I used the frontage table from the Wiki with the latest patch for my analysis.
Let's say that you have one Division in a Corps with the usual 4 batteries of artillery, although the artillery can be any number. In combat, this Division's elements all fire at one target. If the target routs or is destroyed by the first firing elements, then the other elements' fire is "wasted".
Now we have the same Corps with one Division, however all of the artillery is at Corps level and none are in the Division. In combat this Division's elements all fire at one target, but the Corps artillery fires at a second "strongest" target. You achieve a one-two punch with the same number of elements.
So one could have both artillery in the Divisions and the Corps. That's where the frontage comes to bear. If the total number of the Divisions' artillery is the same as the frontage for support elements, then the batteries will fire at its Division's target and the Corps artillery won't be employed at all. The one-two punch is lost. As you can see from the frontage table, it only takes 8 guns or less for the artillery to reach this number in all but the open terrain type (clear/prairie/desert/wood).
From this analysis, I always use Divisions with no artillery in a Corps. My Division has a sharpshooter, maybe a Marine/Sailor for river crossing, a couple cavalry elements and the rest infantry. I put two of these divisions in a Corps which usually leaves eight or more slots for artillery. Thus, I always get the one-two punch. The Corps with at least two Divisions also has a total of 4 Divisional cavalry elements for the screening bonus to the hide number.
I build 20 pounder artillery, which is the biggest you can attach to a stack without a loss in mobility. I'm not stuck buying a bunch of brigades with only 6 or 12 pounders, but have real, long range, ground pounders. My Divisions also have the benefit of over 20% more melee types who can fix bayonets at range zero, where Division artillery stops firing. As you can see from the frontage table, most often 8 or less support elements are used, so at least some of the Corps guns go hot. In open terrain, I just employ two or more Corps, especially if they follow Napoleon's advice (MTG). I don't have to fuss with building "perfect" Divisions, because if you don't buy brigades with artillery, then you don't build Divisions with artillery from them.
However, if I want to guard a mountain pass or city/fort, then I do use Divisions with intrinsic artillery to save on Command Points. So a Mountain Division usually has a sharpshooter, eight infantry and three batteries (from the frontage table). A garrison Division has the same plus five militia. At least a size 2 city can hold twenty elements without crowding, so this Division is perfect for garrison duty. I can still rail in a Corps commander with some extra artillery to a threatened city if required.
Your comments are welcome.
-
Jagger2013
- General of the Army
- Posts: 641
- Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 2:14 am
Note from here: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?27907-***-Guide-Combat-Targetting-***,
----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 (think about it when making your ROP divisions̷)
Support units behave the same, except that their target can be support units or not (still picked at random).---
Appears tgts are first chosen at the unit/division level and then elements are picked from the unit/division. Pure support/corp artillery can possibly direct fire at support "units" rather than combat units. Artillery within divisions are guaranteed to fire at combat units. It seems.
----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 (think about it when making your ROP divisions̷)
Support units behave the same, except that their target can be support units or not (still picked at random).---
Appears tgts are first chosen at the unit/division level and then elements are picked from the unit/division. Pure support/corp artillery can possibly direct fire at support "units" rather than combat units. Artillery within divisions are guaranteed to fire at combat units. It seems.
"Finally,
- all elements from one unit will target elements from the same enemy unit in a given round. If the unit is destroyed before everyone shoots at it, the extra attacks are "lost" (rare case)."
This supports the view that Division (or Brigade for that matter) artillery fire at the "unit" target and non-unit, i.e., loose artillery batteries in the stack would fire at something else, a one-two punch. However, if the division artillery used up all of the support element slots, then you would not get this action. Single artillery batteries that are not in a unit but are loose in a stack (ad hoc group, Corps or Army), would always get to fire only if they are not competing for frontage with unit artillery. I have read that these stack artillery batteries would target "the strongest unit", so most likely a combat unit or strong support unit, not say, a supply wagon or engineer. Plus a Corps with 20 pounders will do more damage than a Corps with Brigade or Division 6 or 12 pounders.
Also, due to frontage, a Corps with two Divisions of infantry as I described will take up all of the frontage for combat units in each kind of terrain but open (where more such Corps would be used). So, 4 Divisions with Brigade level artillery in an enemy Corps won't get a one-two punch or over-whelm the Corps with two Divisions full of infantry elements and eight 20 pounders.
- all elements from one unit will target elements from the same enemy unit in a given round. If the unit is destroyed before everyone shoots at it, the extra attacks are "lost" (rare case)."
This supports the view that Division (or Brigade for that matter) artillery fire at the "unit" target and non-unit, i.e., loose artillery batteries in the stack would fire at something else, a one-two punch. However, if the division artillery used up all of the support element slots, then you would not get this action. Single artillery batteries that are not in a unit but are loose in a stack (ad hoc group, Corps or Army), would always get to fire only if they are not competing for frontage with unit artillery. I have read that these stack artillery batteries would target "the strongest unit", so most likely a combat unit or strong support unit, not say, a supply wagon or engineer. Plus a Corps with 20 pounders will do more damage than a Corps with Brigade or Division 6 or 12 pounders.
Also, due to frontage, a Corps with two Divisions of infantry as I described will take up all of the frontage for combat units in each kind of terrain but open (where more such Corps would be used). So, 4 Divisions with Brigade level artillery in an enemy Corps won't get a one-two punch or over-whelm the Corps with two Divisions full of infantry elements and eight 20 pounders.
-
aariediger
- Sergeant
- Posts: 86
- Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:14 pm
One problem though, is the massive amount of bonus frontage that generals can provide in open terrain (Clear, Woods, Prairie). I don't remember the exact numbers, but it's about 1 extra division per command point of a three star general. However, I believe I did those numbers with the division composition that most people were pushing at the time, 14 infantry, 1 sharpshooter, 1 cavalry, and 4 guns.
I think there is enough frontage in open terrain for 3 divisions, so a 3-1-1 leader can attack and defend with 4 divisions in good weather. That could be two small corps. But a guy like Grant can really push the envelope, and can put better than 9 divisions on the firing line. For this reason, battles fought in clear and woods are completely different from fighting in wilderness, hills, mountains, or swamp. Most fighting does take place in clear and woods, as Tennessee and Virginia are mostly made up of those terrain types, as well as the Carolinas and Mississippi/Georgia.
There might be some frontage differences between clear and woods, but the biggest thing is the max range limits, capped at 5 in woods, and no limit in the open. So an attacker prefers clear terrain, which allows them to open up with all their rifled guns at range 6, starting the battle with nearly no counter-fire, if the defender is using mostly 12-pounders. This is why the south really needs to dig in in those clear spaces they have to defend, like Fredericksburg. The Union has the money to buy as many 20-pounders as they want, which happed to be the most expensive artillery in the game. There is a fair chance that they will have such a superiority in riled guns, that a good general like Grant or Sherman can simply blast the defenders to bits before the battle gets into rifle range, where the scale tips back towards the defender. 9 divisions with 8,000 men apiece and 4 batteries, means Grant can assault with 72,000 men and 432 guns all firing at the same time. The weight of fire is incredible.
The bonus frontage is huge, and the reality is you need artillery in your divisions, at the corps level, with the army HQ, as much as you can get. Every command point should be used. And since 4 loose artillery have the same CP cost as a division that contains them, why not? When I play with the North, early on I don't have the manpower for all my guns, and I stick 5 or 6 guns in every division, especially before corps command opens up. You need to put as much lead on target as possible, and artillery (rifles in particular) are the best way to do it.
I think there is enough frontage in open terrain for 3 divisions, so a 3-1-1 leader can attack and defend with 4 divisions in good weather. That could be two small corps. But a guy like Grant can really push the envelope, and can put better than 9 divisions on the firing line. For this reason, battles fought in clear and woods are completely different from fighting in wilderness, hills, mountains, or swamp. Most fighting does take place in clear and woods, as Tennessee and Virginia are mostly made up of those terrain types, as well as the Carolinas and Mississippi/Georgia.
There might be some frontage differences between clear and woods, but the biggest thing is the max range limits, capped at 5 in woods, and no limit in the open. So an attacker prefers clear terrain, which allows them to open up with all their rifled guns at range 6, starting the battle with nearly no counter-fire, if the defender is using mostly 12-pounders. This is why the south really needs to dig in in those clear spaces they have to defend, like Fredericksburg. The Union has the money to buy as many 20-pounders as they want, which happed to be the most expensive artillery in the game. There is a fair chance that they will have such a superiority in riled guns, that a good general like Grant or Sherman can simply blast the defenders to bits before the battle gets into rifle range, where the scale tips back towards the defender. 9 divisions with 8,000 men apiece and 4 batteries, means Grant can assault with 72,000 men and 432 guns all firing at the same time. The weight of fire is incredible.
The bonus frontage is huge, and the reality is you need artillery in your divisions, at the corps level, with the army HQ, as much as you can get. Every command point should be used. And since 4 loose artillery have the same CP cost as a division that contains them, why not? When I play with the North, early on I don't have the manpower for all my guns, and I stick 5 or 6 guns in every division, especially before corps command opens up. You need to put as much lead on target as possible, and artillery (rifles in particular) are the best way to do it.
Sorry for the long post, but just exactly how big is huge?
"In open terrain only (clear/prairie/desert/wood), the Units Quotas are modified by leader (rank)*(offensive/defensive rating) depending whether in offensive or defensive posture:
Combat Units Quota: (+25 points)*(rank)*(off/def rating)
Support Units Quota: (+10 points)*(rank)*(off/def rating) "
Let's say Lee as a 3-star has straight 6's. How many elements would he command in clear terrain with perfect weather? The base number is 15 support elements and 45 combat units. So:
+25*3*6= +450% or 248 for the combat line elements.
+10*3*6= +180% or just 42 support elements.
However, he also gets to command an Army stack with about 26 CP's himself. That would be the HQ (4 CP's), two of my Divisions (8 CP's) and 14 batteries of artillery. That's already one third of the support elements allowed to fire. His Corps commanders get a bonus from Lee and can have about 22 CP's. That's two Divisions and 14 batteries of artillery again. With only Lee's Army stack and two of my Corps, the number of artillery elements that actually get to fire is already met.
If the two Divisions in each Corps had 4 batteries of artillery, then less than half of the Corps/Army artillery would get to fire. The 6 and 12 pounders would take up more than half of the support element frontage away from the 20 pounders. Having more guns does not equate to having more guns firing at a second target or the right guns firing. Even in the best terrain type, it pays to have heavy artillery in the Corps firing at a separate target and not light artillery in the Divisions firing at the same target.
Furthermore, if I wanted to give Lee the max combat element quota too, then I would only need to send in combat elements. Fortunately, my Divisions only have combat elements. I need merely add two more Corps with a total of 7 more of my Divisions with 17 combat elements each, for a total of 5 stacks. So even a "huge" battle in open terrain and perfect weather would still best be fought by infantry Divisions that actually are Divisions of infantry and supported by heavy artillery at Corps/Army level.
Last night, the AI Longstreet (3-star 4-2-6) with 57k men and 152 guns (6 and 12 pounders in those big Tennessee brigades) with a power of 3778 attacked Louisville. Summer (3-star 4-2-2) with 18k men and 132 guns (I had 6 batteries of Rodmans and IIRC 4 horse artillery with one 12 pounder battery) with a power of 1558 defended inside Louisville. Longstreet had a 3-1 advantage in manpower. He had only divisional artillery when I checked his stack before the battle, so no separate batteries. Summer took 2813 casualties. Longstreet lost 11,361 men, about one fifth of his force before withdrawing. Summer took 93 hits and Longstreet took 380 from ranged fire, even though he had more guns. Summer's Corps had my reserve cavalry Division and a Division of militia elements with Rodmans. What one of Grant's Corps with 14 batteries of 20 pounders might have done, I leave to your imagination.
Ironically, Longstreet was Pickett's commander at Gettysburg
P.S. A Division would cost the South more conscript companies than 4 batteries of 20 pounders. You can't print more conscripts. I always build just enough Divisions with infantry and every battery of heavy artillery.
"In open terrain only (clear/prairie/desert/wood), the Units Quotas are modified by leader (rank)*(offensive/defensive rating) depending whether in offensive or defensive posture:
Combat Units Quota: (+25 points)*(rank)*(off/def rating)
Support Units Quota: (+10 points)*(rank)*(off/def rating) "
Let's say Lee as a 3-star has straight 6's. How many elements would he command in clear terrain with perfect weather? The base number is 15 support elements and 45 combat units. So:
+25*3*6= +450% or 248 for the combat line elements.
+10*3*6= +180% or just 42 support elements.
However, he also gets to command an Army stack with about 26 CP's himself. That would be the HQ (4 CP's), two of my Divisions (8 CP's) and 14 batteries of artillery. That's already one third of the support elements allowed to fire. His Corps commanders get a bonus from Lee and can have about 22 CP's. That's two Divisions and 14 batteries of artillery again. With only Lee's Army stack and two of my Corps, the number of artillery elements that actually get to fire is already met.
If the two Divisions in each Corps had 4 batteries of artillery, then less than half of the Corps/Army artillery would get to fire. The 6 and 12 pounders would take up more than half of the support element frontage away from the 20 pounders. Having more guns does not equate to having more guns firing at a second target or the right guns firing. Even in the best terrain type, it pays to have heavy artillery in the Corps firing at a separate target and not light artillery in the Divisions firing at the same target.
Furthermore, if I wanted to give Lee the max combat element quota too, then I would only need to send in combat elements. Fortunately, my Divisions only have combat elements. I need merely add two more Corps with a total of 7 more of my Divisions with 17 combat elements each, for a total of 5 stacks. So even a "huge" battle in open terrain and perfect weather would still best be fought by infantry Divisions that actually are Divisions of infantry and supported by heavy artillery at Corps/Army level.
Last night, the AI Longstreet (3-star 4-2-6) with 57k men and 152 guns (6 and 12 pounders in those big Tennessee brigades) with a power of 3778 attacked Louisville. Summer (3-star 4-2-2) with 18k men and 132 guns (I had 6 batteries of Rodmans and IIRC 4 horse artillery with one 12 pounder battery) with a power of 1558 defended inside Louisville. Longstreet had a 3-1 advantage in manpower. He had only divisional artillery when I checked his stack before the battle, so no separate batteries. Summer took 2813 casualties. Longstreet lost 11,361 men, about one fifth of his force before withdrawing. Summer took 93 hits and Longstreet took 380 from ranged fire, even though he had more guns. Summer's Corps had my reserve cavalry Division and a Division of militia elements with Rodmans. What one of Grant's Corps with 14 batteries of 20 pounders might have done, I leave to your imagination.
Ironically, Longstreet was Pickett's commander at Gettysburg
P.S. A Division would cost the South more conscript companies than 4 batteries of 20 pounders. You can't print more conscripts. I always build just enough Divisions with infantry and every battery of heavy artillery.
-
ArmChairGeneral
- AGEod Grognard
- Posts: 997
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:00 am
- Location: Austin, TX, USA
If you read the Wiki and put the pieces together, Corps and Army heavy artillery is the route to go for an attacking army. Lone divisions do better with internal artillery because of the CP cost.
I'm curious, does CW2 use the same mechanic? I still read about the "4 artillery elements in a division" mantra. If it's the same game, then stack artillery would be my choice in CW2.
I'm curious, does CW2 use the same mechanic? I still read about the "4 artillery elements in a division" mantra. If it's the same game, then stack artillery would be my choice in CW2.
-
ArmChairGeneral
- AGEod Grognard
- Posts: 997
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:00 am
- Location: Austin, TX, USA
As far as I can tell, it is the same. I was never convinced by the 4 arty/div build for Corps and Army divisions. It definitely guarantees that an independent Corps will be able to fill the worst-case frontage, but I have had better luck (in both games) with five or even six in independent Divs (depending on local geography, just 4 in WV for example). At the Corps level I have always tried to keep them in the stack, but you know how those pesky embedded cannon are. The "4 artillery" and Division vs. Corps/Amy debates continue to rage after what, five years now?
An alternate view would be that the one-two punch waters down the firepower brought to bear on an individual target making them more likely to hold the line against you. Your infantry are all fighting hard, taking unopposed hits from enemy cannons while your guns are focused on other targets. It is important to rout elements to score major victories, so even if excess hits are "wasted" the rout could have lead to others routing, the enemy fleeing the field and your cav pursuing and possibly destroying elements. By shooting at multiple targets you would reduce the likelihood of breaking the elements your infantry is engaging, and put your own infantry in danger of going into assault phase at a cohesion disadvantage and themselves routing .
I am leaning toward stack artillery in CW2 although I have seen nothing compelling either way to make up my mind. I guess we will just have to continue to "teach the controversy."
An alternate view would be that the one-two punch waters down the firepower brought to bear on an individual target making them more likely to hold the line against you. Your infantry are all fighting hard, taking unopposed hits from enemy cannons while your guns are focused on other targets. It is important to rout elements to score major victories, so even if excess hits are "wasted" the rout could have lead to others routing, the enemy fleeing the field and your cav pursuing and possibly destroying elements. By shooting at multiple targets you would reduce the likelihood of breaking the elements your infantry is engaging, and put your own infantry in danger of going into assault phase at a cohesion disadvantage and themselves routing .
I am leaning toward stack artillery in CW2 although I have seen nothing compelling either way to make up my mind. I guess we will just have to continue to "teach the controversy."
Agreed. I think more players should look at this objectively and find evidence that is undeniable. Rather than wait for me to fight 100 battles, 100 players could fight several battles and produce more results.
Something else to bear in mind is that according to the Wiki, Division/Brigade artillery stop firing when range is zero. This is the obvious rule that you wouldn't fire into your own troops mixing it up in melee. Corps/Army artillery would still be firing at a different target. A Division with 17 combat elements (plus a General) has 23% more elements in melee than a Division with only 13. The larger Division has an obvious advantage. Also, 8 heavy Corps/Army artillery would have whittled away at the smaller Division at long range causing more damage than the smaller Division's 4 light artillery could do in return. When the smaller Division routs, its atillery would no longer have a target and would stop firing.
So, stack heavy artillery would do more damage than Division light artillery. Even a Division with heavy artillery wouldn't do the following:
The stack artillery provide a one-two punch.
They don't stop firing at range zero.
They don't stop firing if the Division routs.
Finally, a Division with 17 combat elements has obvious advantages over a Division with only 13 or fewer combat elements.
Something else to bear in mind is that according to the Wiki, Division/Brigade artillery stop firing when range is zero. This is the obvious rule that you wouldn't fire into your own troops mixing it up in melee. Corps/Army artillery would still be firing at a different target. A Division with 17 combat elements (plus a General) has 23% more elements in melee than a Division with only 13. The larger Division has an obvious advantage. Also, 8 heavy Corps/Army artillery would have whittled away at the smaller Division at long range causing more damage than the smaller Division's 4 light artillery could do in return. When the smaller Division routs, its atillery would no longer have a target and would stop firing.
So, stack heavy artillery would do more damage than Division light artillery. Even a Division with heavy artillery wouldn't do the following:
The stack artillery provide a one-two punch.
They don't stop firing at range zero.
They don't stop firing if the Division routs.
Finally, a Division with 17 combat elements has obvious advantages over a Division with only 13 or fewer combat elements.
-
ArmChairGeneral
- AGEod Grognard
- Posts: 997
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:00 am
- Location: Austin, TX, USA
Don't artillery use their assault characteristics at range zero just like everyone else? (Not that these are great, just saying.) I like the argument of 17 infantry vs 13 infantry. If an entire division is in danger of routing your commander is going to attempt to withdraw anyway, and then your stack artillery will not fire anymore.
Not to say I disagree on stack vs division artillery, or any of your specific points. Just trying to clarify my thinking here.
Not to say I disagree on stack vs division artillery, or any of your specific points. Just trying to clarify my thinking here.
I appreciate the honest discussion. Yes, the Wiki says the artillery stop firing, so they most likely do assault damage. However, they are not a 600 man infantry unit.
I think that a two Division Corps might bring in the second Division if the first routed. Isn't that what is happening in a long battle? So Corps artillery would still be firing.
I think that a two Division Corps might bring in the second Division if the first routed. Isn't that what is happening in a long battle? So Corps artillery would still be firing.
-
ArmChairGeneral
- AGEod Grognard
- Posts: 997
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:00 am
- Location: Austin, TX, USA
I am murky on what exactly happens when the battles get large. When elements start to rout your commander begins making withdrawal checks. I tTHINK that if he fails the check (does not withdraw) then the frontage opened by routs is refilled by other units that were not originally chosen, but I'm not sure if they go directly into the current phase (typically assault) or if they begin at range again. The stack artillery would continue to fire at range unless your commander withdraws, and routing division artillery frontage would be refilled by other artillery (presumably stack, although not necessarliy). Still, the likelihood is that if the better part of a division is routing (and the enemy is not also routing) and you have a decent commander, he will succeed at his withdrawal check and end the battle most of the time.
I think in the case where you outnumber the enemy in number of committed elements, stack artillery will be way more effective than division artillery. Your combat elements are going to inflict plenty of damage on whomever they engage, and not be in particular danger of needing to leave the field. The stack artillery will also be doing damage to the largest unit in battle, the one-two punch that we are looking for, and will find new targets if their first target routs. In the case where forces are more evenly matched the situation is less clear to me, since then your own combat elements are in a bigger danger of routing and it might have been better to have concentrated the artillery fire on the elements specifically engaged with yours. (Aside: in many cases the target the stack artillery chooses is going to be the same as the division artillery would have engaged.) BUT, if you cause routs, the stack artillery could then switch targets and continue to score hits until the whole enemy force successfully withdraws, whereas the division artillery would high-five each other and call it a day once their original target routed.
Again, the 17 vs 13 element argument is very interesting. As I understand it, the frontage will fill with as many elements as will fit. So if you had 13 infantry and 4 artillery in a division, the 13 infantry would be chosen, and then some combat elements from another division (but not that entire division unless they both completely fit in the frontage) would be added until the frontage was filled. So, you would end up with the same number of infantry participating whether or not the artillery were in the division or not (same for the enemy), and the only thing that would change would be the targets the artillery picked and when they stopped firing. I could be way off on this line of thinking however, I don't have a perfect understanding of the frontage and combat resolution mechanisms in the first place, and it gets worse when the size/variety of the forces increases.
I am enjoying this thread, thanks for getting it going!
I think in the case where you outnumber the enemy in number of committed elements, stack artillery will be way more effective than division artillery. Your combat elements are going to inflict plenty of damage on whomever they engage, and not be in particular danger of needing to leave the field. The stack artillery will also be doing damage to the largest unit in battle, the one-two punch that we are looking for, and will find new targets if their first target routs. In the case where forces are more evenly matched the situation is less clear to me, since then your own combat elements are in a bigger danger of routing and it might have been better to have concentrated the artillery fire on the elements specifically engaged with yours. (Aside: in many cases the target the stack artillery chooses is going to be the same as the division artillery would have engaged.) BUT, if you cause routs, the stack artillery could then switch targets and continue to score hits until the whole enemy force successfully withdraws, whereas the division artillery would high-five each other and call it a day once their original target routed.
Again, the 17 vs 13 element argument is very interesting. As I understand it, the frontage will fill with as many elements as will fit. So if you had 13 infantry and 4 artillery in a division, the 13 infantry would be chosen, and then some combat elements from another division (but not that entire division unless they both completely fit in the frontage) would be added until the frontage was filled. So, you would end up with the same number of infantry participating whether or not the artillery were in the division or not (same for the enemy), and the only thing that would change would be the targets the artillery picked and when they stopped firing. I could be way off on this line of thinking however, I don't have a perfect understanding of the frontage and combat resolution mechanisms in the first place, and it gets worse when the size/variety of the forces increases.
I am enjoying this thread, thanks for getting it going!
You're most welcome!
From the Wiki:
"Combat is resolved in a series of one hour rounds between engaged troops at sub-unit level." (my italics)
But not supra-unit level? So, perhaps two Divisions don't attack one Division during the same round. It's rather vague.
"Sub-units unable to deploy will be held in reserve and relieve weakened troops in the front line during the battle."
Again, it doesn't say that sub-units of a different unit will relieve weakened troops of another unit.
Historically, when Hood's Division fought the Iron Brigade, that is literally what happened. Pickett didn't charge with part of McLaw's Division. I know that during this period, large units fought until they were no longer able and then they were replaced in the line by whole fresh units. So it may be that an entire unit fights another entire unit until it is exhausted or shatters and then another entire unit joins the battle. This would seem to be the case in the game. I have read posts where only one Division was mauled in a large battle, indicating that this single Division had fought alone. If frontage allowed several whole Divisions to engage simultaneously, then one would expect that the unit-on-unit sub-routine would still apply.
If any of that is actually true, then it might be advantageous to have a General, a Sharpshooter and 16 regiments with 9600 infantry/cavalry in a Division as opposed to a General, a Sharpshooter, a few hundred cannon-cockers and only 7200 infantry/cavalry in 12 regiments. A third more warfighters makes the math really compelling.
From the Wiki:
"Combat is resolved in a series of one hour rounds between engaged troops at sub-unit level." (my italics)
But not supra-unit level? So, perhaps two Divisions don't attack one Division during the same round. It's rather vague.
"Sub-units unable to deploy will be held in reserve and relieve weakened troops in the front line during the battle."
Again, it doesn't say that sub-units of a different unit will relieve weakened troops of another unit.
Historically, when Hood's Division fought the Iron Brigade, that is literally what happened. Pickett didn't charge with part of McLaw's Division. I know that during this period, large units fought until they were no longer able and then they were replaced in the line by whole fresh units. So it may be that an entire unit fights another entire unit until it is exhausted or shatters and then another entire unit joins the battle. This would seem to be the case in the game. I have read posts where only one Division was mauled in a large battle, indicating that this single Division had fought alone. If frontage allowed several whole Divisions to engage simultaneously, then one would expect that the unit-on-unit sub-routine would still apply.
If any of that is actually true, then it might be advantageous to have a General, a Sharpshooter and 16 regiments with 9600 infantry/cavalry in a Division as opposed to a General, a Sharpshooter, a few hundred cannon-cockers and only 7200 infantry/cavalry in 12 regiments. A third more warfighters makes the math really compelling.
-
ArmChairGeneral
- AGEod Grognard
- Posts: 997
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:00 am
- Location: Austin, TX, USA
I've checked the history of the "conventional wisdom" and it goes like this. About 6 years ago, the thoughts on Corps/Army (C/A) artillery boiled down to one simple conclusion.
Four batteries of C/A artillery cost 4 Command Points.
A Division costs 4 CP's.
Therefore, a Division with 4 batteries of artillery gives you the same number of guns in a C/A plus 13 other elements for the same CP cost.
Thereafter, some tried Divisions with 4-8 batteries, or a mix of heavy and light guns in the Division, but the debate that loose batteries at C/A level was a good idea was over. Apparently no one considered that Division guns stop firing at range zero or when the Division routs, and that only C/A guns give the one-two punch. The simple math of 4 infantry regiments vs 4 smaller artillerymen elements in a Division during an assault was never debated.
I would conclude that independent Divisions in mountains or defending depots should still have intrinsic artillery batteries due to the CP cost. However, the number should be based on the frontage allowed and not on some conventional wisdom. You can only use three batteries in mountains, so a Mountain Division defending that region only needs three. A Corps with two infantry Divisions (as I have posted) and eight Corps batteries more than fills the frontage for all non-open terrain regions. A military genius (3-star with a 6 in Offense) in open terain with perfect weather is only getting 42 batteries firing. Light Division guns would compete with heavy C/A guns for frontage. Stacks with infantry Divisions and only C/A heavy artillery batteries have obvious tactical advantages that are worth pursuing.
Four batteries of C/A artillery cost 4 Command Points.
A Division costs 4 CP's.
Therefore, a Division with 4 batteries of artillery gives you the same number of guns in a C/A plus 13 other elements for the same CP cost.
Thereafter, some tried Divisions with 4-8 batteries, or a mix of heavy and light guns in the Division, but the debate that loose batteries at C/A level was a good idea was over. Apparently no one considered that Division guns stop firing at range zero or when the Division routs, and that only C/A guns give the one-two punch. The simple math of 4 infantry regiments vs 4 smaller artillerymen elements in a Division during an assault was never debated.
I would conclude that independent Divisions in mountains or defending depots should still have intrinsic artillery batteries due to the CP cost. However, the number should be based on the frontage allowed and not on some conventional wisdom. You can only use three batteries in mountains, so a Mountain Division defending that region only needs three. A Corps with two infantry Divisions (as I have posted) and eight Corps batteries more than fills the frontage for all non-open terrain regions. A military genius (3-star with a 6 in Offense) in open terain with perfect weather is only getting 42 batteries firing. Light Division guns would compete with heavy C/A guns for frontage. Stacks with infantry Divisions and only C/A heavy artillery batteries have obvious tactical advantages that are worth pursuing.
-
ArmChairGeneral
- AGEod Grognard
- Posts: 997
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:00 am
- Location: Austin, TX, USA
Thanks for chiming in over in the CW2 forum. I was really just trying to do a summary of the issues in my post over there, and was glad to see your analysis repeated over there since the new players will benefit from these observations. The issues are almost identical, and I think your conclusions are just as relevant and important in the new game.
BTW, have you made the switch yet? I really like the RGDs and the new Far West areas of the map. Also, the loyalty mechanic is subject to more player actions. The game overall is not wildly different, but that is a Good Thing. Now that 1.03 is out things are beginning to gel in terms of balance, and Athena is playing better. Plus, it is always nice to read/post in an active forum.
BTW, have you made the switch yet? I really like the RGDs and the new Far West areas of the map. Also, the loyalty mechanic is subject to more player actions. The game overall is not wildly different, but that is a Good Thing. Now that 1.03 is out things are beginning to gel in terms of balance, and Athena is playing better. Plus, it is always nice to read/post in an active forum.
Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests