AGEOD Forums

I decided to play through the Sepoy Rebellion scenario this afternoon to practice my miltary skills. I guess I fell into the trap of arrogance and over-confidence as I got crushed by the Indian AI. I was very, very patient at the start, waiting until I had two of my three 3-star generals activate and built big stacks. I moved them towards Dehli and had little trouble en route. But with the Madras army with around 1000 pwr to the south and the Calcutta army (1200pwr+) to the east of Delhi the AI hit my Calcutta army with a huge force and defeated it. Then it did the same to my Madras army. When the third 3-star army activated in the NE, the AI took advantage of its internal lines to whup one large Brit army after another with its killer stack (1500+ pwr). Ouch, ouch ouch! I guess I've got a LOT to learn about this game engine before I can really get into my first grand Campaign, probably as Austria.

Taciturn Scot wrote:I decided to play through the Sepoy Rebellion scenario this afternoon to practice my miltary skills. I guess I fell into the trap of arrogance and over-confidence as I got crushed by the Indian AI. I was very, very patient at the start, waiting until I had two of my three 3-star generals activate and built big stacks. I moved them towards Dehli and had little trouble en route. But with the Madras army with around 1000 pwr to the south and the Calcutta army (1200pwr+) to the east of Delhi the AI hit my Calcutta army with a huge force and defeated it. Then it did the same to my Madras army. When the third 3-star army activated in the NE, the AI took advantage of its internal lines to whup one large Brit army after another with its killer stack (1500+ pwr). Ouch, ouch ouch! I guess I've got a LOT to learn about this game engine before I can really get into my first grand Campaign, probably as Austria.

The military AI in this game is often amazing. In the 1880 campaign, I arrogantly assumed my large, modern British army would be able to easily crush the Mahdi's spear chuckers. A couple of easy victories reinforced my arrogance, and I let my army advance to a position where it could not retreat, and had only moderate cohesion. That was when the AI hit me with their entire force, attacking every two days. I won the first two battles, but they kept coming, and I lost the next three. They also attacked in terrain which allowed them to get to assault range very fast, where their leader bonuses and spears were deadly.By the time the last battle was over, they had suffered heavy losses, but my worn out modern troops were wiped out to the last man, including four leaders. I lost two entire corps, some divisions, brigades, and siege artillery. All gone, in a crushing, decisive defeat.

I have played this game a great deal since it was released, and I am still learning.

I confirm. In our own 1880 campaign, the Mahdists just crushed 2 of my corps outside of Khartum, using against me high attrition rate, cutting supply lines, ambushes and terrain bonuses...

vaalen wrote:The military AI in this game is often amazing. In the 1880 campaign, I arrogantly assumed my large, modern British army would be able to easily crush the Mahdi's spear chuckers. A couple of easy victories reinforced my arrogance, and I let my army advance to a position where it could not retreat, and had only moderate cohesion. That was when the AI hit me with their entire force, attacking every two days. I won the first two battles, but they kept coming, and I lost the next three. They also attacked in terrain which allowed them to get to assault range very fast, where their leader bonuses and spears were deadly.By the time the last battle was over, they had suffered heavy losses, but my worn out modern troops were wiped out to the last man, including four leaders. I lost two entire corps, some divisions, brigades, and siege artillery. All gone, in a crushing, decisive defeat.

Sounds perfectly accurate, historically. Was Hicks one of your generals?

Taciturn, I think it actually works better to have at least 2 large stacks than one as the AI likes to do. Whichever is closest to the enemy on defensive, while the other whittles away at their smaller forces and takes territory to reduce their reinforcements and supply while increasing your own. The trick is to get your stacks large enough to each match the AI which never seems to have as much issues with cohesion, supply, attrition and troop replacement.

Also, it makes a big difference to have at least 2 separate rail corridors to the interior. In my case from Calcutta, Surat and Karachi. All 3 got cut off the 1st turn of Rebellion but I had the Karachi line reopened the turn after restoring supply to all sides of enemy held territory. The other 2 lines are cut where they meet at Agra so, while incomplete, they do go fairly deep.

SonOfAGhost wrote:Sounds perfectly accurate, historically. Was Hicks one of your generals?

Taciturn, I think it actually works better to have at least 2 large stacks than one as the AI likes to do. Whichever is closest to the enemy on defensive, while the other whittles away at their smaller forces and takes territory to reduce their reinforcements and supply while increasing your own. The trick is to get your stacks large enough to each match the AI which never seems to have as much issues with cohesion, supply, attrition and troop replacement.

Also, it makes a big difference to have at least 2 separate rail corridors to the interior. In my case from Calcutta, Surat and Karachi. All 3 got cut off the 1st turn of Rebellion but I had the Karachi line reopened the turn after restoring supply to all sides of enemy held territory. The other 2 lines are cut where they meet at Agra so, while incomplete, they do go fairly deep.

Yes it was historically accurate, and I enjoyed that part of it. I did not have Hicks, but my commander was not very good. Thanks for sharing your good advice on the Indian mutiny.

My own solution to the Mahdists was different, but also focused on reducing attrition, cohesion losses, and staying well supplyed. I built a custom force to serve as the sword of my army.

It was led by Garnet Woseley, who helps troops recover cohesion faster. At this point, he had been promoted to two stars. I also had a colonial leader who reduced the need for supply. And a medical corp who also helped cohesion recovery, along with royal engineers to make river crossings faster and easier. And no less then four supply wagons. For combat, I had a brigade of guards, the last brigade of highlanders, an elite colonial brigade, a rifle brigade armed with martini henry rifles, two one element units of the superb Gurkhas, an Indian cavalry division, and three units of field artillery. Field artillery is much better at close range than heavy artillery, and the elite troops have considerably more cohesion and are much less likely to run from hand to hand combat. I also included a division of fanatic infantry that joined my army when Aden became a colony, as they excelled in morale and hand to hand combat. Wolseley is also very good at leading the light infantry in the rifle brigade and the highlanders. I always made sure this force had a line of retreat open to a friendly area, and made sure to have small supporting columns adjacent whenever possible. I took care not to let the men get too tired before sending them into battle.

This force won every battle it fought against the Mahdists, though some were close. At the end of the day, it destroyed the main mahdist forces and killed all their leaders. The elite troops, the guards, highlanders, and gurkhas, never broke, and inflicted huge losses on the enemy, while the fanatic infantry held its own in the hand to hand fighting. The field artillery blasted the enemy down at point blank range. Wolseley, the field hospital, the engineers, and the supply wagons kept up cohesion and held the attrition to manageable levels.
It was really enjoyable to organize the force and have it work out so well.

The depth in this game is beyond compare.