dinsdale
Sergeant
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 5:45 am

Decisive Battles

Fri May 01, 2015 5:30 am

Hi all,

Although really enjoying the game, I am struggling to win anything like a significant victory in the field. All I seem to achieve is equal losses on both sides and the opposition quickly retreating. The McClennan in me doesn't seem to be able to effectively follow up either :)

I understand with some of the leaders, but I'm getting pretty much the same results with Grant as McDowell. Is there something I am missing, or is this it and I have to figure out how to chase down the retreating army more effectively?

User avatar
BattleVonWar
Major
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 3:22 am

Fri May 01, 2015 6:10 am

The early battles of the Civil War were kind of even if you look at the part of dead and wounded. As far as the ground taken I don't know. I recall a recap of all 1861-1862 battles up until around Antietam and even there it seemed to me deadlock. Until at least Gettysburg in the East. Far as the West, things I don't know as well.

Point of Civil War Games are a little different. Small objectives, bit by bit, later you can get bigger unless you want to Gamble...
For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it's still not yet two o'clock on that July afternoon in 1863 ~~~

User avatar
FightingBuckeye
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 7:27 am
Location: Englewood, CO

Fri May 01, 2015 6:51 am

Well, that's a question with a lot in it. Some very basic tips:

1. Put your best generals in charge. A mid-high strat rating is key, especially for army command. Defense and Offense stats are also pretty dang important. A General like Big Mac, Butler, etc with low stats across the board will actually make the corps commanders under him worse. Depending on the setting you have, an inactive general could suffer 35% loss of effectiveness. Higher strat rating generals are less likely to go inactive.

2. Avoid Command Penalty: It's better to have a leaner well led stack than one that's so large your general(s) can't effectively lead them. General Command Penalty can be your opponent's greatest general, don't let him affect you if at all possible. 1*s provide 2 command points; 2*s provide 4 command points; 3*s provide 6 command points. Up to 4 generals can provide command points to a stack, after that there's no gain. So 4 one star generals will provide 8 command points and 10 one stars will still only provide 8 command points. An army or corps stack will double your command points available, meaning you can put more men without suffering penalty. Support units like HQ, Balloons, and signal units can provide additional CP. Some generals have traits that raise or lower CP.

3. Attack with superiority of force: This period of warfare favored the defender and this game does a pretty good job of emulating this. Try to attain 3-1 odds when attacking. Try to avoid attacking heavily entrenched forces if at all possible. If it's feasible manuever around them. Take ground that your opponent can't let you have (sitting on his supply route for example) and let him attack you. If corps formations are available don't forget that adjacent corps or army stacks will support each other by marching to the sound of guns (MTSG). With MSTG, you might think you're sending 3-4 corps against a single enemy corps only to discover that two additional enemy corps supported the enemy target corps. Pay attention to things like weather, attacking over rivers, attacking in swamps, etc that can negatively impact your forces and plan accordingly. Sometimes it's best to just sit the weather out.

4. Force Composition: Cavalry are great for the pursuit phase of a battle and can help inflict lots of casualties but they suck going toe to toe against infantry. Cannon are a great way to soften up the enemy force before your infantry clashes with theirs. But having too much artillery could deprive you of the staying power in multiple engagements as you run out of infantry to hold the line. Infantry will be the biggest part of your force. Militia<Conscripts<Line Inf<Elite Inf. Try to stay away from the lower end of that spectrum if possible. Don't forget about units like sharpshooters or marines to help your units out.

5. Are you well rested and supplied? Tired troops will perform worse in battle. If you've marched a lot recently, let them rest for a turn or two and regain cohesion. Adequate supply is key. Keep at least 1 supply wagon with your stacks will let them fight longer and those wagons also give a combat bonus. Most troops will carry enough ammo for two battles and enough supplies for two turns. Don't get caught out of supply as you'll take huge penalties to your combat ability. Like I said, the importance of supply wagons cannot be overstated. I can't count how many times having supply wagons saved my bacon when I had to fight 3+ battles before I could resupply. Some people say you need 1 wagon unit per division. I usually follow that general rule of thumb out in Kentucky or points west were travel takes longer and depots are few and far between. In more developed areas, I might just keep 1-3 per corps. With my corps I'm rarely advancing all of them at once and can swap out wagons as needed.

This link was for AACW or the game this one's a direct descendant of, but lots of the information still applies. Just ignore the bit about the frontage rules for artillery not letting more than a max of four batteries fire.

http://www.ageod.net/aacwwiki/AACW_strategy_guide

User avatar
BattleVonWar
Major
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 3:22 am

Fri May 01, 2015 7:09 am

Buckeye, you are a very deadly opponent. I will have to bring you into one of my games since you do have AGEOD CW1 experience :P Such as Darkest Hour or The Great War! :P (Strategic Command 3 comes out soon as well)


I noted that it's not good even with the top Brass to have 1 vs 1 ever. 2 vs 1 isn't even sufficient in bad terrain/entrenchment/weather... You're looking at 3 to 1 for a decent chance at winning a battle on land. If the enemy is in the right position that is. Mountains/Coastal Entrenchments... that may not work any attack may fail as frontage limits action. That's accurate but I find the defensive values a little bit high. In our game not 1 offense I know of has succeeded tactically? Think I am right?

P.S. Grant/Lee/Sherman/Stonewall have not won not even one battle on offense by first frost 1862??? VS a Large Opponent or even Medium opponent for that matter.
For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it's still not yet two o'clock on that July afternoon in 1863 ~~~

User avatar
FightingBuckeye
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 7:27 am
Location: Englewood, CO

Fri May 01, 2015 7:36 am

BattleVonWar wrote:Point of Civil War Games are a little different. Small objectives, bit by bit, later you can get bigger unless you want to Gamble...


Note to self, don't try and gamble against Battle . . . you'll end up with a weird game with Grant & Co controlling the Mississippi from Baton Rouge to Vicksburg but not Tennessee or New Orleans . . . .

User avatar
ArmChairGeneral
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 997
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:00 am
Location: Austin, TX, USA

Fri May 01, 2015 9:04 am

In addition to all of the excellent points above, you are also right about following up on defeated stacks. Get good at counterattacking: stacks that have failed in attack against one of your positions will be low on hits, cohesion and possibly supply and ammo, and if you can catch them with a fresh stack of equal or larger size you can defeat them soundly.

You don't need an all-cav stack to do this, they are lugging artillery too, and if your guys are fresher, regular stacks (even with artillery) can often chase them down. They may need to flee several regions for safety (they are heading for the nearest friendly structure with supplies) losing cohesion and moving more and more slowly along the way. Think about their likely retreat path and beat them to it. (Pre-) position some cavalry between them and safety to cut off supply and gain MC. (Your MC slows their movement and can possibly force them into Offensive posture if it is high enough). If you're lucky they stop for a turn to attempt to recover, making it easy to catch up with them.

Remember, you will have to use Offensive posture, so bring rifled (steel colored) rather than smooth bore (bronze colored) artillery since it has better attacking stats. If I can manage it my ideal division for this type of mop-up operation has 2-4 cannons, 5-7 cavalry, and the rest infantry/specials, and has one of the Cav leaders in command. They give a huge combat buff to the cav and most of them have great strat ratings, so are almost always active (activity is critical since you need to be able to be in Offensive posture).

The high percentage of cav is for two reasons. First, if you can force them to battle, even if it is not decisive, they will probably have to retreat exposing them to lots of essentially free pursuit hits. Second, they are are desperate men who will try everything they can to avoid engaging with you. Your ability to catch them increases (roughly) linearly with the number of cav you have with you, so the more the merrier. You definitely need some infantry along as a meatshield and for the assault phase, though: all-cav divisions (counter-intuitively) underperform in these situations.

Keep punching, trying to force them to battle as many times as possible before they get away. String together two or three battles in a row, and you can easily inflict 50% casualties.

This whole thing is difficult to execute, they often manage to evade you, and I by no means catch every enemy stack that loses a battle to me. But when I do, they pay big time. For the most part, you won't wipe out the whole formation, (and you'll take out surprisingly few elements) but you will cause a ton of hits that they will need to pay in time and resources to replace, often half the stack's total or more. The game is stingy with VP and NM, so I would consider a few Vp and a NM or two a big victory.

Though retreat logic has gotten better with patches, it is still possible to block retreaters and force them into unfavorable regions, possibly putting them in bad terrain/weather and away from supplies. You won't get any NM or VP for those losses, but CW2 is a game of attrition, and hits are hits, especially when you aren't getting any in return.

Athena is very vulnerable to this kind of thing, as she is a fairly reckless attacker and is predictable when retreating. Once you perfect this technique you should have no trouble defeating the AI game after game. Humans are more cautious, so harder to catch this way. Athena is not very good at the counterpunch herself, which can lead to bad attacking habits on the part of a single-player. Humans are very good counter attackers, however, and will be actively looking to catch YOU this way!

User avatar
Gray Fox
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1583
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:48 pm
Location: Englewood, OH

Fri May 01, 2015 1:48 pm

Here's a link to a game I played against Athena at Colonel Difficulty level. This was before the latest changes which seem to need some tweaking. In post #16, I fought two battles in one turn against foes that actually outnumbered my force. Kearny defeated them both rather convincingly for +10 NM. He had a Corps with four Infantry Divisions (sharpshooter, marine, two cavalry and the rest line infantry with an elite brigade for the cohesion boost) and a pure artillery Division (15 batteries of 10 and 12 lbers). The artillery was really effective, as some of the batteries ended the campaign with 5 stars.

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?39145-Fyi-rc9

I later took Richmond doing the overwhelming force trick.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!

User avatar
FightingBuckeye
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 7:27 am
Location: Englewood, CO

Fri May 01, 2015 1:56 pm

BattleVonWar wrote:Buckeye, you are a very deadly opponent. I will have to bring you into one of my games since you do have AGEOD CW1 experience :P Such as Darkest Hour or The Great War! :P (Strategic Command 3 comes out soon as well)


I noted that it's not good even with the top Brass to have 1 vs 1 ever. 2 vs 1 isn't even sufficient in bad terrain/entrenchment/weather... You're looking at 3 to 1 for a decent chance at winning a battle on land. If the enemy is in the right position that is. Mountains/Coastal Entrenchments... that may not work any attack may fail as frontage limits action. That's accurate but I find the defensive values a little bit high. In our game not 1 offense I know of has succeeded tactically? Think I am right?

P.S. Grant/Lee/Sherman/Stonewall have not won not even one battle on offense by first frost 1862??? VS a Large Opponent or even Medium opponent for that matter.


Well, to be fair. How many large battles have we had so far? I'm only remembering about 7 of them, counting multiple battles over the same territory in subsequent turns such as Memphis or Springfield as one. If you count each one of those individually you get at rough guess around 14 give or take 1-2 battles. We've both chosen to manuever and/or sit on defense and force the other to attack, so it's not like we have a plethora of options here. And El Paso, Manassas, the first battle of Springfield (and second battle? or did I win that one playing defense?), and Williamsburg were all offensive victories. But these have all been wins for me, so I could see why you'd 'suppress' those memories. :D

And then Sherman, Grant, and Lee haven't all been with us from the start. I forget when Lee unlocks, but Grant's only been active for 3-4 months and has only participated in one offensive battle against equal or near equal stacks. The rest have been victories vs overmatched garrisons. Plus Sherman's been a division commander under Grant and so hasn't really 'led' any armies or corps yet. I promoted one general ahead of him and he lost seniority there and then I haven't been able to get him that promotion yet.

bommerrang
Sergeant
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 1:40 am

Fri May 01, 2015 2:24 pm

I'm in no way an expert on this game but my experience playing the north is that you will never get 3-1 or even 2-1 against a good southern opponent unless you surprise land on the coast or something. Maybe attack in odd areas to draw down the southern fortresses that stretch across the map from Island#10 all the way to Manassas.
Perhaps the Captain will help me understand how the North can get 2-1 against the south.

dinsdale
Sergeant
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 5:45 am

Fri May 01, 2015 2:39 pm

Buckeye et al, thanks for the excellent advice. Some very good stuff here.

I managed to complete a game and win, without ever really 'winning' a battle. I got lucky and Lee's army retreated inside Richmond, the entire army surrendered some months later. The rest of the battles were either victory or defeat, but trading 1 v 1 losses. At one point I was determined to chase down Bragg in the west and almost wiped out my army during the pursuit. The game was one of using the Union's superior production capacity to eventually wear down the Confederacy on 3 fronts until they collapsed, while losing an enormous number of troops.....oh :)

I never really find myself outnumbering the opposition in army power by more than 1.5 v 1. I have been surprised with the size of the enemy armies I've faced, I am careful to avoid command penalties etc, but I have been very light on cavalry, preferring infantry and a significant advantage in artillery. I will try adding some more cavalry and perhaps try to keep a corps out of battle for pursuit. I don't think I'm ready to play as the Confederates yet!

User avatar
FightingBuckeye
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 7:27 am
Location: Englewood, CO

Fri May 01, 2015 3:14 pm

If you're playing on a harder setting, the rebels will get a pretty sizable boost to their economy and it'll be tough to really outnumber them. Did you conduct amphibious assaults and/or blockade any of their ports? Taking some forts along the coast like fort sumter or either/both the ones at the mouth of the Mississippi will blockade those ports and can be tough for the south to retake which means a sizable dent in their economy. Check out New Orleans, that industry's worth a lot to the south and the earlier you take it the better. Athena likes to build industry there as well, so it could very well be a gold mine. Typically, unless you're playing on a harder setting, the South doesn't have the resources to defend everywhere. If they have good sized armies in Virginia and Kentucky/Tennessee it likely means their coastal forces are weaker than they should be. Careful about doing amphibious assaults though, they can be VERY painful if you happen to land on top of a decent sized and well entrenched force.

dinsdale
Sergeant
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 5:45 am

Fri May 01, 2015 5:33 pm

I took New Orleans in 1862 and destroyed the future Marine Corps and amphibious ambition somewhere outside Charleston in 1863. I am thinking of more widespread raids with smaller forces next time, it does seem as though every unit the South produced was either in Kentucky or Virginia. There were 2 armies of 3500 pwr in Kentucky and a 5000 pwr monster in Virginia which eventually split into 2 of ~3500. I did advance almost to Vicksburg from NO with little opposition.

I think I will also change the supply to complex and attrition to the next level for my next attempt. I think without the need to constantly replace losses, both sides armies become too bloated.

Rod Smart
Colonel
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2014 3:32 pm

Fri May 01, 2015 6:25 pm

March to the sound of the guns is a great way to sneakily get 3-1 odds. Its not smart to attack a 2,000 power force with a 2,000 power force, but if you have corps nearby, you'll end up with a sizable advantage.

User avatar
BattleVonWar
Major
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 3:22 am

Sat May 02, 2015 3:09 am

Grant vs Polk(flanked Polk to avoid river direct attack into Memphis) 4 subsequent battles? All losses except when Sydney attacked when Polk upgraded to 4-3-3 and then lost to Grant when Grant retreated inland and dug in enemy territory... No numbers and entrenchment most assuredly weren't on either side on either offensive action, neither 2 vs 1 ratios(I might have had closest 1.5 vs 1 ratio) ... Heck I would have considered Grant cut off and possibly dead?

P.S. Fun game regardless but I feel like I'm in a WW1 scenario earlier than WW1 and not that I mind but the entrenchment power is a bit too strong for 1862

P.S.S. You had probably 2 to 1 odds over me in Memphis force ratio Multiplier
:P Ultimately frontal attacks in this game = death... do not frontal attack ... NEVER frontal attack and what is a frontal attack... Enemy entrenched heavily on a supply source with any leader that is Corp strength. Athena does not teach you this properly but this game is highly tactical and any attack is a frontal attack that isn't facing an opponent with severe optimal advantage in your ball court. I have learned the 'hard way'.

Reference:

http://onviolence.com/?e=191 basically 3 to 1 but in CW2 terms frontage limits force ratio multipliers and if you do not know game mechanics you do not know what your force ratio is by numbers. : ) Leaders unlike other games are not trump. They do not equal pocket Aces.
For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it's still not yet two o'clock on that July afternoon in 1863 ~~~

User avatar
Gray Fox
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1583
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:48 pm
Location: Englewood, OH

Mon May 04, 2015 2:58 pm

I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!

User avatar
FightingBuckeye
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 7:27 am
Location: Englewood, CO

Mon May 04, 2015 3:37 pm

Gray Fox wrote:Here's my take on the effect of leadership in battle:

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?38273-The-effect-of-leadership-during-combat


Thanks, that's helpful to know some of what's going on behind the scene. While I doubt I'll sit down and calculate everything out prior to committing to a battle, knowing roughly what those stats do will help me figure out when and how to attack or defend.

However, I do agree with ArmChairGeneral that the advantage good leaders provide could be a pretty big factor in battle. And that's ignoring that a better leader means you get to squeeze more units onto a battlefield than a bad one.

http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/Frontage

User avatar
Gray Fox
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1583
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:48 pm
Location: Englewood, OH

Mon May 04, 2015 3:47 pm

You're welcome!

I felt that some players may believe that Grant or Lee in the stack equals automatic victory. So, there are the numbers.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!

User avatar
FightingBuckeye
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 7:27 am
Location: Englewood, CO

Mon May 04, 2015 3:58 pm

Thanks, the battle BattlevonWar was reffering to was a situation where I decided to attack partly due to the leadership that would be involved. I had a pretty good sized and built force under Grant and I marched to the region between Corinth and Memphis. Polk had an unentrenched army in Memphis that was a couple hundred or so less power than mine, I want to say mine was around 1600 or so? But yeah, I chose to hit Polk and Memphis instead of taking an almost undefended depot in Corinth. I was hoping that the difference in leadership and the fact that Polk didn't have any entrenchment would help make up for the fact that I didn't have much of a superiority. And it almost did. The first battle was a Union loss but the casualties were pretty even with more Union dead and cohesion loss. But my stack remained in the region and over the next several game turns, Polk dug in and the Grant kept reverting to offensive since I lacked any MC in the region and couldn't move out. Losses started mounting and then I learned exactly why you never attack a large entrenched force over a river as my 'relief' force suffered greatly and ended up in worse shape than the force I was trying to rescue. Bleh . . .

User avatar
BattleVonWar
Major
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 3:22 am

Mon May 04, 2015 4:21 pm

Polk was a 4-0-1 and yeah a miss click 0ed his entrenchment. His force was grossly made up of conscripts, volunteers and a few decent units if... He did have Johnston and was an Army Corp...

This was nothing in comparison with your capture of Clarke-Culpeper-Stafford(cutting off Lee-and and a corp) then entrenching.. then forcing me to fight out. Really thought that supplied Lee, supplied Jackson hitting a halfway entrenched unit over that tiny creek would have got out safer. Which they did after losing half their numbers.

~Now what would have a marine in each unit have added as their was a Pontoon in corp and big stack. I wonder if that would have made the difference between wholesale slaughter and wholesale loss?
For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it's still not yet two o'clock on that July afternoon in 1863 ~~~

Return to “Civil War II”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests