I am playing a grand campaign, as the south (nothing like diving in), and it's spring '62. Things are going, well, not terrible, as AS Johnston as Grant under siege, penned up in St. Louis, Lee and JE Johnston hold the line at the Potomac, and PTB chases random elements in East VA. A partisan unit has even captured Cambridge, DE (randomly).
I've noticed now that I have a whole host of generic 1* generals (which means 3-1-1 for the south), and a few that are better. I don't have Longstreet, who I guess must have been killed at some point very early in the game.
My question, ultimately, is do you give your best generals your worst troops to help get more out of them, give them the best troops (elites, regulars, the whole "ideal" division), or not really worry too much about? Guys like Taliaferro sort of answer that question (give him the garbage), but what about Cleburne, Shelby, etc.
As a follow up, I feel like the strategy rating is most important... like i'd rather have a 4-1-1 than a 3-2-2. Am I crazy?
RE: combining best generals w/worst troops and vice versa, I don't often but it really depends on the situation. If I need to make a fast move on foot, I'll combine as many regular infantry as I can get w/Stonewall or another capable fastmover. If I already have an entrenched position I want to hold and some engineers, a commander that is good on defense but not necessarily strategic or attack will still fit the bill.
I try to match abilities with troops that can take advantage of it. Cleburne is good just about anywhere but like the Chickamaugan Rock he's an exceptional defender. If you can combine him, regulars, another commander with an artillery perk and an entrenched position, it's enough to make the Union go north for the winter. Shelby is a great raider and excels and small unit actions. IMO, although he's certainly not a bad division commander, he's wasted as part of a corps. Unless it's a two division corps and the other division is Cleburne's, with Hardee as corps commander.
Once Lee is unlocked, I usually send most of the rest of my "full generals" out west, although I might send PTB to one of the coasts. None of the other high rankers has Lee's strategic rating and thus command range, so more of them enables me to cover more ground with corps.
I try to match abilities with troops that can take advantage of it. Cleburne is good just about anywhere but like the Chickamaugan Rock he's an exceptional defender. If you can combine him, regulars, another commander with an artillery perk and an entrenched position, it's enough to make the Union go north for the winter. Shelby is a great raider and excels and small unit actions. IMO, although he's certainly not a bad division commander, he's wasted as part of a corps. Unless it's a two division corps and the other division is Cleburne's, with Hardee as corps commander.
Once Lee is unlocked, I usually send most of the rest of my "full generals" out west, although I might send PTB to one of the coasts. None of the other high rankers has Lee's strategic rating and thus command range, so more of them enables me to cover more ground with corps.
Depends on where you want them.
I'd rather have a 3-2-2 defending in some place I know I will never advance from. Paducah for example.
And I'd rather have a 4-1-1 as a reserve that may need to be activated. Kansas for example.
To the main question:
I use my best troops to go after the best targets in the best armies against the best enemy. So those should (naturally) have the best commanders.
I use my worst troops in the least valuable places defending things I don't particularly care for. So I leave Floyd and his 3-0-0 up there in Morgantown, because northern West Virginia has no place in my long term plans.
I'd rather have a 3-2-2 defending in some place I know I will never advance from. Paducah for example.
And I'd rather have a 4-1-1 as a reserve that may need to be activated. Kansas for example.
To the main question:
I use my best troops to go after the best targets in the best armies against the best enemy. So those should (naturally) have the best commanders.
I use my worst troops in the least valuable places defending things I don't particularly care for. So I leave Floyd and his 3-0-0 up there in Morgantown, because northern West Virginia has no place in my long term plans.
grimjaw wrote:RE: combining best generals w/worst troops and vice versa, I don't often but it really depends on the situation. If I need to make a fast move on foot, I'll combine as many regular infantry as I can get w/Stonewall or another capable fastmover. If I already have an entrenched position I want to hold and some engineers, a commander that is good on defense but not necessarily strategic or attack will still fit the bill.
I try to match abilities with troops that can take advantage of it. Cleburne is good just about anywhere but like the Chickamaugan Rock he's an exceptional defender. If you can combine him, regulars, another commander with an artillery perk and an entrenched position, it's enough to make the Union go north for the winter. Shelby is a great raider and excels and small unit actions. IMO, although he's certainly not a bad division commander, he's wasted as part of a corps. Unless it's a two division corps and the other division is Cleburne's, with Hardee as corps commander.
Once Lee is unlocked, I usually send most of the rest of my "full generals" out west, although I might send PTB to one of the coasts. None of the other high rankers has Lee's strategic rating and thus command range, so more of them enables me to cover more ground with corps.
Just a few notes.
The amount of damage you can do with Forrest and three dedicated cavalry divisions is astonishing. Mass your cavalry, put it under Forrest, and then turn it loose for deep raids. If you can get him an extra cavalry division, even better. The only thing he can't handle with 20,000+ horsemen is a city with a division behind a redoubt.
Prior to Lee's activation and before corps are formed, it's better to withdraw JJ and PGT. Your CP penalty will be the same (-35%) no matter what you do, and TJ can beat anyone he encounters on the offensive while Longstreet can beat anyone he encounters on the defensive. Given the geography and objectives in Virginia, it's perfect.
when I'm facing Grant and not giving Shelby a division means giving one to Polk (or worse), well... how can I refuse?
That's true and you're forced to make decisions like that more often as the CSA. It really depends on the situation. If Grant has you greatly outnumbered and bottled up in a siege situation, it's not going to matter much who you have in the works. As in reality, that force is essentially defeated. Grant can leave someone else defending the entrenchments and CSA Rock Star General will be idle, his talents wasted.
Aside, I think Polk has been slighted in the game. He was West Point trained and didn't fare worse than generals with X-1-1 ratings. I've modded him slightly upwards in my own game.
That's true and you're forced to make decisions like that more often as the CSA. It really depends on the situation. If Grant has you greatly outnumbered and bottled up in a siege situation, it's not going to matter much who you have in the works. As in reality, that force is essentially defeated. Grant can leave someone else defending the entrenchments and CSA Rock Star General will be idle, his talents wasted.
Aside, I think Polk has been slighted in the game. He was West Point trained and didn't fare worse than generals with X-1-1 ratings. I've modded him slightly upwards in my own game.
-
ArmChairGeneral
- AGEod Grognard
- Posts: 997
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:00 am
- Location: Austin, TX, USA
re: cav division fighting ability
They will fight better with 4 to 6 infantry in the division (and if it has infantry, it might as well have real artillery rather than HA), but for raids fighting ability may not be the most important consideration. The stack will move at the speed of infantry if even one infantry is in it, and the Hide and Evasion values go down too, so it depends on your goals for the raid. (If you have late-cav in it then a pure cav division will be able to capture enemy cities and their depots. Just something to keep in mind.) So, if speed, range and the ability to avoid combat (if you choose) are important, then all cav (and consider leaving the HA behind too, they are only medium stealthy) is a better choice. Even if you are just looking to range around the margins of the front lines hunting down small stacks being shuffled around (Athena usually has a lot of them) all cav with HA is probably a better choice than including infantry just because of the speed.
All Cav divisions will do fine in a combat if there is a Cav leader in the stack (he doesn't have to be in charge of the division itself to get the combat bonus) as long as you are careful not to get caught by too powerful of an enemy stack. The main benefits to having infantry in them come in the big Corps vs Corps sized battles: their speed and stealth properties are irrelevant in those situations, and if they get targeted you take all (expensive) cav hits. In that case the infantry act like cav-hit insurance, absorbing hits that would otherwise go to cav elements and improving assault phase performance somewhat. (For that matter, you might as well spread the cav out so there is some in each division of the Corps, but then it will be a chore to separate the cav from each division when you want them to break off from the stack to go do cav things.) Generally speaking, I would avoid combat with all-cav divisions unless I saw a good target of opportunity: combat performance considerations aside, cav hits are expensive to replace and the pool is limited.
OTOH, if you can afford 20,000 cav, and are willing to pay for (and have enough in the pool for) the replacements you will need, then they will probably do pretty well against anything that size or smaller, especially if Forrest is the Corps commander. Be on the lookout for weakly garrisoned depots and for smallish stacks that are not well-entrenched, have low quality troops or lack artillery; I imagine you would tear those guys up. Also, the further West you are on the map, the more viable cav stacks are for combat roles just because things are farther apart so speed is more important, and you are less likely to encounter strong opposition.
Let us know how you end up using them and how it goes. I don't have much experience raiding-in-force (its not something I usually do) and am interested in hearing more about how it works out.
(Clarification: when I say all-cav I mean Cav and Horse Artillery. They can be left behind behind for stealth missions, but otherwise there is no reason not to have HA.)
They will fight better with 4 to 6 infantry in the division (and if it has infantry, it might as well have real artillery rather than HA), but for raids fighting ability may not be the most important consideration. The stack will move at the speed of infantry if even one infantry is in it, and the Hide and Evasion values go down too, so it depends on your goals for the raid. (If you have late-cav in it then a pure cav division will be able to capture enemy cities and their depots. Just something to keep in mind.) So, if speed, range and the ability to avoid combat (if you choose) are important, then all cav (and consider leaving the HA behind too, they are only medium stealthy) is a better choice. Even if you are just looking to range around the margins of the front lines hunting down small stacks being shuffled around (Athena usually has a lot of them) all cav with HA is probably a better choice than including infantry just because of the speed.
All Cav divisions will do fine in a combat if there is a Cav leader in the stack (he doesn't have to be in charge of the division itself to get the combat bonus) as long as you are careful not to get caught by too powerful of an enemy stack. The main benefits to having infantry in them come in the big Corps vs Corps sized battles: their speed and stealth properties are irrelevant in those situations, and if they get targeted you take all (expensive) cav hits. In that case the infantry act like cav-hit insurance, absorbing hits that would otherwise go to cav elements and improving assault phase performance somewhat. (For that matter, you might as well spread the cav out so there is some in each division of the Corps, but then it will be a chore to separate the cav from each division when you want them to break off from the stack to go do cav things.) Generally speaking, I would avoid combat with all-cav divisions unless I saw a good target of opportunity: combat performance considerations aside, cav hits are expensive to replace and the pool is limited.
OTOH, if you can afford 20,000 cav, and are willing to pay for (and have enough in the pool for) the replacements you will need, then they will probably do pretty well against anything that size or smaller, especially if Forrest is the Corps commander. Be on the lookout for weakly garrisoned depots and for smallish stacks that are not well-entrenched, have low quality troops or lack artillery; I imagine you would tear those guys up. Also, the further West you are on the map, the more viable cav stacks are for combat roles just because things are farther apart so speed is more important, and you are less likely to encounter strong opposition.
Let us know how you end up using them and how it goes. I don't have much experience raiding-in-force (its not something I usually do) and am interested in hearing more about how it works out.
(Clarification: when I say all-cav I mean Cav and Horse Artillery. They can be left behind behind for stealth missions, but otherwise there is no reason not to have HA.)
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests