Upkeep: a Regular unit costs more than twice as much as a Conscript, and the only difference is 10% of fighting power?

So that would mean that you are better off buying 2 conscipt units instead of 1 Regular...

In terms of upkeep, yes. Also by having a conscript instead of a regular you save enough money to by another one in just four years.

[miketr]

After looking at the numbers, I have to ask: Am I the only one who thinks that these number are unbalanced?

• Upkeep: a Regular unit costs more than twice as much as a Conscript, and the only difference is 10% of fighting power?
  
• Modernization: Since the cost of building units hardly change (only by 2.5$ per level, compared to price of 20$ for the first generation), updating armies appears to be extremely cheep.
  And further why can't I man a fort with Conscripts? It would be cheaper and more useful to dig in 2 conscript brigades instead of supplying a citadel. (aside from the special effects)
  

The biggest reason is conscript formations are NOT at combat fighting strength until mobilized and then you pay the same cost.  In peace time a Conscript formation would have about 50% of its manpower. 

If you want units doing combat operations etc in peace time then you are using a Regular Unit as its in effect a professional formation always at mobilization strength.  If you want to mobilize a conscript unit it will take several weeks to assemble it or a reserve unit.

As to forts, 2 citadel's will have more combat strength than a brigade and ready sooner.  It will take a month for a brigade to dig in and even then it won't have the same strength.  Plus a citadel can withstand siege by design while a brigade in the open has to gather resources. 

As to no conscript rating, forts aren't intended to be manned by anything other than reservists.  Note the high end cost is labeled as MOBILIZED and not regular.

Michael

[Nobody]

The biggest reason is conscript formations are NOT at combat fighting strength until mobilized and then you pay the same cost.  In peace time a Conscript formation would have about 50% of its manpower. 

If you want units doing combat operations etc in peace time then you are using a Regular Unit as its in effect a professional formation always at mobilization strength.  If you want to mobilize a conscript unit it will take several weeks to assemble it or a reserve unit.
[...]
As to no conscript rating, forts aren't intended to be manned by anything other than reservists.  Note the high end cost is labeled as MOBILIZED and not regular.

Ah well that are some important bits of information which were missing so far. Now it makes much more sense. (And it was my fault for not seeing the forts bit)


Anyway that still leaves the price.
I think the difference might be a bit small. I propose to either round it up (to $ 3 per level) or to choose the next larger convenient number (like 4 or 5 $).
The other thing is the upgrade cost itself. If we only pay the difference, than purchasing armies for the game start is much more attractive, as they can be cheaply updated if necessary.
   I propose that we should have to pay a multiple of the difference, e.g. twice as much. That way after skipping a level or more building a new unit might be cheaper than upgrading.

There is another idea which crossed my mind: How about splitting the price of new units between the cost of their equipment and the rest? Or is that what was meant with "The setup cost is covered by the first year of maintenance."?
I'm asking because one might want to sell weapons & equipment to someone else, and not an entire army. Or you buy all the material, but not create the unit itself and instead store it.

[Darman]

There is another idea which crossed my mind: How about splitting the price of new units between the cost of their equipment and the rest? Or is that what was meant with "The setup cost is covered by the first year of maintenance."?
I'm asking because one might want to sell weapons & equipment to someone else, and not an entire army. Or you buy all the material, but not create the unit itself and instead store it.

I was wondering the same thing myself.  I have historical examples of New England manufacturers sending weapons to foreign armies during the 1880s and 1890s: Providence Tool Co. sold roughly 10,000 rifles (no details on specific types) to the Turkish Army before/during a war with Russia.  I realize thats only a brigade or two worth of weapons but...
We can sell naval weapons but not army weapons.  Although I will admit that if we aren't counting things like arsenals like we are slipways and drydocks then selling army equipment may not make much financial sense. 

[Desertfox]

Well I was planning on buying a couple of "empty" corps (at full cost) just to have extra stuff lying around. I think that would be allowed, and you can probably buy military equipment from other nations it just wouldn't be cost effective to do so.

[Nobody]

Since I have the feeling I understand the army system now, I thought it would be a good idea to write the corresponding part of the report sheet.
Feel free to to look for bugs, and tell me what you think about it.

Any suggestions?

[miketr]

The sheet looks correct on first glance.

Michael