I see a lot of people spamming milta at the start of the game are these units worth it in the short term, versus for example an aggressive player, or are you better off going for the prebuilt brigades and using them?
Im not sure if its effect to hope that your miltas upgrade in time to be effect as line units, was wondering if anyone had any deeper thoughts or experiance with this.
I think it depends on how you plan to use those militia units. These days I almost exclusively use them for garrison duties. As garrisons in the rear areas once built and a forward garrisons (occupied areas) once they have upgraded. I rarelly include militias in divisions or other field forces anymore except in the Trans-Mississippi...
Marc aka Caran...
This is my take on the forum posters speaking positively/negatively of the use of militia spamming.
Advantages offered were:
1) units were available the turn after.
2) The upgrade to conscript/line was reasonable in the time scope of a Grand Campaign, especially with options being so limited in '61 and
3) war supplies being low on both sides in '61. Militia cost no war supplies.
4) once upgraded to conscript, the replacement hits taking the militia unit from 450 to 600 were not taken out of replacement pool (= no cost replacements). This has the affect of stretching/increasing your conscript pool.
5) You can combine 2 militia units into 1 2element mini-brigade with command cost of 1.
Disadvantages:
1) militia units combat/cohesion/morale values were lower and were not generally effective in any role other that garrisoning.
FYI - New 1.14patch
2) new patch negates one advantage by adding 1WS cost to militia.
Personally, in my PBEM grand campaigns, I go with militia almost solely throughout '61 & '62 (except for skirms and marine/sailors)until I cant recruit anymore for the simple fact that conscripts are one of the main resource limitations and WS cost currently being '0' is the other main limitation. Also, once converted to conscript/line infantry the militia pool will increase again by one so there is no real limitation on the militia spamming as it now stands.
This strategy will not be suitable to all as militia are not as robust in the field.
Other comments or findings??
Advantages offered were:
1) units were available the turn after.
2) The upgrade to conscript/line was reasonable in the time scope of a Grand Campaign, especially with options being so limited in '61 and
3) war supplies being low on both sides in '61. Militia cost no war supplies.
4) once upgraded to conscript, the replacement hits taking the militia unit from 450 to 600 were not taken out of replacement pool (= no cost replacements). This has the affect of stretching/increasing your conscript pool.
5) You can combine 2 militia units into 1 2element mini-brigade with command cost of 1.
Disadvantages:
1) militia units combat/cohesion/morale values were lower and were not generally effective in any role other that garrisoning.
FYI - New 1.14patch
2) new patch negates one advantage by adding 1WS cost to militia.
Personally, in my PBEM grand campaigns, I go with militia almost solely throughout '61 & '62 (except for skirms and marine/sailors)until I cant recruit anymore for the simple fact that conscripts are one of the main resource limitations and WS cost currently being '0' is the other main limitation. Also, once converted to conscript/line infantry the militia pool will increase again by one so there is no real limitation on the militia spamming as it now stands.
This strategy will not be suitable to all as militia are not as robust in the field.
Other comments or findings??
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
-
SkyWestNM
- Sergeant
- Posts: 83
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 7:20 pm
- Location: High atop a desert wonderland
Militia
First I would opine that the (what I regard as a perjorative) term of labeling early militia building as "spamming" is unwarranted.
As both armies historically had to draw initially on such a micropscopically small regular US Army (the CSA from those ranks of the recently resigned) it was imperative for both sides to draw upon large bodies of volunteers and recruits to bulk up their military fast and early. It is historically what happened en masse on both sides. And these troops are known as militia.
Johnnycai has done a good job spelling out the benefits and drawbacks. Like him, I will rarely build any other bulk infantry in the early years thru 1863. Using ala carte artillery and some cavalry, you can cost effectively build up your army quickly and inexpensively in comparison to the preformed regular infantry brigades. In addition to the advantages he spelled out there is a cost savings in dollars. About 20+ % as I calculated it, allowing you to build larger armies. And even with the new 1.14 War Supply cost addition of 1 per unit coming soon, militia is still a bargain.
The militia growth chain starts with militia, graduates to conscipt and then to 10-16 line infantry or directly 11-20 line infantry. Units can be built quickly by adding ala carte artillery. The Union has three conscipt "graduating" leaders in Halleck, Siegal and McClellan that when utilized in different theatres can help quicken your army building pace. Additionally there are militiamen like Couch and Sherman who add 10 cohesion points in battle to militia when you choose to fight with some in their virgin state.
Additionally there are generous amounts of free militia replacement points granted in the early war to both sides. Now that I use militia alot, I have found myself actually running out of them and having to build a few more.
If you're wondering how your opponent may be building bulk faster than you, look first to his building militia. It's a nice historically accurate touch to the game as well as a good army building tool.
Sky
As both armies historically had to draw initially on such a micropscopically small regular US Army (the CSA from those ranks of the recently resigned) it was imperative for both sides to draw upon large bodies of volunteers and recruits to bulk up their military fast and early. It is historically what happened en masse on both sides. And these troops are known as militia.
Johnnycai has done a good job spelling out the benefits and drawbacks. Like him, I will rarely build any other bulk infantry in the early years thru 1863. Using ala carte artillery and some cavalry, you can cost effectively build up your army quickly and inexpensively in comparison to the preformed regular infantry brigades. In addition to the advantages he spelled out there is a cost savings in dollars. About 20+ % as I calculated it, allowing you to build larger armies. And even with the new 1.14 War Supply cost addition of 1 per unit coming soon, militia is still a bargain.
The militia growth chain starts with militia, graduates to conscipt and then to 10-16 line infantry or directly 11-20 line infantry. Units can be built quickly by adding ala carte artillery. The Union has three conscipt "graduating" leaders in Halleck, Siegal and McClellan that when utilized in different theatres can help quicken your army building pace. Additionally there are militiamen like Couch and Sherman who add 10 cohesion points in battle to militia when you choose to fight with some in their virgin state.
Additionally there are generous amounts of free militia replacement points granted in the early war to both sides. Now that I use militia alot, I have found myself actually running out of them and having to build a few more.
If you're wondering how your opponent may be building bulk faster than you, look first to his building militia. It's a nice historically accurate touch to the game as well as a good army building tool.
Sky
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
I only play as the CSA in PBEM games and most of my fighting armies are made with the regular infantry. I use the two merged militias for garrisons of inland depots and along the coasts. Of course some of the converted elements end up in the front line corps. In some of my earlier games I had much larger proportions of militias in the armies but I seemed disadvantaged when playing against Union players with early aggressive moves- the fun of playing different people. If the Union player gives you the time to buy a militia army you can have savings. But with the new patch you will have to expect some attacks in VA at least.
Another disadvantage of militias is that they can disband on the new year turn if they fail a check (I don't know the percentage) but you can loss quite a few on occasion. (I think partisans go through the same check).
BI
Another disadvantage of militias is that they can disband on the new year turn if they fail a check (I don't know the percentage) but you can loss quite a few on occasion. (I think partisans go through the same check).
BI
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
-
richfed
- Posts: 902
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 9:50 pm
- Location: Marion, North Carolina, USA
- Contact: Website
Gray_Lensman wrote:Though this sounds really historic and would really add flavor to the game, after 2 years of coordinating and going thru the events from end to end testing different items repetitively over and over again, I've never seen seen specific events either in action or in the database files which deliberately disband militia/partisan units. Instead I think you are mistakening them for the events which convert them to infantry units at the start of the various years.
When/if you do run across this again, I would like to see some saved game files to determine what/where would be inititating these so-called disbandonments.
No, Gray ... this occurs regularly at every year end ... some partisans and some militia are disbanded on a regular basis. A message to that effect is posted in the mailbox. It is a good feature.
[color="DarkRed"][SIZE="2"][font="Book Antiqua"]"We've caught them napping!"[/font][/size][/color]
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
okay took some of the backup files out.
end of the news miltas are disbanded.
end of the news miltas are disbanded.
- Attachments
-
- 1861 April Campaign0.rar
- (3.32 MiB) Downloaded 250 times
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
.ah okay i finally fixed my screen then forgot about this but.. never fear batman is here!
http://www.mediafire.com/?j1dz2gmqjyd
hope thats better this time.
regards mrt
http://www.mediafire.com/?j1dz2gmqjyd
hope thats better this time.
regards mrt
Return to “AACW Strategy discussions”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests