Question on Force Production

[KillCalvalry]

I have a question on the best build selection for units.

Militia eventually trains up to Conscript, or Regular infantry level, correct? If so, why not just buy a bunch of militia units on the cheap, and wait? For simplicity, you can combine 2 Militia Regts into one Militia "Brigade" of 2 elements. 2 Militia Regts are cheaper than buying a 2-element Infantry Brigade

(though, it's possible you spend the difference bringing the 450-man Militia elements up to 600-man Conscript elements through replacements; is that correct? If so, is Militia really any cheaper then?)

And that brings up a bigger question. Is there any advantage to build large brigades? The cost it seems is a sum of all the elements, so there doesn't seem to be a cost advantage. And I can see there may be a disadvantage in that you can't break the elements down any further, so you lose some flexibility.

Just trying to figure out the best infantry units to select....some help would be great.

Thanks!

[RebelYell]

You are counting the price right IMO, also remember militia gets a bonus for staying in their own state.

They build up faster also so in the start you can use them in point defense role in your most strategic cities/areas to prevent an early steal by the enemy.

Now that there is no division limit in the game there really isnt a need for the all the brigades maybe, you can build what you like is best for you.

Limitation could come in not having enough leaders and the map being bigger, so maybe there is use for the biggest ones acting without leaders.

Actually if the AI does not need them, i would like some of them replaced with more pure infantry brigades and cavalry brigades.

Or bring in more unit/artillery types, maybe even related to the political decisions and investments you do.

But you can produce excellent brigades/divisions with the current model also and getting to decide where to produce the units is the biggest difference in CW2 for me anyway.

[Ace]

Militia eventually trains up to Conscript, or Regular infantry level, correct? If so, why not just buy a bunch of militia units on the cheap, and wait? For simplicity, you can combine 2 Militia Regts into one Militia "Brigade" of 2 elements. 2 Militia Regts are cheaper than buying a 2-element Infantry Brigade
(though, it's possible you spend the difference bringing the 450-man Militia elements up to 600-man Conscript elements through replacements; is that correct? If so, is Militia really any cheaper then?)

Militia trains to infantry at wery low rate. Basically, if you do not put them to combat where they actually participated (where they can be a liability) or if you do not have a training general, they will stay militia practically indefinite. So regular units have their uses, and you will need to buy infantry replacements once it converts to infantry. So the milita is somewhat cheaper (original cost + replacement cost), but you have to put them to combat to upgrade. I would only buy them for the Union, and only if they are to be stacked with training general like McClellan.

And that brings up a bigger question. Is there any advantage to build large brigades? The cost it seems is a sum of all the elements, so there doesn't seem to be a cost advantage. And I can see there may be a disadvantage in that you can't break the elements down any further, so you lose some flexibility.

1 big csa brigade cost 4 CP, and is made from 7 elements. 7 militas would cost 7 CP. While in battle, each unit can be targeted, not each regiment. So brigade fights as unit so 1 brigade of 7 elements has more staying power than 7 independent regiments. Once you get divisions, brigade advantages over single units are less important, but it always better to guard some rear location with 1 btigade of 3 elements then 3 independent elements.

Hope this helps.

[Ace]

P.S.

Militias out of home state receive big movement penalty as well as big combat penalty. They can do more harm to the force by slowing them down, than good by being in the stack.
So pretty much until they train up, they are useless for any strategic offensive.

[enf91]

P.S.

Militias out of home state receive big movement penalty as well as big combat penalty. They can do more harm to the force by slowing them down, than good by being in the stack.
So pretty much until they train up, they are useless for any strategic offensive.

As they are supposed to be. This was the militia philosophy that frustrated Madison during the War of 1812: 700,000 militia, and no one to invade Canada. As Mr. Miyagi would put it: "Rule number one: militia for defense only."

[Captain_Orso]

Gather around kid, and I'll tell you a story about the militia unit that thought it could...

Okay, okay, no stories.

Management Summery
Militia are good for garrisoning towns to prevent raiding cavalry and other unpleasant in-laws and relatives (AKA raiders) from capturing them or destroying their supplies. Especially interesting in regions where you have low loyalty (Missouri) and if you lose a city cannot recapture it with cavalry alone.

You cannot fight a war with militia. You will get over-run, even if they are in their home state.

--
A little bit more info on militia and volunteers

Way back in AACW-I, depending on the year, militia had somewhere between 3 and 7% chance per turn of upgrading to conscripts, at which time they could be trained-up to line infantry by Bragg, Taylor, McClellan, Halleck or Sigel.

In CW2 the entire process has been revamped, and is still being tweaked. Basically each militia has about a 50% chance to gain 1 eXperience Point (XP) per turn. After gaining 20 XP they gain an Experience Level (EL) denoted by a star on the unit's unit display. Once the militia has gained EL1 there is a chance they it might upgrade to conscript, but what the chance is IDK at the moment. When they upgrade the lose about half of their XP.

Once upgraded to conscript, the whole processes starts over again until they upgrade to line infantry. Currently there is no way for line infantry to upgrade to elite.

As has been stated, militia have a malus of something like 10-15% when not in their home state, this applies to their strength and cohesion. BTW, this also applies to Sharpshooters when they are not built into a division. There are also volunteers, which are like militia with an attitude. The Union gets a whole slew of these in the first year of the war in volunteer brigades (2 militia and a light infantry (which is a kind of precursor to the sharpshooters)). The different between the militia and volunteers is

1. Militia always have a home state, out of which they get the 10% penalty. Volunteers often don't have a home state in this sense and thus don't have a penalty for being out of state.
2. Militia upgrade and train-up* to conscripts.
3. Volunteers upgrade and train-up directly to line infantry. Did you get that? directly to line infantry!
4. A militia brigade (2 militia regiments) has a command cost of 1. If you think that a volunteer brigade therefore probably has a command cost of 2, you would be wrong. Their command cost is 3(!!), which means that before they can be put into a division they are really difficult to use. Once they've trained-up, the make great division fillers.

So, that's enough to get your heads a smokin'.

[Ace]

Listen to this guy, what a wealth of knowledge. I might even ask him to teach me German some day .

I would only correct the part of 10% out of state penalty. It is actually bigger, but difficult to express in percentages. Apart from 10% cohesion penalty, they move at about 2/3 speed, and their discipline is halved meaning if an enemy closes to range 0 (melee combat), they will basically just surrender. Think about it if you want to deploy them out of division, out of their home state .

[Prussian Konig]

You guys make me feel so inadequate....

Seriously. I build militia for city and fort defense. I check on them in January to see if they have upgraded and then use them for other purposes.

[oberst_klink]

I still point out, that for the purpose of keeping the western theatre safe from rebel and indian raids, building militias before October 1861 makes sense. Before at least Johnny AI Reb can react I snatched away his forts in the IT, KS/MO border, destroy the IT depots and indian villages, secure AZ/NM/CA and raid and destroy outposts in TX. The rangers and mounted militia units are IMHO a very good and cheap investment to keep things moving in the west right from the start. On top of that, with Little Mac training sh*tloads of militiamen from the NW is just perfect to guard the strategic places along the Cumberland all the way to WV; never know if there's an aggressive Braxton Bragg, a raiding N.B. Forrest etc. However, just my 2p of confederate paper money

Klink, Oberst

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

IIRC, I used militia as USA to build trenches/fortifications outside key cities like Pittsburgh. Then when Athena sent a force that way, I could RR in a sizable defensive force to move right in to said trenches/fortifications. Haven't played CW2 yet, so don't know if this still works.

[Ol' Choctaw]

I still point out, that for the purpose of keeping the western theatre safe from rebel and indian raids, building militias before October 1861 makes sense. Before at least Johnny AI Reb can react I snatched away his forts in the IT, KS/MO border, destroy the IT depots and indian villages, secure AZ/NM/CA and raid and destroy outposts in TX. The rangers and mounted militia units are IMHO a very good and cheap investment to keep things moving in the west right from the start. On top of that, with Little Mac training sh*tloads of militiamen from the NW is just perfect to guard the strategic places along the Cumberland all the way to WV; never know if there's an aggressive Braxton Bragg, a raiding N.B. Forrest etc. However, just my 2p of confederate paper money

Klink, Oberst

You know, from a historical perspective, this should be impossible. There was a reason the Union didn’t enter the IT until 1863 and never moved on El Paso. The distances were too far for infantry and even cavalry had trouble due to lack of reliable water sources.

Further, the consequences of crossing Indian lands was to provoke a general uprising, and they were much more of a threat during the war than after.

Most of your Union forts did not exist until 1865 or later so there were no supplies to be had either.

The order of battle also does not reflect all the troops that were in the IT and Texas while there are very, very few troops missing from the Union line-up.

It also worked the other way around and is why there were so very few CS incursions into the far west.

Some of the units you have at your disposal were scattered in small detachments from the California border all the way into Utah and Colorado or from Washington to Minnesota.

Most western militia should be locked in place and not upgraded. Regular Army officers were highly reluctant to let them off their leash because they had a habit of starting Indian Wars which took real troops from the battle front.

This part of the game is a Major Problem and needs fixed. Maybe if you saw 5 or 6 Indian nations laying siege to Denver due to your exploits while you militia starved or died from thirst you would understand why it wasn’t done.

[RebelYell]

You know, from a historical perspective, this should be impossible. There was a reason the Union didn’t enter the IT until 1863 and never moved on El Paso. The distances were too far for infantry and even cavalry had trouble due to lack of reliable water sources.

Further, the consequences of crossing Indian lands was to provoke a general uprising, and they were much more of a threat during the war than after.

Most of your Union forts did not exist until 1865 or later so there were no supplies to be had either.

The order of battle also does not reflect all the troops that were in the IT and Texas while there are very, very few troops missing from the Union line-up.

Can these be fixed?

Btw, is it a technical issue that the IT troops are riding almost naked and cant be used in a normal division?

If not, I hope someone will have time to fix that too? Can you provide more accurate models for them? Mounted volunteers without the beard would work well?

The West is its own game within a game when it is all done, great game will get even better.

[NefariousKoel]

As has been stated, militia have a malus of something like 10-15% when not in their home state, this applies to their strength and cohesion. BTW, this also applies to Sharpshooters when they are not built into a division.

Wow. I did not know about the Sharpshooter penalty.

Thanks!

[Ol' Choctaw]

Can these be fixed?

Btw, is it a technical issue that the IT troops are riding almost naked and cant be used in a normal division?

If not, I hope someone will have time to fix that too? Can you provide more accurate models for them? Mounted volunteers without the beard would work well?

The West is its own game within a game when it is all done, great game will get even better.

I am sure it will get fixed at some point. It just is not the priority of the moment.

Terrain effects, movement, combat penalties, and supply restrictions would be the starting points. Perhaps higher attrition for non-mounted and non-irregular units. Also, some triggers that set off some of the Indian tribes into hostile mode. But that takes time and ATM the staff is busy on all sorts of other things.

My guess is when they start to work on more Far Western Scenarios, it will get the attention that it needs.

The CSA & Union Indian Troops do need their portraits Modded. I have a couple of examples for anyone who has the skills and time to do them.

Something a bit more along the lines of these:

[oberst_klink]

You know, from a historical perspective, this should be impossible. There was a reason the Union didn’t enter the IT until 1863 and never moved on El Paso. The distances were too far for infantry and even cavalry had trouble due to lack of reliable water sources.

Further, the consequences of crossing Indian lands was to provoke a general uprising, and they were much more of a threat during the war than after.

Most of your Union forts did not exist until 1865 or later so there were no supplies to be had either.

The order of battle also does not reflect all the troops that were in the IT and Texas while there are very, very few troops missing from the Union line-up.

It also worked the other way around and is why there were so very few CS incursions into the far west.

Some of the units you have at your disposal were scattered in small detachments from the California border all the way into Utah and Colorado or from Washington to Minnesota.

Most western militia should be locked in place and not upgraded. Regular Army officers were highly reluctant to let them off their leash because they had a habit of starting Indian Wars which took real troops from the battle front.

This part of the game is a Major Problem and needs fixed. Maybe if you saw 5 or 6 Indian nations laying siege to Denver due to your exploits while you militia starved or died from thirst you would understand why it wasn’t done.

So, basically I shall enjoy the freedom of operations in that theatre until it will be 'fixed'. Well, if so, I just wonder why the map was extended to the IT ,AZ, NM and TX? *puzzled*. The raids I carry out with mounted volunteers (2 elements) and the irregulars/rangers (1 element). Surely 150 jayhawkers can get scoff and water, no?

Haven't encountered hostile natives yet... 'cept the Cherokee in service of the rebs...

Klink, Oberst

P.S. And I got an example of German 'Western' volunteers..

[ATTACH]25074[/ATTACH]

[Ol' Choctaw]

So, basically I shall enjoy the freedom of operations in that theatre until it will be 'fixed'. Well, if so, I just wonder why the map was extended to the IT ,AZ, NM and TX? *puzzled*. The raids I carry out with mounted volunteers (2 elements) and the irregulars/rangers (1 element). Surely 150 jayhawkers can get scoff and water, no?

There was war in the far west but it was mostly small irregular detachments which did little damage to either side.

The Union, in New Mexico Territory (including what is today Arizona) were mostly tied up keeping the Santa Fe trail open. The US government was at war with the Apache Tribes from 1860 to 1886. The Comanche and Kiowa also were hostile and pushed the frontier of settlement back 150 miles in Texas. There were ongoing wars with various tribes in all territories, Kansas, California and Minnesota during the war and afterwards the army moved west for the Indian Wars, with the last incidents occurring in 1924. Most of these wars, during the Civil War, were brought about by state militias. A few were started by settlers shooting Indians and a few began with Indians killing cows for food because of lack of game animals along immigrant trails.

So, generally speaking, the Union and CSA should be too busy fighting one Tribe or another to worry much about where their white enemies were. The only secure supply corridor was in the eastern IT, Missouri and Arkansas. North-South movement west of Tulsa should be a problem without building a chain of depots and subject to continual harassment by Hostiles.

And nice pics!

[oberst_klink]

There was war in the far west but it was mostly small irregular detachments which did little damage to either side.

The Union, in New Mexico Territory (including what is today Arizona) were mostly tied up keeping the Santa Fe trail open. The US government was at war with the Apache Tribes from 1860 to 1886. The Comanche and Kiowa also were hostile and pushed the frontier of settlement back 150 miles in Texas. There were ongoing wars with various tribes in all territories, Kansas, California and Minnesota during the war and afterwards the army moved west for the Indian Wars, with the last incidents occurring in 1924. Most of these wars, during the Civil War, were brought about by state militias. A few were started by settlers shooting Indians and a few began with Indians killing cows for food because of lack of game animals along immigrant trails.

So, generally speaking, the Union and CSA should be too busy fighting one Tribe or another to worry much about where their white enemies were. The only secure supply corridor was in the eastern IT, Missouri and Arkansas. North-South movement west of Tulsa should be a problem without building a chain of depots and subject to continual harassment by Hostiles.

And nice pics!

So, how to reflect and implement it? I am shattered Fix all units until Sibley's campaign in April 1862, make the local tribes more aggressive? Prevent the use of foot militia or restrict their movements? You tell me, Commander Chakotay! It's not my fault that historically they didn't focus on this theatre. Only in 1864, the only large scale action in TX, the ill-fated Red River Expedition kicked off. As for me, I want to be a tad more successful and kick TX out of the Confederacy quote early with raids and cause havoc!

Klink, Oberst

[Ol' Choctaw]

Some of it will just show up, don’t worry.

All those Indians are not just map ornaments.

The other thing is that the IT should have a fairly large reaction force, that you don’t want to unleash by moving raiders through there. Kind of like poking a stick in a hornets nest. It doesn’t seem to be implemented yet, but it would be something you would avoid the second time you played with it included.

Those factors alone would be a strong enough deterrent to prevent both sides from a raging war in the far west.

[oberst_klink]

Some of it will just show up, don’t worry.

All those Indians are not just map ornaments.

The other thing is that the IT should have a fairly large reaction force, that you don’t want to unleash by moving raiders through there. Kind of like poking a stick in a hornets nest. It doesn’t seem to be implemented yet, but it would be something you would avoid the second time you played with it included.

Those factors alone would be a strong enough deterrent to prevent both sides from a raging war in the far west.

Here's a VERY interesting symposium about the war west of MS.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/WarWes

Klink, Oberst

[RebelYell]

I am sure it will get fixed at some point. It just is not the priority of the moment.

Terrain effects, movement, combat penalties, and supply restrictions would be the starting points. Perhaps higher attrition for non-mounted and non-irregular units. Also, some triggers that set off some of the Indian tribes into hostile mode. But that takes time and ATM the staff is busy on all sorts of other things.

My guess is when they start to work on more Far Western Scenarios, it will get the attention that it needs.

The CSA & Union Indian Troops do need their portraits Modded. I have a couple of examples for anyone who has the skills and time to do them.

Something a bit more along the lines of these:

Sweet pictures.

I hope you will get your message trough, the scale of war in the far west should be maintained realistic.

But Texas had lot of troops in the most populated areas, so they need more, that was the reason they where left alone.
I like the Marshall/Shreveport area in the game, a thorn in the Union side if they are in Louisiana, that explains the Red River campaign.

Texas maybe needs more farm/ranch production, same for Florida, both where big producers of livestock.