Corp Design vs Division Design?

[JBEtexas]

I understand the value of a properly designed Division and spend time micro-managing the process to ensure my key 18 element Divisions achieve something like the following:
1 - General
2 - 6lb Arty
2 - 12lb Arty
2 - Cav
1 - Sharpshooter
1 - Elite
9 - Infantry
My question to you is not to ask what are the best Division designs; my question is when multiple Divisions are in a Corp together, does it matter if each individual Division has a good balance of elements or does it only matter that collectively all the divisions together in a Corp have a good balance of elements in total?

For example:
Which would fight more effectively or would the results be the same:
1) A Corp containing 3 divisions with each having the perfect 18 elements such as the example above;
or
2) A Corp with the exact same 54 elements that are organized completely different and unbalanced in 3-6 mixed sized divisions
(Such as all the Sharpshooters in the same division, most Cav in one division, most 12lb in one division, etc.)

Thank you!

[elxaime]

I have often wondered about this as well. I have also wondered what would happen if someone formed an all-sharpshooter division or an all-artillery division.

[ArmChairGeneral]

The reasons for this are pretty complex and I can go into them if you want, but the short answer is that you want combined-arms divisions, and to make them as large as possible, while not worrying too much if the "ideal" mixture is off by a couple of elements one way or the other. You are always better off with three full sized division than 5-6 partial divisions, no matter what their makeup. Also, special abilities do not stack, so elites and sharpshooters should be spread out rather than combined into one division.

The second proposed force mixture would almost always perform worse (although random chance might give you good results occasionally). Having a cav-heavy division is OK, especially if there is a cav leader somewhere in the stack, although you need at least some infantry for the assault phase and to soak damage, unless it is an independent scouting/raiding division that needs the speed.

Too many artillery in a division is definitely suboptimal, I would say six elements at the most; after that they might as well be loose in the stack (and some would argue that they should ALL be loose in the stack if you have the CPs to spare).

BTW, avoid building 6lbers when possible, unless you are planning on turtling for the first year or two as the Union, in which case you can hold out for them to upgrade to save resources, although as the Union you have plenty of resources anyway.

[ArmChairGeneral]

A 100% artillery division would theoretically be OK, but that is because of some combat engine minutiae, and would often perform somewhat worse than having them all at the stack level or mixed into the divisons.

(I have tested all but the 100% artillery divisions extensively.)

[Rod Smart]

I like throwing a Marine or Sailor in there too. The eastern theatre has a river crossing every other hex.

[tripax]

...Also, special abilities do not stack, so elites and sharpshooters should be spread out rather than combined into one division...

This one is a key factor. To explain it differently, sharpshooters give a bonus to initiative to the division they are in. Two sharpshooters give the same initiative as one, so you don't need 2. Sharpshooters are strong in certain ways, but in a stand-up fight do not have enough hits to last very long, so 1 sharpshooter and 1 infantry is better than 2 sharpshooters. Elite infantry give a cohesion bonus to the division they are in. Two elite infantry give the same bonus to a division as one. However, Elite infantry also are stronger than regular infantry, so 2 eliter infantry will beat 1 elite infantry and 1 regular infantry. In this case, an all elite infantry division would be very good (The Eastern Iron Brigade and Western Iron Brigade were both 1st Division of the 1st Corps of the Army of the Potomac, at least for a while). And all Elite division isn't recommended because spreading the cohesion bonus ability around is smart. Marine/sailor units are the same as Elites in this way. Also, all marines divisions and too many divisions with marines are sometimes considered bad form/unhistoric.

A 100% artillery division has some weaknesses and maybe some strengths compared with having the same amount of artillery loose in the stack and some strengths. If I need to reduce the CPs in a corps, I will combine 5 or more loose artillery into a single artillery division; in a corps it will be safe, I think. 2 understrength but even divisions are better than 1 full strength division and 1 very weak division (or brigade - large CSA brigades excepted). Cav don't need to be in mixed divisions, I like all cav divisions for the historic feel and because they are easier to detach. All cav brigades should have at at least 6 elements and at least 1 horse artillery to protect itself in bloody battles.

Getting more into division makeup, per se, if you are in a very bloody series of battles, your divisions should have more infantry and less cavalry/artillery (you can put your artillery into a dedicated division if you want). You will loose fewer elements this way. If you are in the mountains (especially, say, WV and TN), 2 artillery are better than 4 (frontage for artillery is less in mountains). In entrenched defense, 6 artillery can be better than 4 (frontage and strength for artillery is higher in defense and frontage is higher in entrenchments). There is a bug that artillery don't upgrade - some say this is WAD as it balances the game in favor of the CSA a bit, so I only use 6lbers for defense and try to use 20lbers for offense; Roodmans/Columbiads are so expensive as to be less cost-effective for me, but I think 20lbers are more cost-effective than lesser artillery. Horse artillery is also very cost effective, but using it instead of regular artillery might be considered a bit bad form as well.

[Captain_Orso]

When 2 or more stacks go to battle, the engine picks the 'Units' with the highest cohesion and discipline first when filling the battle line. The UNITS ..... UNITS . Get it? A division is a unit.

So if your divisions are built randomly, your results will also be random.

Actually there is a good chance that you wind up with too much infantry and cavalry and too little artillery on the line, because they have much higher cohesion and discipline than artillery, which will seldom bode well for a battle.

[ajarnlance]

'Cav don't need to be in mixed divisions, I like all cav divisions for the historic feel and because they are easier to detach. All cav brigades should have at at least 6 elements and at least 1 horse artillery to protect itself in bloody battles.' Tripax.

I am very careful about putting too much cavalry in a single division and I never have all cavalry divisions (except for raiding). I have seen all cavalry or cavalry heavy divisions get badly mauled in a big fight... and they are expensive to replace.

[Gray Fox]

Several factors affect how stacks work in combat. The stack commander's strategy/offensive/defensive rating is a big factor, as well as terrain and weather. These determine how many elements can actually fight in a battle according to a term known as frontage. You can put your whole army in one region, but frontage declares just how many can actually do anything in battle. Thus, if I have a leader who can get 200 infantry regiments to fix bayonets and 40 artillery batteries to go hot, then I make sure that his Divisions and Corps have at least those numbers for a battle in open terrain. However, the same leader in mountains during a blizzard may only be able to use less than a Division. So one size does not fit all.

The term infantry applies to elite infantry/marines, regulars, conscripts and militia. A Division of militia will not do well against one of elite infantry. Some brigades you can purchase have more regulars than not and I tend to put them in my Divisions and then train any conscripts to regulars. That way the Divisions I'm going to use at the tip of the spear have mostly regulars with an elite infantry per Division for the cohesion boost. I also add one marine/sailor element to get the river crossing bonus and a sharpshooter for the initiative bonus to those Divisions.

When McClellan organized the AoP into eleven Divisions, he put one artillery battery with each of the Division's four infantry brigades. He was going to take half of that artillery and put it under the Corps command, but McClellan got fired before that could take place. So the decisive firepower of the army was left dilluted out to the brigades. The lack of effective, massed artillery fire may have caused all of the early Union defeats. That's the history lesson.

In the game, you can put artillery in a Division, you can put artillery in the stack or you can make an artillery Division in the stack. Units attack units and a Division is a unit. So long range Division artillery can fire at max range if the terrain allows. Eventually the infantry get close enough to fire back. Finally, at what the game calls range zero, the infantry mix it up and the artillery stops firing, presumably because they would hit their own troops. If the battle continues for more than one day, each successive day has two rounds. That would be round one with artillery fire and round 2 without.

Sooo...a Division/unit with less infantry and more artillery has fewer warfighters during the assault rounds. Maybe the artillery will slaughter enough of the attacker's infantry to make up for this. Maybe they won't. However, artillery in a Division/unit only fires at the Division/unit's target and routs out of combat with their Division/unit. Stack artillery sticks around until the whole stack routs. Stack artillery in a Division with only artillery saves you CP's and is the best choice.

When a unit withdraws from combat, the side with more cavalry gets a combat bonus. If you are withdrawing and you have the upper hand in horsepower, then your cav form a screen and you take fewer pursuit hits. If you are the attacker, then your cav sound "Charge" and do their thing.

For these reasons, I have a little more cavalry in my Divisions and put the artillery in an Artillery Division in the stack. (I need to update the picture) Good luck!

[ATTACH]32137[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]32138[/ATTACH]

[JBEtexas]

Great responses! Thank you!

[grimjaw]

For these reasons, I have a little more cavalry in my Divisions and put the artillery loose in the stack. Good luck!

I don't know the ins and outs of the combat equation the engine uses, but I have started to do what Gray Fox does. I still have at least one arty element in a division, but rarely more than two (one rifled, one smoothbore). Especially as the CSA, since they seem to have more cavalry elements available, I put at least two cav elements in each division that is part of a corps. For standalone divisions, I might venture enough cav elements to make up a screen. The Union has a little more flexibility with regard to division formation simply because they can produce many more elements, with more advanced tech.

Unfortunately, this is where AACW's and CW2's brigade system hurts the game. I can't reorganize my brigades and put the elements where I want them.

[Jagger2013]

One disadvantage of not having artillery in the division structure is they don't receive any defensive or offensive bonuses from divisional leaders which in some cases can be substantial.

[Gray Fox]

This is why I put an officer with the artillery skill in each Corps/Army stack. It's French in the above stack with Grant.

[Skibear]

Gray Fox's route would be one way to go, but as Jagger says no artillery in a stack has disadvantages, not least that if you square up against a division with artillery you could potentially be taking fire without giving anything back until the distance closes. Artillery held at corps/stack level fires in support of divisions based on certain criteria, namely I think that it targets the healthiest enemy division, which could mean it all fires in support of one division and the rest get no support (potentially). So the schwerpunkt might do well and the other divisions suffer and potentially fail. On a basic level I would avoid this experiment, but thats where the choices of the game come in.
The other concern I have is that sometime over the course of playing CW and CW2 I picked up that each army stack or corps stack only allows up to 4 independent batteries to fire per round (to avoid these grand battery tactics I presume). I have searched a few times to clarify where I got this from, and I might well be have imagined it. If so this approach would make several batteries redundant, and each division very outgunned until the range closes. However this could be very wrong, and I am more than happy to be corrected. However I have generally struck to this principal with good results overall.
My own approach is aiming for 2/3 batteries per division if I will be operating in mostly marshy/forestly terrain (4 is a waste but 3 sometimes ok as move through different areas) & 3/4 batteries per division in more open terrain with occasional woods. Then I aim for up to 4 heavy batteries at corps level and 4 more at divisional level. That way (I think...) I potentially have up to 12 batteries supporting a division firing in any round at a key point. If somebody can tell me categorically that more than 4 independent batteries at corps level can fire per turn that would be very useful to know! Maybe it was dropped after the first game or something. But either way I think the no artillery at division has the potential to disadvantage you in open terrain at least, with less effect in more constricted terrain of course.

[Rod Smart]

Speaking of artillery - is there a speed difference? From 6 to 10 to 12 to 20 to Rodmans to Columbiads? Horse and Siege obviously exempted.

I've looked, but I haven't looked that hard or run tests or anything substantive.

[Skibear]

Up to 20ib will keep the same pace with the infantry
Rodman/columbiad & siege will slow you down.

[ArmChairGeneral]

I am agnostic on artillery location. Usually I am short of CPs, so am limited in how many can fit at the stack level anyway. In some circumstances stack is better than division artillery because of the targeting and routing considerations Fox brings up, but it is impossible (at least to me) to predict ahead of time when this will be the case, because it depends on how each particular combat unfolds. In practice, especially as the CSA, you will be hard pressed to put together many divisions that do not contain brigades with embedded artillery.

One thing that is clear to me, however, is that if there are too many artillery in a division, (possibly excepting 100% arty divisions) the hits the division takes will be spread across too few combat elements, making retreat and/or routing more likely, (since each combat element has a larger proportion of hits assigned to it) which is part of the logic that Fox is using about divisions composed entirely of combat elements.

Otherwise I concur with everything Gray Fox has to say about force composition (and do not outright disagree with stack-only artillery and 100% combat element divisions, the reasoning is sound).

Skibear,
Not sure about the 4 artillery cap on stack artillery, I haven't heard that before. That being said, there are many (possibily a majority) of situations in which the frontage is small enough that the number of artillery that can participate (no matter where they are located) is surprisingly small.

ajarnlance, tripax,
I agree with ajarnlance, and have specifically tested this. 100% cav stacks take expensive hits directly to the cav while dealing fewer in return. This is due to hit-smoothing, the fact that infantry have hits applied to them before cav take hits, cav's poor performance in the assault phase and the high cost and smaller pool of cav replacements. In practice, infantry act as meat shields to absorb hits that would otherwise go to the cav, while increasing hits dealt during the assault (range 0) phases. Unzipping and rezipping them when sending them on independent operations is a hassle, but is something I am willing to micromanage in preparation for large corps-vs-corps battles. (Actually, I do it the other way around: I keep them 100% cav, then add the infantry if I am expecting battle.)

Orso,
I was under the understanding that initial target selection is random-weighted by unit-size in hits, rather than selection based on either absolute unit cohesion or discipline.

[Merlin]

I tend more toward GF's corps type, though I like to keep a few guns in the divisions for detached entrenching purposes, and I'm not terribly strict on division construction (WT and NW divisions tend to be cav-heavy, for example). All other things being equal, guns are far more cost effective and deadly than infantry or cavalry, so if I have a choice between a four division with two loose guns type of corps or a three division with six loose guns type corps, I'll almost always choose the latter. More corps means more flexibility, and if you can make enough 2 stars as the Confederacy, by 1863 you're going to need the guns anyway. As Union, once the 1862 infantry arms race is over, filling out corps with loose guns is a quick way to vastly improve army coverage.

[Captain_Orso]

8<

Orso,
I was under the understanding that initial target selection is random-weighted by unit-size in hits, rather than selection based on either absolute unit cohesion or discipline.

IIRC, targets are only picked form elements in frontage. Depending on terrain, weather and especially leadership, a stack can have very few elements in frontage, or very many. The other elements are out of reach for that round of battle, but may be picked to go into frontage for the next round.

[Gray Fox]

The Division/Corps I described is a strictly "point of the spear" shock, heavy infantry type. As the Union, I can only put about twelve of these Divisions together in three stacks with the brigade force pool in the game. I still have other more familiar Divisions with 6-lbers in them because there are so many brigades with these dubious artillery batteries that you can't get away from them. So I have garrison Divisions with several light artillery batteries that I try to get entrenched in cities or other good defensive terrain. The entrenchments add to the lethality of the artillery. I don't assault with garrison Divisions and I don't waste assault Divisions in garrison. However, if you crank some numbers into the combat formulae, even a battery of 20-lbers is only causing a couple of hits and some cohesion lost. So you need massed artillery fire to do a sum total of good damage.

I've read most of the threads in this forum and nearly all of the ones in the forum for AACW from top to bottom. Several years ago someone posted in the AACW forum that 4 artillery batteries cost 4 CP's and so does a Division, so he put 4 batteries in a Division and only had Divisions in his Corps. That was the alpha and omega of the "4-batteries to a Division" and "this beats loose batterries in the stack" arguments that became Conventional Wisdom. However, I think that in addition to understanding how CP's work, an even greater understanding would be gained if other pertinent rules were factored in, like actual rules about how combat works.

One simple rule to understand is that when the shock Division gets to range zero, 17 assault elements (plus the general) are just going to do more damage than 13 elements (plus the General and the now idle 4 batteries), because they have almost a third more assault elements.

[Skibear]

The Division/Corps I described is a strictly "point of the spear" shock, heavy infantry type. As the Union, I can only put about twelve of these Divisions together in three stacks with the brigade force pool in the game. I still have other more familiar Divisions with 6-lbers in them because there are so many brigades with these dubious artillery batteries that you can't get away from them. So I have garrison Divisions with several light artillery batteries that I try to get entrenched in cities or other good defensive terrain. The entrenchments add to the lethality of the artillery. I don't assault with garrison Divisions and I don't waste assault Divisions in garrison. However, if you crank some numbers into the combat formulae, even a battery of 20-lbers is only causing a couple of hits and some cohesion lost. So you need massed artillery fire to do a sum total of good damage.

I've read most of the threads in this forum and nearly all of the ones in the forum for AACW from top to bottom. Several years ago someone posted in the AACW forum that 4 artillery batteries cost 4 CP's and so does a Division, so he put 4 batteries in a Division and only had Divisions in his Corps. That was the alpha and omega of the "4-batteries to a Division" and "this beats loose batterries in the stack" arguments that became Conventional Wisdom. However, I think that in addition to understanding how CP's work, an even greater understanding would be gained if other pertinent rules were factored in, like actual rules about how combat works.

One simple rule to understand is that when the shock Division gets to range zero, 17 assault elements (plus the general) are just going to do more damage than 13 elements (plus the General and the now idle 4 batteries), because they have almost a third more assault elements.

That simplifies the maths a little bit and implies that by the time those 17 elements get to range zero both sides still have the same cohesion and took equal damage. Infantry have range 4 & cavalry range 3 so by the time they get to range zero even a 6idr has been firing for 25% longer and a 10ldr 50% longer. Once again this simplifies the maths somewhat and implies open terrain that allows them to engage longer, but I always try to gear number/type of artillery to expected terrain. However once again by grouping all artillery at corps level not only is it expensive in CP terms to deploy in a stack at the expense of extra divisions (which could have at least a couple of batteries per division at implied an CP cost of approx 0.25cp per battery), but they stand a chance of massing on one target leaving some divisions to engage enemy divisions which have not suffered any cohesion or hits while meanwhile receiving some putting them at a severe disadvantage of breaking by the time they reach range zero. Of course there are pros and cons and no way correct answer, hence the beauty of choice and replayability. But I do think a balanced approach of artillery at division, corps and army level brings the most firepower to where it is needed in the most efficient way to maximise the support unit allowance. I'm all in favour of fixing bayonets but I also want my enemy to be ruined by the time I get there...

[Jagger2013]

Looking at some battle reports for RUS, I was struck by how few units actually made it to range 0. Most units fail various tests and are out of it by range 0.

[Merlin]

Looking at some battle reports for RUS, I was struck by how few units actually made it to range 0. Most units fail various tests and are out of it by range 0.

That's true to a degree in CW2 as well. My experience has been CSA players in particular go really heavy on the infantry and tend to pack 5 divisions in a corps even when they don't have to. Guns are much, much cheaper than infantry, not just in conscripts but most glaringly in need for and cost of replacements, and tend to break up attacking units in the first round. Provided you bring enough to the fight, of course. Build some strong divisions and fill up the rest of the corps with artillery. It really does work.

[tripax]

If your leader has high strategic rating, I think he will be less likely to retreat before he needs to. If a battle goes more than one round, later rounds start at distance 1, so again artillery are less useful.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Jagger2013,
I can only assume that is because the RUS units have some combination of better firepower, longer range, or worse discipline or cohesion than CW2 elements (different war, after all). From what I have observed in the logs, the majority of elements end up making it to the assault phase in CW2, so assault phase performance is a big consideration.

As an aside, although artillery is clearly beneficial, I don't think an extra artillery element NECESSARILY provides more punch than an extra infantry element, although it certainly can depending on the situation. Arty get longer range (depending on conditions) and have a higher hit chance, but their non-participation in assault is a major disadvantage. It is uncommon that artillery inflict enough cohesion/hits to advancing combat elements in order to shake or rout them before the assault phase when the combat elements are formed into large divisions (because of hit-smoothing). Obviously, lower quality troops (discipline and total cohesion are the big factors) are more vulnerable to running in the face of cannon fire. The blood begins to run thick once you get to ranges 4 and 3, the ranges of most combat elements. The hits already received from artillery have worn some of them down at this point, I'm not saying artillery is useless, just that the PWR rating boost that extra artillery gives you is larger than the practical effect they will have in (many) battles. Artillery really shine when facing low quality troops, when targeting units without a lot of elements, in the presence of multi-level entrenchments (both attacking them or defending from them) or when you have a large advantage in artillery numbers/quality and the frontage to take advantage of it.

Edit:
Merlin, cross posted with you. The point you make about replacement cost/volume is a good one.

[Gray Fox]

One more thing to keep in mind is that frontage limits the number of batteries that fire. Let's say you have X number of 6-lbers in Divisions and an equal number of 20-lbers loose in the same stack. If the frontage limit is less than X, then statistically, some or all of the light guns are going to fire and some of the ground-pounders will sit idle. The light batteries that you get stuck with in some brigades compete for the frontage with the big guns you want to have at the rodeo.

[Merlin]

Merlin, cross posted with you. The point you make about replacement cost/volume is a good one.

I've seen so many CSA players get crushed by this.

By 1863, those massive infantry formations just aren't enough to win every battle, and the required replacements can spiral out of control, leaving decimated shells of armies as coordinated offensives drive the cost well over $2000. And that's just money. Since most experienced CSA players will find cash is their primary limitation (actually, most experienced players regardless of side), it makes sense to mitigate expenses over the long term as much as possible. Combine that with a failure to control inflation, and it's game over in 1864. The worst possible position in which a player can find himself is in possession of extremely infantry-heavy armies, mid to late war (1863 and beyond), and with inflation over 20% in 1863 or 30% in 1864.

I don't think most players take the generally low number of artillery casualties and consequent savings into account when shaping their armies.

[Gray Fox]

Agreed. I have more than 12 Divisions in my army. You need to make "B-list" Divisions too, simply because of the force pool that you have. I even have militia Divisions. Everything works if you let it. However, in addition to the guys with kitchen knives, some of your samurai deserve to have real katanas.

[minipol]

I didn't take in account that infantry replacements are more expensive then artillery.
Yet as the CSA, I've always tried to first pump up my economy to get enough war supply to build enough guns.
I try to outfit a lot of divisions stacks with 12lb guns and corps with 12lb and 20 lb guns. Armies only 20 lb guns.
It's doable yet, I only play Athena so that makes a difference.

[Merlin]

I didn't take in account that infantry replacements are more expensive then artillery.
Yet as the CSA, I've always tried to first pump up my economy to get enough war supply to build enough guns.
I try to outfit a lot of divisions stacks with 12lb guns and corps with 12lb and 20 lb guns. Armies only 20 lb guns.
It's doable yet, I only play Athena so that makes a difference.

Bolding mine.

It's not the individual cost, but the frequency. If you could reduce one cost in your army, what would it be? Infantry replacements aren't expensive because they're costly on the face of it, but because they cost a lot of everything down the road. Artillery is cheap, given its minimal losses and infrequent replacements. Therefore, I would state that a 10% loss to artillery is eminently more replaceable than a 10% loss to the infantry, presuming such a rate would even exist.