My take on forming Divisions

[GraniteStater]

Oh, and one more thing: Gray Fox is not entirely erroneous. In the end, all the Support, the Navy, the Cav, the Arty are there for one thing & one thing only - to make Private Jones's job with a musket easier. We all go to the supermarket and buy our Stuff - everything else being equal, I will opt for that last click to be an Inf Bde almost every time. I don't know if the Creator is on the side of the biggest battalions, but most of the time, that's the way to bet.

[aariediger]

(Oops, just realized I am referring to apost in the other AACW forum.)

Just thought I'd throw this out there. When I said before that I used my artillery in a division, that didn't mean I don't use it in a corps. The opposite actually, I throw as much loose stuff into a corps as I can. Generally I run with only two divisions in a corps, with loose rifles thrown in too. I build only rifles until I run out of them, only then do I buy 6/12 pounders. What I use infantry for is to prevent my corps from retreating before battle. It seems you need about two corps to do that. In my current game, it’s January 1863 and I have 8 infantry corps under Grant, all but one with only 2 divisions (one with three), plus a cavalry corps under Kearny. I have only bought 20 and 10 pounders, with more on the way. I don’t know how much killing my infantry does compared to the artillery, but I know I have more money than I know what to do with, and I have to use conscript companies carefully.

I think artillery in/out of a division doesn’t matter much, from what I understand you will fill the frontage either way. So it really comes down to which targeting method one prefers. I haven’t seen a big difference one way or another, although I’m not married to one over another. I might change or try to based on solid numbers, but I tend to build crappy divisions anyway, throwing together whatever I have. I once had a division with 4 Marine regiments, because I needs the men and didn’t have time to parcel them out among my different corps as planned. For the most part I have one rule: whenever I can, move around the enemy, not through them. That’s why I use so many small corps. Another thing for the way I play is the fact I always use the old retreat rule, so I always aim to cut off and destroy stacks, and even my opponent sees it, they have to either withdrawal and give me an objective on the cheap, or counterattack. The tactical defense is strong. I figure if a maneuver results in the opponent having to go on the attack, that’s a win for me, even if I fail to take the objective. Chancellorsville was a great plan, completely wrecked by Lee’s counterattack. But three or four more Chancellorsville’s would have destroyed Lee’s army. Did you know he lost more killed and wounded than Hooker did?

[ArmChairGeneral]

Danger, Long Posts ahead!

Composition of independent divisions:

It is my understanding from the literature that due to frontage considerations (that arise from weather and terrain) that the max number of support units in the worst case is 4, and that this, rather than the CP issue was the reason that 4 guns ultimately became the standard for independent divisions. (I believe, but cannot verify, that stacks inside a structure have a max artillery frontage 4 elements wide and the assaulting force has the same cap, further supporting the 4/Div rule.)

Frontage in closed terrain/bad weather is small enough that multiple divisions don’t always fit, and the movement costs make it less likely that a supporting Corps or Army will be able to MTSG, so a fully commanded independent division with 4 guns is the force you want there, even if Corps are available. Range is limited too, so a 20 in the woods isn’t as good as a 20 in clear. In the terrain that independents are useful in, 12lbers will perform quite well, and 6’s will be fine if that is all you have. Bigger guns don’t necessarily give you much benefit compared to how useful they would be to a Corps or Army, which usually operate in more open (longer range) terrain.

Thus, for an INDEPENDENT division 4 arty is the Gold Standard, and will give good performance in a wide range of situations while minimizing CP penalty, as there is no MTSG or separate targeting to consider. Any benefits from min-maxing beyond this are probably not worth the micro-management, although I can report positive results with 5 and 6 artillery in clear terrain before Corps formation was allowed.

Second, less reliable rule of thumb: rifles in A/C stacks, smooth-bores embedded in Independent Divs.

I don't think that Gray Fox was advocating an independent division with all infantry and some guns at division-stack level, his points apply to A/C stacks, and bring up a host of different questions and complications to consider.

(Sorry for any cross-posting on any issues already addressed by others, it took me a while to type this up.)

[planefinder]

I would posit that another factor folks haven't mentioned is that divisions make elements/units more survivable because they share casualties all around. The danger of dropping loose brigades/elements into Corp is that once the element is destroyed, it's destroyed. Element in divisions that are destroyed are replaced. This makes independent only arty make sense, while loose infantry and some forms of loose specialists (particularly cavalry and militia for the Union) make sense only within divisions. Otherwise, it is much more easily subject to destruction through repeated attacks. Divisions on the other hand, as long as they retain at least one element (I believe), will eventually get replacement elements for their losses.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Good point.

It is worth remembering that elements that are completely destroyed but part of a unit consume an entire replacement chit. Loose units that are destroyed return to the force pool from which you bought them, rather than access the replacement pool, (I can't remember where I read this, although I have witnessed it in-game when scouting stacks get destroyed) unless they were scripted, in which case they are gone forever. Rebuilding a unit from scratch is more expensive and usually takes longer than through replacement, so it is still much worse than if it were part of a division.

In terms of survivability, embedded artillery tend to eventually participate in assault phase, which is where the most damage to them occurs. Loose artillery can also have this happen, but only if they were targeted and then closed with by an enemy unit (a division is a unit). For loose Corps/Army arty, this is not common, since the divisions and loose infantry brigades are usually selected as targets first because they are larger/more powerful. This is why some players have advocated supporting-Army stacks that contain mostly artillery and just enough infantry to absorb some hits if the worst happens: the Army will mostly be fighting by MTSG to support a Corps, and will be unlikely to have its loose artillery targeted by enemy divisions. This is one reason it is difficult to inflict hits on enemy artillery.

[minipol]

From all of the above (and my own experience), some points:

- Independent force: use 'standard' div: Inf/some Cav/SS/4 art
- Div in a corps: more inf is possible, cav can be retained or use a cav div in the army.
6 lbs and 12 lbs in Div, 10 lbs and 20 lbs guns in the Corps.
- Army: some units to absorb hits, 10 lbs and 20 lbs guns in the Army.

[ArmChairGeneral]

some points:

Wow, minipol strikes again! I think that isn't just some of the points, that's all of them. Anything else is (potentially fun) micro-managing that is not critical to overall success.

[GraniteStater]

From all of the above (and my own experience), some points:

- Independent force: use 'standard' div: Inf/some Cav/SS/4 art
- Div in a corps: more inf is possible, cav can be retained or use a cav div in the army.
6 lbs and 12 lbs in Div, 10 lbs and 20 lbs guns in the Corps.
- Army: some units to absorb hits, 10 lbs and 20 lbs guns in the Army.

Yup, that's the gist. It's all variations on a theme, but if you want to play the Combined Arms Concerto, that's the essence. We all have our personal prefs - right now I'm in the Economy Model Army HQ mode, with next to nothing except for HQSupp. I don't get 'em involved, if you know what I mean. FYI, different Army Commanders will vary in their Army Radius (shift-click, for Army HQ only; otherwise, shows pathing) - Grant's is very large, I have him stay in Cairo right now while Pope and Lew baby clean up Paducahland/Memphis. The greater the Strat Rating, the greater the Radius, IIRC. Useful.

[Gray Fox]

http://www.ageod.net/aacwwiki/Frontage

Here's the data from the Wiki for terrain and weather. Yes, it's AACW not CW2. Unless you have proof that AGEOD took a wrecking ball to the combat routine, this is still how frontage works.

A force in a mountain region in a blizzard can only engage the enemy with 2 artillery elements and 6 combat elements per round. At the other end of the scale, Robert E. Lee as a 3-star with straight 6's in clear terrain with perfect weather would get 248 combat and 42 artillery to engage. I repeat, a military genius can at best get only 42 batteries actually firing. Either someone got this totally wrong in the Wiki or it is just totally right.

As army commander, Lee would get enough CP's for two Divisions and 14 batteries of heavy guns, and so would two of his Corps. That's a total of 42 batteries. The 42 heavy batteries fire every round and all of the frontage for support elements is taken.

If each of the 6 Divisions had four 6 or 12 lbers, then that would be 24 light artillery batteries that get an equal chance to be randomly chosen by the program to fire instead of the heavy guns.
(24 light batteries /66 total batteries= 36% chance for the light guns to be chosen)
So the more powerful guns have only about a 64% chance to get to fire under the condition of Divisions with artillery. More than a third of the time the smaller guns would fire. Division artillery competes with artillery in a Corps/Army (C/A) for frontage. Hopefully that addresses why Division artillery should be replaced with infantry elements for Divisions in a C/A.

Now about the cavalry in the C/A Division. An independent Division only needs one single cav element for the patrol value gained. Since the Corps and Army fight together, the Army cavalry Division provides more than enough patrol value. One dozen Divisions with one cav element each will not outnumber a cavalry Division with 16 elements. The Army and its Corps will be able to better screen a withdrawal or prevent an enemy from withdrawing with a Division of cavalry. So the C/A Division can replace the cav element with another infantry element.

An independent Division will still need a sharpshooter, a cav element and a mix of artillery and infantry. The artillery number would be based on the terrain frontage that the lone Division is intended to hold. A mountain region only allows 3 artillery to engage, so a mountain Division only needs three batteries. However, the C/A Heavy Infantry Division is a thoroughbred not a plow horse. Each one should have your best one star, a sharpshooter and sixteen infantry elements. Each Division should have an element that provides the cohesion bonus. The C/A should be like Patton's Third Army. A lean, mean fighting machine whose only designed purpose is to go through the enemy like crap through a goose.

[GraniteStater]

Hang on while I get my eyeballs out of the glazier's.

Uh, if you want to buy 'heavy' arty solely, sure, go right ahead, that's mostly a wallet & delivery decision. The rest of it, well, OK, I guess. When I read the original Frontage thread way back when, I had to slap myself awake a couple of times.

Without reading the attachment, I have trouble with 'compete' for Frontage. AFAIK, everything else being equal, the DivArty does not preclude loose (call it Corps Arty) arty from firing.

To tell you the truth, I really don't care about in-depth numerical analyses, just in case that point was unclear. When I read and benefit from such threads, I cut to the chase and read the conclusions. What I'm seeing from you is that somehow, one shouldn't bother putting loose Arty in a stack with DivArty or vice-versa. I have a reeeeeeeeaaallly hard time with this statement. My hazy recollection of the much vaunted Frontage thread is that the support units (arty being support), swing in & out of the fray. The arithmetical conclusion was, one shouldn't put more than four arty in a Div. Fine - easy to remember.

Now, if I'm reading this right, one shouldn't bother with arty at all in a div and just have loose cannons.

I think you're confusing some things, or overreading something into some texts, I don't know.

Eventually, Capt Orso or Ace or one of Da Numbah Guys is going to do the Authoritative & Exhaustive analysis for frontage, weather, CP structure and How to Buff Up Your Economy - for this game, CW2.

And even then, I won't read every word. That's what summaries are for.

Maybe you're absolutely correct - I don't know. Your proposals and analyses run counter to my Ageod instincts, what can I say? I don't think you're entirely wrong, I just think you're a little bit too enthusiastic about something & maybe I misunderstand you. Visions of 15 regmt Inf divs with no DivArty, dragging around a 15" mortar on trunnions are a bit jarring.

* We all should be a bit more precise - when I say 'battery', I mean an arty unit, not an element.

* BTW, the Confederate practice was Corps artillery command & control - the Union had it at both levels, Div & Corps. The CSA had little or no dedicated 'DivArty'.

* We all should bear in mind that the C&C structure in the game is ahistorical. 'Division' and 'Brigade' as a defined unit did not exist in the Civil War. These formations were largely of convenience, although they could exist for months and years. The US Army had no Divisions as such until 1917, with the formation of the First Infantry Division. This unit was a fully independent unit, capable of conducting operations all by itself, with integrated arty, support, communications, hospital, etc etc etc. This is what a true Division is & it did not exist before the 20th century in US doctrine. Nowadays, the Army is restructuring again and taking a Brigade approach, if I understand correctly. Let's skip 'square' & 'triangular' divisional structures altogether as a subject, shall we?

* The tactical unit was the regiment and how warm bodies were replaced (or not, mostly not in the Union OOB), etc., was different from practices of the last century or so. AFAIK, the CSA did a more modern system of sending individuals to assigned units, at least to some extent, whereas the Union just kept raising regiments and then bled them white. So how we do things in the game is for our convenience as players, largely.

So, knowing all this and seeing how the devs bult the model, I have reservations about anyone's Quick & Handy Solution to Tactics and Command - anyone's. I say that because I have noticed that Ol'Choctaw, Ace, the Ursine One, Jim-NC and literally a host of others here - well, the highly respected ones, especially the Number Guys, well, they don't end up at One Size Fits All conclusions - their observations are sober & measured.

I take that as a hint, myself.

[minipol]

There is one downside to the whole thing. You have to keep the Corps and army in the same or adjacent regions.
My style has Armies and Corps sometimes spread by 2 regions, sometimes more. Then the cav div in the army is no good. In such a case, it's better to have some cav in the divs in the corps, as well as a sniper.
As for arty, you could place those heavy guns with the corps.
As the CSA you are bound to have mixed divs because you don't have the luxury of buying exactely the art you need at the start. You need some art to stop the immediate threats. Later, it gets harder to avoid units without 6 lbs or 12lbs guns. These get in the mix as well.

[Gray Fox]

Great GS! We agree to disagree. That's what discussions are for. We both love a superb game from a struggle that is largely overlooked, even though the battles have their 150th anniversary. Play the game any way that brings you pleasure. Try Heavy Infantry Divisions, or don't. As Grant said, "Let us have peace."

minipol, I never said it was going to be a free ride. "Some assembly required" You either want an army that can take out the Union capital in '62 to win the game, or you can fight the war historically. I think that most historians agree that plan didn't work out too well for the South.

[pgr]

Divisions on the other hand, as long as they retain at least one element (I believe), will eventually get replacement elements for their losses.

Really?

It's probably a bit off topic, but can someone run through how the combat cycle works? I'm thinking detection, engaging (and or avoiding combat), firing rounds and range being closed, breaking contact, and pursuit? I guess I'm most interested in knowing how cav effects the calculations vs inf. I also suppose that if front line frontage is full infantry will deploy before cav. Is this the case?

How would a 3 NY brigade C/I/I/I/6 with sharpshooters and a 12 pounder hold up? In an ideal world, I suppose I would rather see less "mixed" brigades as construction options and just recruit individual elements.

[GraniteStater]

Yes, they will, but sometimes, especially if you survived with just a lone artillery element left, it can take forever to rebuild. Sometimes it's better to bust up a severely wounded Div and just reconstitute it - imo, that is. Do what you think is best; if you get some noteworthy results, go ahead and post 'em.

Recruiting by brigades is ahistorical, but this is the system we have & I don't think it's going to change - sorry.

[GraniteStater]

Great GS! We agree to disagree. That's what discussions are for. We both love a superb game from a struggle that is largely overlooked, even though the battles have their 150th anniversary. Play the game any way that brings you pleasure. Try Heavy Infantry Divisions, or don't. As Grant said, "Let us have peace."

minipol, I never said it was going to be a free ride. "Some assembly required" You either want an army that can take out the Union capital in '62 to win the game, or you can fight the war historically. I think that most historians agree that plan didn't work out too well for the South.

Don't forget, in 1.03, we have the extra fixed forces plopped into Alexandria & DC now - DC is at ~800 PWR behind forts by the fall of '61.

[minipol]

I am unable to launch an attack on DC. The union outnumbers me vastly, and has done so from the start.
5 turns before my game ends, the Union has about 23.000 pwr there to my 14.000.
It was more or less equal until 1865.
I could withdraw troops from my front in Indy, but that would be very risky.
I'm miles ahead on points so no need to risk it.

[Jim-NC]

The one issue no one has discussed (so far) is costs. I realize that those nice spiffy big guns are really great an' all, buuuuut, what about the costs?

I've never had enough money to do everything I want. I must make choices, and live with those (as must everyone else)
For example, as the CSA, in AACW, and so far in CW2, I almost only purchase 12 lbers in the beginning. Why? To me, they have the best cost benefit ratio. They are cheaper, but the defend almost as well as the bigger guns (I rely on Dixiecrat's wonderful artillery analysis from AACW for this). Thus they have decent defensive stats for a low price. Is it the best method? Not necessarily, but I can get more of them into my armies.

We need to update the cost/benefit ratio of the different artilleries in the game at some point (I just need to find more time here somewhere).

[GraniteStater]

I wish the 12's had a slightly faster build time- 10-lbers & 12-lbers are both 60 days, I believe. Just one Turn faster would tilt me much more heavily to front-loading the 12's, which I usually did in AACW. Now, not so much. If I can spare the cash, might as well build the 10's.

[GraniteStater]

There is one downside to the whole thing. You have to keep the Corps and army in the same or adjacent regions.
My style has Armies and Corps sometimes spread by 2 regions, sometimes more. Then the cav div in the army is no good. In such a case, it's better to have some cav in the divs in the corps, as well as a sniper.
As for arty, you could place those heavy guns with the corps.
As the CSA you are bound to have mixed divs because you don't have the luxury of buying exactely the art you need at the start. You need some art to stop the immediate threats. Later, it gets harder to avoid units without 6 lbs or 12lbs guns. These get in the mix as well.

* 'same or adj' - well, that's what MTSG is all about, unless you have a finer point.

* arty.hvy gun/corps - checkmark

* army in same or adjacent - I have been exploring my own way here in CW2. When I saw HQSupp units, I almost did something biological. Maybe I'm nuts. Anyhow, even in AACW, I was chary of getting my 3*s mixed up in the fighting, largely 'cuz I want Grant alive and boosting the subordinate Corps - as I wrote once, he 'spreads the Grantness all around.' So my HQ Gen'ls usually sit at the office doing paperwork.

[ArmChairGeneral]

As CSA I like 12s also, they are very effective on defense and are the backbone of my army (generic army not Army). Also, I have a lot of them in the force pool. Rifles obviously have longer range, but there is a lot of closed terrain out there. Compared to 10s (cause 20s + are so expensive they are hard to compare) 12s are weak on offense, but we all try to fight in defense as much as possible. They are almost as good as 10s for the siege roll, although they are not what you want when you actually assault.

Fox,
It is definitely much harder to get a jump on DC these days. There are more scripted forces in DC, and Athena is more interested in keeping 2000+ stacks covering DC at all times and more like 5000 later in the game. She isn't going to leave DC with 1000 PWR while she goes to kick your lone division off the B&O at Fredricksville MD anymore. Right now, you can make a lot more headway focusing on the West where she isn't adequately building up in the Lower Ohio Valley. Circling around and going after Baltimore is pretty risky too, the payoff (tricking her into leaving DC exposed) isn't as common as it once was. This is still the place you have to win, but she isn't handing it over nearly as often as she used to.

GS,
Fox can defend himself, but I don't think you have entirely understood his point. He is saying that between the different targeting routines for stack vs A/C artillery, the ability of infantry to dish it out in assault (and their fire ratings are actually pretty strong too at close range) and the behavior of artillery at close range, that you could get some improvement to your Corps or Army stack by trying to get as much heavy artillery at the stack level and minimize what is in the infantry divisions inside the same Corps/Army within the limits of what is possible to actually put together because of force pools, expediency, etc. This isn't that novel, and is actually in-line with standard doctrine; most of us already use C/A divisions with just the artillery that came in the brigades, keeping most of the good stuff up in the stack. Fox just thinks that there are extra advantages to doing so and no reason to intentionally keep 4 in each Army/Corps division.

Where the crux of his argument departs from the rest of us is his analysis of the assault phase: Units pick units for targeting, and they prefer larger or more powerful units. Then elements target elements WITHIN the unit that the parent unit is targeting. When range 2 and less (where infantry come into play) a unit with 17 infantry will be less likely to break overall and more likely to break an enemy unit with only 10 infantry assuming that the stack artillery were dealing damage along the way. Once their unit routs or routs the target, everyone in the unit runs or stops firing, whereas as long as the Corps/Army commander does not withdraw altogether (which if he has a whole division routing he probably will) the stack artillery continue to engage (although I think they have also closed and are using their assault numbers rather than their fire ratings, they are usually not GETTING assaulted). Plus, if they are in the division, the artillery are exposed to assault damage when their unit enters assault phase, whereas because the loose stack artillery are individually small they are rarely chosen as targets and closed with. Artillery wear away the infantry as they close, obviously, and stack artillery is still doing this, so when the divisions close with each other they have both taken artillery fire but the on with more infantry can take more and dish out more than the one with embedded artillery.

I am not in total agreement with these conclusions; the mechanics of targeting, assault phase etc. are complex and intentionally behind the scenes. But if it is working the way he says, then one could gain some advantage, although it would not be consistently decisive in large battles because it requires the stars to align just right for everything to work out this way. Plus, the tetris-style juggling of forces to get this composition is not necessarily worth the payoff.

On the other hand, I have to entertain his notions, because I find that in mop-ups independent Cav divisions that include a few infantry vastly outperform pure Cav divisions (bring rifled guns too, if you can) leading me to think that there is something going on in assault phase that is worth looking at.

The best heuristic advice so far is minipols' summary in post #36. At this point we are engaging in intentional micromanagement, but we like to do it

Fox,
I am only 80% sure that there is no combat-weighting to choose artillery to participate. I am not fully convinced that the chance for a 6 to be chosen is the same as for a 20, but either way, this would be this would be based on the unit characteristics not their location within the command structure. 6s would still have a chance to crowd-out frontage from 20s even if it is weighted for size.

Not sure what stack artillery are doing when range goes to zero. They don't stay at range just because they are not being assaulted by someone right? They close on their target just like anyone else. But if they are not being assaulted, which they probably won't be (because they are "small" units or because their Army stack is "small,") can they deal assault damage to a target unopposed? If so then they definiteley have an advantage over div artillery who are giving AND receiving assault damage. But I am not sure this is the case.

Also, as I have noted before, it is possible for the stack artillery to pick a different target entirely, leaving one of the fat-infantry divisions, who has taken enemy cannon-fire and suffered cohesion and hits while closing, going against a division at ranges 2 and less that has fewer infantry but has taken little or no cohesion loss from the enemy cannons while closing. In this case the advantage to a fat-infantry division becomes less clear.

It is almost impossible (at least with the CSA) to avoid 6s in the division, no matter how hard I try. I don't build any by themselves (at least not for front-line combat divisions and Corps) but I am stuck with them because mixed brigades are what I have on hand. I am lucky if I can put together a Division with only two of them, and they will always be trying to take frontage from the good guys.

[ArmChairGeneral]

How would a 3 NY brigade C/I/I/I/6 with sharpshooters and a 12 pounder hold up? In an ideal world, I suppose I would rather see less "mixed" brigades as construction options and just recruit individual elements.

EDIT: In light of new information, the majority of this post was deleted due to factual errors, and the comments below were revised.- ArmChair

3 NY brigades:
While I would be hesitant to throw that div into a heavy fight against big guns or eliteswith all those 6's, it is just fine. It won't be your best Division by a longshot, but it will be better than anything with militia mixed in. I have found as a general rule that divisions made of the exact same brigades are never my strongest divisions, but it is definitely within the guidelines of what seems to be gelling as the consensus. It looks like a pretty good independent division: garrison a Depot with that thing and it will stand up to all but the most determined assault.

[GraniteStater]

Nowadays I am largely living with the preselected, integrated 6-lbers, but putting only two of these in a Div; then I'll stuff a 12-lber individually, maybe two. O'C's point about integrated Cav in a Div is quite cogent, I think.

My only real dissent is that if there is little, very little to be gained from integrated Arty, or Cav, for that matter, in a Div, and 'loose' Art or Cav (within stacks, corps or otherwise) can rule the day, then why bother building Divs at all, other than CPs? I see gray Fox ending up with 16 Inf & a Mortar, or something like that. why bother with command structure or combined arms at all? Just build tons & tons of six Inf reg'mt, one Big Boom-Boom & a Cav element, lead 'em with two or three single stars and you're off to the races.

I just have a funny feeling that if M. Fox marched his 16 Inf element Divs in a stack that had pretty much Everything Else loose in the stack - well, maybe Athena hasn't caught onto this, but I just have a feeling that O'C or P.'SW' Cleburne or Longshanks or some others would have him whistling 'Dixie', but good. I just feel that there is a reason to have some balance and actual combined arms within a Div - a reason for which the player gets rewarded.

Organization of your Divs and Corps is an important aspect, I believe.

I read your post with great care & think I see your points, with one caveat - if the inf gets to close range - what, unhurt? That's what DivArty is for- go ahead, assault me - after you're all torn up & shot to pieces. I'd love to put four 10-lbers in every Div, just about; as the Union, mid, late war, heck, I'll take the time to do it, 'cuz I have. Johnny Reb don't like that at all. Also, while I'm here, having taken the Big Hurt from 'Shanks when he was the Union, he sent me an in-game PM: 'Howja like them Gatlings?" No range at all, no sirree, but if you assault a Div with one or two of them coffee mills in it - not just red elements, how about no elements?

"Everything else being equal" - but it never is, there's entrenchments, leaders, weather, terrain, yadda yadda & we all know it.

I find it very hard to believe that an improved version of a model of the Civil War would leave a hole in it so that a major strength of the Union could be negated so easily. Arty kills, kills in numbers and makes stout hearts weep as they approach the lines. It's there for a reason.

[ArmChairGeneral]

My only real dissent is that if there is little, very little to be gained from integrated Arty, or Cav, for that matter, in a Div, and 'loose' Art or Cav (within stacks, corps or otherwise) can rule the day, then why bother building Divs at all, other than CPs? I see gray Fox ending up with 16 Inf & a Mortar, or something like that. why bother with command structure or combined arms at all? Just build tons & tons of six Inf reg'mt, one Big Boom-Boom & a Cav element, lead 'em with two or three single stars and you're off to the races.

Well, for one thing artillery in a division get their division general's offensive and defensive ratings, and succeeding on the hit roll is a Big Deal. But if guns are Meant to be in the Division, why do they have a different targeting routine when at the stack level? The existence of the difference implies that there is some benefit to having them loose (the Corps or Army stack) which is why this question came up all those years ago.

You aren't the dissenter in this case, Fox is Like I said, I am not entirely convinced either, I just think there is merit in looking further. That being said, I can't foresee that there is a tremendous amount to be gained that would justify the micro that all this would entail for anyone who doesn't already enjoy that sort of thing. Also, I haven't seen much from my experience thus far to think that for this question AACW is any different than CW2.

For me this discussion (and previous ones I have had with Fox, who has a keen analytical mind and a very good understanding of AACW) is much more about understanding the combat mechanics than about being able to gain much in the way of advantage. I am not convinced there is much that CAN be consistently gained over the standard model, but am interested in the analysis for its own sake.

His final conclusion (favoring loose artillery in the A/C stack when possible) isn't that radical, just a different way of justifying one of the two schools of thought on a (frankly minor) question that has never been entirely settled. He is still advocating lots of artillery, just trying to finesse the assault phase and the targeting ability of A/C stacks.

He is also trying to minimize sixes, which is a no-brainer. Fox, if you can tell us a good way to actually achieve that, well, THAT'S a game changer!

[ArmChairGeneral]

GS,

I read your post with great care & think I see your points, with one caveat - if the inf gets to close range - what, unhurt? That's what DivArty is for- go ahead, assault me -

Yeah, that's really where I am unsure as well, especially if it is a division that was not targeted by the stack artillery so hasn't taken any hits. I am going to be taking a much closer look at assault phase and artillery behavior and performance during it with these questions in mind.

P.S. This thread and the Raiding thread are great, seems like its 2009 all over again!

[GraniteStater]

Understood.

* I will intentionally build independent sixes in MO & DE, 'cuz that's what's there. I'll do it in '61. Then I switch to the 10-lbers in MO. The six in DE is there for guard duty, altho Athena has been eschewing the 'Delmarva attack', afaics. Maybe they coded that out - good.

* The key phrase, if I'm looking at this right, is no more than four arty to a div. I remember Jarkko and Dixiecrat in an involved discussion about building 'Artillery Divisions". Hoo -boy.

* This is what I see: a Div picks its 'opposite number'. It sticks with it thru the fight. I would rather have my Div start engaging at a longer range with something, even sixes, because it's going to either start to inhibit an assault (if I'm defending) or 'soften up' (yeah, right, it's better than nothing, I feel, but not a guarantee of any kind) as the approach/assault proceeds. If the opposite number has no arty at all, well, I'm getting some free shots, am I not? I want something. I will, and do, build Divs with one 6-lber, if that's the deal at that time and place. Two is better. Three or four is what I want. But something.

* Meanwhile, Corps Arty, my long guns, are picking out Ts of Oppo. If I'm doing this right, they open up before anybody & everybody. If I have it right, they keep doing this all thru the fight - so, as the enemy Div is approaching, if they are starting to take the 'right' amount of hits as they approach, my Corps Arty may start to wreak some havoc with them - on top of what they're getting from DivArty.

* No, I do not trust integrated sixes or even 12s, to do what I want when attacking, especially anyone dug in, especially structures. I want my loose long guns, I need them to tear up the entrenchments, because Rule No. 1 is The Tactical Defense is Strong - and is often Very Strong.

* So I want DivArty for opposite numbers (We Know Who You Are) and loose long guns to start the party and dogpile (To Whom It May Concern). The latter for assault, also.

* The experience on the wrong end of Gatlings was very instructive. Short range, yes, almost exclusively defensive - but as an integrated part of a Div, they just chewed up their opposite numbers into mincemeat. Not pretty at all - I mean the Div concerned was just wiped out. Nasty, nasty surprise, we hates them Bagginses.

[minipol]

Observe Athena. Look at her corps organization. She uses artillery and other support units in the corps, maybe army too.
If it wasn't advanteous, she wouldn't do it.
It reminds me of when I played chess against a friend that had to study chess all the time from his parents. I lost all the time, but observed and learned. After a couple of months, I was able to beat him. Same with Athena. We can learn how the engine works by watching her troop composition.
Thats warfare too, observe, learn, adjust and improve

[GraniteStater]

Egg-zackly.

I'm not against Corps arty and so on...I just feel there is a justified role for Div Arty.

And, like everything else, don't go nutty with it. There is no one thing that is The Answer.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Oops, upon further review, infantry and cav have range 3, and Early cav have no protection.

[GraniteStater]

And getting back to the OP's original thoughts: integrated Cav. Ol'Choctaw wasn't being astounding, just reminding us that the way recruiting is done, there is a reason for the integrated Inf/Inf/Cav brigades. He points out something I had been mulling myself - recruiting integrated Cav so that one can have four Cav in a stack frees the 'independent' Cav to do the job that Cav should be doing - moving fast, scouting, screening, anti-raiding, and a few other errands, like tearing up tracks later in the war.

That's how I read the first post. Putting 'independent' Cav in a Div is a waste. You get only so many & the more and more I examine my play, I want & need more - I'll take all I can get. Should you never do this? Well, sometimes, ya gotta, but keep it to a minimum and break 'em out for their real job when you can, I would say.

Ever notice Athena is always poking her digital nose into your formations with those little mounted beggars? Even with Detection dialed up in Options, she's inquisitive. So, you have to switch over to Offensive posture to swat them, if you want to rid yourself of them - and you don't always want to be in this posture, for reasons that should be apparent with experience; it can be inconvenient to be O/O sometimes. So, you need Cav as anti-Cav, i. e., screening.

I think integrated Cav in a Div will do this mission, but his central point is that independent Cav should be used exactly as that - independent. I will, and do, build Cav Divs and they can be useful in a Corps, but not for long in my style. O'C is right - let the integrated Cav (if two per Div, then two Divs for the stack) do the 'Cav function' for your stacks - use the independent Cav as cavalry.

*sigh* there goes 'Grant's Escort (4th Illinois)' - oh well... By extension, I feel that there is a congruent argument for some Arty in a Div. Stack arty, Corps arty are the longer guys who engage first - once more, from loki100:

range is a product of unit type not oob structure. So a long range unit in a division will fire at the same range as a long range unit in a corps. But ... the key is target selection. Everything in a division will fire at the target of that division, which means you may (probably will) waste the advantage of longer range fire due to to target allocation algorithm.

Get it?

Put the Napoleons and short stuff in a Div - put the long pounders in a position to swivel at who they dislike.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Cav:
Agree. The ones that come in the brigades are plenty, and I end up with 2-3 three and don't stress even if I have 4. I am getting happier and happier with their combat perfomance as embeds vs formed into an all cav division. Independent Cav and Cav leaders are too useful for scouting, MC busting, rail denying, Stockade popping, retreat denying and mop-up operations to fritter them away on crowded battlefields.

Pro-embed evidence:

Narwhal from the AJE Targeting thread
Note, for non-AJE purposes, that the “unit” is taken at the division level ; so having artillery in your division makes sure that that artillery actually shoot at enemy combat division and not support division

(Paraphrasing and Mild extrapolation from above post feel free to correct my interpretation) It was indicated that units that are being targeted are more likely to target whoever is targeting them. They can switch target hour-by-hour, but as the battle progresses they will tend to fire at the unit that is going to be engaging them in assault phase because you both have been shooting at each other already. Stack artillery spread around their fire tending to the largest unit, which is good, but that unit might not be one that is moving in for the kill that you want to make sure gets some hits before assault phase.


Speaking of assault phase:
Artillery seem to be meh in assault phase, but they are definitely participating (at least on defense, offense not as clear). They do relatively good damage compared to infantry or cav, but don't have a very good chance to hit compared to cav and infantry (who are equal to-hit). Still, they do OK, and are capable of causing good damage depending on their size. Once I figure out the relationship between Assault Damage and hits/cohesion dealt I can figure out the expected damage value of each element class in assault phase and write up a comparison between them all that will be more useful than meh. Depending on the numbers, it might be that some models are slightly better