When the bulk of an army's forces are distributed in corps stacks for mutual support is there any benefit in holding a strong artillery and cavalry reserve with the army stack (like their historical equivalents)? For example when battles occur will those army units be utilised to support distant (but within mutual support range) corps or will they only come into play when the army stack itself is called into combat? What about pursuit? There I have assumed that the army stack cavalry units will be taken into account.
Given the surplus command points available in a smaller army stack as compared to its corps it would be extremely useful if some of the corps based artillery could be usefully deployed from within the army stack itself.
Short answer: yes for artillery
Ridiculously long answer that will take all day to read and multiple games to master: search the forum. There's someone on here who swears by having artillery loose in the stack, and only loose in the stack and never in divisions. And he shows his work, which is really nice and somewhat confusing.
Ridiculously long answer that will take all day to read and multiple games to master: search the forum. There's someone on here who swears by having artillery loose in the stack, and only loose in the stack and never in divisions. And he shows his work, which is really nice and somewhat confusing.
The latest idea that seems to work best is from pgr. If you put up to 15 batteries of artillery in an all artillery Division you save on CP's. The guns will support other Divisions in the stack the same as loose artillery or guns in a mixed Division would.
If you have such an artillery or cavalry Division in an Army stack, that stack would have to MTSG for these Divisions to join any Corps battle. They wouldn't join a battle otherwise unless the army stack were attacked directly.
P.S. you can also use your Army stack as a normal combat stack like the Corps stacks. Grant usually has five infantry Divisions and an artillery Division in the latest iteration of what works for me.
If you have such an artillery or cavalry Division in an Army stack, that stack would have to MTSG for these Divisions to join any Corps battle. They wouldn't join a battle otherwise unless the army stack were attacked directly.
P.S. you can also use your Army stack as a normal combat stack like the Corps stacks. Grant usually has five infantry Divisions and an artillery Division in the latest iteration of what works for me.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!
Thanks. I have been reading the latest forum comments on these and very helpful too, but the example quoted of an army with masses of additional artillery looked like an individual army rather than one with corps hence my query. Interesting about the all artillery divisions. Previous comments had suggested the more artillery included the greater a division was at risk when fighting moved to short range (ie fewer combat infantry). Does the absence of any other troops than artillery mean these divisions don't close to close range as the battle progresses or is the idea they do so much damage at longer range that other infantry heavy divisions in the corps can take the strain?
-
ArmChairGeneral
- AGEod Grognard
- Posts: 997
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:00 am
- Location: Austin, TX, USA
If the Army MTSGs, then their artillery and cavalry can join the frontage, though they are not guaranteed be picked to fill it. If they successfully MTSG, the cav get counted in the pursuit calculation, which as far as I have been able to tell in testing is independent of the frontage (i.e. if there are 12 cav elements total counting MTSGers, but in the final round only three were in the frontage, then pursuit damage is still based on all 12).
In most cases it would be more advantageous to have the artillery at the point of attack rather than in a stack that has to MTSG: artillery get to fire more times in the first round (because of the longer range) than on subsequent rounds, and they can gain bonuses to hit from high levels of entrenchments. MTSGers can only participate on the second and later rounds, and do not benefit from entrenchments. For cav there are slight pros and cons either way, and I don't think it is worth worrying too much about, although I guess marginally better if the majority were in the MTSGing "reserve" stack, just because it might cut down on the number of hits they take by not being involved in the first round. Either way, if their stack is on the battlefield for the final round they count for pursuit, which is what you really need them for in big battles.
Hits to a division are spread to all the combat elements, while artillery only rarely take hits (they are support elements, not combat elements so just don't get targeted much). If there are too many artillery in a division the hits that the division takes will be concentrated on the relatively few combat elements. This isn't too big of a deal if the division has only a small proportion of artillery, but more than six and it could start to be a problem (the exception, as you noted, is the 100% artillery division, which will hardly take any hits at all). There are a couple of other reasons to think that keeping the artillery at either the stack level or in dedicated divisions is preferable, among them targeting considerations; there are a number of good threads about this topic. (When you search, Rod Smart is referring to Gray Fox's analyses.)
Artillery rarely take hits in combat no matter where you put them. Essentially they do not get attacked, nor can they attack at range zero. An all arty division won't participate in assault phases, but neither will the arty in a mixed division even though the rest of its division is participating. This leads to another reason that Fox and others argue against mixing artillery in with combat elements: the division could otherwise have had a few more elements participating during the assault phase if it were all combat units, and thus land more hits at close range.
(The thinking about where in a stack to put arty and why may change as we learn more about the way the new counter-battery fire works.)
Like Fox said, there are only a few minor differences between an Army and a Corp stack in combat. The decision of where to put the artillery (loose in the stack, all in one division, or some in each division) applies to a Corps stack as well as an Army stack. Similarly, the "reserve" stack that you have waiting to MTSG from the rear can be an Army or a Corps, though they will have slightly different % chances of MTSGing.
In most cases it would be more advantageous to have the artillery at the point of attack rather than in a stack that has to MTSG: artillery get to fire more times in the first round (because of the longer range) than on subsequent rounds, and they can gain bonuses to hit from high levels of entrenchments. MTSGers can only participate on the second and later rounds, and do not benefit from entrenchments. For cav there are slight pros and cons either way, and I don't think it is worth worrying too much about, although I guess marginally better if the majority were in the MTSGing "reserve" stack, just because it might cut down on the number of hits they take by not being involved in the first round. Either way, if their stack is on the battlefield for the final round they count for pursuit, which is what you really need them for in big battles.
Hits to a division are spread to all the combat elements, while artillery only rarely take hits (they are support elements, not combat elements so just don't get targeted much). If there are too many artillery in a division the hits that the division takes will be concentrated on the relatively few combat elements. This isn't too big of a deal if the division has only a small proportion of artillery, but more than six and it could start to be a problem (the exception, as you noted, is the 100% artillery division, which will hardly take any hits at all). There are a couple of other reasons to think that keeping the artillery at either the stack level or in dedicated divisions is preferable, among them targeting considerations; there are a number of good threads about this topic. (When you search, Rod Smart is referring to Gray Fox's analyses.)
Artillery rarely take hits in combat no matter where you put them. Essentially they do not get attacked, nor can they attack at range zero. An all arty division won't participate in assault phases, but neither will the arty in a mixed division even though the rest of its division is participating. This leads to another reason that Fox and others argue against mixing artillery in with combat elements: the division could otherwise have had a few more elements participating during the assault phase if it were all combat units, and thus land more hits at close range.
(The thinking about where in a stack to put arty and why may change as we learn more about the way the new counter-battery fire works.)
Like Fox said, there are only a few minor differences between an Army and a Corp stack in combat. The decision of where to put the artillery (loose in the stack, all in one division, or some in each division) applies to a Corps stack as well as an Army stack. Similarly, the "reserve" stack that you have waiting to MTSG from the rear can be an Army or a Corps, though they will have slightly different % chances of MTSGing.
Artillery have the same effect no matter where they are in the stack.
Artillery loose in the stack take 1 CP per battery.
Artillery in an artillery Division or a mixed Division take only 4 CPs.
A Division with 17 combat elements can take more hits and still fight than a Division with less than 17 combat elements.
So, over 5 loose artillery batteries take up more CPs than a Division with artillery. A mixed Division with combat and artillery elements has fewer combat elements than a Division without artillery. An all artillery Division just doesn't get targeted in a stack with combat Divisions. Combat elements target the guys in their face with the bayonets and not the artillery in the distance.
Artillery loose in the stack take 1 CP per battery.
Artillery in an artillery Division or a mixed Division take only 4 CPs.
A Division with 17 combat elements can take more hits and still fight than a Division with less than 17 combat elements.
So, over 5 loose artillery batteries take up more CPs than a Division with artillery. A mixed Division with combat and artillery elements has fewer combat elements than a Division without artillery. An all artillery Division just doesn't get targeted in a stack with combat Divisions. Combat elements target the guys in their face with the bayonets and not the artillery in the distance.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!
Gray Fox wrote:Artillery have the same effect no matter where they are in the stack.
Artillery loose in the stack take 1 CP per battery.
Artillery in an artillery Division or a mixed Division take only 4 CPs.
A Division with 17 combat elements can take more hits and still fight than a Division with less than 17 combat elements.
So, over 5 loose artillery batteries take up more CPs than a Division with artillery. A mixed Division with combat and artillery elements has fewer combat elements than a Division without artillery. An all artillery Division just doesn't get targeted in a stack with combat Divisions. Combat elements target the guys in their face with the bayonets and not the artillery in the distance.
In the spirit of discussion, and nothing more, why would one do this in a Civil War simulation? Even though the game allows this, this is like fast forward to the Eastern Front in 1943 with the advent of Soviet Artillery Breakthough divisions.
Cheers
Minipol, I think what he is asking is if putting all artillery in a divsion is optimal in the game but this is not what happened in the Civil War, then isn't this a problem in modeling the period?
I am curious as to what the AI does? If it were optimal to put artillery in a division, would it know?
I am curious as to what the AI does? If it were optimal to put artillery in a division, would it know?
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-H.L. Mencken-
-H.L. Mencken-
donagel wrote:Minipol, I think what he is asking is if putting all artillery in a divsion is optimal in the game but this is not what happened in the Civil War, then isn't this a problem in modeling the period?
I am curious as to what the AI does? If it were optimal to put artillery in a division, would it know?
Exactly...the issue boils down to a game versus a historical simulation...massing corps assets of artillery in one thing; purposively excluding them from the OOB of a division would have been at the time, well, unthinkable. And to imagine that division and brigade field commanders had the communication assets to call for this nonorganic artillery in a fluid manner is a large stretch. My 2 cents..
Cheers
-
DrPostman
- Posts: 3005
- Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
- Location: Memphis, TN
- Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube
Weren't batteries massed together in many battles? I got to witness 60 cannon
firing in sequence at a Shiloh reenactment early last decade. It was a ground
shaking spectacle, and I do not see how men could charge at something so
powerful. I know that Lee had most of his batteries together at Gettysburg.
firing in sequence at a Shiloh reenactment early last decade. It was a ground
shaking spectacle, and I do not see how men could charge at something so
powerful. I know that Lee had most of his batteries together at Gettysburg.
"Ludus non nisi sanguineus"
-
Cardinal Ape
- General of the Army
- Posts: 619
- Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:59 am
If I recall, one of the main failures of the Union artillery during the war was that they failed to properly concentrate it. I think the Confederates did a better job massing their artillery, but their main problem was that they never got the timing on their canister shots right.
C-Span has a video discussion on union field artillery that is fairly informative - those videos are my in-game music.
C-Span has a video discussion on union field artillery that is fairly informative - those videos are my in-game music.
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?38250-Union-artillery
The historical fact is that McClellan created less than a dozen Divisions with four brigades of infantry and four batteries of artillery each. He fully intended to put at least half of this artillery in a Corps battalion, but got fired before he could. In the C-SPAN video, the author argues that the Union lost most of the early war battles by failing to mass their artillery effectively, as Lee correctly did. So, artillery batteries that had been massed in combat since Napoleon were not effectively used by the Union. The Union player can pretend not to know this, or choose to do what Lee was doing at the time. A Division is the only higher formation available to the player. A dozen batteries only makes an artillery battalion, but this cannot be recreated with the game system. So I use an artillery Division. It works. It is historically more correct than not. It really works. It passes the common sense test and BTW, it really works well.
The historical fact is that McClellan created less than a dozen Divisions with four brigades of infantry and four batteries of artillery each. He fully intended to put at least half of this artillery in a Corps battalion, but got fired before he could. In the C-SPAN video, the author argues that the Union lost most of the early war battles by failing to mass their artillery effectively, as Lee correctly did. So, artillery batteries that had been massed in combat since Napoleon were not effectively used by the Union. The Union player can pretend not to know this, or choose to do what Lee was doing at the time. A Division is the only higher formation available to the player. A dozen batteries only makes an artillery battalion, but this cannot be recreated with the game system. So I use an artillery Division. It works. It is historically more correct than not. It really works. It passes the common sense test and BTW, it really works well.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!
The artillery Division would be part of an Army/Corps stack of course. One to four infantry Divisions and an artillery Division is what I use. The whole stack MTSG together.
If you mean will the actual batteries not be chosen because they are in a separate Division, then no. I actually tested this. The game mechanic fills the frontage for artillery, i.e. support units from any place the artillery is located, whether in a mixed Division, loose in the stack or in an artillery Division.
If you mean will the actual batteries not be chosen because they are in a separate Division, then no. I actually tested this. The game mechanic fills the frontage for artillery, i.e. support units from any place the artillery is located, whether in a mixed Division, loose in the stack or in an artillery Division.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!
You're welcome!
Before you can make Divisions, loose artillery works because you have no other option. So an early army stack might have several large brigades and some loose batteries.
After October 1861, artillery in a Division has advantages over more than 3 loose batteries in a stack. A lone Division defending something may still do better with intrinsic artillery mixed into its formation, because a 1-star already suffers a 2 Command Point penalty commanding a Division. A lone Division with an artillery Division would get a 4 CP penalty.
However, mixed Divisions in a larger Corps/Army stack don't work well. Let's say you have 10 batteries of 6-lbers in mixed Divisions and an artillery Division with 10 batteries of 20-lbers in a stack together. In a hypothetical battle you get to employ only 10 batteries per round. Statistically, half the time the weaker 6-lbers would randomly be chosen to fire and the more powerful 20-lbers that you spent a lot of resources to procure would be idle. So the best solution is to have infantry Divisions with a dash of cavalry for pursuit/screening/recon and all the artillery in a Division of the best guns you can afford.
One further bit of advice I would give is to have one of your best Generals command the artillery Division. Experience is gained by killing enemy troops and lost by losing your own troops. Artillery don't get targeted because they are smaller formations of troops than infantry or cavalry brigades/Divisions. My experience is that your artillery commander racks up kills with no penalty for losses, and gets promoted quickly.
Before you can make Divisions, loose artillery works because you have no other option. So an early army stack might have several large brigades and some loose batteries.
After October 1861, artillery in a Division has advantages over more than 3 loose batteries in a stack. A lone Division defending something may still do better with intrinsic artillery mixed into its formation, because a 1-star already suffers a 2 Command Point penalty commanding a Division. A lone Division with an artillery Division would get a 4 CP penalty.
However, mixed Divisions in a larger Corps/Army stack don't work well. Let's say you have 10 batteries of 6-lbers in mixed Divisions and an artillery Division with 10 batteries of 20-lbers in a stack together. In a hypothetical battle you get to employ only 10 batteries per round. Statistically, half the time the weaker 6-lbers would randomly be chosen to fire and the more powerful 20-lbers that you spent a lot of resources to procure would be idle. So the best solution is to have infantry Divisions with a dash of cavalry for pursuit/screening/recon and all the artillery in a Division of the best guns you can afford.
One further bit of advice I would give is to have one of your best Generals command the artillery Division. Experience is gained by killing enemy troops and lost by losing your own troops. Artillery don't get targeted because they are smaller formations of troops than infantry or cavalry brigades/Divisions. My experience is that your artillery commander racks up kills with no penalty for losses, and gets promoted quickly.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!
Can anyone print out the exact OOB for all of the Divisions in the Civil War so everyone can finally just follow history and stop playing a game?
I play a simulation like chess or CW2 to teach myself how to think logically and reasonably. If plan A beats plan B, I'm just a plan A kind of guy. People who play the game to gain a greater historical insight to what actually happened are fine with me. But I am not wired to do something that I know "ain't gonna work". The simple fact is that historically, decisions were made in the Civil War by people that were totally incompetent. Courage, devotion and selflessness succeeded when leadership, skill and experience failed. You're now the President, the War Department, the General, the cavalryman, the battery captain. or the grunt The one thing you are not is the officer who has to write a widow or mother and tell her why someone died needlessly because you chose plan B.
I play a simulation like chess or CW2 to teach myself how to think logically and reasonably. If plan A beats plan B, I'm just a plan A kind of guy. People who play the game to gain a greater historical insight to what actually happened are fine with me. But I am not wired to do something that I know "ain't gonna work". The simple fact is that historically, decisions were made in the Civil War by people that were totally incompetent. Courage, devotion and selflessness succeeded when leadership, skill and experience failed. You're now the President, the War Department, the General, the cavalryman, the battery captain. or the grunt The one thing you are not is the officer who has to write a widow or mother and tell her why someone died needlessly because you chose plan B.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!
Thank you GrayFox, now to elaborate on your previous post. I am currently in game as USA from 62´. And although I use arty in division I also keep some left over arty in infantry divions and often I put cavalry brigade in.
Now to elaborate "infantry" division. I use this mix: 1 cohesion bonus brigade, sharshooters and then regular brigades. Then when I have some space left I put battery or cav brigade in.
Question here is: should this be avoided and arty and cavalry kepped always separate (except one cav brigade for bonuses) from such infantry divisions or not. Oh and ofcourse support elements I use in whole stacks not on division level. Basically I am looking for most game-wise effective mechanic in union games since their leaders suck early.
Now to elaborate "infantry" division. I use this mix: 1 cohesion bonus brigade, sharshooters and then regular brigades. Then when I have some space left I put battery or cav brigade in.
Question here is: should this be avoided and arty and cavalry kepped always separate (except one cav brigade for bonuses) from such infantry divisions or not. Oh and ofcourse support elements I use in whole stacks not on division level. Basically I am looking for most game-wise effective mechanic in union games since their leaders suck early.
"Best way to win a war is not to fight it"
I tailor a Division to what I want to do with it.
If I just want a Division to garrison a city or region, then I give it a core of a sharpshooter for initiative bonus, a cavalry element for the recon ability (land detect value), maybe a 6-lber that will be more effective because the unit is entrenched and the rest militia. It's basically fly-paper. Brigade-wise, that's the one with a conscript, a line infantry, a cavalry element and a 6-lber, a lone sharpshooter element and 12 militia.
For an elite Division, I use the brigade that has two line infantry and a sharpshooter, a single early cavalry for the best detect value and a conscript cavalry for extra horsepower in pursuit/screening during combat, one Marine element for river crossing bonus and the rest militia that have been upgraded to line infantry by McClellan/Halleck/Sigel. Depending on what elements a cohesion boosting brigade has, I delete what isn't needed twice and add the bonus brigade for an elite Division. I also continue to follow the same OOB when I have used all of the bonus brigades. You can substitute sailor elements for Marines. Several of these Divisions in a stack have enough cavalry that I don't need an extra cavalry Division. I do make small 4 element cavalry brigades out of a General with a Division command to scout and hunt raiders.
Also, if you get Lyons and Dinwiddie promoted to 2-star, then their special abilities grant cohesion bonuses to their stack, making regular divisions into elite.
The artillery Division is limited, in that a Division can only hold 15 sub-units. However, even the best commanders can only use about 15 batteries in the best terrain. So I put at least a dozen 20-lbers in the artillery Division of an elite Corps/Army stack and use the 12 or 10 -lbers for stacks of regulars.
I don't use the garrison Division to attack and I don't leave elite Divisions in garrison.
P.S. You realize that a stack with a pontoon unit and an engineer unit will entrench faster than a stack with just one or the other? The same does not apply for a HQ unit and a hospital or a signal unit. Only one will help in cohesion recovery/command points. So a stack should have a pontoon unit, an engineer, a HQ unit and maybe a balloon.
If I just want a Division to garrison a city or region, then I give it a core of a sharpshooter for initiative bonus, a cavalry element for the recon ability (land detect value), maybe a 6-lber that will be more effective because the unit is entrenched and the rest militia. It's basically fly-paper. Brigade-wise, that's the one with a conscript, a line infantry, a cavalry element and a 6-lber, a lone sharpshooter element and 12 militia.
For an elite Division, I use the brigade that has two line infantry and a sharpshooter, a single early cavalry for the best detect value and a conscript cavalry for extra horsepower in pursuit/screening during combat, one Marine element for river crossing bonus and the rest militia that have been upgraded to line infantry by McClellan/Halleck/Sigel. Depending on what elements a cohesion boosting brigade has, I delete what isn't needed twice and add the bonus brigade for an elite Division. I also continue to follow the same OOB when I have used all of the bonus brigades. You can substitute sailor elements for Marines. Several of these Divisions in a stack have enough cavalry that I don't need an extra cavalry Division. I do make small 4 element cavalry brigades out of a General with a Division command to scout and hunt raiders.
Also, if you get Lyons and Dinwiddie promoted to 2-star, then their special abilities grant cohesion bonuses to their stack, making regular divisions into elite.
The artillery Division is limited, in that a Division can only hold 15 sub-units. However, even the best commanders can only use about 15 batteries in the best terrain. So I put at least a dozen 20-lbers in the artillery Division of an elite Corps/Army stack and use the 12 or 10 -lbers for stacks of regulars.
I don't use the garrison Division to attack and I don't leave elite Divisions in garrison.
P.S. You realize that a stack with a pontoon unit and an engineer unit will entrench faster than a stack with just one or the other? The same does not apply for a HQ unit and a hospital or a signal unit. Only one will help in cohesion recovery/command points. So a stack should have a pontoon unit, an engineer, a HQ unit and maybe a balloon.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!
Consider the armies that fought at Gettysburg. After Chancellorsville (where the artillery was poorly handled), the Army of the Potomac's artillery was reorganized. Artillery was removed from divisions (so, yes, marquo, there were divisions without organic guns) and assigned to the infantry corps. Each corps got a brigade of 4 or 5 batteries. The remaining 5 brigades were grouped as the artillery reserve of 21 batteries and 118 guns. In game terms, each artillery element actually represents 2 batteries, so that artillery reserve would in fact constitute an artillery division of 10-11 elements, even though it wasn't called such. So, Gray Fox is right, since as he points out the game will not let us build brigades. His workaround seems historically valid to me.
The Army of Northern Virginia still assigned an artillery battalion (= Union brigade) to each division, equivalent in game terms to 2 elements. The rest went into the corps artillery (2 battalions each) with no army reserve. So, play the game how you want, there is historical precedent for almost anything. I play against Athena and am more interested in historical formations. GF plays more against human opponents, so he prefers min-maxing. To each his own.
The Army of Northern Virginia still assigned an artillery battalion (= Union brigade) to each division, equivalent in game terms to 2 elements. The rest went into the corps artillery (2 battalions each) with no army reserve. So, play the game how you want, there is historical precedent for almost anything. I play against Athena and am more interested in historical formations. GF plays more against human opponents, so he prefers min-maxing. To each his own.
Hmm, your description of garrison use and militia training is new to me. I am usually too lazy to use those "trainers" and just build line units, but nice tactic, must save resources.
Actually my OOB´s are close to your concept with the difference I often forget things or OVERKILL needlessly. (today my arty division was wiped out since I left it alone without infantry by accident
)
The use of support elements is good too, I simply stacked everything in each army.
Actually my OOB´s are close to your concept with the difference I often forget things or OVERKILL needlessly. (today my arty division was wiped out since I left it alone without infantry by accident
)
The use of support elements is good too, I simply stacked everything in each army.
"Best way to win a war is not to fight it"
The enemy will thank you for not giving 100%. 
I was a soldier for 21 years. What gamers call min-maxing we call survival. The fact is trained militia beat plain militia. Big guns trump small guns. Anything that can be organized, can be done.
The wildebeest is bigger and meaner than a lion, has horns and kicks like a mule. The wildebeest gets eaten because the lion is smarter.
I was a soldier for 21 years. What gamers call min-maxing we call survival. The fact is trained militia beat plain militia. Big guns trump small guns. Anything that can be organized, can be done.
The wildebeest is bigger and meaner than a lion, has horns and kicks like a mule. The wildebeest gets eaten because the lion is smarter.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!
-
DrPostman
- Posts: 3005
- Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
- Location: Memphis, TN
- Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube
Smitzer52 wrote:Hmm, your description of garrison use and militia training is new to me. I am usually too lazy to use those "trainers" and just build line units, but nice tactic, must save resources.
Taylor is like a Confederate troop factory for me. I build militia in TN with him and
constantly keep them pumping through, doubling their strength. It's a must have,
and with the North you have 2 of those much earlier than the Confederates. Other than
Taylor I don't recall if the CSA get any more, but Bragg and one other are good
for raising their experience (along with HQ units).
"Ludus non nisi sanguineus"
Gray Fox has voiced my opinion better than I did.
As for the CSA and Taylor, he's important to beef up militia. I mainly use him to train my militia as I sent better troops to my frontline armies.
2 of these trainiers would be aweosme
Don't know how much historical evidence there is for these kind of troop trainers?
As for the CSA and Taylor, he's important to beef up militia. I mainly use him to train my militia as I sent better troops to my frontline armies.
2 of these trainiers would be aweosme
Don't know how much historical evidence there is for these kind of troop trainers?
Gray Fox wrote:The enemy will thank you for not giving 100%.
I was a soldier for 21 years. What gamers call min-maxing we call survival. The fact is trained militia beat plain militia. Big guns trump small guns. Anything that can be organized, can be done.
I don't disagree with this, but I think there are a couple of thoughts that might be relevant.
While soldiers, literally with their life on the line, will make every attempt to make the optimal choice, almost always people in real life are operating with incomplete knowledge. They also operate having misinterpreted the knowledge that they have. With varying frequency they have someone of higher command instruct them to do things in another manner than they would prefer. There are countless events, situations, unknowns, and facts that prevent people in the real world from making decisions from perfect knowledge.
In many games, including this one, that is not the case. All the information is available to the player should he desire it. He can, through mathematical model and/or experiment, discover the optimal organization, level of resources, placement of troops, etc. He has an unlimited number of opportunities to "get it right". Hindsight and god-like vision of the situation ensures that the player need never make the mistakes that those that had to make the real decisions did. That is the "min-max" player. Nothing wrong with that. How you play the game has 0% bearing on how I play and the enjoyment you get from your method likewise detracts not the slightest from my enjoyment.
On the other side, however, are those that either don't choose to put in the time to uncover all these details (it is only a game, an amusement, after all) or (and I include myself in this camp) prefer to simulate the imperfections that the actual performers suffered from. While it is true that amateurs study tactics while professionals study logistics, I would still rather defeat my opponents by out maneuvering and out generaling them rather than by out quartermastering them. If I loose, but had fun doing so, that is fine, it is just a game after all.
Personally I also don't like to win too easily. If I find that a tactic, for example as the South upgrading Rail every opportunity I have, provides too much of an advantage to me, I won't do it. I like a hard, desperate battle, having to pull out all the stops, throwing my last company into the breach in hopes of victory. I like the excitement and variability of the outcome. In real life I am a CPA, and, well, the numbers are what they are. Two plus two is always four. I will happily min-max your taxes as that is my job, so when I get an opportunity for some leisure, I think it not surprising that I don't embrace that model in my gaming.
Your Mileage May Vary!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests