Regioal Defense - Calling Captain_Orso

[marquo]

I noticed that the CSA attacked 2 both separate USA stacks in one region as one combined battle; and I thought, apparently incorrectly that separate stacks even in the same region have to be attacked separately.

Captain_Orso graciously pointed out that, "Thank goodness the attacker cannot do this per choice. I'm don't know the exact mechanics, but I assume that your forces starting in the same region have a good chance of defending together, even if theoretically Jackson may have only "found" one stack originally."

So now I am very confused. If this is true, why would a player ever create a single large stack with a 35% command penalty, if instead multiple smaller stacks without penalty could be created in the same single region? Especially with frontage considerations, why ever create an uber stack when multiple smaller stacks in the same region can codefend without command or frontage penalty???

Captain_Orso. please help. Thanks


Thanks

Marquo

[Keeler]

So now I am very confused. If this is true, why would a player ever create a single large stack with a 35% command penalty, if instead multiple smaller stacks without penalty could be created in the same single region? Especially with frontage considerations, why ever create an uber stack when multiple smaller stacks in the same region can codefend without command or frontage penalty???

AFAIK it's not a guarantee that smaller stacks will come to each others assistance, at least in time. From my experiences there is a good chance, but no a certain one, of units defending together. In fact you could wind up in a situation where Jackson finds the Stack A, attacks it, and wipes it out. Stack B now becomes engaged, either because it has "come" to the assistance of Stack A or because Jackson is now targeting it. It too is beaten and destroyed. Then Stack C becomes engaged....

Under this scenario you'd be feeding smaller, and therefore more vulnerable, groups of elements into the battle for Jackson to batter one by one. In the Civil War period this was known as "defeating in detail" and the concept had a huge influence on how commanders behaved. In some ways the mechanics, as I understand them to work, simulate the dilemma many commanders found themselves in: do you keep you units grouped in larger, safer but less efficient commands or spread your troops out and run the risk of being hit one by one?

[Captain_Orso]

Keeler's explanation is pretty much hits the nail on the head with one exception.

If your forces are in two stacks each of which is smaller/weaker than the attacker, if the attacker finds and battles one defending stack into retreat and then finds the next, there is a chance that the second defending stack will go into retreat, without another shot being fired, just from the overwhelming odds.

In that case the attacker is not actually fighting all the defenders piecemeal, because further battles might not even take place.

[marquo]

I understand the history and military logic; but I am interested in the game mechanics and what the ludic rules of engagement are.

There is this entity/presence called "Athena," and I want to understand her better.

Thanks

Marquo

[GraniteStater]

Keeler has a good description, with one small observation on my part: 'defeat in detail' has been employed and understood since ancient times.

In CW2 (and AACW), Corps are the only formations (other than Army stacks, which I still don't understand completely in every detail - I usually treat mine as a true HQ, with light protection in the stack, e. g., a small Div) that can go to the aid of friendly stacks (and those stacks have to be Corps).

In both games (and I have had CW2 only a short while), I have had two Corps in the same region be attacked in detail - not very often, but it can happen - again, in the same Region.

IOW, there is no guarantee of support from any friendlies in the game, not even in the same Region. Now, most of the time, even fellow non-Corps will tend to get involved in the same fight within a given Region - most of the time. Especially for non-Corps, this can be a gamble.

Corps can MTSG, and are the only stacks that can. MTSG is far from a guarantee, though - all it does is greatly enhance support across Regions and within Regions.

Mutual support is dicey in CW2 - all I can say, is get used to it and plan accordingly. Do I presume mutual MTSG when I'm advancing or defending? Yes, I do, because the probabilities (especially in favorable postures and profiles) are enough to justify the presumption - most of the time.

In the end, though, MTSG is a big reason why I love the game. Nothin' else has it, AFAIK.

[minipol]

I agree, it adds to the flavour and it reflects the uncertainty of orders. It makes the game more real and thus unpredictable.

[fred zeppelin]

Mutual support is dicey in CW2 - all I can say, is get used to it and plan accordingly.

As was true in real life.