Organizing non-standard divisions--Cavalry, etc???

[enalut]

I understand that there is a consensus that for a standard division most people field 11 Inf, 1 Sharpshooter, 1 Cav, 4 Art. (I personally prefer to swap 1 inf for a second cav). I usually put a Hosp., Marines, Baloon, Engineer, and 4 Art in each corps.

In my current grand campaign, (now August 1861), I am in the process of forming several cavalry divisions, and was trying to figure out how to organize them. I was thinking I want them powerful enough to defeat single brigades, but don't need them to join in larger battles (except maybe in the far west). Is there a consensus on how to organize a cavalry division?

I was thinking 8 Cavlry and 4 Horse Art. (playign as the Union)--any sugestions? any other elements to try an incorperate?

Aslo, does anyone have any other type fo specialized division they use?

I ahd thought of buidling a standard division, but using 10 Inf, a Marine, a Sharpshooter and 4 Siege Art. for use in reducing confederate forts? Or maybe a Inf. Division with more cavalry to try an hunt down raiders?

Suggestions?

[Ejack]

From my understanding the point of the typical makeup is this:

Cav in stack = better spotting - only need 1 to do this
Arty = Adds firepower up to 4 units - more than 4 is a waste.
Sharp = gives bonus to whole div - more than 1 is wasted.
Inf = the meat for the grinder - max out after the special units.

Adding the extra cav doesn't really give you anything extra.

Using more cav in a Inf div won't help chase raiders as the div will
be slowed down by the Inf anyway.

An all cav div does move faster, I've made some 8 and 4 like you and
they seem to work for raids in force keeping good mobility, but instead of organizing them as a div - I have tried putting a 2* corp of cav together with about 10-12 cav and 4 arty. Take that loosely organized corp with some extra leaders and you can break it up into a series of 4 (2 cav 1 art w/ leader) units and really make havoc in the deep south or along the Miss River. The 2-1 with leader gets a 5% penalty but can usually hold together well and overpower single militia held towns. When your enemy starts to chase you down, bring them together into a 400 power corp and you can hold your own until the inf comes to help.

The siege arty div is similar to above. Besides the extra firepower of the guns you don't get a cumulative bonus from having more than one Siege arty in your div.

[Pocus]

Cav in stack: if you have a stack using 16 CP or more and don't have at least 4 cav elts, you get an additional -1 to your hide value (cav screening).

Cav is also used to major losses when the other side rout in battles.

[Coffee Sergeant]

Well when a good general becomes active I generally give them divisional command right away, and often will have several undersized divisions. I don't necessarily top off the division right away. Plus it might be a tactic when playing PBEM - if your oppoent sees lots of divisions, they might overestimate the strength of your force.

[Inside686]

Cav in stack: if you have a stack using 16 CP or more and don't have at least 4 cav elts, you get an additional -1 to your hide value (cav screening).

Cav is also used to major losses when the other side rout in battles.

This is valid only for cav at the stack level? If the 4 cavs are the division level you still have -1 hide value?

[Primasprit]

This is valid only for cav at the stack level? If the 4 cavs are the division level you still have -1 hide value?

It doesn't matter if they are inside a division or not.

[Major Tom]

From a practical standpoint, it sounds like as long as you have 1 cav element per Division, any Division or Army stack with 4 or 5 Corps will be immune from the -1 to hide penalty.

This should rarely apply to a Corps stack. Unless you are overloading your stacks with single units, like artillery, that are using up command points, a Corps stack should always be immune since it takes 4 Divisions to get to the 16CP threshold for the penalty. But if you have a Corps with only three Divisions and 4 or more CP of Corps level units, you will need an extra cav in one of your Divisions or at the Corps level.

It's much more likely to apply to an Army HQ Stack. The Army uses 4 CP, so adding just 3 Divisions gets you to the 16 CP threshold. Without a lot of bonus CP's you will not be able to add a 4th Division, so one of your Divs will need an extra cav or you'll need to add one at the stack level. I did not know this.

Looks like I'll have to load my current campaign and check all my Army HQ stacks!

[Redeemer]

Arty = Adds firepower up to 4 units - more than 4 is a waste.

You will want to check out the artillery analysis threads floating around.

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=11074

The artillery limitation is only dependent on terrain and as I understand it, the 4 artillery frontage applies only in mountain and wilderness terrain in bad weather.

Now whether an artillery division would be effective with out inf and other units is another debate.

Even so, I still only put 4 art in a division, usually because of cost factors. So my "typical" division would be.

11 inf, 1 shp, 1 cav, 4 art.

If I can afford some extra staying power, I add a marine instead of 1 inf.

Siege art, eng, hosp, signal, I leave at corps level.

I have tried a artillery division at army level under and art leader, but not sure if this has any benefits or not. If in a division instead of by itself, I don't know how this effects the army art reserve in combat.

If I do a full cav division it is 11 cav, 6 hs art. When I make smaller divisions, I keep it at a 2-1 ratio.

[Banks6060]

I think too many players waste too much time thinking of what would constitute the "perfect" division. If you're playing against anyone that's worth a dang....you won't have time to put that all together.

I just buy the units I can afford...send them all to a rallying point...and then organize from there. Putting together the "perfect divisions" is a waste of time IMHO.

Slap a few purchased brigades together...perhaps with some artillery...then give them a decent leader....even a 3-1-1...and you'll usually have what you need to succeed in combat.

People waste a ton of time trying to buy the exact 11 inf., 1 cav., 1 sharps, 4 arty....whie they're doing that...I'm using my rough shod divisions to take their cities. Just a thought.

As far as a good Cav division...I'll usually put together 6 or 7 elements...and 2 horse arty's if I have them. But like Pocus said....stripping your Corps of cav will only make them that much more detectable to the enemy.

[Jarkko]

Even so, I still only put 4 art in a division, usually because of cost factors.

Don't tell me you are buying infantry instead of militia? Militia + artillery = win

[Rafiki]

Is that because of militia upgrading into infantry, or simply because you consider militia to be good enough as they are?

[soundoff]

I think too many players waste too much time thinking of what would constitute the "perfect" division. If you're playing against anyone that's worth a dang....you won't have time to put that all together.

I just buy the units I can afford...send them all to a rallying point...and then organize from there. Putting together the "perfect divisions" is a waste of time IMHO.

Slap a few purchased brigades together...perhaps with some artillery...then give them a decent leader....even a 3-1-1...and you'll usually have what you need to succeed in combat.

People waste a ton of time trying to buy the exact 11 inf., 1 cav., 1 sharps, 4 arty....whie they're doing that...I'm using my rough shod divisions to take their cities. Just a thought.

+1

I long ago gave up trying to form perfect divisions.

[Jarkko]

Is that because of militia upgrading into infantry, or simply because you consider militia to be good enough as they are?

1) When you need troops fast to be in a position, you need troops that are available fast. Need a city garrisoned, need to push fast for that currently open strategic point? My militia will be there entrenching when you are still building the infantry. What is more, you can spread out the strategic movement; if you are short on rail/river move, move in first the militia and then the artillery, with full infantry brigades you have to have capacity to lift the whole thing at one go. Who gets there first has the advantage, and entrenched militia will be a match for attacking infantry.

2) Militia upgrades to infantry eventually. The 6-pounders upgrade to 12-pounders eventually.

3) Recruiting militia you will have more troops eventually. Or if by some miracle you run out of man-power (I was able to do that before I realised how to use the different drafts to maximal advantage, and I bet everybody else is able to figure that out too), you can recruit special troops instead (marines, engineers, signals) when you figure out how to not let the manpower pool run dry Simply put: More is better. A swarm of militia will be better; those which upgrade to infantry form the backbone, while the rest holds strategic locations and/or do suicide missions to cut supply-lines.

4) Recruiting militia you will have resources for everything else that will make you win. Special troops, upgrades to rail/river, industry.



I don't know just how bad ratings militia should have for them to not be superior to infantry. As it is, I consider it pretty much stupid (from a purely effectivenes point of view, no role-playing POV factored in ) to waster resources on infantry. The only thing you get is a bit better militia, but the price in resources and especially *time* is too high in my opinion.

[soloswolf]

I think it is fair to say that purchasing a blend of both single militia regiments, as well as brigades is the best overall approach.

We all know what militia rushes can do, but the zergling approach to the ACW takes a lot of the fun out of it for me.

One of my favorite reasons for purchasing militia is just to see them upgrade alongside their 'better' brothers in arms. I like the thought of local, ordinary men learning on the march and proving themselves in their own right.

[Redeemer]

Don't tell me you are buying infantry instead of militia? Militia + artillery = win

When I posted inf, I meant whatever inf I had. I usually buy mostly militia, but you get enough freebies to make divisions too.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[soloswolf]

When they make the switch from militia to line inf, they are not at full strength. Is there any way to ensure that a replacement chit is used (as opposed to just a chance) when they fill up? Then you would have the 1ws that the replacement point cost you being used for their conversion.

[Banks6060]

1) When you need troops fast to be in a position, you need troops that are available fast. Need a city garrisoned, need to push fast for that currently open strategic point? My militia will be there entrenching when you are still building the infantry. What is more, you can spread out the strategic movement; if you are short on rail/river move, move in first the militia and then the artillery, with full infantry brigades you have to have capacity to lift the whole thing at one go. Who gets there first has the advantage, and entrenched militia will be a match for attacking infantry.

2) Militia upgrades to infantry eventually. The 6-pounders upgrade to 12-pounders eventually.

3) Recruiting militia you will have more troops eventually. Or if by some miracle you run out of man-power (I was able to do that before I realised how to use the different drafts to maximal advantage, and I bet everybody else is able to figure that out too), you can recruit special troops instead (marines, engineers, signals) when you figure out how to not let the manpower pool run dry Simply put: More is better. A swarm of militia will be better; those which upgrade to infantry form the backbone, while the rest holds strategic locations and/or do suicide missions to cut supply-lines.

4) Recruiting militia you will have resources for everything else that will make you win. Special troops, upgrades to rail/river, industry.



I don't know just how bad ratings militia should have for them to not be superior to infantry. As it is, I consider it pretty much stupid (from a purely effectivenes point of view, no role-playing POV factored in ) to waster resources on infantry. The only thing you get is a bit better militia, but the price in resources and especially *time* is too high in my opinion.

COMPLETELY disagree with all points.

1. Buying ONLY single militia, cav, and arty...is all relative...you end up using the exact same amount of transport capacity to move them in the end.

2. It's an administrative nightmare. Hence the game's concept of buying brigades.

3. Militia's off, def., discipline stats....FAR lower than line infantry. What does this mean? My 6,000 man regular division will not only out-fight your 10,000 man militia division head-to-head (even IF your defending with your militia)...my REGULAR troops will also stay on the field longer....your crappy militia will run. (i.e. VERY poor discipline rating compared to infantry.)

4. Yes militia upgrade....eventually....but I would much rather trade the time it takes crappy militia to upgrade for the time it takes regular infantry to train and be on the front lines fighting battles and gaining experience.

- Regular Inf. avg. training time....maybe 2.5 turns??
- militia upgrade time....as many as 10 turns??

No brainer man.

I could go on and on about this....but I suppose I'll stop there.

[Redeemer]

3. Militia's off, def., discipline stats....FAR lower than line infantry. What does this mean? My 6,000 man regular division will not only out-fight your 10,000 man militia division head-to-head (even IF your defending with your militia)...my REGULAR troops will also stay on the field longer....your crappy militia will run. (i.e. VERY poor discipline rating compared to infantry.)

4. Yes militia upgrade....eventually....but I would much rather trade the time it takes crappy militia to upgrade for the time it takes regular infantry to train and be on the front lines fighting battles and gaining experience.

- Regular Inf. avg. training time....maybe 2.5 turns??
- militia upgrade time....as many as 10 turns??

No brainer man.

I could go on and on about this....but I suppose I'll stop there.

I don't disagree with you, but what happened historically? What do the "regular" brigrades you are buying represent. Sure some of them have volunteer units in the element, but the game considers the rest regulars. Historically, the regular army only expanded to 50-60k during the war. The bulk of the armies were militia/volunteers/conscripts and needed time to train and drill before being effective, just like the militia we buy in the game.

[Rafiki]

I could go on and on about this....but I suppose I'll stop there.

Why? This is interesting stuff, and decisions about this a very central part to any strategy pursued

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Redeemer]

What about a seperate tech upgrade path for militia? Make it slightly less spec wise than "line infantry", but give it something to simulate upgraded weapons and tactics and rely on the experience of the unit to make them steadier in combat.

[soloswolf]

-snip-
I did ask Pocus if it were possible to charge 1 WSu during the upgrade itself, and though it would be possible, he doesn't like the idea because this would result in a "hidden" expenditure that wouldn't be possible to be reflected in the game budget balance. My personal opinion is that I'd like it charged that way anyhow, and the player/gamer would just have to be responsible for maintaining a few extra WSu at the end of each turn to account for it. -snip-

As is, that would be just like paying for divisions. We have to remember when we use those resources, this would just be happening at the end of the round rather than at the 'beginning'.

[Dixicrat]

I don't know just how bad ratings militia should have for them to not be superior to infantry. As it is, I consider it pretty much stupid (from a purely effectivenes point of view, no role-playing POV factored in ) to waster resources on infantry. The only thing you get is a bit better militia, but the price in resources and especially *time* is too high in my opinion.

For once, I'm going to have to disagree with you, Jarkko.

I certainly see your point about the build time/upgrade value of Militia, but... in a recent game, I seem to recall a battle in which I was outnumbered 2:1 by enemy Militia, against my regular and elite Infantry. The battle results were 8:1 casualties, in my favor. Admittedly, I was heavily entrenched and had an overwhelming advantage with artillery. Even so, Discipline and Morale are extremely important considerations, in my opinion. Again and again, I have seen a numerically superior force of Militia lose engagements against regular troops.

[Dixicrat]

I think too many players waste too much time thinking of what would constitute the "perfect" division. If you're playing against anyone that's worth a dang....you won't have time to put that all together.

I just buy the units I can afford...send them all to a rallying point...and then organize from there. Putting together the "perfect divisions" is a waste of time IMHO.

...

Years ago when I was in the United States Army, I overheard a conversation between a young Sergeant and the Company First Sergeant. The young Sergeant was trying to explain how his idea on a particular point was better than the way the 1st Sergeant had chosen to have the Company do it. The 1st Sergeant listened until his patience was exhausted, at which point he said, "Damn, son! I've spent more time in the Field than you've spent in the Army!"

In other words, bright ideas are no substitute for experience. I've had what I thought were a few bright ideas in regards to AACW, but it remains to be seen whether they'll bear the test of time, on the battlefield.

My analysis work on artillery not withstanding, I doubt that there is such a thing as "the perfect division". The game is too broad, and there are too many contingencies and variables for it to be otherwise. Even so, I strongly believe that in a meeting between two commanders of equal ability with a roughly equal investment of men and equipment, the commander with the qualitatively superior force will win, more often than not.

As I see it, there is more to qualitative superiority than just buying "Marines", instead of "Regulars". There is also the question of which units work well together, and which units are superfluous for a given force. There are considerations of what force you can bring to bear at what range, and trade-offs to be made (initiative for firepower, for example, with the inclusion of a sharpshooter.) There are many other considerations too, but I'm sure you get the idea.

I agree with Banks, when he says that you often won't have time to build a force that's exactly what you'd like. But IMHO, I think that a Division which is put together thoughtfully, rather than haphazardly, will have that qualitative advantage, and consequently win more than its share of battles.

[Banks6060]

Years ago when I was in the United States Army, I overheard a conversation between a young Sergeant and the Company First Sergeant. The young Sergeant was trying to explain how his idea on a particular point was better than the way the 1st Sergeant had chosen to have the Company do it. The 1st Sergeant listened until his patience was exhausted, at which point he said, "Damn, son! I've spent more time in the Field than you've spent in the Army!"

In other words, bright ideas are no substitute for experience. I've had what I thought were a few bright ideas in regards to AACW, but it remains to be seen whether they'll bear the test of time, on the battlefield.

My analysis work on artillery not withstanding, I doubt that there is such a thing as "the perfect division". The game is too broad, and there are too many contingencies and variables for it to be otherwise. Even so, I strongly believe that in a meeting between two commanders of equal ability with a roughly equal investment of men and equipment, the commander with the qualitatively superior force will win, more often than not.

As I see it, there is more to qualitative superiority than just buying "Marines", instead of "Regulars". There is also the question of which units work well together, and which units are superfluous for a given force. There are considerations of what force you can bring to bear at what range, and trade-offs to be made (initiative for firepower, for example, with the inclusion of a sharpshooter.) There are many other considerations too, but I'm sure you get the idea.

I agree with Banks, when he says that you often won't have time to build a force that's exactly what you'd like. But IMHO, I think that a Division which is put together thoughtfully, rather than haphazardly, will have that qualitative advantage, and consequently win more than its share of battles.

Well put my friend. That is the primary point I was trying to make.

Of course you try the best you can to consciously buy units by division...but at times....you just aren't able to afford what it would take to put together exactly what you want.

I remember playing with someone who tried to all ends...no matter the cost....to put together 11 inf., 1 cav., 1 SS, and 4 arty divs. And it was just funny to watch how frustrated his efforts became.

Anyhow, a very good post.

[Banks6060]

Why? This is interesting stuff, and decisions about this a very central part to any strategy pursued

Well I suppose I could expand a bit further by saying:

There is a very good reason why the game allows you to buy full brigades. The players that choose to ignore them...IMHO...are only doing themselves a disservice.

As the CSA...buy the brigades you can afford in each theatre...

example: In 1861...

I'll usually buy out all of Tennessee's huge brigades...if not...then at least 2 or 3 of them. I'll also purchase a couple of brigades with cav....a couple with arty. (alabama and mississippi). In the east...Virginia provides some mega brigades...I'll purchase some of those...some 2 inf. 1 SS brigades...a couple 2 inf. 1 arty brigades from SC and NC...and some of the 4 element brigades from GA. Any combination of the above, once they reach a rallying point for organization, will give you a good 300 + point division for operations. More than enough.


I dunno....i'm certainly not pinching pennies...but what I can put together is certainly able to get to the front line in prime fighting form faster than any militia division my opponent may have formed.

Case in point....

Try testing this theory with the 1861 Shennendoah force...only under Bee....against Patterson's entire volunteer army. Attack with the CSA army...and you'll win 8 times out of 10.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jarkko]

Gentlemen, you sound as if I suggest militia to knock out infantry. I've never suggested that. Militia provides the meat shield for artillery. Artillery is the killer in this game.

Now you may hype all you want about buying full brigades, but the fact is still that buying militia and artillery separately you *do* get a lot more bang for the bucket. More is better.

Militia is cheap and it is *fast*. You get to the position you need them to be in, and they start entrenching. They will be doing that before the infantry brigade is anywhere close to be completed. When the infantry brigade arrive to the scene they will face a stronger force that is well entrenched. Not only stronger in men, but especially stronger where it counts: Artillery.

I seriously doubt (altough I have to test just to be sure ) that a regular infantry brigade would be able to push out an entrenched force that has 3-4 times more artillery. Don't get too fixated at the militia, it is there just to provide the meat-shield and dig the entrenchments. In fact, Dixicrats example above strengthens my belief: The side with more artillery, especially if entrenched, will kick butt with a vengeance.

Sure, if the battle was just between infantry and militia, the infantry side would win against heavy odds. But against massive artillery they will be dead meat walking to their doom


As it is, there is zero incentive to buy regular infantry over militia (except lazyness ). I would personally strongly support Gray's idea that a militia converting to infantry would use a WS. As it is, wether to buy militia or infantry really is a no-brainer if you look it from the point of efficiency. Sure, if you calculate in Role-playing reasons or general lazyness (it takes quite a bit of effort to hoard together all the militia and 6-pounders while making sure each stack also has a sharp-shooter), then things may look different, but if you want to maximise your oomph, then there is no discussion what is more effective.

[Coregonas]

Jarkko speaks with the true truth.