Question concerning use of artillery and cavalry in independent divisions directed to Pocus.
Historically, Lee reorganized the Army of N. Virgina so that all organic artillery and cavalry assigned to "Legions" and combined arms brigades were grouped in battalion sized units and to divisions. Each Corp had an artillery reserve of brigade strength. Another artillery reserve was attached at the army level.
Cavalry was grouped into a single corps with none attached at the Division or Corps level.
My question relates to the question of "frontage" and utilization of artillery at the organic level of a regiment. Some of the large expensive regiments (106 or greater combat value) have organic artillery and cavalry attached.
In a battle where a Corp is comprised of Divisions made up of regiments with organically attached artillery "elements", is this artillery more likely to be engaged and utilized and affect the outcome of a battle than a Corp with no artillery attached at the regiment level but possessing a unit or more of artillery attached at the division level and an artillery reserve organized as a division at the Corps level?
Do the frontage rules affect whether the artillery reserves and divisional artillery get into play, whereas the artillery at the regimental level always do?
Does the Corps commander's ratings impact the likelihood of a Division comprised of artillery making it into combat more or less than the Divisional commander? Is there any benefit in configuring my artillery in the historical manner? Or does the combat outcome algorith ignore those niceties and just employ whatever artillery is in a division or Corps as a lump?
If the latter is true isn't this ahistorical? The reorganization was to enable the artillery to get into the fight in a concentrated mass thus increasing its effectiveness and increasing the likelihood that it would impact the outcome of a pitched engagement. I would think artillery concentrated in a Division attached to a Corp would have a much bigger impact than regiments of artillery scattered through out an opposing Corp as individual "elements" or units. History proved out that he who could throw the greates weight of iron at a given spot usually won the artillery duel. Then I would have the surviving artillery have their shot at the infantry.
I believe the ratings of the brigade, division, and Corp commanders impact whether a unit makes it into combat or sits and watchs. Does this hold true for utilization of the higher artillery units?
-
McNaughton
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
From what I gather, the stack is the important unit, although there may be frontage within individual divisions to take into account (I am told that divisions entirely of artillery are not a good idea due to frontage).
However, that is the only 'warning'. A division entirely of infantry, or of cavalry, is not a poor idea, and having your artillery as 'corps units' also is not a poor idea.
The idea of a 'grand battery' was not as useful in the American Civil War due to the relative ruggedness of the terrain. In Europe, with more cultivated land, the action was engaged at longer ranges, making 'grand batteries' very useful. Lee never was able to effectively use his artillery in large forces, the Union were much better at artillery concentration, and even here, the concentration was a matter of less than a dozen batteries (from what I gather, 60 or so guns). So, historically the 'Grand Battery' was not used very much, as it was not effective in the type of combat seen in the Civil War. It only became noticable during sieges (such as Vicksburg, where Grant concentrated his artillery, while Pemberton scattered it).
Realistically, the main benefit of a division is for Command Points. You don't need a division to have your troops fight, if you have enough CP to effectively command the troops in your unit. Fighting as individual brigades and batteries is just as effective if you have enough Command Points (unless you take individual leader abilities, some which affect only their unit, others affect all units in the stack).
The way things are organized in AGEOD's ACW is the 1861/early 1862 brigade organization, where you had cavalry, artillery and infantry all attached to brigades. Later on a series of reforms moved artillery from brigade to divisional command (realistically no change in this game, since independent, or attached to a brigade, the Division sees no difference). The only real change is the removal of cavalry from independent regiments, to cavalry brigades (in 1862), as well as pulling artillery from divisions into Corps command (and even reserve artillery as in the Union Army).
It is impossible for AGEOD to represent each era accurately, and they made a choice, and it is a historic choice, for a certain part of the Civil War. Any choice they make will have innacuracies at some point in the game.
However, that is the only 'warning'. A division entirely of infantry, or of cavalry, is not a poor idea, and having your artillery as 'corps units' also is not a poor idea.
The idea of a 'grand battery' was not as useful in the American Civil War due to the relative ruggedness of the terrain. In Europe, with more cultivated land, the action was engaged at longer ranges, making 'grand batteries' very useful. Lee never was able to effectively use his artillery in large forces, the Union were much better at artillery concentration, and even here, the concentration was a matter of less than a dozen batteries (from what I gather, 60 or so guns). So, historically the 'Grand Battery' was not used very much, as it was not effective in the type of combat seen in the Civil War. It only became noticable during sieges (such as Vicksburg, where Grant concentrated his artillery, while Pemberton scattered it).
Realistically, the main benefit of a division is for Command Points. You don't need a division to have your troops fight, if you have enough CP to effectively command the troops in your unit. Fighting as individual brigades and batteries is just as effective if you have enough Command Points (unless you take individual leader abilities, some which affect only their unit, others affect all units in the stack).
The way things are organized in AGEOD's ACW is the 1861/early 1862 brigade organization, where you had cavalry, artillery and infantry all attached to brigades. Later on a series of reforms moved artillery from brigade to divisional command (realistically no change in this game, since independent, or attached to a brigade, the Division sees no difference). The only real change is the removal of cavalry from independent regiments, to cavalry brigades (in 1862), as well as pulling artillery from divisions into Corps command (and even reserve artillery as in the Union Army).
It is impossible for AGEOD to represent each era accurately, and they made a choice, and it is a historic choice, for a certain part of the Civil War. Any choice they make will have innacuracies at some point in the game.
Two points to consider though, but McNaughton round the explaination pretty well:
1. Artilleries not organic to a division get the special ability of 'group supporting' within the battle engine. It means that, contrary to an artillery engaged within a division A, which is itself engaged versus unit B, these artilleries will fire against any enemy unit (so not necessarly against unit B), within the enemy stack, with the more health (there is a biased random roll though). ie said differently, artilleries at the corps level, will all fire against the biggest threat generally. Somehow this is the idea behind a grand battery. You place it where it will hurt the most and/or to counter the biggest threat. So the answer is YES (I'm unsure if I ever spoke of this feature before?), there is a difference in behavior between the 2 artilleries.
2. Lets not forget that it is better to group elements into a division, even if you have enough CP at the corps level to let them separated in brigades, because of the fact that the leader commanding the division will give you +3% combat rating of each point he has either in offense or defense. Somehow this is what McNaughton explains about abilities, but not all general have an ability whereas all have at least 1 pt in combat.
3. (oops I said 2!) There is the notion of 'depth' within an unit. ie when the enemy target a unit, you better have few, fat units, and not many, shallows ones. Because if it happens that the enemy target a weakened brigade, he will kill the 2-3 weakened elements within it in a single round. Now compare that to a division with 10 lines elements, and things will be different. The enemy will target your unit, but the combat engine will then ask the unit to provide a target. And in this case, there is a big chance that the target will be the healthiest element within the unit (random biased roll though, too). It means in game term that your elements will be attrited but won't be killed before the division is an empty shell. In the real life, it means that your division commander is rotating the regiments during the day.
1. Artilleries not organic to a division get the special ability of 'group supporting' within the battle engine. It means that, contrary to an artillery engaged within a division A, which is itself engaged versus unit B, these artilleries will fire against any enemy unit (so not necessarly against unit B), within the enemy stack, with the more health (there is a biased random roll though). ie said differently, artilleries at the corps level, will all fire against the biggest threat generally. Somehow this is the idea behind a grand battery. You place it where it will hurt the most and/or to counter the biggest threat. So the answer is YES (I'm unsure if I ever spoke of this feature before?), there is a difference in behavior between the 2 artilleries.
2. Lets not forget that it is better to group elements into a division, even if you have enough CP at the corps level to let them separated in brigades, because of the fact that the leader commanding the division will give you +3% combat rating of each point he has either in offense or defense. Somehow this is what McNaughton explains about abilities, but not all general have an ability whereas all have at least 1 pt in combat.
3. (oops I said 2!) There is the notion of 'depth' within an unit. ie when the enemy target a unit, you better have few, fat units, and not many, shallows ones. Because if it happens that the enemy target a weakened brigade, he will kill the 2-3 weakened elements within it in a single round. Now compare that to a division with 10 lines elements, and things will be different. The enemy will target your unit, but the combat engine will then ask the unit to provide a target. And in this case, there is a big chance that the target will be the healthiest element within the unit (random biased roll though, too). It means in game term that your elements will be attrited but won't be killed before the division is an empty shell. In the real life, it means that your division commander is rotating the regiments during the day.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
I had the idea to create a new unit/model, "artillery brigade", a month or so back. Basically, it would be the equivalent of an infantry brigade but containing four artillery batteries. As it was a concentrated unit, I woud have given it a command point cost of 2. So players would have an incentive to purchase and use an artillery brigade containing 4 artillery batteries at a cost of 2 Command Points rather than 4 separate artillery batteries at a cost of 4 CP.
The problem is by the time artillery brigades were created in the war, players would already have large numbers of independent artillery batteries. Historically, those independent artillery batteries were consolidated to create the artillery brigades. And I couldn't see a good way to integrate those independent batteries into an artillery brigade container.
The only way I could see to easily use artillery brigades was from the beginning of the war. Get rid of all independent artillery batteries and provide artillery brigades instead. Lots of work changing lots of things, lots of time and not historically correct early war.
The problem is by the time artillery brigades were created in the war, players would already have large numbers of independent artillery batteries. Historically, those independent artillery batteries were consolidated to create the artillery brigades. And I couldn't see a good way to integrate those independent batteries into an artillery brigade container.
The only way I could see to easily use artillery brigades was from the beginning of the war. Get rid of all independent artillery batteries and provide artillery brigades instead. Lots of work changing lots of things, lots of time and not historically correct early war.
Well, McNaughton just asked if a command to change an unit (container) into another existed. The answer is 'not yet', but I can do that rather fast.
So, you would have some of your artilleries batteries switch to artillery brigades as time pass. They would then be able either to receive new replacement batteries, or accept a singular battery as a merger. This should work rather well I think.
So, you would have some of your artilleries batteries switch to artillery brigades as time pass. They would then be able either to receive new replacement batteries, or accept a singular battery as a merger. This should work rather well I think.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Pocus wrote:Well, McNaughton just asked if a command to change an unit (container) into another existed. The answer is 'not yet', but I can do that rather fast.
So, you would have some of your artilleries batteries switch to artillery brigades as time pass. They would then be able either to receive new replacement batteries, or accept a singular battery as a merger. This should work rather well I think.
One of my initial thoughts was to replace the ability to buy independent batteries with two artillery brigades. One filled with four batteries. The second artillery brigade container would only contain one battery even though capable of holding 4 batteries. The second partially filled artillery container could then be used to merge up to three pre-existing independent batteries to fill up the artillery brigade container.
At the correct time, you can no longer buy independent batteries but only artillery brigade containers partially full for merging or full for immediate use.
I think this might work as well without the use of events.
Rafiki wrote:Won't the game engine burn artillery replacements like there's no tomorrow, trying to replace the missing batteries in the partially-filled brigades?
(I ask because I'm far from certain of how this works)
That is a very good point. The game engine would try to fill the partially filled artillery containers. Although if you had 0 artillery replacements, you would have time to fill the containers with existing artillery batteries. But that is a real wimpy workaround. (Maybe not that big a problem. Use up whatever replacements you have and don't buy anymore until you fill the artillery containers with independent batteries. Might not be a problem. At least in my case, I usually only keep 1 or 2 artillery replacements at any one time. I just wouldn't buy any more until all independent batteries are merged.)
The problem with events is how to determine which independent artillery batteries to convert into artillery brigades. You don't want to convert all independent batteries as you would have way too many brigades. But if you did convert all into artillery brigades, you would then have to fill them with replacements and again have far more artillery brigades than you need.
I don't think you could merge partially filled artillery brigades. Although if you could that would partially solve the problem. Just simply convert all into artillery brigades, then merge them together within their divisions on the turn after the conversion from independent batteries to artillery brigades. Still some replacements might be required but most artillery brigades would then be mostly, if not completely, full.
A quick thought:
Could an 'allocation' of Artillery Brigades be applied to these concepts, similar to the limited number of Divisions allowed?
The allocated quantity could then be set to 0 until an appropriate time....
.... said the guy who has at best a marginal idea of how to do the changes being discussed....
Could an 'allocation' of Artillery Brigades be applied to these concepts, similar to the limited number of Divisions allowed?
The allocated quantity could then be set to 0 until an appropriate time....
.... said the guy who has at best a marginal idea of how to do the changes being discussed....
lodilefty wrote:A quick thought:
Could an 'allocation' of Artillery Brigades be applied to these concepts, similar to the limited number of Divisions allowed?
The allocated quantity could then be set to 0 until an appropriate time....
.... said the guy who has at best a marginal idea of how to do the changes being discussed....
I would like to see the same thing for cavalry. I have maxed out my 48 divisions in one PBEM game. So I have started disbanding cavalry divisions to create more infantry divisions which means no more cavalry divisions-not historical.
I think it is, provided my understandingof how it works is correct. At one point, the player is forced to spend all his artillery replacements to strength artillery formations in a random fashion, and most likely in a way the player didn't plan for. At the same time, it will most likely hurt the player's efforts to repair damaged artillery elements.Jagger wrote:That is a very good point. The game engine would try to fill the partially filled artillery containers. Although if you had 0 artillery replacements, you would have time to fill the containers with existing artillery batteries. But that is a real wimpy workaround. (Maybe not that big a problem. Use up whatever replacements you have and don't buy anymore until you fill the artillery containers with independent batteries. Might not be a problem.
I understand the motivation for portraying this in-game, but to me, the negative impact on gameplay (if done like this) is too large.
This indeed works like Rafiki said, this is why I proposed to use instead events to convert some batteries to brigades only at due time. Perhaps a command that count the number of Units of a given UID would help you know when you don't want anymore brigades.
1 depleted brigade should be able to accept a battery, as a militia with 1 element can accept another one.
1 depleted brigade should be able to accept a battery, as a militia with 1 element can accept another one.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Artillery redux
To follow up my original ost with an observation.
I pressed on with my first game as the CSA. I decided to focus on buying the higher 'legion" type regiments with organic artillery and cavalry. At present I think I have purchased all available, and now in mid 1863, I can concentrate on keeping my replacement pool full. I have just captured Baltimore using Harper's Ferry as a jumping off point. The Eastern Shore of Virginia is in my hands as well. The Union is still clinging to Washington, and just recaptured Alexandria, but I well may have them in a sack if I can hold the line at Baltimore. Hampton Roads in blockaded by a flotilla of CSA Ironclads. My timing of capturing port cities has added substantially to my blue water and brown water navies.
In the Mississippi Valley I have pushed the Union back to the North East. Johnson's troops are cooking northern hams in Cinncinati and have spent one winter in St. Louis. Missouri has succeeded and my western army of bushwackers, indians and regulars are mopping up the remnants of the Union outposts in Nebraska and parts north. I did lose an overeager cavalry command when they pushed north to the great lakes, but not before they watered their horses in Chicago and held on long enough to enjoy the windy city for three weeks and set a bonfire of depot supplies upon which to heat Sherman neckties... Grant and Mclellan are high tailing it north and east toward Pittsburg. I hope to have a lodgement along a line extending from Cinncinati to the Toledo or Akron severing the Union. Whether I can hold it through the winter is another thing. If I can push north from Baltimore to sever the railroads around Reading I might have a chance. If the AI fixates on relieving Washington, it might sacrifice the midwest. Capture of Washington might just result in a CSA victory as my victory points are nearing 900. Inflation is running around 13% with ample war supplies and money. Manpower is a bit short at times.
I haven't purchased any independent artillery units, but have captured a few at Ft. Pickens, Baltimore, St. Louis and Harper's Ferry.
I plan on trying a replay using only independent units and see how the CSA fairs.
I pressed on with my first game as the CSA. I decided to focus on buying the higher 'legion" type regiments with organic artillery and cavalry. At present I think I have purchased all available, and now in mid 1863, I can concentrate on keeping my replacement pool full. I have just captured Baltimore using Harper's Ferry as a jumping off point. The Eastern Shore of Virginia is in my hands as well. The Union is still clinging to Washington, and just recaptured Alexandria, but I well may have them in a sack if I can hold the line at Baltimore. Hampton Roads in blockaded by a flotilla of CSA Ironclads. My timing of capturing port cities has added substantially to my blue water and brown water navies.
In the Mississippi Valley I have pushed the Union back to the North East. Johnson's troops are cooking northern hams in Cinncinati and have spent one winter in St. Louis. Missouri has succeeded and my western army of bushwackers, indians and regulars are mopping up the remnants of the Union outposts in Nebraska and parts north. I did lose an overeager cavalry command when they pushed north to the great lakes, but not before they watered their horses in Chicago and held on long enough to enjoy the windy city for three weeks and set a bonfire of depot supplies upon which to heat Sherman neckties... Grant and Mclellan are high tailing it north and east toward Pittsburg. I hope to have a lodgement along a line extending from Cinncinati to the Toledo or Akron severing the Union. Whether I can hold it through the winter is another thing. If I can push north from Baltimore to sever the railroads around Reading I might have a chance. If the AI fixates on relieving Washington, it might sacrifice the midwest. Capture of Washington might just result in a CSA victory as my victory points are nearing 900. Inflation is running around 13% with ample war supplies and money. Manpower is a bit short at times.
I haven't purchased any independent artillery units, but have captured a few at Ft. Pickens, Baltimore, St. Louis and Harper's Ferry.
I plan on trying a replay using only independent units and see how the CSA fairs.
Return to “Help to improve AACW!”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests