The 1861 thread raised a lot of questions about how best to defend DC (and Alexandria) because of the presence of the locked volunteer brigades that cannot be formed into divisions. I am interested in hearing how everyone else organizes DC, and wanted to throw out a few ideas of my own about what to do with the locked brigades.
What if you put them all into a stack in the structure with a few one stars with one brigade placeholder divisions, some artillery and a wagon? They would be -35% due to command penalties, but would not be a drag on other stack's CP's. They will perform poorly the first round they are assaulted because of CP and overcrowding penalties, but their sheer numbers make it hard to overwhelm them in one round, especially if the attackers do not have time to lay siege and recover from the fight that drove off the unlocked forces that were in the region. Once they are unlocked they can be dropped into the placeholder divisions to remove most of the command penalty and to gain the combat bonus from being attached to a leader. Formed up and with a round to recover cohesion and draw replacements they will be pretty tough to dislodge quickly, especially if you have trained some of them up to regulars.
Conversely, you could put them all in the region hoping to get them unlocked during the initial battle in the region. But then you run the risk of losing lots of elements if the locked brigades get chosen as targets by attacking divisions. Losing elements causes retreats and withdrawals, which is not a result you can afford at the gates of your capital.
If you are trying to prevent a DC rush it would make sense to use a Training Officer or Master there to get the volunteers upgraded. The opportunity cost is that your unlocked forces are correspondingly less trained....
Exactly what are the effects of overcrowding the redoubts? Is there a cap on the penalties like with CPs, or do they keep getting worse the more volunteer brigades you add?
I think that the volunteers are kind of in the way and the primary region-defending stack is better off without them. You wouldn't want a second stack in the region, so the structure is by default the only place left to put them. The resulting penalties can be planned for and mitigated to some extent.
-
ArmChairGeneral
- AGEod Grognard
- Posts: 997
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:00 am
- Location: Austin, TX, USA
First off, this is the culprit that I was addressing in my earlier posts (I placed a red circle around the icon that gives this message):
[ATTACH]31724[/ATTACH]
A city structure has a normal stacking limit of 10 times its size, which for D.C. would be 60 elements. With a redoubt the new limit is less than half of this, or 25 elements. The effect with no overcrowding is designated 100%, so that equates to normal combat values. Thus, in the above example, the attacker would get +11%, not +111%. That said, I have seen the number at 165%, or +65% bonus to the attacker. From the last part of the message, one can assume that the defender may get a negative combat effect from overcrowding, perhaps equal to this number, or minus 11%.
I split the ten locked brigades up and assign five each to armies led by the stirling 3-star leadership of lions such as Butler and Banks. I leave Banks inside the capital, so he can do his recruiting thing and put Butler outside (I stuck all of the locked brigades in the redoubt for the screenshot). One would hope that Lenin was right when he said, "Quantity has a quality all its own." As to upgrading their elements, I use my HQ units and Trainer Generals to improve real combat units that are not a liability. I then must entrench such a real combat force in the region to defend them all.
Of course, the event that is supposed to defend the capital really does the opposite. A redoubt should have a stacking limit of the city it defends. The obvious solution for the volunteers is that locked brigades that show up when Divisions are possible should have the possibility to be assigned to locked Divisions. Otherwise, they are locked into being a liability.
P.S. I would recommend that the force defending Washington D. C. have a total power of at least 2000 by fall '61, or move the capital to NYC, or both.
[ATTACH]31724[/ATTACH]
A city structure has a normal stacking limit of 10 times its size, which for D.C. would be 60 elements. With a redoubt the new limit is less than half of this, or 25 elements. The effect with no overcrowding is designated 100%, so that equates to normal combat values. Thus, in the above example, the attacker would get +11%, not +111%. That said, I have seen the number at 165%, or +65% bonus to the attacker. From the last part of the message, one can assume that the defender may get a negative combat effect from overcrowding, perhaps equal to this number, or minus 11%.
I split the ten locked brigades up and assign five each to armies led by the stirling 3-star leadership of lions such as Butler and Banks. I leave Banks inside the capital, so he can do his recruiting thing and put Butler outside (I stuck all of the locked brigades in the redoubt for the screenshot). One would hope that Lenin was right when he said, "Quantity has a quality all its own." As to upgrading their elements, I use my HQ units and Trainer Generals to improve real combat units that are not a liability. I then must entrench such a real combat force in the region to defend them all.
Of course, the event that is supposed to defend the capital really does the opposite. A redoubt should have a stacking limit of the city it defends. The obvious solution for the volunteers is that locked brigades that show up when Divisions are possible should have the possibility to be assigned to locked Divisions. Otherwise, they are locked into being a liability.
P.S. I would recommend that the force defending Washington D. C. have a total power of at least 2000 by fall '61, or move the capital to NYC, or both.
- Attachments
-
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!
The normal stacking limit is too high, and it's far too exponential (using a straight multiplicative of the city size is absurd).
Also, a redoubt still provides better defense, even with the penalty, than the city without... I don't recall off of the top of my head how much better, but it is (slightly) better. I remember looking at this a couple of weeks ago, when I first saw you talking about this topic.
The ultimate solution here, in my opinion, is to make redoubts/fortifications some sort of substructure of the city. Of course, that's not likely to happen with the current game engine, but... it's probably what should happen, eventually.
As for strategies: keep a garrison (a brigade, or so) in the city itself, and park an army in the Prince George region. There's no real reason they have to be in the city proper. Not losing Alexandria is the best defense for DC, anyway. Do what Lincoln always wanted, and take Richmond!
ps: moving the capital is as much of (more than, actually!) an admission of defeat as the Confederates moving to Atlanta.
Also, a redoubt still provides better defense, even with the penalty, than the city without... I don't recall off of the top of my head how much better, but it is (slightly) better. I remember looking at this a couple of weeks ago, when I first saw you talking about this topic.
The ultimate solution here, in my opinion, is to make redoubts/fortifications some sort of substructure of the city. Of course, that's not likely to happen with the current game engine, but... it's probably what should happen, eventually.
As for strategies: keep a garrison (a brigade, or so) in the city itself, and park an army in the Prince George region. There's no real reason they have to be in the city proper. Not losing Alexandria is the best defense for DC, anyway. Do what Lincoln always wanted, and take Richmond!
ps: moving the capital is as much of (more than, actually!) an admission of defeat as the Confederates moving to Atlanta.
-
pgr
- General of the Army
- Posts: 669
- Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:33 pm
- Location: Paris France (by way of Wyoming)
Straight off the bat, I defend DC by making it THE principle rally point for my builds in 1861. In the early days, one is best off placing everybody in a large stack. The key, of course, is to stay out of the fortifications. Frankly, I don't mind the 25 element quota, because the frontage for attackers goes way down when attacking the fort and it allows me to economize the number of troops necessary to hold the City of DC. So only put enough folks inside the Washington defenses to fill up the quota, everyone else should be outside.
Since the new patch has pumped up the number of conscripts, I'm getting the hang of building 15 divisions in DC by E November 61 when the locked vols show up. Combined with the roughly 5 divisions that are in McDowell's army, that gives me 20 divisions to play with between Alexandria and Harper's Ferry. In spring, when corps can be formed, I take my less interesting two stars, activate them as corp commanders, and stick the locked vols in with them. Even though you can't form divisions, a corps has enough CP, that you can stuff a lot of those guys into one.
At this point, I attach the "fixed" corps to McDowell's army. I give McDowell 5 or 6 mobile divisions to guard the approaches, and then the 15 divisions I built form up as the AoP and move south. As long as the AoP keeps the rebs busy in Va, McDowell's force is more than sufficient to keep any rebel raiders away.
I admit that it could seem a bit over kill, we are talking about trying to get 160,000 (once the locked fellas show up in November) around DC, but I think that most people getting into trouble with DC simply aren't investing enough. That capital defense force that shows up only helps augment a defense; you can't rely on them alone.
Since the new patch has pumped up the number of conscripts, I'm getting the hang of building 15 divisions in DC by E November 61 when the locked vols show up. Combined with the roughly 5 divisions that are in McDowell's army, that gives me 20 divisions to play with between Alexandria and Harper's Ferry. In spring, when corps can be formed, I take my less interesting two stars, activate them as corp commanders, and stick the locked vols in with them. Even though you can't form divisions, a corps has enough CP, that you can stuff a lot of those guys into one.
At this point, I attach the "fixed" corps to McDowell's army. I give McDowell 5 or 6 mobile divisions to guard the approaches, and then the 15 divisions I built form up as the AoP and move south. As long as the AoP keeps the rebs busy in Va, McDowell's force is more than sufficient to keep any rebel raiders away.
I admit that it could seem a bit over kill, we are talking about trying to get 160,000 (once the locked fellas show up in November) around DC, but I think that most people getting into trouble with DC simply aren't investing enough. That capital defense force that shows up only helps augment a defense; you can't rely on them alone.
ohms_law, the redoubt would need to slightly increase the defense about 140% to make 25 defenders as good as 60.
The way frontage works according to the Wiki, Lee a 3-star with say a 6 in offense stat can command/employ about 212 combat elements and 42 support (artillery) elements against a defender in clear terrain. He can only command/employ 32 combat and 12 artillery elements against the same defender in a structure. I would strongly recommend defending in the structure.
http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/Frontage
Actually moving the capital doesn't cost anything, since the hit to the NM auto-adjusts to 100 over time.
Yes Mickey3D, 2000 power in the region. I would be able as the CSA to attack with at least that much in vanilla. I haven't played with the latest version yet because I'm pwning my college classes.
The way frontage works according to the Wiki, Lee a 3-star with say a 6 in offense stat can command/employ about 212 combat elements and 42 support (artillery) elements against a defender in clear terrain. He can only command/employ 32 combat and 12 artillery elements against the same defender in a structure. I would strongly recommend defending in the structure.
http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/Frontage
Actually moving the capital doesn't cost anything, since the hit to the NM auto-adjusts to 100 over time.
Yes Mickey3D, 2000 power in the region. I would be able as the CSA to attack with at least that much in vanilla. I haven't played with the latest version yet because I'm pwning my college classes.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!
This is the part of the game without Corps and thus no MTG. Stacks in other regions (like Alexandria) may as well be in California. They are not going to march to D.C. to stop a blitz attack during the turn. If you want to spead your forces over some kind of a Potomac line, this also won't stop a one-two punch. One stack punches a hole in the line and a few days later in the same turn the second stack moves through the hole and attacks D.C. Only forces in D.C. can defend the capital until March '62. pob303 took D.C. in '61 too, so it's not like I did a Captain Kirk on the Kobiyashi Maru.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!
-
ArmChairGeneral
- AGEod Grognard
- Posts: 997
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:00 am
- Location: Austin, TX, USA
The time value of NM is not linear. Some times are more important than others. Fox has advocated moving the capital to New York immediately, and I have to say that while I do not play this way, he has a good argument. There is not much going on in the early game so NM effects on combat and production are not that important in the early moves and the earlier you move it the sooner the NM recovers. As the CSA you cannot necessarily spare the economic hit of several turns with low morale; as the Union you certainly can.
ZOC is not that big of a deal. While I am not a DC rush hardliner like Fox, Alexandria is only important in that it has a depot a redoubt and covers the shortest route to DC. Alexandria is far from the only way to reach DC however, and controlling Alexandria does not give you adequate ZOC to block the other routes of attack. Pre-Corps defense of DC hinges on the DC-region-stack; holding Alexandria makes the approach to DC more difficult but does nothing to directly defend it.
ZOC is not that big of a deal. While I am not a DC rush hardliner like Fox, Alexandria is only important in that it has a depot a redoubt and covers the shortest route to DC. Alexandria is far from the only way to reach DC however, and controlling Alexandria does not give you adequate ZOC to block the other routes of attack. Pre-Corps defense of DC hinges on the DC-region-stack; holding Alexandria makes the approach to DC more difficult but does nothing to directly defend it.
-
ArmChairGeneral
- AGEod Grognard
- Posts: 997
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:00 am
- Location: Austin, TX, USA
Control Alexandria (Fairfax, VA) and Harper's Ferry, and it's simply not possible to march on DC. Period.
Well, you can try to march around, but the Union will be in Richmond before you get there. More likely, an 1861 Confederate force will be pulverized somewhere along the Maryland/Pennsylvania border. The CSA has some good generals, but there's just not enough troops to overcome the Union like you guys are talking about.
I have no idea why you guys are talking about MTSG at all, regardless. There are no Corps in the game until 1862. Taking DC in mid to late '62 would hardly be "rushing".
Well, you can try to march around, but the Union will be in Richmond before you get there. More likely, an 1861 Confederate force will be pulverized somewhere along the Maryland/Pennsylvania border. The CSA has some good generals, but there's just not enough troops to overcome the Union like you guys are talking about.
I have no idea why you guys are talking about MTSG at all, regardless. There are no Corps in the game until 1862. Taking DC in mid to late '62 would hardly be "rushing".
Gray Fox wrote:First off, this is the culprit that I was addressing in my earlier posts (I placed a red circle around the icon that gives this message):
[ATTACH]31724[/ATTACH]
A city structure has a normal stacking limit of 10 times its size, which for D.C. would be 60 elements. With a redoubt the new limit is less than half of this, or 25 elements. The effect with no overcrowding is designated 100%, so that equates to normal combat values. Thus, in the above example, the attacker would get +11%, not +111%. That said, I have seen the number at 165%, or +65% bonus to the attacker. From the last part of the message, one can assume that the defender may get a negative combat effect from overcrowding, perhaps equal to this number, or minus 11%.
I split the ten locked brigades up and assign five each to armies led by the stirling 3-star leadership of lions such as Butler and Banks. I leave Banks inside the capital, so he can do his recruiting thing and put Butler outside (I stuck all of the locked brigades in the redoubt for the screenshot). One would hope that Lenin was right when he said, "Quantity has a quality all its own." As to upgrading their elements, I use my HQ units and Trainer Generals to improve real combat units that are not a liability. I then must entrench such a real combat force in the region to defend them all.
I would hope and therefore may fall short, but does the act of placing units in a stack obviate the need to defend D.C.? As much as I would love to give the denizens of that city to the Confederacy (the incalculable advantage to the subsequent rebublic would be indescribable) , one would hope organizing the defending brigades into divisions would help the situation.
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?34770-Do-you-believe-me-now
Ohms_law, it may not be clear from the picture, but Athena conrolled both Harper's Ferry and Alexandria when I marched through the empty region between, crossed the Potomac and took D.C. ZOC is not a roadblock. A large unit can still bull its way past units in an adjacent region. So your first statement should perhaps end in a comma, not a period.
Merlin, the best solution I could come up with was to put the brigades into two armies, since I could not form them into Divisions. The Division option would be the best solution.
Ohms_law, it may not be clear from the picture, but Athena conrolled both Harper's Ferry and Alexandria when I marched through the empty region between, crossed the Potomac and took D.C. ZOC is not a roadblock. A large unit can still bull its way past units in an adjacent region. So your first statement should perhaps end in a comma, not a period.
Merlin, the best solution I could come up with was to put the brigades into two armies, since I could not form them into Divisions. The Division option would be the best solution.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!
I agree with the OP. When the horde of volunteer units show up, crowding the city streets and overwhelming the plumbing, they're a nuisance. They get entrenched outside the fortifications. Gray Fox's idea of putting them into two armies is something I've tried with Banks and Butler, but I hope they're never tested.
I haven't studied what McClellan did in DC as far as fortifications, which were apparently extensive. Did he drill the manpower defending the capital to work in concert to repel attacks? If so, seems like a division/corps/army or the provision to make one would be a better model than tons of unorganized volunteers. I seem to recall reading that they were green, but that doesn't necessarily mean they didn't have a command structure or organization.
I haven't studied what McClellan did in DC as far as fortifications, which were apparently extensive. Did he drill the manpower defending the capital to work in concert to repel attacks? If so, seems like a division/corps/army or the provision to make one would be a better model than tons of unorganized volunteers. I seem to recall reading that they were green, but that doesn't necessarily mean they didn't have a command structure or organization.
-
Eugene Carr
- Colonel
- Posts: 387
- Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:58 pm
- Location: Dundee, Scotland
I watched a Civil War presentation on C-SPAN describing how McClellan built 28 fortifications around D.C. that made it the "best defended city in the world". In 1864, Grant pretty much stripped the core of the defenders away for the Wilderness Campaign, which left mostly soldiers who were amputees to defend the forts.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!
Yup. Little Mac made DC into the Korean DMZ of its day. The forts are actually underrepresented, as the number of available guns in DC is very low. One of these days I'll get around to trying my hand at adding new leader traits. Little Mac is far less capable in the game than he was in the war, and there are a good number of other leaders who need trait overhauls. Sigel, van Dorn, Beauregard, both Johnstons, Buell, Pope, and Banks immediately come to mind, and there are a host of others.
Eugene Carr wrote:Would it make a difference if the event brought the units in as locked divisions? Three or so unspectacular generals like Totten, Casey, Ferry etc could be in command. They would still be locked but not so penalised if attacked but not sure about the overcrowding thing.
S!
Yes, I think that might help.
There's no reason to have them locked. There's already an event penalizing the Union for not maintaining a certain force level at DC. That, and the fact that if you don't use some common sense and guard the place, can lead to a speedy Union loss.
Drop a volunteer bomb on DC if you want, but they should be unlocked and a NM/VP penalty in place. That would more closely model the historical situation. Troops were drawn from the DC defenses on multiple occasions.
Drop a volunteer bomb on DC if you want, but they should be unlocked and a NM/VP penalty in place. That would more closely model the historical situation. Troops were drawn from the DC defenses on multiple occasions.
I generally agree that the units aren't very realistic. They are based on the idea that it was interesting that Grant converted heavy artillery stationed near DC to infantry late in the war, and it would be nice flavor for a similar thing to happen. The heavy artillery guns are simulated as "Fort Batteries", I guess. To me, the names of the units in the game are silly, for instance the "3rd Maryland Volunteers" which was at Gettysburg I think. I looked up some units that were converted into heavy artillery starting with Grant's Overland Campaign - primarily a brigade under Col. J. H. Kitching and another under BG. R. O. Tyler. Maybe there were others. The regiments were large, at least some having over 1,000 men (again, I'm not sure).
To me, it doesn't make any sense that these units aren't given realistic names and leadership. Also, they seem a over-sized.
To me, it doesn't make any sense that these units aren't given realistic names and leadership. Also, they seem a over-sized.
-
Eugene Carr
- Colonel
- Posts: 387
- Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:58 pm
- Location: Dundee, Scotland
Eugene Carr wrote:I think they are locked to make sure Athena keeps enough in DC, I think the event could be converted to AI only which may be better.
S!
I just brought this up on another thread, but Athena already has two divisions locked in DC (and CSA has a division and a half locked in Richmond).
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 9 guests