Paule3000
Corporal
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 7:53 pm
Location: Cologne, Germany

When to enter structures

Sun Jun 07, 2015 3:12 pm

I've got some questions regarding the tactical and strategic implications of entering structures, especially in defensive situations.

My own considerations: Being inside a structure makes you prone to being besieged with the immanent threat of surrendering, and thereby losing, a whole force. The trade-off lies between the danger of surrendering vs. the impossibility of being simply dislodged from an important city/fort/structure or whatever, and thus a greatly increased chance of holding it.

Defending from outside a structure has no special features. You can be simply driven outside a region by a single lost battle and you will most probably retain most of your force minus some casualties and cohesion loss.

So, my questions:

!. Please correct my considerations where wrong or missing out on important details.

2. In which cases do you enter structures in newly conquered cities and

3. where do you put your garrison units, inside or outside structures, or both?

Thanks a lot!
-- When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.

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

Sun Jun 07, 2015 4:45 pm

Sometimes you must put an army inside of a structure. When I have a weakened division or brigade in a region where I know I will get attacked I will often put it inside...this risks if besieged and losing it surrendering are real if the enemy chooses that, if at all possible, rail it to a friendly structure away from the frontline.

Otherwise I never put anything in a city/structure/fort/etc... and doing so forces it to be besieged if an attack should dislodge you from a certain location. It does seem as though units regain strength or cohesion faster but the manual never answered thoroughly. Also I notice out west to leach supply I sometimes need to enter a fort.

Having a unit entrenched within a region with a structure is sufficient for it's benefit. It gives the benefits of leaving the region if soundly defeated in combat. Plus all the others! (put a unit in a structure at your own trust) without relieving force : (


P.S. Additives since you were so curious(I have had 2 instances of locked sieges) and ending a siege is not easy matter cause you have to go on the offense in some cases and which can mean losing whole armies. Some say you must garrison victory cities/strategic cities...You don't need much to do that. Also lastly, until you get the 25% MC I am guessing at least that you would have to use the structure to draw it's supply or else you won't get it outside of it in certain situations. At least something I've run into in the West more so than the East..where the larger armies change MC%up fast... Big point here... the manual does state you get all the benefits outside of the city/structure as you do in. (So why do it?) your opponent can dig in and get MC%^ outside and lock you in if he's larger. Relieving forces can fail. You can lose 10 brigades(and I have done it just as such)

Paule3000 wrote:I've got some questions regarding the tactical and strategic implications of entering structures, especially in defensive situations.

My own considerations: Being inside a structure makes you prone to being besieged with the immanent threat of surrendering, and thereby losing, a whole force. The trade-off lies between the danger of surrendering vs. the impossibility of being simply dislodged from an important city/fort/structure or whatever, and thus a greatly increased chance of holding it.

Defending from outside a structure has no special features. You can be simply driven outside a region by a single lost battle and you will most probably retain most of your force minus some casualties and cohesion loss.

So, my questions:

!. Please correct my considerations where wrong or missing out on important details.

2. In which cases do you enter structures in newly conquered cities and

3. where do you put your garrison units, inside or outside structures, or both?

Thanks a lot!
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 ~~~

pb783
Lieutenant
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 10:32 pm
Location: Coming out of the attic-- I've finally beaten Athena

Sun Jun 07, 2015 9:06 pm

In general I place a militia (or other units such as naval engineers, shore batteries and supplies) inside cities. There they improve the defence of the city. Outside is the main force. That is also set to entrench with the SO to move into the structure.

When the outside forces are attacked they retreat into the city due to the SO where there is additional entrenchment due to the militia or naval engineer or whatnot. Even small forces can accomplish this using this procedure.

If I'm unconcerned with holding the region, or the region has a low strategic value, I may allow the outside forces to retreat from the region by not giving them the SO. In those cases there is also no interior defensive force entrenching.

To put it another way, if I feel the city has some strategic value that I want to deny to my enemy, I do two layers of entrenchment: outside and inside. And in general the SO for the outside forces is to retreat into the city.

I've found this will nearly always cause the attacking forces to delay as they must attack twice, over two turns, to be successful in taking the region. And, often, this has allowed me time to react OR it has been costly enough for the attacking force to pull back and consolidate.

Granted, this is against Athena. Though I've recently used this procedure in a few PBEM games too. (I'm looking at you GregVM :) )

pb783
Lieutenant
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 10:32 pm
Location: Coming out of the attic-- I've finally beaten Athena

Sun Jun 07, 2015 9:10 pm

I will ask this of the folks here who understand these things. I've noted that I'll sometimes occupy and have 100 percent MC of an objective city. However when I look at my summary page the city will be listed as not controlled. What gives? How do I move that objective from not controlled to under my control?

Thanks

User avatar
Cardinal Ape
General of the Army
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:59 am

Mon Jun 08, 2015 10:09 am

That would be a loyalty issue. If you have less than 50% then you need an infantry (not militia) unit in the region to gain control of the objective.

Unit do recover cohesion at a faster rate inside structures. You can see the average daily gain in the tool-tip by hovering over the unit.

User avatar
Gray Fox
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1520
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:48 pm
Location: Englewood, OH

Mon Jun 08, 2015 12:59 pm

The attacker gets 25% less frontage than the defender inside a structure.

Also, Hold at all Cost for a force defending the region does not have the interpretation that would normally be associated with that phrase. It actually means retreat after you suffer 20% casualties.

A force inside a structure will not retreat away from the structure like a force in the region will.

If you have a Division outside the structure set to retreat into the structure after combat, the Division may get ripped to pieces and then a force that can no longer defend the structure will occupy it.

If your defending garrison have a depot/supply unit with GS/ammo with them inside the structure, then the chance they will surrender is only 5%.

So...

Set your defenses accordingly and don't forget any "Alamos" until they are forced to surrender.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!

Rod Smart
Colonel
Posts: 326
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2014 3:32 pm

Mon Jun 08, 2015 4:29 pm

Simple rules that I use:

When to NEVER put in a structure:
A large force/army. Easy way to take them out of a fight (if besieged), and catastrophic if the siege is successful
Frontline areas. Don't give the enemy free NM by putting a militia unit in a West Virginia level 1 town. That's stupid. If you think the town can be successfully besieged, put the unit outside the town so that when it loses it retreats.


When to ALWAYS put a unit in a structure:
The forts along the coast. They can hold out for quite a while, and having them outside the fort means a quick victory for the enemy.
Garrison troops deep behind the lines. Late army cavalry can capture a town by brushing aside the militia outside the town. If those troops are within the town, they aren't going to take their time besieging.
Places where you would WANT to be besieged. Put those locked units in DC in the city.

Rod Smart
Colonel
Posts: 326
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2014 3:32 pm

Mon Jun 08, 2015 4:33 pm

Simple rules that I use:

When to NEVER put in a structure:
A large force/army. Easy way to take them out of a fight (if besieged), and catastrophic if the siege is successful
Frontline areas. Don't give the enemy free NM by putting a militia unit in a West Virginia level 1 town. That's stupid. If you think the town can be successfully besieged, put the unit outside the town so that when it loses it retreats.


When to ALWAYS put a unit in a structure:
The forts along the coast. They can hold out for quite a while, and having them outside the fort means a quick victory for the enemy.
Garrison troops deep behind the lines. Late army cavalry can capture a town by brushing aside the militia outside the town. If those troops are within the town, they aren't going to take their time besieging.
Places where you would WANT to be besieged. Put those locked units in DC in the city.

User avatar
Mickey3D
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland

Mon Jun 08, 2015 4:55 pm

My general rule is : avoid becoming dead meat and stay outside of the structures ;)

I see a few exceptions :
- The attacking force won't be able to hold the siege for long (lack of supply) or the attacker would need a huge force you know he can't remove for long from the main line of battle. E.g. CSA will need an important force to take a reinforced Fort Monroe : sending such a force at the end of the peninsula means letting the Northern Virginia endangered.
- You can keep a supply line open. E.g. Any city with an harbor if your ennemy can't blockade it (see GrayFox strategy in our AAR).
- You have a relief force not far.
- Artillery in forts can automatically fires at passing ships.
- Militia to guard you against deep raid from your ennemy.
- Initial force in coastal forts.

User avatar
willgamer
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:41 am
Location: Mount Juliet, TN

Mon Jun 08, 2015 5:38 pm

Cardinal Ape wrote:.....

Unit do recover cohesion at a faster rate inside structures. You can see the average daily gain in the tool-tip by hovering over the unit.


But, iirc, If you are besieged, then you no longer receive this benefit.

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

Mon Jun 08, 2015 7:39 pm

Correct, but you would make the decision to put a force inside a structure to regain cohesion before a siege occurs. Also, a siege won't occur as long as you have a field force that's not set on passive.

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

Mon Jun 08, 2015 7:51 pm

Good lord, the wealth of knowledge, I think that CW2 is almost too intricate for it's own good. Causing a mass of confusion. I can find several very educated opinions.

1. Take into consideration if your coastal garrisons are inside the city when an Amphibious landing happens, they won't intercept a very weak landing force... Which is not always an advantage. Better to be outside and dug in to kill a landing force.

2. If you have 2 divisions. Division A is inside a structure and division B is outside of structure ... and a siege happens ... If you take any elements out of the unit from inside of the structure which you can do and put it into the division that is outside of the structure it will drag that whole division into the structure that was previously outside of it. (now I do not know the MC% for this but I have had it happen) Whoa!




FightingBuckeye wrote:Correct, but you would make the decision to put a force inside a structure to regain cohesion before a siege occurs. Also, a siege won't occur as long as you have a field force that's not set on passive.
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
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Mon Jun 08, 2015 8:44 pm

BattleVonWar wrote:Good lord, the wealth of knowledge, I think that CW2 is almost too intricate for it's own good. Causing a mass of confusion. I can find several very educated opinions.


BattleVonWar wrote:1. Take into consideration if your coastal garrisons are inside the city when an Amphibious landing happens, they won't intercept a very weak landing force... Which is not always an advantage. Better to be outside and dug in to kill a landing force.


On the surface, it sounds like a good idea. Ask yourself, if you were confronted with this situation as the attacker, what you would do to take the fort.

BattleVonWar wrote:2. If you have 2 divisions. Division A is inside a structure and division B is outside of structure ... and a siege happens


As FightingBuckeye just pointed out, with a field force not in PP, a siege cannot occur.

BattleVonWar wrote:... If you take any elements out of the unit from inside of the structure which you can do and put it into the division that is outside of the structure it will drag that whole division into the structure that was previously outside of it. (now I do not know the MC% for this but I have had it happen) Whoa!


Wha...? Are you saying that if you take a unit from division A (inside the fort) and put it into division B (entrenched outside the fort), without anything else happening, division B will then suddenly 'jump' to inside the fort?
Image

Rod Smart
Colonel
Posts: 326
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2014 3:32 pm

Mon Jun 08, 2015 8:58 pm

You probably want to put your building units inside a structure.


The rule of thumb is to never recruit units where they have a chance of getting into a fight, but when you're trying to get as many Kentucky units as you can before you get kicked out, these situations do arise.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Mon Jun 08, 2015 9:00 pm

BattleVonWar wrote:Good lord, the wealth of knowledge, I think that CW2 is almost too intricate for it's own good. Causing a mass of confusion. I can find several very educated opinions.


BattleVonWar wrote:1. Take into consideration if your coastal garrisons are inside the city when an Amphibious landing happens, they won't intercept a very weak landing force... Which is not always an advantage. Better to be outside and dug in to kill a landing force.


On the surface, it sounds like a good idea. Ask yourself, if you were confronted with this situation as the attacker, what you would do to take the fort.

BattleVonWar wrote:2. If you have 2 divisions. Division A is inside a structure and division B is outside of structure ... and a siege happens


As FightingBuckeye just pointed out, with a field force not in PP, a siege cannot occur.

BattleVonWar wrote:... If you take any elements out of the unit from inside of the structure which you can do and put it into the division that is outside of the structure it will drag that whole division into the structure that was previously outside of it. (now I do not know the MC% for this but I have had it happen) Whoa!


Wha...? Are you saying that if you take a unit from division A (inside the fort) and put it into division B (entrenched outside the fort), without anything else happening, division B will then suddenly 'jump' to inside the fort?
Image

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

Tue Jun 09, 2015 2:54 am

I agree with the general advice here, don't put anything you don't want to lose in a structure close to the enemy.

I would add three others: Halleck, Freemont, and Butler as close to or if possible behind enemy lines. I used to send them all to Buffalo, but I hold out the vain hope that they will be captured or eliminated as fast as humanly possible.

User avatar
Cardinal Ape
General of the Army
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:59 am

Tue Jun 09, 2015 4:42 am

dinsdale wrote:I agree with the general advice here, don't put anything you don't want to lose in a structure close to the enemy.

I would add three others: Halleck, Freemont, and Butler as close to or if possible behind enemy lines. I used to send them all to Buffalo, but I hold out the vain hope that they will be captured or eliminated as fast as humanly possible.


I disagree on that, aside from Butler that is. In most of my games I enjoy irking Butler by promoting Nathaniel Lyon above him. Partly because Lyon looks a bit like me and shares my first name, but mostly because I dislike Butler.

Freemont can be useful to bring loyalty up in contested regions like St. Louis.

Halleck in my opinion is rather good. He sits around and trains units without consuming too much supplies. Then after Grant gets an army command, I give Halleck a corps command under him. With Halleck's three great traits, I can always find a good use for him.

User avatar
Gray Fox
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1520
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:48 pm
Location: Englewood, OH

Tue Jun 09, 2015 1:20 pm

Another point to consider when entering a structure is the overcrowding rule. A city can hold 10 elements per size point and a fort type 25. So D.C., a size 6 city, in early 1861 can hold 60 elements without overcrowding, but only 25 after the size 1 redoubt is built there. If you put too many elements in a small structure, then the enemy get an advantage when they assault.

[ATTACH]33719[/ATTACH]
Attachments
Crowding.jpg
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!

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

Tue Jun 09, 2015 2:10 pm

Cardinal Ape wrote:I disagree on that, aside from Butler that is. In most of my games I enjoy irking Butler by promoting Nathaniel Lyon above him. Partly because Lyon looks a bit like me and shares my first name, but mostly because I dislike Butler.

Freemont can be useful to bring loyalty up in contested regions like St. Louis.

Halleck in my opinion is rather good. He sits around and trains units without consuming too much supplies. Then after Grant gets an army command, I give Halleck a corps command under him. With Halleck's three great traits, I can always find a good use for him.


Their traits are useful, but Halleck's seniority always means a morale loss when promoting Grant, Sherman or Rosecrans to an army. I find the west to be a training center in its own right, there are continual small skirmishes and assaults to be carried out. I just can't get over their strategic rating, I play with the more harsh settings which always seem to lock Halleck for 9 months of the year in Cairo :)

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

Tue Jun 09, 2015 2:11 pm

Cardinal Ape wrote:I disagree on that, aside from Butler that is. In most of my games I enjoy irking Butler by promoting Nathaniel Lyon above him. Partly because Lyon looks a bit like me and shares my first name, but mostly because I dislike Butler.

Freemont can be useful to bring loyalty up in contested regions like St. Louis.

Halleck in my opinion is rather good. He sits around and trains units without consuming too much supplies. Then after Grant gets an army command, I give Halleck a corps command under him. With Halleck's three great traits, I can always find a good use for him.


Their traits are useful, but Halleck's seniority always means a morale loss when promoting Grant, Sherman or Rosecrans to an army. I find the west to be a training center in its own right, there are continual small skirmishes and assaults to be carried out. I just can't get over their strategic rating, I play with the more harsh settings which always seem to lock Halleck for 9 months of the year in Cairo :)

User avatar
Cardinal Ape
General of the Army
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:59 am

Tue Jun 09, 2015 10:26 pm

If you play with the activation rule that locks inactive generals in place then it is easier to avoid the NM and VP hits from army appointments. Unless they fixed it since I last played on that setting. Locked generals don't count when promoting or assigning army commanders. If you can get Lyon a couple of victories before Butler unlocks and before Freemont arrives, you can give him an army command without making anyone mad. Though you need to give Banks an army as well.

But yeah, the Union will have to take some NM and VP hits at some point to get better army commanders. I prefer to do it sooner rather than later. Ideally before you break 100 NM so that the normalization helps mitigate the hit. Usually that doesn't happen though.

Return to “Civil War II”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests