My take on forming Divisions

[Ol' Choctaw]

This is one of the most asked questions in the forum, and you know, there is just no 100% correct answer.

There are no more perfect divisions than there are perfect plans.

The current standard of 13 Infantry, 1 Cavalry and 3 Artillery is lacking in a number of ways.

First there is no accounting for sharpshooters. They are light infantry with a special ability and should be included in just about any division. They provide for a chance of first fire. Left on their own in a stack, they usually die a quick death.

Second, only one cavalry per division makes it almost impossible to engage pure cavalry or partisans. Your chances of catching them are reduced. Further, they have a much higher patrol value than infantry, 8 for conscript 9 for regular as opposed to 4 and 5 for infantry. This not only helps gain MC of a region faster but they also work as your eyes. Also, large stacks, which I presume to be more than a division, (perhaps a division an extra leader and a supply unit) suffer a hide penalty if they have fewer than 4 cavalry in the stack. Using brigades with cavalry is fine, just don’t waste your independent cavalry regiments by placing them into divisions.

Having artillery is important but insisting that it all be 10lbs or better is a little much. For most divisions in the line forming divisions from brigades having 6lbs guns is not a serious drawback but having a couple of 12lbs guns will aid them greatly in defense. 10lbs, 20lbs, and above aid in the attack but larger guns slow travel speeds. The are best saved for units earmarked for fort busting or support units in the stack.

Important, particularly for the Union, who has so many is trying to include at least one elite brigade per division. More than one is a waste. The elite brigades spread around work better generally to build superior forces than a very few divisions composed mostly of elite units.

Don’t forget to include sailors or marines in a few divisions for attacking across rivers or amphibious operations. For the Union, this includes most fort busting operations.

The divisions I try to form are composed of 1 Sharpshooter, 10 Infantry, 2 Cavalry, and 4 Artillery but that is only a rough guide. There are many reasons to change composition. Don’t feel bad if not every division matches the model. The most important thing about a division is who is leading it and that you do your best to have full CP.

A good leading division could have 3 or even 4 cavalry to spot enemy and build MC quickly but still have infantry for staying power. Fort crushers could have no cavalry and heavy artillery. Organize for the task and remember that supply wagons help in a fight.

[khbynum]

Mmm, combined arms divisions. I'll have to try it in those situations where a single division could operate independently. If operating as part of a corps, I go with 1 sharpshooter, 3 artillery and the rest infantry. I don't see the point of dispersing cavalry to infantry divisions, but maybe I'm wrong. I'd rather mass the cavalry at corps or army level, but I go by what worked in the war, not what works in the game.

[GraniteStater]

Ol'Choctaw is saying that Cav that comes as part of an Inf brigade is worth it - they will exercise their screening and scouting functions. He is also saying, straight out, that Cav regiments raised independently should not be combined with other brigades & regiments as part of a Div.

Cav is precious, especially independent Cav, for screening and scouting. I will unhesitatingly say that is has been the weakest part of my tactical approach. I fell in love with Arty, especially 20-lb Parrots and Rodmans in AACW and, looking back at my results in PbeMs, I did not do anywhere near enough intelligence gathering and just let my oppo read my OOB without any real consequences. A good player will use Cav intelligently.

In CW2, I feel I'm crying for more & more independent Cav, everywhere, I can't get enough. I like to put them with Horse Arty for survivability - unfortunately, it takes about a year for the Union to get any decent Cav leaders, but right now, I'm building Cav Divs for recon in force.

Be careful with your Cav - a small two regiment formation, even four, without HA, can get squashed & eliminated very quickly. Speed, speed, speed - watch the map & watch your Cav.

The Inf/Inf/Cav brigades are a 45 day build, fairly quick. My standard Div usually has 2 Cav in it - a Corps with two Divs like this fulfills the 4 Cav in a stack requirement that O'C discusses above - I presume. He is using independent Cav for recon & counter-recon. I have usually put two Cav reg'mts in a Corp, but, with the integrated Cav present, I think I'll stop doing this.

I like to put 20-lbers and the long rifles as two or more loose batteries in a corps - but I may rethink that, too.

[Keeler]

I have been thinking about putting in two cavalry per division as well. However, the Union player is going to go through all the available Inf-Inf-Cav brigades pretty quickly, especially in the Eastern Theater. That means you're going to have to use independent cavalry or the brigades with artillery. Having to use 6lbers isn't the end of the world, and less so when both sides are stuck with them. But it does place some restrictions on how players can build divisions and spend resources, and I wish the devs would look into creating more brigades with cavalry or less with artillery. Players should have to make tough decisions, but I can't shake the feeling that the toolbox is incomplete right now.

Next game I am going to try divisions with 2 cavalry, 11 infantry, 3 artillery, and a sharpshooter. Perhaps two 12lbers and a 6lber in the division, and 10lbers+ at the corps level. I know artillery targeting works differently between corps and divisions, but is initial range affected as well?

Regarding marines and sailors, I understand they don't need to be in divisions. The ability applies to the whole stack. I generally keep marines in divisions but leave the sailors as independent units.

[minipol]

I organize my troops as I can get/afford them in the beginning, then later optimize.
I've now tried to take my bigger guns 20-lb parrots, columbiad into the corps instead of the divisions.
And in 1 instance, I added a cav division instead of all integrated cav.
I usually by the Inf/Inf/Cav brigades.

I will test and see if corps build up of mostly infantry, some smaller embedded artillery (6 lbs & 12 lbs), but heavy guns
in the corps, defend better than the "normal" mixed divisions in a corps.
I'm not sure. I have dealt pretty heavy blows to the Union in Harpers Ferry, Mannassas and Alexandria without the heavy guns in the corps.
It would be nice if other people share their findings.
A couple of reloads and taking notes should make clear if one strategy or the other is better in a certain situation.

The stats of the corps leader are probably also very important. If you have very good division leaders, heavy guns there might help your more
then keeping them in the corps stack. I don't know. I would have liked more info on the precise way artillery fights in a corps stack as opposed to in a division.
Athena as the Union loves putting heavy guns in the corps, instead of in divisions. Lighter artillery goes in with the corps.

Regarding marines and sailors, I understand they don't need to be in divisions. The ability applies to the whole stack. I generally keep marines in divisions but leave the sailors as independent units.

Putting 1 marine or sailor unit in a corps is enough for the whole corps benefiting from it?

[Keeler]

Putting 1 marine or sailor unit in a corps is enough for the whole corps benefiting from it?

Nope, I was wrong. I knew I had read this somewhere, which I did, but I didn't remember it correctly.

[Quote=Captain Orso]No, the ability is a unit ability; a division being a unit. So only the division with a marine or sailor element embedded in it will enjoy the amphibious ability.

If you have multiple division in a corp each division must contain a marine or sailor.[/quote]

[minipol]

That's what I thought. Thanks for clearing it up

[GraniteStater]

I've never bothered with sailors and now, with the Pontoons, neither with marines. The marines do shoot, but...probably their best attribute is an amphib landing now.

Range is range, afaik. In AACW, the battle screen gave you the range at which the party started. I don't see it in CW2's BR screen - too bad. I know from experience in AACW that it could be a real killer - some of the long rifles opened at 7. Very, very discouraging.

[minipol]

Yeah, I've been missing that piece of info also, I liked knowing the range.

[Keeler]

Range is range, afaik.

Yes, but which elements determine range? Is it at the division or corps level? Or does it not matter? If you put all your long range artillery at corps level and it is determined at divisional, you've squandered the long range.

[loki100]

Yes, but which elements determine range? Is it at the division or corps level? Or does it not matter? If you put all your long range artillery at corps level and it is determined at divisional, you've squandered the long range.

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.

[tripax]

Is that alleviated by having a artillery only division? That is, will an artillery only division select a better target. Is there a good discussion of targeting somewhere?

[minipol]

We really would need to know more of how guns in divisional or corps level work.
Commanders knew how they wanted the guns to be placed and when to fire, so we want that too
In any case, if the corps level guns fire at the same time as the div. guns, it would be a great advantage.
Athena likes using guns in both.

[Keeler]

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.

The question is who initiates combat first: the division unit or the corps stack.

Let's say I have a corps with 2 infantry divisions, and the divisions all have 6lb artillery. In the corps stack, I also have 3 loose 10lb parrots. How does the engine decided what the opening range is? My guess is the division, but there doesn't seem to be a definitive answer.

[GraniteStater]

AFAIK, range is range - as alluded to above, from AACW experience ('targeting algorithm'), the longer pieces, loose, will open up, which is why I, among others, I believe, do have the heavies loose in the Corps - in the Div, they might open up at the 'same time', but against a specific unit (could be a Div), they fire at the selected unit only. Loose, they look for (we hope) the 'juiciest' target(s). The old AACW thread about Targeting, by Dixicrat, IIRC, was quite involved (and throw in frontage, too, it's not facile) - anyhow, that's what I took away from it.

Opponents in PbeM were using a similar approach, I believe.

There - that's all my secrets.

[Gray Fox]

A Division with 16 infantry elements will beat a Division with fewer infantry elements. If a Division with less infantry might win, then a Division with more certainly will. Infantry rout armies. That's what the bayonets are for.

Artillery soften up targets for your infantry. Due to frontage, 6 lbers in a Division compete equally with heavy guns in the Corps/Army. If you have too many batteries then not all the right guns will go hot. I'd rather have the God of Thunder than some pop-guns firing.

Cavalry screen your force and run down the cowards your infantry just spanked. Several all infantry Divisions should be supported at Army by an all Cavalry Division. If you dilute your infantry Division with just a dash of cavalry, then the infantry Divisions will be weaker. Also, the cav won't be in a Division where you can break it off and send it ahead of your Army to exploit an opportunity.

Mix it any way you want in a lone Division, but do it right with the Divisions and artillery of your main Armies.

[ArmChairGeneral]

I find Gray Fox's argument to be compelling for A/C structure.

One question about a separate Cav division at the Army level. If frontage is limited, do you run the risk of the Cav division engaging and crowding out an all infantry division? Conversely, do you risk it not engaging at all and not providing screening/pursuit when your all infantry division win the field?

[Gray Fox]

It is not clear how the game picks which unit (Division) engages. I would put the Cav Division with two other Infantry Divisions in the Army stack. If the game model is true to the historical tactic, the cavalry would be a reserve and the infantry would do the work. After all, Pickett charged the Union center at Gettysburg, not Stuart.

When your side or the enemy tries to withdraw all units (routed or otherwise), then some kind of cavalry ratio on both sides is applied for them to succeed, or the "fit hits the shan".

[minipol]

If 6 lbers equally compete, that would mean you need less artillery in a corps/army structure, freeing cash to buy some real guns.
Instead of having the divisions keep their own smaller guns, don't and give the corps 6 really heavy guns instead.
Might work.
I kinda work like this at the moment. Although I can't avoid putting cavalry in with some divisions since you get a lot of Inf/Inf/Cav brigades.

Furthermore, having reserve and cavalry in your army finally seems logical to me now.
The army might have an army HQ to train the reserve divisions.

[GraniteStater]

If I understand frontage at least well enough, this fox is chasing his tail.

Due to frontage, 6 lbers in a Division compete equally with heavy guns in the Corps/Army

???? No - not how I understand frontage - and what does 'compete' mean?

* Frontage is a consideration within a Division, within each Division, in a Corps, for example. Or, if all units were loose in a stack (as in the early, early game), then among those units. Loose Rodmans or 20-lbers in a Corps stack do not 'compete' with the DivArty, nor does each Div's Arty 'compete' with each other. If this were the case, there would be absolutely no point at all to forming Divs, having more than one in a stack, forming Corps, etc.

* An all Inf Div is going to defeat a healthy mix of Inf/SS/Cav/Arty (maybe LightInf element)? I really don't think so. Possible - sure, but as the Brits say, 'not bloody likely, mate.' Even with no entrenchments, even 6-lbers against none at all is going to help - put in a 12-lber or two (I usually have no more than one or two in a Div nowadays) & the range starts to tell. Cav within the Div, as discussed above, seems to be there more for regional functions, I would guess (I must admit, I don't recall a lot of Inf Divs or Bdes in the CW having integrated Cav; also, Bde and Cav were not true analogs of 20th century formations, most particularly the divs - nothing like a modern division, which is another discussion altogether - the tactical unit was the regiment), but this integrated Cav could play a role in the game's combat mechanics. Sharpshooters give you a chance for First Fire, which is very important in the time period & modeled in the game.

I'm sorry, but this characterization of frontage and artillery 'competing' (he might be misunderstanding the support element mechanism, which, IIRC, is involved in arty firing algorithms) is misleading, I'm afraid. It strikes me that if it were true, then there would be no point to organizing Divs & Corps.

And M'sieu Fox is quite welcome to bring his all infantry Div, heck, make it two or three, towards one well balanced Div with 4 arty, 2 cav & a S/S. I know how I'd bet in most circumstances.

M'sieu Fox also is not entertaining Weather & Terrain, which enter into frontage and therefore how any particular combat resolves.

Sorry, don't buy it at all, given some nice analyses of yesteryear by Soundoff, Dixicrat, the Ursine One and a few others who love to get the numbers dirty. I read them for their conclusions and rules of thumb I drew from them, which, I believe, have served me well.

When you see more than one PbeM player making Corps of Div/Div/Arty/Arty, etc etc, well, that should tell you something. Rarely have I read an AAR or other instance where someone was trumpeting his all-infantry solution. Div & Corps formations do more than just relieve CPs.

[Gray Fox]

Frontage is split between combat line elements (infantry and cav types) and support elements (artillery and everything else) for the whole force according to the terrain and weather. Frontage for support elements is actually quite small in most terrain. Artillery is artillery to the game, so 6-lbers in a Division and siege mortars at Army get the same chance to fire in a round. If you have no light artillery in your Divisions, then the heavy guns go hot every round, up to the point where all the support frontage is filled. Also, Division artillery fires at the Division target and stops firing at range zero, when the infantry are all mixed up. If the Division routs, then the Division artillery routs too and stops firing altogether. Heavy guns at the Corps/Army will always fire at something if they get the frontage to do so.

Six years ago in AACW, someone posted that 4 artillery batteries in a Corps stack cost the same CP's as a Division. A Division can have 4 artillery and 13 other elements. So Divisions with 4 artillery became the model. You start with big brigades that have a mix, so why not make Divisions with a mix too?

Heavy guns beat light guns.

9600 infantry beat 7200 infantry.

A Corps/Army built with big infantry Divisions and heavy guns will beat anything else.

[GraniteStater]

Some rules of thumb (forgive redundancy, please):

* More than four Arty to a Div precludes the 'extra' arty from firing, iirc. Three are ok - try to have at least two.

* Loose long rifles in a Corps will start engaging at the longer ranges against targets of opportunity & will continue this mechanic during the fight.

* Integrated DivCav, whilst arguably ahistorical or really not the best of models, will 'keep 'em off you' a little bit during the fight & execute mop-up/chaser functions. I don't use more than two in a Div, three if I can't help it, four if it can't be avoided.

* Sharpshooters are Wicked Cool & can make a difference between victory and defeat - who fires first is important.

* I usually have more than one Div in a Corps and conduct operations with Corps, MTSG & teamwork. I will use loose Divs with two leaders, independent Cav Divs and other such critters, unhesitatingly, but my Corps are the main effort.

* Sophisticated stacks, Corps with two Wagons, Hospital, Eng, Support in general - these guys can be downright formidable. A 350 PWR sophisticated corps can defeat a 475 PWR Corps that is a barebones stack. Even if it doesn't in a Turn, it recovers faster, entrenches faster, has the leaders abilities, etc., improved & with Pontoons, will jump that river and be approaching from dry ground on your strategic flank.

* Be very careful with independent or loose Cav - watch your posture/profile.

* Especially in the early game, try to have a LightInf component in stacks or Divs - they have an anti-Cav function.

* Even 6-lbers, regardless of upgrades or not, are better than nothing at all.

* Defense, even on flat unentrenched ground, has an advantage.

* Do not repeat do not neglect weather & terrain.

[GraniteStater]

Frontage is split between combat line elements (infantry and cav types) and support elements (artillery and everything else) for the whole force according to the terrain and weather. Frontage for support elements is actually quite small in most terrain. Artillery is artillery to the game, so 6-lbers in a Division and siege mortars at Army get the same chance to fire in a round. If you have no light artillery in your Divisions, then the heavy guns go hot every round, up to the point where all the support frontage is filled. Also, Division artillery fires at the Division target and stops firing at range zero, when the infantry are all mixed up. If the Division routs, then the Division artillery routs too and stops firing altogether. Heavy guns at the Corps/Army will always fire at something if they get the frontage to do so.

Six years ago in AACW, someone posted that 4 artillery batteries in a Corps stack cost the same CP's as a Division. A Division can have 4 artillery and 13 other elements. So Divisions with 4 artillery became the model. You start with big brigades that have a mix, so why not make Divisions with a mix too?

Heavy guns beat light guns.

9600 infantry beat 7200 infantry.

A Corps/Army built with big infantry Divisions and heavy guns will beat anything else.

All I know is my understanding, which the number-crunchers are free to correct.

I understand you, to a degree, but find a goodly part of your assertions confusing or running counter to my experience and what I've seeen in AARs, posted, etc.

If I'm reading you right, then, other than MTSG & CP considerations, why bother with Corps, or even Divs? Just build an infinite number of small stacks with enough leaders to relieve CPs, stuff 'em with Infantry and some siege guns. Trundle around the landscape like triceratops. Attack with a dozen, fifteen, twenty stacks with three Inf Bdes and an arty or two in each.

You're ignoring weather & terrain altogether, afaics. And if I'm rereading you right, then you're perfectly happy with Guns Loose in the Stack and won't bother with Div Arty. I think you're confusing the fact that all guns get an 'equal chance' with the benefits of Div & Corps. Sure, DivArty ceases firing at range Zero - and if you have a Div or Divs routing in a Corps, what do you think can happen to the loose Arty in the stack or Corps? They get captured, that's what happens.

I might be misreading or misunderstanding, but the picture I'm getting doesn't gel. The solution you seem to be asserting - well, if it were something New & Improved, I think some of the really good players would've been employing it long ago.

All I can state is what I believe to be true, worthwhile, etc., largely from experience & reading others, along with AARs. Maybe I don't get your points - maybe I'm out to lunch.

There are very few, if any, Magic Bullets in this game - if all-inf was The Approach, methinks a lot of people would have been using it for some time.

[Gray Fox]

I thank you for your opinion. I too have read the conventional wisdom that you have in the old AAR's. However, as I posted, the 4 artillery per Division model is based on the CP cost and not much else. Why would a Division with 7200 infantry be a better model than a Division with one third more infantry? Why do you want lots of light artillery that stop firing or rout instead of heavy artillery that are always firing? It is true that an educated number cruncher can only spell experience, but it seems that no one shares my experience with this model. Give it a try.

[GraniteStater]

Who are you playing - in CW2 (that's important, we can have Off the Charts settings in CW2, remember)? Athena? How hard? Etc., etc. Now we get into particular setting groups, before you even look at the map.

You have not said one word about weather and terrain. Bring those Inf Only formations out to western Kansas and see what happens if enough (oh, no, not equal, just enough) Cav/HArty attacks them. Defeat is what will happen. Yes, individual Cav is weaker, but put enough together, especially with HArty & a decent Leader - I'd bet on the ponies in open flat plains in good weather in enough strength - especially against legs with no popguns.

There are reasons why the model is structured the way it is, very, very largely to reflect historical considerations and give the player an appreciation of what concerned the commanders and soldiers of the time.

If you have found a 'hole' in the model, more power to you, but methinks the devs, along with the microscopic analysts around here who actually think it's fun to run 46 simulations of the same battle over & over, each with just one discernible difference from the previous iteration - well, my hat's off to you.

[Ol' Choctaw]

I thank you for your opinion. I too have read the conventional wisdom that you have in the old AAR's. However, as I posted, the 4 artillery per Division model is based on the CP cost and not much else. Why would a Division with 7200 infantry be a better model than a Division with one third more infantry? Why do you want lots of light artillery that stop firing or rout instead of heavy artillery that are always firing? It is true that an educated number cruncher can only spell experience, but it seems that no one shares my experience with this model. Give it a try.

If that is so, and I certainly hope it s not it would point up on thing. A design flaw.

Pure infantry going against one or two batteries of guns with infantry supporting them might succede.

But infantry going against a combined arms force should be cannon fodder.

Without horse to guard the flanks or artillery to soften and demoralize the enemy it should be a rather one sided blood bath.

[GraniteStater]

I find Gray Fox's argument to be compelling for A/C structure.

One question about a separate Cav division at the Army level. If frontage is limited, do you run the risk of the Cav division engaging and crowding out an all infantry division? Conversely, do you risk it not engaging at all and not providing screening/pursuit when your all infantry division win the field?

Lemme put it this way - I start to get a little bit leery if I'm exceeding four Div in a Corps and usually stop at three. Yes, yes, CPs will allow it, yes, but I just eschew five, six, seven Divs in a corps - the technology & techniques of the day would hinder these larger formations I think (your concern about 'interference' within Corps ops). That being said, AFAIK, a Div is a Div. A CavDiv in a Corps could be very beneficial to that Corps. I don't think it's going to get underfoot (ha ha) or hinder the other units in the Corps.

[GraniteStater]

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.

+100

Just to repost it, again. The gentleman states it concisely & authoritatively.

Range is range, period. I put sixes & twelves in Divs, maybe a 10-lber. I put Parrots and Rodmans loose in a Corps, usually no more than two batteries. M. loki100 is telling us why.

[minipol]

Only 2 heavy guns in the Corps?
If frontage allows up to 4 artillery to fire, and some in the core, wouldn't 4 in the corps be most powerful?

[GraniteStater]

Four max in a Div - rule of thumb.

I usually have two Rodmans or 20-lbers as Corps Arty - just a habit, really. First, they ain't cheap and take a good amount of time to build. Second, because of this, I want to have as many Corps as possible to have some Corps Arty.

Personal predilection and unexamined at that. Sometimes, three in a Corps.

I don't analyze things the way some do - a lot of my playstyle comes from the work of those who have done the analysis. Mostly, I play by feel. This, of course, can lead me astray, sometimes severely. You guys are my editors, so to speak - I've learned from good posters, good players & having played some of the very best in PbeM. I have yet to win a PbeM, but I learned a lot - and, if I may, even surprised my esteemed opponent occasionally.

O'C has the essential take on Div building. I'm much the same, mostly 'cuz it works. As stated above, I have often included loose Cav regiments in a Corps, but might drop that altogether if I read O'C correctly - strikes me as little or no gain if one already has DivCav (4 reg'mts) in the Corps. If so, better to break them out as independent Cav forces.

Putting more long rifles in a Corps probably doesn't hurt; I just got into the habit of two, per above.