Strategy against large units

[koz10]

Does anyone have a reasonable strategy to counter large stacks of enemy troops in a hex? Other than continuing to fight losing battles to wear down the enemy (with the significant down side of losing lots of your own troops!) are there other ways to reduce the size of effectiveness of large enemy formations? Can you cut off the railway lines behind them to cut off their supply?

For instance, in the Demo game while playing the Siberian/Kolchak faction, there is an isolated Red unit in the White rear - shouldn't it be suffering from lack of supply?

Thanks!

[Chief Rudiger]

A units combat value will lower when it moves, due to cohesion loss. Make the enemy come to you, accross an obstacle and he's yours. Alternatively, if he's not willing to move, use a small force to interdict his supply line or raze a depot to break his supply chain and wait for him to starve. A force without a supply line will be out of ammo after a few battles so you might "spam" him with weak units before committing your good units, if you have that luxury.

If he is ensconced in an entrenched position but has a weaker corp in an adjacent area you might attack that and draw him to "march to the sound of the guns", in which case he will commit to that batte but without entrenchment bonuses. He will return to his original location after the battle, and presumably to his entrech level, but it might be preferable to fighting him where he is.

[James D Burns]

Bypass him. Eventually he'll be forced to come out of his trenches or he'll end up getting surrounded. I don't mean tactically surrounded by taking adjacent areas, since that would allow him to easily step outside and squash you without really abandoning his defense. I mean isolate him from supply sources so he can't afford to maintain such a huge force in the area anymore.

So big sweeping encirclements that grab cities and rail lines deep on his flanks and rear are a great way to unhinge a strong defender. They may not be as glamorous as a head on fight, but they are far less brutal on your own troops. But sometimes you don’t have the luxury of time to launch such operations.

In a case like that, I’d suggest sequenced attacks that all go in on the same turn staggered a few days apart. The first few attacks should be with assault troops to help breach his forts and reduce his cohesion. The final one should be a big stack designed to overwhelm his now hopefully low cohesion units.

Finally there are some times where it’s simply not feasible to attack a strong position. Change your overall strategies and focus your efforts somewhere else. A breakthrough in another zone may force him to relocate some of his strength and give you a chance to re-evaluate the objective again later down the road.

Jim

[koz10]

Thanks very much. These are all good strategies. I'll try them out the next time I play.

[Matto]

I'm using strategy, when I meet large enemy force to go with my forces away and stay just with some cavalry units. AI usually divide strong unit trying find your units and then you can fight them separately

[Alexor]

I'm using strategy, when I meet large enemy force to go with my forces away and stay just with some cavalry units. AI usually divide strong unit trying find your units and then you can fight them separately

Good idea, create screens of cavalry on "retreat" combat mode and try to have the AI separate his big pack. Then attack his divided forces with your concentration of inf and artillery.
Only that tactic doesn't work on entrenched pack in a city (even worse if the city produces enough supply for the enemy in it).

[Chief Rudiger]

I tend to use single element Cav units as scouts, set on passive and "avoid combat".

I set them to passive because if you want them to penetrate regions where the enemies military control is over 95% they will switch from defensive to offensive stance. A unit can stay on passive even if it enters a >95% enemy controlled area.

A unit looses more cohesion every day when in attack stance than any other, so by the time its completed 15 days move of a 23 day move the 8 remaining days will now actually take a lot longer, since the units cohesion has dropped. Sometime a unit will never be able to reach a destination because it looses soo much cohesion trying to get out of one region that it can't move! To recover cohesion you must stop a unit. If the unit never even left the start region you can't get anywhere!

This was noticeable in the demo if you tried to move the initial Murmansk force from the off map box down the railway, with a unactivated general! (the key being to send only a small advanced guard ahead to swing the military control of the destination enough to allow rail movement forward of the main (command penalty ridden) force).

Anyway, i digress...

Moving in passive mode reduces cohesion losses and if you only give a 12 day move order, for example, the last 3 days will be spent recovering cohesion. This will allow you to complete the remainder of the 23 day journey in the second turn and leave your force with enough cohesion at the destination to be of actual use in turn 3, say for an assault on a weakly held supply node town.

Moving and resting in this way is really important i feel.

[Kev_uk]

I tend to use single element Cav units as scouts, set on passive and "avoid combat".
...

Moving in passive mode reduces cohesion losses and if you only give a 12 day move order, for example, the last 3 days will be spent recovering cohesion. This will allow you to complete the remainder of the 23 day journey in the second turn and leave your force with enough cohesion at the destination to be of actual use in turn 3, say for an assault on a weakly held supply node town.

Moving and resting in this way is really important i feel.

Really interesting. Thanks for those observations. I find the time limit moving through white controlled areas via rail is punishing in the extreme. So, what I gather you are saying is send cavalry elements in advance to change military control and set them to passive? Another question I have is that I want to besiege a city, but end up in combat as i reach the destination, which usually for the reds this early on ends up in a defeat and retreat so I cannot break the fortifications down? Should a main force be also put on passive to start besieging?
Thanks.

[Chief Rudiger]

Sending a force ahead on passive wont win you any military control. My passive movement suggestion was in relation to penetrating deep into the enemies terrotiry to destroy railways or supply depots on the NEXT turn, on assault stance. Moving on passive will mean if your intruder units does get engaged by passing units despite being on "evade combat" (probably only other passing Cav has a high enough patrol value to force battle upon another high evade level Cav unit...maybe) then they will quickly disengage. Yes, the unit will retreat, but hopefully out of the way of the chance encounter and will be deep enough inside enemy territory and close enough to its target that it can assault move in turn two to attack a depot. The problem is that if it retreats probably wont have reached the important rail juntion you sent it to so won't be able to sabotage that important section (as you can't order a unit to rip up rails as it goes, only the rails in the region it starts the turn in).... breath.

By advance guard i mean a force either more mobile than your main force or one which i don't intend to commit to a pitched battle, i.e. one that can be force marched forawrd, on aggressive, through harsh weather, take casualties but be rotated out, back down the railway to recuperate. Units with a high police value would be good, maybe under a fast mover commander. Once this force had transitted a region you should have sufficient military control to move your main force forawrd by rail.

When you are advancing into enemy territory i would always try to move in defensive posture, so that you get the tactical benefit if attacked. You can move into a region with 5% control and still stay on the defensive. Any enemy in that region will generate a zone of control, which, depending on its comparitive strength may prevent you fron moving on to adjacent areas with a certain military percentage. In which case you would have to send detachments to win control there, or fight the enemy to win a greater military control percentage.

Even if you enterred the region intending to fight said stack you might want to enter on defensive, if you had that 5% remaining, so that you can recover any cohesion lost on the move forward, especially if that move was accross and obstacle such as a river. Chances are the enemy force would be on defensive, also so as not to abandon the tactical advantage. This strategy won't work if you don't have that 5% "bridgehead" but if you do it can really make a difference. Just remeber, your cohesion and health are two of the most important factors that combine to give combat strength. Your cohesion drops during your turn, not at the end, so making a 5 day move and then resting for 10 will help recover lost cohesion and keep your force combat worthy.

When besiegin structures i would move my stack into the region on aggresive if i wanted to try to bump a mobile force away from a city, leaving only the garrison (if that mobile force choses to retreat out of the region, not back into the structure). I would not move and assault on the same turn. Once in the region and in a position to assault the structure i would set my troops to "enter the structure" so that they are not sitting about, weakened, when a relief force arrives on day 14, which they will then assault (Nooooo!). If you enter the structure immediatley after assaulting then you will recover cohesion really quickly inside and won't be "attackable" unless the enemy also has an assault order (but in which case he will be moving and assaulting therefore attacking with reduced cohesion). Breath.

Finally, you can often speed up big stacks by detaching slow units, like siege arty or airfields and having them follow on the next turn. Armoured trains also seem to slow stack movement down if you don't have enough military control in the destination region. I would move that this rule be abolished as only genuine "move by rail" should be prevented in insufficiently controlled regions. Troop and logistic movements should require this as a railway adminsitration would have to be set up in the region to allow the kind of efficient high speed travel simulated - a couple of armoured trains don't need this level of organisation to do their thang.

The above may be useful but is probably too cautious for some people. I don't mind a war of positions, in fact i think it more fun, but it can't be the most productive, but then again its pretty safe, which is how i think a lot of commanders think (i.e. Jelicho at the Battle of Jutland being able to loose the war in a day, etc.).

[Clovis]

Nice tips in this thread. thanks for all

[Kev_uk]

Really yes, you need those 'breaths' . Best bit of strategy on here so far, and thanks.

[Chief Rudiger]

I recommend playing either BOA or WIA (preferably the later as it includes many of the features introduced in AACW like distant unload, ROE) because the campaigns are a lot more manageable and the unit count is much smaller. You might play most of the French and Indian War Grand Campaign in one evening. The game has also been well patched and polished since release.

The small unit count allows you to focus all your attention on mabye only one or two major stacks and a few small units. Also, you do not have to build units in this game, they just appear by events or sometimes as options which you can spend EP on. By keeping the complexity level down you can devote a lot more time to understanding the basic workings of the engine.

Finally, units in WIA don't have to be organised into Armies, Corp or Divisions, the stack just has to have enough leadership points. Your 50,000 strong army might be led by 20 single star colonels or one 3 star general, it wouldn't make a difference (i don't think).

[Baris]

Finally, units in WIA don't have to be organised into Armies, Corp or Divisions, the stack just has to have enough leadership points. Your 50,000 strong army might be led by 20 single star colonels or one 3 star general, it wouldn't make a difference (i don't think).

Maybe It can make difference in clear terrain.
"Nine regiments of regulars can fight at the same time in clear terrain. Add to that a bonus for each point the Commander of the army has (either in offensive or in defensive, depending on the posture chosen) and another bonus based on the rank he has (so a 3 stars leader can always field a good amount of regiments in plains, even if he won't use clever tactics!). The 2 leader bonuses only apply on clear terrain. "

WIA wiki updated and there are very good explanations on game mechanics.