I was wondering what was players favorite or most effective Brigade compositions. Does it matter or have any effect in battles?
I've been experimenting with 3 varieties for Prussian forces;
the first is 1 militia, 2 regular inf., 1 light inf.
the second is 1 grenadier, 2 reg. inf., 1 cannon,
the third is 3 regular inf., 1 light inf.
I've been looking at mixing my cavalry up, having dragoons and light cav together or something. I have noticed my Hessian units seem to be better at range (I group the arty with them) so I figured other grouping might work to?!?
-
CarnageINC
- Sergeant
- Posts: 93
- Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 1:33 am
- Location: South Dakota USA
with my austrians i've been organising brigades of 3 heavy inf and 1 grenzer, this is a good all purpose brigade that benefits the whole stack and makes the most of a few grenzer bns
the russians and swedes have so much art they do have lots of 3 inf + 1 battery bdes; this seems a very luxurious ratio for the 1750s, tho i spose the russians always fielded lots of artillery throughout their history. if its ok for them i spose its ok for others
while not distributing them at bde level i have started concentrating my artillery at column level alot more, half a dozen art bns really tears holes in the enemy
grenzer bdes of 1-4 bns are good in winter to run around gobbling up non-fortified areas when all the regulars and cavalry are inside the walls (tho i notice on the harder settings the ai is willing to risk harsh winter weather with its line units); but i usually brigade them with hussars in the warmer months and distribute a few to the line
i have tried really mixed brigades of light/line/foot/cav/skir/art but came away thinking they lacked punch
the russians and swedes have so much art they do have lots of 3 inf + 1 battery bdes; this seems a very luxurious ratio for the 1750s, tho i spose the russians always fielded lots of artillery throughout their history. if its ok for them i spose its ok for others
while not distributing them at bde level i have started concentrating my artillery at column level alot more, half a dozen art bns really tears holes in the enemy
grenzer bdes of 1-4 bns are good in winter to run around gobbling up non-fortified areas when all the regulars and cavalry are inside the walls (tho i notice on the harder settings the ai is willing to risk harsh winter weather with its line units); but i usually brigade them with hussars in the warmer months and distribute a few to the line
i have tried really mixed brigades of light/line/foot/cav/skir/art but came away thinking they lacked punch
[SIZE="1"]M. THERESA D.G.R. IMP. HU. BO. REG.
Justitia et Clementia[/size]
Justitia et Clementia[/size]
The line or heavy infantry with light (aka skirmisher) brigade I'd say is the most common combination. Though it's mostly Austria that can do that with its Grenzers. I don't really distinguish between line and heavy (grenadier, guard or elite) in this game, though usually I only assign those brigades to well rated generals...
My cavalry brigades usually are also a mix. Those serving in infantry columns usually consist of 2-3 cuirassier (or guard, or carabineer, or h. grenadier) regiments and 1-2 dragoon (or ch. l.) or hussar (or uhlan, or cossack, or m. jäger). The cuirassiers to provide the column with some added punch and the dragoon/hussars for scouting. Though in the end those brigades often end up serving with all hussars detached. The brigades of my cavalry reserve on the other hand usually have no cuirassiers and just consist of 2-3 dragoon and 1-2 hussars. Occasionaly I will detach the brigades from the Infantry columns and assign them to the cavalry reserve for added combat capacity, at other times I will group Hussars in a single brigade to operate detached in my army screen or as raiders...
I never attach artillery, pioneers or pontoneers to brigades. Artillery would I assume benefit from a brigade leader's offensive/defensive bonuses, but considering how artillery costs 0 command they are better employed at column/army level. Pioneers and pontoneers give their bonuses to an entire force, so no point attaching them, and they also cost 0 command points...
I'm sure other combinations might be useful (note I didn't mention militia, when I have to use them they serve just like weak and unreliable line)...
Oh and on occasion I have some cavalry in an Infantry brigade, usually only when I can't bring an infntry brigade to full strength and have some cavalry to spare...
