"Ratio in 1862 of bad, vs good vs great brigades" Topic

Okay guys, I know this is subjective but wanted to get some input and was curious what others impressions are. For may game am trying to come up with a ratio of bad inf brigades vs good/average brigades vs "elite/veteran" brigades for both the CSA and the Union in the early 1862-1863 years, no particular battle. The measure is just over all combat potential including size, equipment, leadership, etc.
For the CSA I am thinking around 15% elite, 75% average and 20% poor. For the USA 8% elite, 50% average, 42% poor. So what do you guys think?? Am really curious what the impression you rest of you have based on what you know and have seen, read, etc. Thanks!! Happy Gaming!!

Hi Gamer1

This is some good thinking…but when you talk about the brigades, are we discussing how they are in combat? (Offensive/Defensive or both), are we talking their leadership? Bragg, Pope, etc…

I'd say keep the elite down to no more than 10%…even with Southern forces because elite units tended to be smaller due to higher casualty rates, (take a look at the losses of 1st Texas at Sharpsburg)…

Thanks for the input, yes does require some thinking, like I tried to communicate I am talking overall combat potential, regardless of the army commander, attacking defending etc. I feel like a greater % of the CSA brigades where better early on but in the later years as they started losing, well everything needed, performance went down. I have the USA as shown starting out weaker but as the war goes on the quality slowly improves until it is actually better overall during the last part of the war.
Also I am just talking the infantry, not cavalry or art and I don't consider 1861 because it seems like both sides were equally bad at the very start of the war…..before each side realized it was going to be a serious, long war:)

Good question

I think that the ratio of 10% elite is pretty fair – for the Union I can think of only a handful of brigades that I would consider elite in 1862 – mind you, the same applies for the Rebs; I think you might be a bit harsh having 42% Union as poor – perhaps a third at most

Isn't it more a cases of Leadership and training.

Also keep in mind the difference in union and confederate units elsewhere, other than the Armies of the Potomac and Northern Virginia. The percentages would probably be reversed.

The Union won the preponderance of the battles West of the Allegheny mountains.

If someone twisted my arm, I'd say 10 – 65 – 25%.

I feel like a greater % of the CSA brigades were better early on but in the later years as they started losing, well everything needed, performance went down.

The Confederates continually reinforced their existing regiments, while the Union would raise new regiments and incorporate them into existing or even new brigades.

The strength of the brigades was certainly a factor in individual battles. Confederate brigades did not become "bad" late in the war, but they certainly were smaller than newly raised Union formations.

I have the USA as shown starting out weaker but as the war goes on the quality slowly improves until it is actually better overall during the last part of the war.

The Union quality did not really improve, but the armies got much larger than the Confederates. Late in the war the union ranks were filled with conscripts, draftees, heavy artillery regiments converted to infantry, inexperience USCT's, and veterans reluctant to fight due to war weariness.

You can't equate the effectiveness of troops based on who won or lost a battle. The Union fought well in the Peninsula Battles and won most of the tactical engagements in the Seven Days, only losing at Gaines Mill where the Confederates outnumbered them almost 2-1, and yet they held their ground until finally numbers and fatigue forced them to withdraw.

35thOVI's points are on the money too.

Kim

Troop quality is scenario driven.

The Neil Thomas ACW rules suggest proportions of great/ok/bad troops by year and arm for each side. In 1862 there are an awful lot of bad troops!

Horse, Foot and Guns has the entire Union Army infantry as "raw" until Gettysberg.

I tend to lift this stuff from the quality ratings in the various Volley and Bayonet scenarios, the general observation still stands. 1862 = loads of green troops. A brawl between armed mobs, as von Moltke observed. I like raw troops, they are a real hoot to play with, it all gets a bit dour and serious later on.

OK, so that n the VnB 2nd Manassas scenario, 10 out of 36 US brigades are raw, and 1 is elite. All of Lees Army are average, apart from 2 elites (one cavalry, one infantry).

I think that gives a fair idea, although Tbh outside the Army of Virginia I'd still have some raw CSA troops in other armies.

I think you need to start by defining what the characteristics are of a bad brigade v. an average brigade v. an elite one. By the summer of 1862 what I would define as bad brigades had become rare. Brigades were more likely to fail or succeed based on their regimental and brigade leadership, which could vary from action to action, and their use or misuse by higher level commanders.

Thanks for the input guys and I can't disagree with any of what has been said, good points all. My challenge is that the force pool each side will pull from represent brigades that will be placed into the different area's of operation, east, west, trans-MS and they will be broken down into a "early war" pool vs a "later war" pool………thus the challenge. Yes many, many factors go into how a brigade does in any give fight and yes, just because one side loses doesn't mean the average soldiers didn't fight well, or great.
Thus the challenge to fairly represent an average and let the players decide out of the random quality they are given where they want to send them based on what their strategy is and where they want or need the best. Hope I am making some sense here:) Sounds like my initial numbers, % break down is pretty close, based on feedback.
As you guys know, there is also the challenge of what is historical vs what players expect and what is "fun" to play. As you all know, a rule set can be historically accurate but if it's no fun to play…..who cares. Anyway, thanks again and the input has been very welcome, and I have really enjoyed seeing different opinions and hope you guys have also. Happy gaming all!!!

Most of the Army of the Tennessee would rate as elite in my book.

Which Army of the Tennessee?

In some battles, a unit might be considered elite reflecting what they did in a specific battle. Not all units performed the same all the time. It is tricky with brigades because some regiments might be better than others. Also, replacements both individual and whole regiments may not be and most likely would not be up to the level of the veterans.

An example would be the Iron Brigade. When the 24th Michigan was added to the brigade it would be a while before the regiment would be experienced enough to be on par with the rest of the brigade.

After Gettysburg and certainly by 1865, the Iron Brigade was a shadow of its former self. Confederate armies usually recruited new men into existing regiments. Brigades such as the Stonewall Brigade could better integrate individuals into regiments. The Confederate's issue as the war went on was that they were running out of military-age males.

I don't think in terms of Brigades, I think in terms of regiments. Regiments were the building blocks of both armies. Google a list of units in the ACW and you will get mostly lists of regiments.

Off the top of my head, I would say the Vermont Brigade, Iron Brigade, Strong Vincent's Brigade (20th Maine), and Lighting Brigade and there were many good units in both the Army of Tennessee and Army of the Ohio but I would need to look them up and I am not dragging out all my books right now.

For the CSA, Stonewall Brigade, Orphan Brigade, North Carolina Brigade (ANV), Walker's Brigade, and many others. But like I said I don't game brigades I only do regimental.

Old Contemptible, thanks for the input and that makes perfect sense and I am familiar with what you have said. I went with brigades because that is about the smallest practical unit size for players to work with on a game this large. Also I want the ratio to reflect the over all levels of each side on that level and show how it gradually changed during the war from, I believe favoring the south to favoring the north in terms of over all quality of the "units". As I said in the initial OP its a very open question for interpretation but when it comes to game design I think part of making a "fun historical" game to play is meeting player expectations on not just what was but what is expected and feels comfortable. Hope I am making sense:) Thanks again and happy gaming, very helpful all of it!!!

I don't agree that the Union army was inferior in 62. In fact, quite the opposite. Unit for unit it was probably at its highest peak in fall of 62 since all the units were made up of high quality, motivated volunteers. Even in the Peninsula campaign Union units performed very well. That failure of the AoP was at the command level.

Grant's Army of the Tennessee.

I agree with Marcus Brutus.

It was in the Peninsula that the Iron Brigade earned its moniker. There were some very good units in both the AOP and ANV in 1862.

The Iron Brigade actually missed the Peninsula Campaign as I corp remained near Washington.

It was designated as III corp in the Army of Virginia for the 2nd Bull Run campaign, and the Iron Brigade would see their first action at Brawner's Farm just before 2nd Bull Run.

Despite being a green brigade with no combat experience, they stood toe to toe against the Stonewall Brigade giving as good as they got!

It does show that raw units in their first action can perform as good as what we consider "elite".

Stannard's Vermont brigade at Gettysburg was another example of a green unit performing at an elite level.

Kim

Yes. Obviously in a table top war game it would be a large challenge to represent that on a very large scale but I felt by getting random quality at the same "price" the players could get at least some feel for that. Its like if you are unlucky and pull a bunch of inferior brigades its kinda like going into battle expecting X but getting Y instead. I find it adds some extra management challenges for players to decide what units to send where based on needs and personal objectives during the game. Thanks again and happy gaming!!

Kim Young is correct

Yes he is.

Generally (no pun intended) it was the brigade commander, especially the brigade's FIRST commander, that made the difference between ordinary and exceptional (or exceptionally bad).

Same is true for regiments, divisions, and armies.