AGEOD Forums

How do you build and compose your forces?

Here are some thoughts:

* Division (regular)

I try to have a 'perfect' Div, if possible, although I'm not really that fussy, it's just an ideal, viz., 1 Ldr, 4 Arty, 2 Cav, 1 Sharpie, 10 Inf. I prefer fewer 16 - 18 element Divs than more 10 - 12 element Divs. As the Union, but even as CSA, sometimes starting a Div with a desired Leader is a good idea, even if he's a very light Div initially. Cav Divs get HArty, no regular Arty. Single Divs going hunting or loose two Div stacks get a Wagon. My Div Arty is usually 12 pounders.

* Corps

At least two Divs, preferably full ones. Corps merit two Wagons, usually. As the loose Bdes, I will usually put in 2 Cav, a Light Inf or two, Parrots and the heavier guns (Corps Arty), any Specials or Support, and the Wagons.

* Army

I do not use HQs as fighting units, as a rule. I started taking the Engineers, Signal, Balloons, and Med out of the Armies and putting them in preferred Corps. My HQs act as hubs for the greater Army; sometimes, as in a 62 Union start, I'll use some single stack HQs as formations all on their lonesome.

Correct my understanding, I'm unclear on MTSG with Armies - I thought that HQs do not usually MTSG to support a Corps, although, in my latest PBEM, I saw Grant do just that, coming from Lake, TN (#10) to support McClernand in Humboldt, TN, all to take on a whopping 450 man garrison - seriously, I couldn't believe that algorithm, there was no need for the support that I could tell. Do Corps MTSG to support HQs, as a rule?

* Anti-raiding (as the North)

Cav/HArty, C/C/HA, C/C/C/HA/HA are the primary tools. Round One - build some of these. Round Two - build a good amount of Militia in the Midwestern States. Round Three - some Inf/Inf/Cav Bdes or some more Cav/HArty. Season with Leaders as needed. For those pesky guerrillas and Indians, drop the HArty and attack with three Cav regmts or more, it's the only thing that can catch them. Use your RR network, it's like Scotty beaming you right to the trouble.

Any real infantry/arty and heavier formations by the Rebs are not just raids, and need to be met with a Div or more.

I am not as picky as you are in forming divisions.

I just try to include 17 elements with the leader with one of each type and my supplement shortfalls in the corps.

In the early part when divisions become available I put together what ever is on hand and sort it out later.

I may even rearrange the whole structure a bit later. Single element infantry units usually get left in corps to be dropped off as garrison units as they are needed.

I usually use army HQ as combat units and they do MTSG. The draw back is losing the commander to a bad chance but wasting a good leader sitting around just irks me.

Your better *** Leaders are not a waste as Army commanders at a desk. They improve everyone, spreading the goodness all around. I've had McClellan, who, as commander of AoP, absolutely bums everyone out, reducing Corps to 0-0-1, but as a Corps commander under Grant, will be a 3-2-2 or similar.

Grant's great at this and should be an Army commander ASAP and protected from stray minie balls. Others I have not scoped out as much, but have noticed improvements under Lee, J. Johnston, etc.

Grant's awesome, though.

Even using the bad ones sometimes improves them. But Grant is so much better than anyone else using him in an important battle is just too tempting.

Ulysses stays well back, thinking deep thoughts, in my Army. I take no chances with him, no unnecessary risks, he's too valuable, IMO, although I have yet to bring him East.

I have lost him once before he even had an army. He still needs to be promoted.

It sure leaves a big hole in things without him.

It is easier to live without Lee as the south than without Grant as the north.

Use him to take Fort H&D real quick. Even if you don't hold it, it gives him a leg up (not a sure thing, but is still not a bad idea, IMO) on promotion.

Once he's *** with a HQ and an Army, it's a desk job.

I also never raise Sailors, just Marines; worth it, IMO, Sailors are just weaker Marines, as I see it.

Also, from what I understand, Sharpshooters are ineffective as loose units and are most beneficial as part of a Div.

Ol' Choctaw wrote:I usually use army HQ as combat units and they do MTSG. The draw back is losing the commander to a bad chance but wasting a good leader sitting around just irks me.

Me too (use Army HQ to fight)... and I can assure that MTSG works with Army HQ.

GraniteStater wrote:I also never raise Sailors, just Marines; worth it, IMO, Sailors are just weaker Marines, as I see it.

Yep, you're right. But I have to use sailors when marines end up.

GraniteStater wrote:Also, from what I understand, Sharpshooters are ineffective as loose units and are most beneficial as part of a Div.

Exactly. Use them as part of a division.

Anyway, I like to use some elite brigade as part of a division, and so all elements of this division will benefit from the cohesion of the elite brigade. I also think that use more than an elite brigade per division is a waste.

I have lost generals to seemingly nothing at all. Moving into an empty town once cost me Forrest.

Everything is a risk so making the most of leader abilities while you have them is just part of it.

As for force structure, I may build a cavalry corps for an army but not more than one unless it is the far west with long distances to travel.

The bulk of any division is infantry. Artillery, lights, and cavalry are all elements I try to put in each division but not in any fixed numbers.

I may also make a siege train (division) with mortars and heavy artillery but that is not a fixed feature of every corps or even every army. It is of most use against forts so it is mostly given to those given that task.


About sailors and marines:

sailors build quicker. Marines take as long and sometimes longer than a large brigade with artillery. A lot depends on where I need them and you often get them built in Norfolk or Boston when you need them in Memphis.

As CSA I try to get a good commander a la Breckinridge ( with cohesion bonus ) as div ldr , with Sharpshooter, 12pnders etc, and an elite bde to give further bonus..then put that lil' beauty under someone like jackson
( well, theres no one else like jackson...so it usually turns out to be him)..with someother luminary as the other Div commander ( winder, ek smith, hardee or who ever) , with the heavier guns, engineers, cav bde ,hospital , wagons etc in the corps structure also.
That packs a bit of punch. Shame there's only one jackson, breck. etc..doesn't quite look as impressive with, say..Polk.

I think you can only get 1 cohesion bonus per division, so there is no need to have an elite brigade with Breckinridge, just a sharpshooter. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

Charles

JKM wrote:As CSA I try to get a good commander a la Breckinridge ( with cohesion bonus ) as div ldr , with Sharpshooter, 12pnders etc, and an elite bde to give further bonus..then put that lil' beauty under someone like jackson
( well, theres no one else like jackson...so it usually turns out to be him)..with someother luminary as the other Div commander ( winder, ek smith, hardee or who ever) , with the heavier guns, engineers, cav bde ,hospital , wagons etc in the corps structure also.
That packs a bit of punch. Shame there's only one jackson, breck. etc..doesn't quite look as impressive with, say..Polk.

Charles, you can get a cohesion bonus from the elite brigade in addition to another cohesion bonus from the "Charismatic" ability of a general such as Sherman, for the same division.

A double bonus? Is that overkill?

Ethan wrote:Charles, you can get a cohesion bonus from the elite brigade in addition to another cohesion bonus from the "Charismatic" ability of a general such as Sherman, for the same division.

In the example I have mentioned above, I have a division with an elite brigade and it has a certain cohesion. If I put this division in command of Sherman, it achieves even greater cohesion value. I have checked it.

During the hey-days of patch 1.12, there was quite a few discussions of what sort of divisions would be best in the game. One such can be found at
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=10849 from post #33 and on.

However notice that the game has changed quite a bit since those times, and it is not so easy to build the "perfect" divisions anymore Still, I still think it is best to mass the artillery to the army HQ, and have the Corps Divisions in the army mostly consists of infantry. You get most bang for the bucks that way.

As the Union, I'll stick a Gatling Gun along with everything else in the divisions that are most likely to be attacked because of where they are. Gatlings with Thomas is vicious. Just ask GraniteStater.

As the rebs, I like the Light Divisions and Sharpshooters with either Jackson, Hood, Walker or Stuart - they really move fast with these guys and deliver the infantry punch that Early Cav just can't. Throw in a couple of horse artys if you got 'em. Too bad "Fast Mover" ability doesn't stack .... sigh....

However, my understanding is that the largest PWR division is targeted first by the enemy in the combat. Therefore, my biggest PWR division has the most arty and the longest range stuff if I have it. I don't put loose arty in the corps for this reason - it's too spread out over all the divisions. Now if you have only ONE division, that might work ok.

A lot of the corps and division organization depends on what sort of battle you expect. I reorganize these all the time when near combat areas. For example, after a combat you will likely find that one of the divisions has taken the brunt of the results, and that one or more of the brigades within it has as well. If I think I can get away with it, I'll pull these out of the line, stick them with a division leader in a "Heal Up Cohesion" division on G/G. The rest of the divisions then reorganize for the next turn's fight. I often see improvements of 100 PWR or more on a stack by doing this, and the G/G stack improves quickly. So, double bonus.

BTW, I learned all this stuff by reading every dang post in the Forums and by playing PBEMs.

GraniteStater is not allowed to use any of this info in our current game!

I agree with most of what has been said so far. One trick I use with my cav divisions is to add a sharpshooter if they have HA in them already. Sharpshooters move as fast as HA and give the division some extra initiative.

Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne wrote:I agree with most of what has been said so far. One trick I use with my cav divisions is to add a sharpshooter if they have HA in them already. Sharpshooters move as fast as HA and give the division some extra initiative.

* scribbles this down to add to the list of items for How to Beat P. Cleburne *

Longshanks wrote:GraniteStater is not allowed to use any of this info in our current game!

Good luck to both in your game!

Jarkko wrote:During the hey-days of patch 1.12, there was quite a few discussions of what sort of divisions would be best in the game. One such can be found at
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=10849 from post #33 and on.

However notice that the game has changed quite a bit since those times, and it is not so easy to build the "perfect" divisions anymore Still, I still think it is best to mass the artillery to the army HQ, and have the Corps Divisions in the army mostly consists of infantry. You get most bang for the bucks that way.

In certain starts, especially as the Union, you kinda end up with that distinction. As I add Div/Corps to an Army, I'll farm out the the 12 lbers to brace up new Divs. Parrots and such I'll usually keep as Corps/Army batteries. Why? because of the spadework you did, dear Jarkko. I don't even know if it's an AACW 'fact' or not, the jury still seems to be out, but I subscribe to the 'no more than four Artys to a Div' school.

And frontage - yeesh. Even after doing the reading, I still haven't mastered it. I do grasp the essentials, though, and try to keep them in mind when contemplating action.

There's two great categories when playing these games. Some people are 'Number Crunchers' and thank God they exist and post, 'cuz I'm certainly not gonna do the analysis. Second, are the 'Modellers' - that's me - I go into AACW or a WW2 game, etc., and see if my understanding of the realities of the time period corresponds to being able to playing the game well. In this case, AACW shines. It's an excellent model of the ACW, the best, really, for the scale of the game. A well read ACW buff can buy this, learn the mechanics, and just start playing, and his understandings are rewarded, because the model is faithful to the reality.

Interesting thread...

I don't think 'specially as CSA, you can make multiple 'perfect' divisions, simply because you're limited by the leader abilities available, and the number of leaders with those abilities.
In the example i was giving above, breckrinridge gives a 15% increase to cohesion recovery...and the elite division gives an increase in ACTUAL cohesion, comparable to a couple of experience stars I think.
It was the overall effect of a hardhitting unit, with quick recovery , that makes it appealing to me.
The post about charismatic got me thinking tho..but only briefly..the CSA has but one charismatic leader, JB Gordon..and he doesn't come along until '64 or thereabouts.
hood and jackson have strong morale tho', which is handy and gives +5 cohesion..but without the aditional 25% recovery bonus of charismatic...
the point about artillery is food for thought, I'd read somewhere that your longest range, heavier guns were best in corps , and 12 pounders in divisions..time to think again? I've learnt the hard way to have enough cavalry on hand, if I don't, and then lose a battle, lots of units tend to evaporate during pursuit.