My cavalry brigades usually are also a mix. Those serving in infantry columns usually consist of 2-3 cuirassier (or guard, or carabineer, or h. grenadier) regiments and 1-2 dragoon (or ch. l.) or hussar (or uhlan, or cossack, or m. jäger). The cuirassiers to provide the column with some added punch and the dragoon/hussars for scouting. Though in the end those brigades often end up serving with all hussars detached. The brigades of my cavalry reserve on the other hand usually have no cuirassiers and just consist of 2-3 dragoon and 1-2 hussars. Occasionaly I will detach the brigades from the Infantry columns and assign them to the cavalry reserve for added combat capacity, at other times I will group Hussars in a single brigade to operate detached in my army screen or as raiders...
I never attach artillery, pioneers or pontoneers to brigades. Artillery would I assume benefit from a brigade leader's offensive/defensive bonuses, but considering how artillery costs 0 command they are better employed at column/army level. Pioneers and pontoneers give their bonuses to an entire force, so no point attaching them, and they also cost 0 command points...
I'm sure other combinations might be useful (note I didn't mention militia, when I have to use them they serve just like weak and unreliable line)...
Oh and on occasion I have some cavalry in an Infantry brigade, usually only when I can't bring an infntry brigade to full strength and have some cavalry to spare...
Marc aka Caran...
-
JacquesDeLalaing
- Colonel
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:05 pm
- Location: Vienna (Austria)
The following thoughts are based on my try at understanding combat. I don't know if they're correct.
The optimal composition of brigades depends on weather and terrain, of course
.
Skirmishers
Skirmishers are always nice as they bestow a +1 initiative bonus to the whole brigade and they don't need a lot of frontage. This means that your elements are more likely to fire first, thereby possibly routing an enemy element so that it cannot shoot back at all, or with reduced chance (due to cohesion loss and loss of hits).
Cavalry
Remember that cavalry can only carry out "cavalry charges" in open (or clear?) terrain - at least I've read that somewhere, it's not in the manual
.
In battle, I usually rely on heavy cavalry. According to its attributes (assault, assault-damage, protection), heavy cav. is superior to light cavalry. The only disadvantage is in bad weather or difficult terrain, when heavy cavalry consumes more frontage than light cavalry. Light cavalry, on the other hand, is much better at scouting (evasion value, hide and detection). However, for this purpose, light cav. doesn't need to be part of my "combat stack". I don't know if light cavalry plays an important role when it comes to withdrawal (chance of success, hits) though.
I'm not sure 1. whether to combine cavalry with infantry or not, or 2. whether to form cavalry-brigades or to use cavalry as seperate units.
ad 1. The problem here is that I don't have any detailed information on how close-combat works. I would love to know more about close combat!
Let's imagine a mixed inf.-cav. brigade. When most of your inf.-elements get to fire before the enemy, then your cavalry won't suffer too many hits because the enemy elements will probably shoot back at your infantry-elements (which are going to suffer more hits though). Once the distance reaches "0", heavy cavalry is both very likely to attack and very likely to "hit", thereby inflicting a lot of damage (usually 3 hits). The amount of damage that is inflicted on the cav. in return heavily depends on the close-combat quality of the attacked element. E.g. grenadiers are likely to strike back and hit, whereas militia-men are a complete flop.
To draw a line: I still don't know whether to mix inf. and cav. in a brigade. Therefore we need to evaluate the weight/importance of close-combat in comparison with ranged-combat. Under which circumstances is it wise to have a brigades' firepower reduced in return for more close-combat-power? Probably I would prefer to have a lot of cavalry in a brigade which has to fight against lots of grenadiers - the problem: I never know which of the enemy units my brigade is going to pick.
ad 2. Seperate (non-birgaded) combat-units (non-support-units) are less likely to be targeted by the enemy in ranged combat than bigger brigades. But if they are, they will suffer a lot due to their small size (the fire of a whole brigade may be concentrated on 3 elements of cavalry!). So it is a gamble really.
Remember that cavalry-elements have their chance of "cavaly-charges" increased when they're part of a brigade. (manual p. 49: full leaders' offensive rating instead of half leaders' offensive rating)
Artillery
I usually use artillery as seperate units in a stack. The main reasons for that: 1. artillery doesn't consume command-points, 2. the size of brigades is restricted to 1 leader + 4 units in RoP. When there are less elements in a brigade (and artillery is even less likely to be targeted!), enemy fire (units always target one enemy unit) is more concentrated as it is spreads over less elements. So your infantry elements may suffer more hits when they're targeted by a big enemy brigade. On the other hand, artillery in a brigade fires at the healthiest element of the respective enemy unit (the enemy unit that has been targeted by the unit which the artillery is part of), whereas seperate artillery fires at the healthiest unit (or element?!) present on the field of battle.
-------------
The advantage of brigades over seperate units: Brigades may deal concentrated damage if they target a small brigade or a seperate unit (less enemy elements get damaged, but the damage will be bigger).
The optimal composition of brigades depends on weather and terrain, of course
.
Skirmishers
Skirmishers are always nice as they bestow a +1 initiative bonus to the whole brigade and they don't need a lot of frontage. This means that your elements are more likely to fire first, thereby possibly routing an enemy element so that it cannot shoot back at all, or with reduced chance (due to cohesion loss and loss of hits).
Cavalry
Remember that cavalry can only carry out "cavalry charges" in open (or clear?) terrain - at least I've read that somewhere, it's not in the manual
.
In battle, I usually rely on heavy cavalry. According to its attributes (assault, assault-damage, protection), heavy cav. is superior to light cavalry. The only disadvantage is in bad weather or difficult terrain, when heavy cavalry consumes more frontage than light cavalry. Light cavalry, on the other hand, is much better at scouting (evasion value, hide and detection). However, for this purpose, light cav. doesn't need to be part of my "combat stack". I don't know if light cavalry plays an important role when it comes to withdrawal (chance of success, hits) though.
I'm not sure 1. whether to combine cavalry with infantry or not, or 2. whether to form cavalry-brigades or to use cavalry as seperate units.
ad 1. The problem here is that I don't have any detailed information on how close-combat works. I would love to know more about close combat!
Let's imagine a mixed inf.-cav. brigade. When most of your inf.-elements get to fire before the enemy, then your cavalry won't suffer too many hits because the enemy elements will probably shoot back at your infantry-elements (which are going to suffer more hits though). Once the distance reaches "0", heavy cavalry is both very likely to attack and very likely to "hit", thereby inflicting a lot of damage (usually 3 hits). The amount of damage that is inflicted on the cav. in return heavily depends on the close-combat quality of the attacked element. E.g. grenadiers are likely to strike back and hit, whereas militia-men are a complete flop.
To draw a line: I still don't know whether to mix inf. and cav. in a brigade. Therefore we need to evaluate the weight/importance of close-combat in comparison with ranged-combat. Under which circumstances is it wise to have a brigades' firepower reduced in return for more close-combat-power? Probably I would prefer to have a lot of cavalry in a brigade which has to fight against lots of grenadiers - the problem: I never know which of the enemy units my brigade is going to pick.
ad 2. Seperate (non-birgaded) combat-units (non-support-units) are less likely to be targeted by the enemy in ranged combat than bigger brigades. But if they are, they will suffer a lot due to their small size (the fire of a whole brigade may be concentrated on 3 elements of cavalry!). So it is a gamble really.
Remember that cavalry-elements have their chance of "cavaly-charges" increased when they're part of a brigade. (manual p. 49: full leaders' offensive rating instead of half leaders' offensive rating)
Artillery
I usually use artillery as seperate units in a stack. The main reasons for that: 1. artillery doesn't consume command-points, 2. the size of brigades is restricted to 1 leader + 4 units in RoP. When there are less elements in a brigade (and artillery is even less likely to be targeted!), enemy fire (units always target one enemy unit) is more concentrated as it is spreads over less elements. So your infantry elements may suffer more hits when they're targeted by a big enemy brigade. On the other hand, artillery in a brigade fires at the healthiest element of the respective enemy unit (the enemy unit that has been targeted by the unit which the artillery is part of), whereas seperate artillery fires at the healthiest unit (or element?!) present on the field of battle.
-------------
The advantage of brigades over seperate units: Brigades may deal concentrated damage if they target a small brigade or a seperate unit (less enemy elements get damaged, but the damage will be bigger).
-
CarnageINC
- Sergeant
- Posts: 93
- Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 1:33 am
- Location: South Dakota USA
Good explanations indeed.
Close combat is fairly common, something like 1/3 of the exchanges of blow I would say on average. Now, if you start in forest, with a reduced range, CC happens much earlier.
Close combat is fairly common, something like 1/3 of the exchanges of blow I would say on average. Now, if you start in forest, with a reduced range, CC happens much earlier.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
-
JacquesDeLalaing
- Colonel
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:05 pm
- Location: Vienna (Austria)
If I'm not mistaken, you can at most fire once per range value, so if the initial distance is very short, this can impede units with a good ROF, and thus proportionally, the assault phase will be more important.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
-
JacquesDeLalaing
- Colonel
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:05 pm
- Location: Vienna (Austria)
Ahhhh! So an element doesn't shoot all its attempts (according to its RoF) at one distance, but one attempt per distance.
E.g.:
Initial distance 3:
Prussian infantry (rof 3, range 3) will shoot one time at distance 3, one time at 2, one time at 1.
Austrian infantry (rof 2, range 3) will shoot one time at distance 3, one time at 2.
Initial distance 2:
Both, Prussians and Austrians, shoot at range 2 and 1. So the Prussians loose one shot/attempt.
Whenever Pocus answers, I learn something new!
E.g.:
Initial distance 3:
Prussian infantry (rof 3, range 3) will shoot one time at distance 3, one time at 2, one time at 1.
Austrian infantry (rof 2, range 3) will shoot one time at distance 3, one time at 2.
Initial distance 2:
Both, Prussians and Austrians, shoot at range 2 and 1. So the Prussians loose one shot/attempt.
Whenever Pocus answers, I learn something new!
-
CarnageINC
- Sergeant
- Posts: 93
- Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 1:33 am
- Location: South Dakota USA
I have found with my experiments that adding a cav rgt. to the bgd. will vastly improve its overall combat effectiveness. My ratios of losses are constantly around 2-1 in my favor, sometimes there 3-1! The only issue is after a years worth of combat you must start rotating the cav units out for refits since you can't get enough replacements for them in that year.
JacquesDeLalaing wrote:Ahhhh! So an element doesn't shoot all its attempts (according to its RoF) at one distance, but one attempt per distance.
E.g.:
Initial distance 3:
Prussian infantry (rof 3, range 3) will shoot one time at distance 3, one time at 2, one time at 1.
Austrian infantry (rof 2, range 3) will shoot one time at distance 3, one time at 2.
Initial distance 2:
Both, Prussians and Austrians, shoot at range 2 and 1. So the Prussians loose one shot/attempt.
Whenever Pocus answers, I learn something new!
Sorry my bad, I was not too sure so I checked... You can fire all your ROF at each range...
Still, if you start in a terrain reducing range, it anyway means less fire before closing to assault.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
-
JacquesDeLalaing
- Colonel
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:05 pm
- Location: Vienna (Austria)
Dear Jacques, thats simply historical. The Old Master Driller of the Prussian Army von Dessau trained the prussian infantry like firing five rounds in two minutes at minimum. Together with the use of iron ramrods this was easily reached. The austrian infantry couldn't hold their fire far longer than some minutes at the opening of the battle because their wooden ramrods often broke as they tried to fire rapidly. So the austrian often fired only three shots in two minutes aka three salvoes versus the prussian five salvoes.
The austrian had in the first two Silesian Wars only two advantages: the quality of their artillery and of their very good cavalry. But in 1756 this advantages had diminished by the extensive training of the Prussian with their improved cavalry and artillery. The best cavalry leaders of the Prussian like Ziethen, Seydlitz and Gessler were some of the best contemporary generals.
But due to the ongoing war in the SYW the troop quality diminished on both sides.
So it is amazing how the Prussian could still win some battles from 1760 onwards.
greetings
Hohenlohe, a little history buff
edit: I have learned much from the community in this forum and from both Philippes about their games...
The austrian had in the first two Silesian Wars only two advantages: the quality of their artillery and of their very good cavalry. But in 1756 this advantages had diminished by the extensive training of the Prussian with their improved cavalry and artillery. The best cavalry leaders of the Prussian like Ziethen, Seydlitz and Gessler were some of the best contemporary generals.
But due to the ongoing war in the SYW the troop quality diminished on both sides.
So it is amazing how the Prussian could still win some battles from 1760 onwards.
greetings
Hohenlohe, a little history buff
edit: I have learned much from the community in this forum and from both Philippes about their games...
R.I.P. Henry D.
In Remembrance of my Granduncle Hans Weber, a Hungaro-German Soldier,served in Austro-Hungarian Forces during WWI,war prisoner, missed in Sibiria 1918...
In Remembrance of my Granduncle Hans Weber, a Hungaro-German Soldier,served in Austro-Hungarian Forces during WWI,war prisoner, missed in Sibiria 1918...
-
Schattensand
- Lieutenant
- Posts: 118
- Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 6:28 pm
Since this is a good thread about Brigades, figures I'd just throw my simple question that I'm sure vets can answer quite easily.
Sometimes, I noticed a General with his picture to the right of the unit, instead of the usual left, and most of the time these generals only have just 1 unit attached to it, and that's pretty much it. Is there any idea on how that General will get rid of that? so He's able to attach more units to it? (Or is he one of those useless ones and that will never happen? lol
thanks in advance for the help
Sometimes, I noticed a General with his picture to the right of the unit, instead of the usual left, and most of the time these generals only have just 1 unit attached to it, and that's pretty much it. Is there any idea on how that General will get rid of that? so He's able to attach more units to it? (Or is he one of those useless ones and that will never happen? lol
thanks in advance for the help
Baris wrote:Hi,
I didn't remember which Leader has which unit attached to it by default but maybe you should post a picture, reason can be it can be a historical brigade, may be it is designed that way.
Did you try disbanding unit from leader by "-" sign?
and are you using latest beta?
It may be that historical brigade or something as that's the only answer it can, and yes I've tried disbanding the brigade and trying to reform it, every time it only gives me the "+" sign available for just one unit. (Doesn't matter which unit it is though, but it's only just one)
Also I'm using the official Patch 1.02, not the latest beta patch if there is one.
but thanks for the response.
mp84 wrote:Since this is a good thread about Brigades, figures I'd just throw my simple question that I'm sure vets can answer quite easily.
Sometimes, I noticed a General with his picture to the right of the unit, instead of the usual left, and most of the time these generals only have just 1 unit attached to it, and that's pretty much it. Is there any idea on how that General will get rid of that? so He's able to attach more units to it? (Or is he one of those useless ones and that will never happen? lol
thanks in advance for the help
It's a General with his personal guard (on horses). You can't remove this guard.
Have you tried to give the general a division command before trying to join him again with a unit? Some units are capable of joining with a general without division command, essentially forming an independent regiments.
If you want to change that to a brigade, first disband (the - sign), then give the commander a division command (the tent like button), then add several regiments (control-click them) before using the + to merge them.
Hope this helps.
If you want to change that to a brigade, first disband (the - sign), then give the commander a division command (the tent like button), then add several regiments (control-click them) before using the + to merge them.
Hope this helps.
Bertram wrote:Have you tried to give the general a division command before trying to join him again with a unit? Some units are capable of joining with a general without division command, essentially forming an independent regiments.
If you want to change that to a brigade, first disband (the - sign), then give the commander a division command (the tent like button), then add several regiments (control-click them) before using the + to merge them.
Hope this helps.
Yep, tried that, I think it's a bit of both in the end based on what you said, but also what the previous poster said on how it's only the General and his guard unit and that's it, so that make sense.
And now, the almighty question as to figure out how I lose battles when I outnumber the enemy almost 3 to 1, but I'll learn that as I continue to dive right in.
-
Anthropoid
- Lieutenant
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 7:11 pm
Corps Commanders also Brigade Commanders?
I've tried in the Saxony scenario to either (a) assign a brigade to a 3 star (e.g., Ferdinand or Keith), and then assign him a corps commander as well else to (b) assign a brigade to him after a corps has been formed. I've never been able to get this to work so far, and it seems these guys can be either a brigade commander _or_ a corps commander but not both simultaneously.
Now starting up the 1756 campaign as Prussia I see that one of the Corps commanders, Wilhelm von Preussen, also has a brigade of two elite infantry and two grenadiers.
When I split this brigade and then try to reform it, the button to add them together is grayed out.
Are there certain special requirements for a corps commander to also have a brigade assigned to him?
Is Wilhelm at the start of the campaign just an exception to the rules reflecting initial advantage for the Prussians?
ADDIT: seems there is a thread over at Paradox that deals with this very question
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?p=11659759#post11659759
Now starting up the 1756 campaign as Prussia I see that one of the Corps commanders, Wilhelm von Preussen, also has a brigade of two elite infantry and two grenadiers.
When I split this brigade and then try to reform it, the button to add them together is grayed out.
Are there certain special requirements for a corps commander to also have a brigade assigned to him?
Is Wilhelm at the start of the campaign just an exception to the rules reflecting initial advantage for the Prussians?
ADDIT: seems there is a thread over at Paradox that deals with this very question
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?p=11659759#post11659759
-
Anthropoid
- Lieutenant
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 7:11 pm
So the generalizations which this thread lead me to:
1. It is good to have one Cav Rgt in each Bgd
Question: the Cavalryman ability says "+25% bonus to all units in the stack" does this (e.g.) mean Seydlitz gives a bonus to Cavs that are not in his brigade, but attached to other brigades that are in the same corps?
Say I have Keiths Corps with Heinrich, Seydlitz and Retzow all commanding brigades in that corps. If I put 1 Cav Rgt in Heinrichs, 1 in Seydlitiz, and 1 in Retzows, are they all "in the stack" as long as they are inside Keith's Corps Unit Window?
2. It is good to have one "skirmisher" Rgt in each Bgd
3. It is good to have one heavy infanty Rgt in each Bgd
5. It is not particularly useful to put units that require zero command pts (artillery, pontooners, engineers) inside brigades, but rather leave them "loose" inside the corps/army "stack?"
Question: I would think that mixing one less experienced/weaker unit into each brigade along with the one heavy/elite/veteran unit would tend to be better than having brigades of all one or the other? I would think that serving along side the experienced/heavies would afford the recruits/weak Rgts added protection, and thus at least indirectly contribute to faster experience gain?
At the start of the game, each brigade tends to be homogeneous, i.e., all grenadiers, or all light infantry, and I'm guessing that while that might facilitate much more concentration of power in some brigades/corps it would also tend to minimize the use of the weaker brigades in the short term and also reduce their rate of experience gain and improvement?
1. It is good to have one Cav Rgt in each Bgd
Question: the Cavalryman ability says "+25% bonus to all units in the stack" does this (e.g.) mean Seydlitz gives a bonus to Cavs that are not in his brigade, but attached to other brigades that are in the same corps?
Say I have Keiths Corps with Heinrich, Seydlitz and Retzow all commanding brigades in that corps. If I put 1 Cav Rgt in Heinrichs, 1 in Seydlitiz, and 1 in Retzows, are they all "in the stack" as long as they are inside Keith's Corps Unit Window?
2. It is good to have one "skirmisher" Rgt in each Bgd
3. It is good to have one heavy infanty Rgt in each Bgd
5. It is not particularly useful to put units that require zero command pts (artillery, pontooners, engineers) inside brigades, but rather leave them "loose" inside the corps/army "stack?"
Question: I would think that mixing one less experienced/weaker unit into each brigade along with the one heavy/elite/veteran unit would tend to be better than having brigades of all one or the other? I would think that serving along side the experienced/heavies would afford the recruits/weak Rgts added protection, and thus at least indirectly contribute to faster experience gain?
At the start of the game, each brigade tends to be homogeneous, i.e., all grenadiers, or all light infantry, and I'm guessing that while that might facilitate much more concentration of power in some brigades/corps it would also tend to minimize the use of the weaker brigades in the short term and also reduce their rate of experience gain and improvement?
Interesting questions and I hope someone can answer these as I currently also try to figure out how to form my units.
"Spread word to every slave, that even the mighty republic bleeds when struck!"
Join the Napoleonic Wargame Club
Join the American Civil War Game Club
Join the The Blitz Wargaming Club
Join the Napoleonic Wargame Club
Join the American Civil War Game Club
Join the The Blitz Wargaming Club
-
Stoertebeker
- Corporal
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 11:30 pm
Now, that I understand battle mechanics a little bit better, I've come to following conclusions regarding brigade composition:
1. It's better not to mix valuable heavy cavalry with infantry. Since units are likely to "shoot back" at another unit, your cavalry might get unnecessary hits in ranged combat if combined with infantry.
2. Since corps artillery fires at the biggest unit, it's useful to create special "fire magnet" units with not-so-valuable troops. These brigades should contain a lot of elements. Ideal for this purpose would be a brigade composed of militia units with many elements and hits. Even more ideal would be a (mediocre) Leader with skirmisher ability and one of those regiments composed of a single grenadier element and additional line elements. The grenadier with additional initiative would be likely to fire early and thus making it likely that not only the enemies artillery targets this unit, but that also an enemy unit shoots back at your fire magnet. The leader would ideally be sufficient to deny the enemy any leader bonus (if you're playing as prussia, a 0-0-leader should suffice), but it does not have to be a really good one.
3. It's good to have your biggest and your strongest units commanded by the best commanders, since multiyplyers add to each other. It's not good though, to have overpowered elite cavalry units with some experience commanded by good commanders, since they might reach a hitchance bigger than 100%, which would be wasted power.
4. It's good to consider the future of your brigade commanders when assigning the troops. If there's someone with good stats and special combat abilities - someone you'd like to command corps or armies at a later stage - then he should command a bunch of killers (heavy cavalry, when the fight is in clear terrain), so that he gains experience faster, which will improve his stats, his abilities and will shorten the time to a possible promotion.
5. It's good to combine valuable troops with high initiative (and range) with bad troops and low initiative in one brigade. A let-alone grenadier regiment would be likely to shoot at an enemy unit early - which would then shoot back with combined firepower on your most valuable men. On the other hand, you could exploit excatly that - if you have a really tiny elite unit which get's sacrified to draw the enemies fire away from your really powerful units. You should have a rough estimation on how many hits are likely to be inflicted by an enemies brigade if you consider this tactic: If their hitchances are low anyway, it may well be that your grenadier survives the battle and just takes losses that could have been suffered by less valuable troops.
Obviously, you cannot act perfectly according to point 3 and 5 at the same time. If expecting a long and bloody battle, I'd prefer to allocate losses according to 5. If the situation looks like an easy victory, I'd tend to concentrate the firepower (and at the same time helping the leader to improve his stats and abilities).
Those things are matters of micromanagement, though, and the impact might not be overwhelming. But I like the feeling that I'm doing my best to alter chances to my advantage.
1. It's better not to mix valuable heavy cavalry with infantry. Since units are likely to "shoot back" at another unit, your cavalry might get unnecessary hits in ranged combat if combined with infantry.
2. Since corps artillery fires at the biggest unit, it's useful to create special "fire magnet" units with not-so-valuable troops. These brigades should contain a lot of elements. Ideal for this purpose would be a brigade composed of militia units with many elements and hits. Even more ideal would be a (mediocre) Leader with skirmisher ability and one of those regiments composed of a single grenadier element and additional line elements. The grenadier with additional initiative would be likely to fire early and thus making it likely that not only the enemies artillery targets this unit, but that also an enemy unit shoots back at your fire magnet. The leader would ideally be sufficient to deny the enemy any leader bonus (if you're playing as prussia, a 0-0-leader should suffice), but it does not have to be a really good one.
3. It's good to have your biggest and your strongest units commanded by the best commanders, since multiyplyers add to each other. It's not good though, to have overpowered elite cavalry units with some experience commanded by good commanders, since they might reach a hitchance bigger than 100%, which would be wasted power.
4. It's good to consider the future of your brigade commanders when assigning the troops. If there's someone with good stats and special combat abilities - someone you'd like to command corps or armies at a later stage - then he should command a bunch of killers (heavy cavalry, when the fight is in clear terrain), so that he gains experience faster, which will improve his stats, his abilities and will shorten the time to a possible promotion.
5. It's good to combine valuable troops with high initiative (and range) with bad troops and low initiative in one brigade. A let-alone grenadier regiment would be likely to shoot at an enemy unit early - which would then shoot back with combined firepower on your most valuable men. On the other hand, you could exploit excatly that - if you have a really tiny elite unit which get's sacrified to draw the enemies fire away from your really powerful units. You should have a rough estimation on how many hits are likely to be inflicted by an enemies brigade if you consider this tactic: If their hitchances are low anyway, it may well be that your grenadier survives the battle and just takes losses that could have been suffered by less valuable troops.
Obviously, you cannot act perfectly according to point 3 and 5 at the same time. If expecting a long and bloody battle, I'd prefer to allocate losses according to 5. If the situation looks like an easy victory, I'd tend to concentrate the firepower (and at the same time helping the leader to improve his stats and abilities).
Those things are matters of micromanagement, though, and the impact might not be overwhelming. But I like the feeling that I'm doing my best to alter chances to my advantage.
-
Die Zieten
- Sergeant
- Posts: 95
- Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:13 pm
Posted this in the wrong thread at first but here it is again..
My suggestion for Prussian players that have a Prussian mentality for Ordnung.
Prussian Corp
3 x Infantry brigade = 12 batallions
1 x Fusilier brigade = 4 batallions
4 x Grenadier batallion ( Independent but can be formed in to a brigade, the commaders reserve)
1 x Cavalry brigade 10- 15 squadrons ( Curassier and/or Dragoons)
1 x Cavalry brigade 10-15 squadrons ( Hussar and/or Dragoon)
2x Artillery batallion = 10 batteries
You can add to this from the army reserve what you need but this is a formation that can work independently as it is.
Prussia can field 5-8 of these formations with little stretching the resources and depending how the war is going..
You can also construct combined arms brigades for missions with what you have in reserve.
Exsample here.
2x Regimental batallion = 10 Infantry coy, 2 Grenadier coy
1 x Freibatallion = 5 Light infantry coy
5 x Cavalry squadron ( Hussars or Dragoons)
1x Artillery batallion = 5 batteries
Now these will live by the situation naturally but it is good to have some ready blueprints.
edit.
To give you idea of the power is that three of these combined with Army stack, Cavalry corps and possible Vanguard is close to 90.000 men and 8000pwr.. It can cover 3-5 regions and will kill anything smaller it hits.
My suggestion for Prussian players that have a Prussian mentality for Ordnung.
Prussian Corp
3 x Infantry brigade = 12 batallions
1 x Fusilier brigade = 4 batallions
4 x Grenadier batallion ( Independent but can be formed in to a brigade, the commaders reserve)
1 x Cavalry brigade 10- 15 squadrons ( Curassier and/or Dragoons)
1 x Cavalry brigade 10-15 squadrons ( Hussar and/or Dragoon)
2x Artillery batallion = 10 batteries
You can add to this from the army reserve what you need but this is a formation that can work independently as it is.
Prussia can field 5-8 of these formations with little stretching the resources and depending how the war is going..
You can also construct combined arms brigades for missions with what you have in reserve.
Exsample here.
2x Regimental batallion = 10 Infantry coy, 2 Grenadier coy
1 x Freibatallion = 5 Light infantry coy
5 x Cavalry squadron ( Hussars or Dragoons)
1x Artillery batallion = 5 batteries
Now these will live by the situation naturally but it is good to have some ready blueprints.
edit.
To give you idea of the power is that three of these combined with Army stack, Cavalry corps and possible Vanguard is close to 90.000 men and 8000pwr.. It can cover 3-5 regions and will kill anything smaller it hits.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests