Use of artillery and cavalry reserves in Army stack supporting separate corps

[Mickey3D]

I agree with you : we have a knowledge that was learned the hard way by people of that time and a near perfect control and knowledge of our troops.

All wargames are facing the same dilemna : give to the players historical limits and at the same time avoid too "artificial" rules. Note that it could be interesting (but may be no very sellable) to have a game where you get partial information on your troops. The quality of the report might depend on the commanding officer : some are more optimistic, other pessimistic, on the status of their force.

[minipol]

I agree with some of what has been said here. The difference is, and I experience this in a business environment every day, that historically, the sign that some things
work and others don't, are fairly quickly visible. Anybody with an analytical mindset will see a pattern emerge, the rest won't.
I see things in businesses that other people only see after years of providing them with all the clues and info. And even then they remain blind.
Until it's too late. It's a power blind spot.

In war's, same thing. A pattern emerges and instead of searching for a solution, they rinse and repeat.
Oh no, the outcome is the same? Really? What a surprise.
So, no, I hate such behavior in real life, and I hate it in my games.
As the CSA, I can't match the troop buildup of the Union, so I need to be smart.
That's where logistics comes in. If I can rail troops from one end to another quickly, I can defend larger territories without additional investment.
More bang for the buck. Is that a lesson we learned from the outcome of the war?
No, to me it's plain good common sense.
I don't see it as a lesson learned from war. The war just made it clear that if you don't do that, you get your *ss handed to you.
A war brutally exposes these kinds of errors in thinking, structure, organization and so on.
These rules can be applied to war, business and sports.
Nothing new.

What we did learn is that stepping in huge lines towards an enemy doing the same results in huge amounts of casualties.
That is something we learned. And you can't change that in the game. To me, the stuff we can change is what the leaders of those days
could have changed to but didn't or at least not on a grand scale.
It's not a surprise that good generals where well organized most of the time.

[Gray Fox]

When Napoleon was confronted by a British garrison dug in with artillery during the revolution, he knew that an advancing column of closely packed French troops would get slaughtered by the grape-shot. So he simply told the men to fall down on his command and let the shot pass, then charge for a few seconds while the British reloaded and fall again. It worked. The British were forced to evacuate and Napoleon went on to do some other amazing things. Of course, the very idea that American troops would fall on their bellies in front of the enemy is ridiculous. Stand up and take the grape-shot like a man!

Officers who were academy trained in the profession of arms failed the Union. Massed artillery wasn't a military secret. Competent leaders knew of this successful, proven tactic for over half a century. Incompetent leaders preferred the magic of a bayonet charge into a hail of shrapnel. I don't.

[RickInVA]

When Napoleon was confronted by a British garrison dug in with artillery during the revolution, he knew that an advancing column of closely packed French troops would get slaughtered by the grape-shot. So he simply told the men to fall down on his command and let the shot pass, then charge for a few seconds while the British reloaded and fall again. It worked. The British were forced to evacuate and Napoleon went on to do some other amazing things. Of course, the very idea that American troops would fall on their bellies in front of the enemy is ridiculous. Stand up and take the grape-shot like a man!

Officers who were academy trained in the profession of arms failed the Union. Massed artillery wasn't a military secret. Competent leaders knew of this successful, proven tactic for over half a century. They preferred the magic of a bayonet charge into a hail of shrapnel. I don't.

Given that, as you have said, you only play to win, that makes perfect sense. Have at it!

But the real generals did feel the way you indicated. Certainly you can substitute a way that works better if you want, it is a game after all.

Some of us, however, feel that once you have substituted "what works best" for "what was historically done" across too many factors, that you really are not playing a Civil War game anymore. Some of us feel that a Civil War game should, to the best of its ability, recreate the limitations that existed at the time. Sure, part of the appeal is playing "what if", but for some of us the limits of "what if" are lower than they are for others.

I'm not trying to suggest that you not play the way you want, you paid your money the same as we all did. My only point is to explain to some degree why some people don't feel the same way as you do, and to hope that everyone offers the same respect and understanding that we can all play the way we choose, and that just because one method is, as defined by the game engine, the objectively best method, doesn't mean that everyone has to use it.

[minipol]

Officers who were academy trained in the profession of arms failed the Union. Massed artillery wasn't a military secret. Competent leaders knew of this successful, proven tactic for over half a century. Incompetent leaders preferred the magic of a bayonet charge into a hail of shrapnel. I don't.

Exactly. There were some clever generals that recognized the opportunities.

But the real generals did feel the way you indicated.

Some of them did, some of them didn't. The fact that some of them did recognize the fact that massed artillery organized in a different way
could give one a significant advantage, is proof in itself that this kind of artillery organization is historical and thus historical.

[Mickey3D]

I think we all praise the qualities of R.E. Lee. However he saw the Malvern Hill slaughter and the Fredericksburg disaster. Does it prevent him from launching the Pickett's charge ?

In the Gettysburg campaign, there was a clear failure of the Confederate chain of command. Still Lee was unable to do the needed changes.

Yes, war brutally exposes errors in thinking, structure and organizing : did it prevent the bloody and stupid slaughter between 1914 and 1918 despite the experience of the Civil War and the 1870 French-German war ?

Napoleon was captain when he led the attack on little Gibraltar at Toulon and I think we can classify him in the genius category. You can't expect the same cleverness and "out of the box" thinking from all captains of your army (more than 100 years after, men were still charging machine guns...).

Grant was a strategical and operational master and still he earned the nickname of "butcher" for the tactical execution of his orders.

I list the previous examples to illustrate the fact that we all play as per our preference but I do believe real life is not made of "übermensch" taking the optimal decision : I'm the first to optimize my orders to take advantage of the game rules but I follow RickInVa opinion that at some point we are no more playing/fighting the Civil War anymore.

We can play "whatif" and propose new strategies but we must not fool us : at some point we are no more taking into account the political constraint and thinking inertia of that era.

[Cardinal Ape]

Well said Mickey3D.

I personally find myself playing much more historical in single player. There is something infectious about human versus human competition that brings out the min-maxing part of me. The most difficult part of the game it to to role-play the foolishness of the Union commanders.

[khbynum]

I play to explore historical options, based on a knowledge of history and my reasoned opinion of what would likely have been possible. Gray Fox, an artillery division of 144 20-lb. Parrots, a Marine regiment in every division or a chain of fortified cites along the Ohio river that gives up Kentucky simply would not have worked in the "real war". Still, those alternatives are possible. I think this game strikes a good balance between "min-maxing" and what could conceivably have happened. If it was possible, you can do it. It's not like Grigsby's "War between the States" where you could build a fleet of CSA ironclads to sweep up the East Coast.

If I may be permitted a personal comment, I don't care if I win the game as long as I learn something and have fun. I'm a veteran, as I assume most of you are, but I've never lead troops in combat and am damn glad of it. Thank you all for your service.

[marquo]

Grey Fox,

How many artillery divisions do you make and deploy? How many pieces/division?
Do you place them in Army hoping for MTSG or at the corps level?
Are pure infantry stacks at a real disadvantage if attack by stacks with artillery?
What would happen if a pure artillery division faced off against a pure cavalry or infantry divisions?

Thanks

[Gray Fox]

As I posted earlier, if you like playing a historical game, "that's fine with me". I just don't see the point in playing Custer at the Little Big Horn historically. However, if I reply to a post where someone wants to know where he might put the artillery reserve, then I have a response like anyone else.

Once a genius figures out what to do when he is confronted by withering fire, then 60 years later you can't really argue that Generals didn't know what to do in the same situation because they weren't geniuses. I don't have to re-invent the internet to know how to use it.

How is it realistic that in the CW we held on the Potomac and attacked in the West, but unrealistic to hold on the Ohio and attack in the East?

Marquo, I typically put all the artillery in a Division for a stack of infantry Divisions that would be fighting alone. So 4 infantry Divisions and 1 artillery Division. In a force of several stacks, I place them in the Army stack, since historically the army commander would want control over the artillery. The most batteries that a Grant or Lee can command in a battle is 15, which fits perfectly into a Division. The army stack also has the best chance to MTSG. Artillery fill the frontage for support elements. So they add to the number of elements firing. If you only have infantry/cavalry, then you will still do a lot of damage, the artillery just add to this damage. The artillery are in a stack with several other infantry Divisions, so one would have to destroy the infantry first to get to the artillery. Realistically, the infantry would be deployed in front of the artillery that would typically be on high ground behind the infantry line.

[marquo]

What do you do before corps are enabled?

Thanks

[Gray Fox]

You're most welcome!

I have 4 Infantry Divisions and 1 artillery Division in an Army stack. I might also have a 2-star with an infantry Division and an artillery Division (8 CP's) entrenched somewhere important, like Cairo.

[Congoblue]

When Napoleon was confronted by a British garrison dug in with artillery during the revolution, he knew that an advancing column of closely packed French troops would get slaughtered by the grape-shot. So he simply told the men to fall down on his command and let the shot pass, then charge for a few seconds while the British reloaded and fall again. It worked. The British were forced to evacuate and Napoleon went on to do some other amazing things. Of course, the very idea that American troops would fall on their bellies in front of the enemy is ridiculous. Stand up and take the grape-shot like a man!

Officers who were academy trained in the profession of arms failed the Union. Massed artillery wasn't a military secret. Competent leaders knew of this successful, proven tactic for over half a century. Incompetent leaders preferred the magic of a bayonet charge into a hail of shrapnel. I don't.

This manoeuvre by Napoleon rang a bell with me so I've been scouring some books and eventually found a similar movement against emplaced artillery during the Battle of Champion's Hill in 1863. A Brigadier (possibly McGinnis) of Hovey's 12th Division, Army of the Tennessee, did the same when assaulting some Confederate guns early in the battle. Evidently they didn't fancy the grapeshot all that much either!
Also, while digging, I found Grant's OOB for the Army on the Rapidan in 1864, at the start of the Wilderness Campaign, where he has Brig-General Hunt in command of the Union Artillery Reserve, which comprised five brigades in a single unit. Interestingly Grant also describes the CSA formation - Lee had his Artillery Reserve under Pendleton, but it comprised three whole divisions of artillery, under Alexander, Long and Walker. So it looks like, late in the war at least, artillery formations aren't anachronistic at all.

[khbynum]

Lee did not have an army level artillery reserve at that point. Pendleton was technically in command of the army artillery, but was in fact an administrator who exercised no field command. The leaders you name commanded the artillery of the separate corps. You can call them divisions, but they really amounted to about 8 batteries each, or 4 elements in game terms. I posted about this earlier in the thread. Civil War field artillery did not use grapeshot. It fired (at least on the Confederate side, by historical account) everything from broken chains to horseshoes to rocks to short lengths of railroad iron, but not grapeshot. That was a naval munition.

[Gray Fox]

In one of the CSPAN episodes about the CW, a battle is described like that. A Union commander had his sharpshooters pepper the Confederate fieldworks with accurate fire forcing the defenders to stay down. His men double-timed over an open field without stopping to fire themselves. They took the position with only a few casualties.

Some people have a HR where any Union Division used in an amphibious assault must be all Marines and Sailors. Some others use Divisions and even Corps of cavalry. The game doesn't have the correct NATO icon for an artillery Division, so maybe this wasn't ever brought up by any of the playtesters. I still think that it is as valid as a Marine Division or Cavalry Corps. When pgr suggested the idea, I gave it a shot and it works for me.

[Captain_Orso]

Lee did not have an army level artillery reserve at that point. Pendleton was technically in command of the army artillery, but was in fact an administrator who exercised no field command. The leaders you name commanded the artillery of the separate corps. You can call them divisions, but they really amounted to about 8 batteries each, or 4 elements in game terms. I posted about this earlier in the thread. Civil War field artillery did not use grapeshot. It fired (at least on the Confederate side, by historical account) everything from broken chains to horseshoes to rocks to short lengths of railroad iron, but not grapeshot. That was a naval munition.

I remember that discussion. IIRC the army did however use something called cannister, but that the South was desperately short of that. IIRC actual cannister rounds held much smaller balls than grape-shot. Cannister was designed for anti-personal use on the field where the field of fire to the target was unobstructed, so the ball-projectiles could be smaller an more numerous. Grape-shot on the other hand had to punch through wooden hulls and railings. The balls were much larger and far fewer and encased in either a cloth bag or net and not a solid casing.

In one of the CSPAN episodes about the CW, a battle is described like that. A Union commander had his sharpshooters pepper the Confederate fieldworks with accurate fire forcing the defenders to stay down. His men double-timed over an open field without stopping to fire themselves. They took the position with only a few casualties.

Some people have a HR where any Union Division used in an amphibious assault must be all Marines and Sailors. Some others use Divisions and even Corps of cavalry. The game doesn't have the correct NATO icon for an artillery Division, so maybe this wasn't ever brought up by any of the playtesters. I still think that it is as valid as a Marine Division or Cavalry Corps. When pgr suggested the idea, I gave it a shot and it works for me.

Don't get caught up in the terminology too much. There was little terminology standardization at the time. There were no Marine Divisions; cavalry corps had nothing to do with infantry corps; and as khbynum pointed out and was explained in the C-Span video you linked to (Union artillery) that the North and South used conflicting terms for similar sized artillery units.

The game uses NATO symbols only on Units themselves and in the Unit Detail Panel. Game divisions always have the NATO division symbol on them regardless of the content of that division or your intent on its use. Army and corps stacks do not even have NATO army and corps symbols on them; and on the map they unfortunately don't even have the 'star' and 'diamond' symbols the game uses to designate army and corps stacks.

[Congoblue]

Lee did not have an army level artillery reserve at that point. Pendleton was technically in command of the army artillery, but was in fact an administrator who exercised no field command. The leaders you name commanded the artillery of the separate corps. You can call them divisions, but they really amounted to about 8 batteries each, or 4 elements in game terms. I posted about this earlier in the thread. Civil War field artillery did not use grapeshot. It fired (at least on the Confederate side, by historical account) everything from broken chains to horseshoes to rocks to short lengths of railroad iron, but not grapeshot. That was a naval munition.

I take your point about grapeshot - I was being slightly flippant and had Napoleon's 'whiff of grapeshot' in mind. What I really meant was that a good field commander would readily order his men to fall to their bellies if it saved their lives.
As for the artillery commanders, I'll bow to your knowledge as to their roles. I got the OOB from Grant's Memoirs, but it does seem that he looked at artillery in a 'reserve' or support capacity, led by specific leaders. Perhaps, and I think this might have already been mentioned, artillery-only formations should be restricted in the number of elements they can contain?

[RickInVA]

This manoeuvre by Napoleon rang a bell with me so I've been scouring some books and eventually found a similar movement against emplaced artillery during the Battle of Champion's Hill in 1863. A Brigadier (possibly McGinnis) of Hovey's 12th Division, Army of the Tennessee, did the same when assaulting some Confederate guns early in the battle. Evidently they didn't fancy the grapeshot all that much either!
Also, while digging, I found Grant's OOB for the Army on the Rapidan in 1864, at the start of the Wilderness Campaign, where he has Brig-General Hunt in command of the Union Artillery Reserve, which comprised five brigades in a single unit. Interestingly Grant also describes the CSA formation - Lee had his Artillery Reserve under Pendleton, but it comprised three whole divisions of artillery, under Alexander, Long and Walker. So it looks like, late in the war at least, artillery formations aren't anachronistic at all.

In terms of size, those 5 brigades of Grant's would have been, I believe, 150 guns. That was also the largest concentration by the Union. Gray Fox's artillery divisions have 180 guns (15 elements of 12 guns each iirc), and there is (again iirc) more than one of them on the map.

So historical? Yes in the general idea, no in the amount. Again, not to say someone should not do it. It is "late war" historical for the Union to field one such accumulation of artillery in its main army. It would not, imho, be considered historical for every Union army to have such a force. Again, I don't believe anyone is saying that people have to play historically, just having a discussion about what is and is not historical in game terms.

[khbynum]

When Gray Fox first advocated this idea of an artillery division, which if I understand his last post he got from pgr, I scoffed. Upon reflection, I realized it was a valid way of simulating the artillery concentrations that the Union adopted by mid-war. How many should be allowed? Well, that's up to you and your PBEM opponent or how many you can afford to buy if playing Athena. As I've said before, it's possible and makes historical sense, which is the point of a simulation. I personally think a column of 144 20-lb. Parrots would slow an army down to a crawl (or be left behind) and would never be subordinated to a corps. Lincoln would never have sanctioned the abandonment of Kentucky, given his political fixation on pro-Union eastern Tennessee. But, it could have happened.

I don't, and won't play the way Gray Fox does, but he has made people think about what the game is designed to do and what it accomplishes. We'll have to see if the upcoming patch changes things (counterbattery fire?). I usually play CSA, but I'll give that artillery division a try. It's called "thinking outside the box" and is what a simulation should allow.

[Cardinal Ape]

The artillery division of fifteen 20-lb. Parrots is about as extreme as it gets. There is no doubt about its combat ability but is it worth the cost? That is a ton of resources to spend one division. With that amount of money you could fund a full-on naval invasion force.

I also tend to think that Gray Fox isn't so much taking advantage of an all artillery division so much as taking advantage of an all infantry division.

[khbynum]

Do not feed the troll.

[Gray Fox]

I have a thread with a pic of an artillery formation (which would be a Union brigade disguised as a game Division) of twelve batteries of 20-lbers. They don't slow down a stack, unless by some crime against humanity the developers got that part of history wrong. If I had employed 4 batteries per mixed Division, then my five infantry Division army stack plus eight infantry Divisions in the two Corps stacks would have had fifty-two artillery batteries, or 433% more guns. So by concentrating the army's artillery in one effective formation I more closely mimic any historical battle's numbers.

Also, I hold the largest city in KY and MO. So these regions are hardly abandoned. As you certainly know, MO was always a battleground and the Union eventually gathered up the "loyalists" and settled them in camps where they could be defended. That's what I would do with the citizens of those two states. If Lincoln wants me to take Stalingrad, I mean eastern TN, then I would point out that I can better do this right after I take Richmond. Now, if the game had a historical event that pinged the Union with -10 NM for not following history, then I would act on it.

[BattleVonWar]

I take your point about grapeshot - I was being slightly flippant and had Napoleon's 'whiff of grapeshot' in mind. What I really meant was that a good field commander would readily order his men to fall to their bellies if it saved their lives.
As for the artillery commanders, I'll bow to your knowledge as to their roles. I got the OOB from Grant's Memoirs, but it does seem that he looked at artillery in a 'reserve' or support capacity, led by specific leaders. Perhaps, and I think this might have already been mentioned, artillery-only formations should be restricted in the number of elements they can contain?

I liked the point of view of several posters here. Ahistorical rearrangement of combat formations, going against the grain of West Point and Tactics of the day to get a more bang for your buck out of the "military equipment," which had changed but the tactics had not(did Generals of the day read Sun Tzu?). Also how in history tactics were used to cope with a bad situation I.E. the Tactics employed by the Vietnamese vs The Mongols. The Tactics employed by the American Revolutionary War soldiers vs the British...more recently that employed in Vietnam or MidEast. Going toe to toe vs a Superior foe is bad. You learn by defeat. Even during the Civil War, use of Cav/Raiders/Guerrillas favor me if I have the inferior numbers.

Regardless of all this, what leads me to win isn't historical and your restrained by the military minds before you. You're more or less in a simulator and the leaders are your chess pieces and you cannot change the qualities of these chess pieces nor do I believe it to make more a flavorful Civil War game. I can do that in a Paradox Game very easily and often you end up with a Italian Empire of Siberia or South African Empire of Eurasia : ) This is meant for a feel of the day... American Civil War but moving a few cannon around to find out what works best isn't going against the grain .... It's common sense

So your telling me I CANNOT STACK MY CANNONS in an Army HQ Formation? WHAAAAAAAT? I like this, excess location for my cannon till I get an Artillery leader.

[charlesonmission]

Currently reading Nevins War for the Union http://www.amazon.com/Union-Volume-Becomes-Revolution-1862-1863/dp/1568522975

He mentioned Hooker reformed the army after Burnside. Cavalry Corps instead of spread out effectively and Artillery Corps (though he mentioned it didn't have great officers. As others have pointed out, an Artillery Corps is more like an Artillery division do to the lower numbers. Basically, the formations did change throughout the war and concentrated artillery was used, seems historical to me. I suppose the devs could put in limits like the division or corps limits before a player could do it, but that would be overkill IMHO.

[tripax]

Currently reading Nevins War for the Union http://www.amazon.com/Union-Volume-Becomes-Revolution-1862-1863/dp/1568522975

I recently read and really loved this and the previous book in this series. I don't have the next ones, nor any of the pre-war part of the series. Someday I'll probably read the whole thing (it has 8 parts), I think. Compared to Foote's trilogy, it is a bit more from the Union perspective and way more about the nuts and bolts of army formation and politics. It is probably less accurate than Foote since it came first, but it was written between the 1940s and 1970s, so it is modern and isn't afraid to pass negative judgements on bad decisions like books written during the lifetime of the veterans are.

[Gray Fox]

Now that a more general consensus exists for using artillery Divisions (which would historically be Union artillery Brigades or Confederate artillery Battalions), I might add that this tactic is not a magic wand. If you have a stack of mixed Divisions with 4 batteries of 6-lbers each and simply add an artillery Division, then the artillery in the Division will compete with the 6-lbers for the frontage. The Division's heavier guns won't fire as often and the Division commander will be less effective. However, this is not an insurmountable problem. The Union player can make more than twenty infantry Divisions with no 6-lbers in them. The Confederate player can make twenty Divisions with just one 6-lber:

[ATTACH]33270[/ATTACH]

If you put 10, 12 or 20 pounders in a pure artillery Division with a good commander in a stack with infantry Divisions, then you will get good results.

P.S.

"There was a sharp division in the Cabinet and in the army as well over the appropriate strategy to pursue in attempting to subdue the South. At least three grand strategies were proposed. The first, the one favored by William Seward, the secretary of state and the most influential man in the Cabinet, was what Welles called "the border strategy." The notion here was to establish "borders" around the periphery of the Confederacy, assure the Southerners of the goodwill of the North toward them, and wait for pro-Union sentiment in the South to manifest itself and lead to a negotiated peace."

Source: "Trial By Fire, A People's History of the Civil War and Reconstruction" by Page Smith, Volume 5, Chapter 4, Pages 97,98, and 99.

The 1861 artillery manual of the USA.

http://www.artilleryreserve.org/manuals.html

Creating a line of strongpoints along the boder with the CSA isn't divorced from reality. It was a real strategy that the Lincoln administration had at least considered. Using an artillery reserve to mass batteries at the point of decision isn't a gamer's attempt to min-max. It also wasn't just the rule for every army in the world except the Union. It was Union doctrine too. So competent leadership was trying to do what I advise a Union player to do. This is a part of the historically correct legacy of the CIvil War and definitely qualifies as a "what if".

[Godagesil]

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

Creating an all Artillery division and using it in a Corp is very similar to what the Army of N. Va did by creating an Army Artillery pool or corp, combining all the Army Artillery. Lee took a page from Napoleon and formed a Grand Battery, one of the only ways he could match Union artillery assets.
At Gettysburg use of this Grand Battery was foiled by limited ammunition available in the time window they were given.

So in game play it appears that there is a benefit to creating a Grand Battery at the Corps level. Anyone tried making an Artillery Corp?

[Gray Fox]

The actual number of batteries that can be used in most terrain is about 15 or less, which is the max number you can put under a Division command. So you could have 4 infantry Divisions and 1 artillery Division in a Corps stack and expect all of the guns to go hot. If two or more of these Corps fought together, then some of the guns would be idle. This would be the case in an all artillery Corps. Also, an all artillery formation won't attack alone because artillery don't fire at the assault range of zero. So the artillery Corps would have to MTSG or be useless.

[Straight Arrow]

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 stack.

Most excellent information.

- But -

What do you use while playing the South? For garrison, line and elite divisions?

There are too many organic 6 lbs in key brigades for the above pattern.

[Gray Fox]

The CSA player can make 20 of these:

[ATTACH]33593[/ATTACH]

It only has one 6-lber. Garrison Divisions would be mostly militia with some of the starting brigades you get. You can make one large stack with Divisions from the big VA brigades and threaten D.C. I usually win before '62 by blitzing an unwary Union player's capital.

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?39245-So-Washington-D-C-is-secure-right