AGEOD Forums

Posted: **Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:52 pm**

December 1863, and I have sort of exhausted my supply of "pure" infantry brigades. I am now left with a huge amount of more or less mixed brigades. Some are two infantry, one cavalry; some two infantry, one artillery; and those I can use to build divisions, at least together with others. But some are also three infantry, one artillery, one cavalry monsters, and I am increasingly stuck with those. NY alone is offering me 20 brigades of this unwieldy composition, and little else. I really wonder what to do with those? If I put three in a division, and top it up with two artillery, I end up with 9 infantry, 5 artillery and 3 cavalry, and who needs so much cavalry in an infantry division? :confused:

Also, any hint why the game offers these mixed brigades? They would seem OK for 1861, historically, but 1864? :confused:

Thanks for any comments.

Posted: **Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:24 pm**

I do not like this mixed brigades, too ! A possible solution (in my opinion the best possible solution) would be, if player would be allowed to draft troops on regimental basis (which also would be much more historical). I also see no reasons not to realise such a draft system, as all regimental data is already in the database.

Greets

Posted: **Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:28 pm**

Hi guys,

This has been discussed in some detail in other recent thread:
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=13246

Consensus is that mixed brigades were "ahistorical" after 1861.

Posted: **Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:32 pm**

This is something I've thought about as well. But I think you pretty much have to bite the bullet. At least as far as I've found out.

Posted: **Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:47 pm**

Im currious what you think the optimum divison mix is? Personaly my favorite mix is almost exactly what you are discribing. I prefer to have my division composition at 9/4/4 ish. With preferably at least one or two of the Inf. a sharpshooter. As it is I am constantly coming up short a brigade here or there. So some of my divisions might be as you describe, others might have more Inf. or more cav. To the best of my knowledge that is very historical.

There are lots of different ideas on these boards about what makes the best division. Most agree that each division needs all the elements in some amount. Certainly if you plan on having any of your divisions acting independently. You will need both arty and Cav. in decent amounts inside that divisions structure. I find this is more easily accomplished with the mixed brigades. It also saves time in moving all the different types of brigades from one end of the country to the other to fill out your divisions.

Nial

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2009 3:26 am**

Heldenkaiser wrote:December 1863, and I have sort of exhausted my supply of "pure" infantry brigades. I am now left with a huge amount of more or less mixed brigades. Some are two infantry, one cavalry; some two infantry, one artillery; and those I can use to build divisions, at least together with others. But some are also three infantry, one artillery, one cavalry monsters, and I am increasingly stuck with those. NY alone is offering me 20 brigades of this unwieldy composition, and little else. I really wonder what to do with those? If I put three in a division, and top it up with two artillery, I end up with 9 infantry, 5 artillery and 3 cavalry, and who needs so much cavalry in an infantry division?

Also, any hint why the game offers these mixed brigades? They would seem OK for 1861, historically, but 1864?

Thanks for any comments.

Quite simple actually. Take two of those 3 Infantry, 1 cav and 1 arty brigades. Then throw in two 2 Infantry and 1 arty brigades. Top it off with a militia unit. Or if you don't want/have militia, throw in another arty battery. Either way, you have a nice happy infantry division :thumbsup:

.

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2009 8:47 am**

Just my 2 cents

Building all units at the regimental level and putting them together on divisions recollecting them from all over the map one at a time is, in my book, a micromanagement hell. :blink:

I want to fight a war and think and develop strategies to win it. Not herd two bazillions of individual regiments around the map.
No, thank you! :bonk:

For what i've heard, Clovis mod :coeurs:

offer modified brigades models with lots of pure infantry types. What's more, it seems he use mixed brigades at war start and on later years change the models to more pure infantry types.
To me this seems a much better idea :thumbsup:

Ncuman idea sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Don't wait to "spend" all those "monster" brigades until 1864. Use one of them as the base of your divisions and then add the infantry+artillery types to them.
In any case, i bet having some two cavalry divisions around will not make you lose the war

Regards!

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:05 pm**

arsan wrote:Don't wait to "spend" all those "monster" brigades until 1864. Use one of them as the base of your divisions and then add the infantry+artillery types to them.

I will!! Next time. :thumbsup:

First though I'll have to win the war this way time time ... :bonk:

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:07 pm**

ncuman wrote:Quite simple actually. Take two of those 3 Infantry, 1 cav and 1 arty brigades. Then throw in two 2 Infantry and 1 arty brigades. Top it off with a militia unit. Or if you don't want/have militia, throw in another arty battery. Either way, you have a nice happy infantry division .

That's 19, right ... isn't the limit 17, as the leader counts, I found? :confused:

Anyway I am nearly completely out of the "pure" types. Most all-infantry that's left is the 1 infantry, 1 militia type from KS and such. :bonk:

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:30 pm**

2x (3) Inf + (1) Cav + (1) Art = (10) Elements

Plus...

2x (2) Inf + (1) Art = (6) Elements

Plus...

1x (1) Militia/Sharpshooter/Arty/Marine... = (1) Element

Plus...

A leader and there you go! Ready for a fight. (This composition is actually my preferred division. i.e. 2 cav, 4 arty and the rest filled out with infantry.)

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:50 pm**

soloswolf wrote:2x (3) Inf + (1) Cav + (1) Art = (10) Elements

Plus...

2x (2) Inf + (1) Art = (6) Elements

Plus...

1x (1) Militia/Sharpshooter/Arty/Marine... = (1) Element

Plus...

A leader and there you go! Ready for a fight. (This composition is actually my preferred division. i.e. 2 cav, 4 arty and the rest filled out with infantry.)

I like that, too. I don't understand the fixation people have on limited divisions to just 1 cav. I know you only need one cav element to get the spotting ability, but cav are also useful for their patrol value, and they're great at riding down and slaughtering a routed enemy :thumbsup:

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:49 pm**

My prefered division is 10/3/4. I can't always have that exact make up, but it works very well for me. The mixed brigades work very well for this combination. Since I like to play CSA it helps to have a couple of independent divisions scattered around the map in critcal coastal areas to respond to amphibious landings. And independent divisions need a good chunk of Cav elements. I prefer 4.

And I agree with Arsan that moving individual brigades all over the map to form up your divisions is at best time consuming, and at worst a game loser. In my experience the mixed brigades whether historical in the late war or not, make my logistical job easier. JMHO

Nial

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:27 pm**

Nial wrote:And I agree with Arsan that moving individual brigades all over the map to form up your divisions is at best time consuming, and at worst a game loser. In my experience the mixed brigades whether historical in the late war or not, make my logistical job easier. JMHO

Nial

But that is the result of a bad interface, it could have been done easier for the player to manage avoiding micromanagement.

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:18 pm**

aryaman wrote:But that is the result of a bad interface, it could have been done easier for the player to manage avoiding micromanagement.

Agreed. But as the neither interface nor the basic unit purchased is likely to be changed before AACW2. It is still a logical statement, is it not?

Nial

Posted: **Thu Feb 26, 2009 2:42 am**

deleted

Posted: **Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:36 am**

I wil be very sorry the best CSA brigades (the mixed) are going to be dismantled...

leure:

Every unit has an use. AS an example... the Georgia mixed brigades are the BEST in terms of elements/CP ratio.

Once I finish my 30 divisions cap and taking into account CP availability, what can I do? I can build MIXED brigades, and put them in corps out of divisions. Also... what can I do with those extra leaders without a posibility oh having a division ?

Lets make a corps with 18 CPs -> assign only 2 divisions (8 CP)... the 10 extra CPs can be 5 GA mixed brigades (2 CPs each) with 5 extra 3-1-1s generals , so 20 extra well leaded elements (10 infantry, 5 cavalry, 5 artillery). The 2 divisions don´t need cavalry, as the extra 5 in the mixed brigades meet most requirements.

---- I can reach the 30 cap very fast..., partly due to a optimized use of resources... BUT I personally believe it is due to USA waiting for Uber armies... not to the excess of resources, so... I d vote let the CSA build up accoordingly!

Posted: **Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:41 pm**

deleted

Posted: **Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:49 pm**

Sorry Gray. :bonk:

.. I dont read all the posts here and there, not time enough... just a few tips of info... So 2 option Campaigns are going to be developed. :neener:

Posted: **Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:39 pm**

Gray_Lensman wrote:

Soon... (end of March or sooner), there will be an update that will give you the choice of 2 different 1861 April Campaigns and 2 different July Campaigns. The addt'l ones will include the KY Add-on work currently in MOD form. If I was to do any work on changing Mixed brigades, it would probably only be applicable to these 2 new (KY Add-on) campaign scenarios, but you won't see any Mixed Brigade work anytime soon.

Since you think about making a complete optional scenario, what about making a PBEM version in which every historical option not included otherwise because the AI can´t cope with it? It would be nice to have that one for PBEM.

Posted: **Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:33 pm**

aryaman wrote:Since you think about making a complete optional scenario, what about making a PBEM version in which every historical option not included otherwise because the AI can´t cope with it? It would be nice to have that one for PBEM.

I'm already thinking that way with the KY Add-on scenarios, but I'm still going to keep the AI in at least some consideration because there will be those who want all the historical realism (read grognards) possible and just don't quite have the time to do PBEM.

Posted: **Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:39 pm**

deleted

Posted: **Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:41 am**

Gray_Lensman wrote:To paraphrase a popular expression "You guys/gals have to think outside the box!"

Seems like some of you guys/gals are assuming that changing Mixed brigages would end up with nothing but hundreds of single element brigades all over the map which would be rather ridiculous.

My thoughts on changing Mixed brigades is to just separate out the Cavalry and Artillery units and leave the multi-infantry element part of the brigade intact, probably even providing some new 2 element Cavalry and possibly 2 element Artillery units for separate gamer use to cut down on the single element units.

So, for example: instead of producing one mixed brigade, say a virginia brigade with 4 inf. 1 cav and 2 arty. I will need to produce 1 inf brigade w/ 2-4 elements 1 cav brigade and 1 arty brigade. Not all of these brigades nessesarily being produced in the same city or even the same state depending on conditions? So 3 for 1? Now X that times lets say 6 brigades. Which is a conservative number of brigades that a player could produce in a single turn. That equals 18 for 6. I fail to see where this does not equal the movement morass I quoted in my prior post. As long as there is no way to designate some sort of central hub for troop deployment. I'll decline the extra micro management. Plus possible extra strain on the CSA RR system this would cause.

Now of course these are generalized figures, but it will most certainly work out to more transport. I already find my RR capacity frequently maxed out when playing as the CSA. This will only exacerbate this problem.

Nial

Posted: **Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:32 am**

deleted

Posted: **Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:40 am**

deleted

Posted: **Fri Feb 27, 2009 5:22 am**

Gray_Lensman wrote:You're absolutely correct if used in that way. However, you are overlooking one thing. Quite a few players are using these larger "Mixed Brigades" as mini-divisions instead of a core to a division.

I sure use them this way, especially playing CSA. That huge VA brigade for only 4 CP is a deal that's too good to be true -- a half a CP per element? Great! Give them a leader and it's as good a small division without having to pay to create a division command. Even without the leader, it's a nice force for digging in at a strategic location. But, it doesn't feel right. I'm not proud of it. It makes me feel cheap and dirty.

Posted: **Fri Feb 27, 2009 5:44 am**

Tom's a dirty boy!

Anyhow, I've said my peace for historical brigade composition before, I will refrain from commenting less I get flamed again.

Posted: **Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:13 am**

Major Tom wrote:I sure use them this way, especially playing CSA. That huge VA brigade for only 4 CP is a deal that's too good to be true -- a half a CP per element? Great! Give them a leader and it's as good a small division without having to pay to create a division command. Even without the leader, it's a nice force for digging in at a strategic location. But, it doesn't feel right. I'm not proud of it. It makes me feel cheap and dirty.

Strange how different one players perspective is against anothers. Part of lifes rich pageant I suppose. Now if I get to being able to use those huge VA brigades in the way you site then I dont feel the least bit guilty. If I can do that then I already have 30 divisions maxed out. And if I have 30 divisions maxed out then the Union player is sitting back for those overwhelming odds. In which event I'll use every edge I can.

As a side note I reckon that the limiting of the CSA to 30 divisions (and I'm fully aware of the historical arguments why) actually encourages the Union to sit on the fence until they have what 40 or 50 divisions in the field. I've never seen the sense in it (it was worse still when it was 24 and 48). On the one hand it goes that it's roughly 'historically accurate' but then on the other we allow 'unhistorical' CSA raids on the basis that they could have happened. If thats so then the CSA could have had more than 30 divisions and the North could have had more than 60....so why any limits at all. Tis always been a puzzlement to this cerebally challenged fella?

Posted: **Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:48 am**

No need to fret your cerebral impulses... Slowly but surely, the exploits are going "bye bye."

The division limits are "roughly" based on historical numbers of divisions for both sides over the course of the war and indeed 48/24 was initially too low. However, no matter how you slice it up, the north was able to outmatch the CSA 2 to 1 in almost all categories throughout the war including casualties. It just didn't have the leadership skills to take advantage of it until the final year or so. Any other depiction of the Civil War would be a sandbox joke, which is allowable as long as you personally want to change your own files for that particular way of playing the game. In fact, I've made special MOD events at the end of all the 2-player campaign scenarios that can be directly edited by players to allow for up to 99 divisions for either or both sides. This is supported with the additional "divisional" names so that the game does not generate errors when it runs out of names. This work is not currently released just yet, but it shows that there are some "sandbox" considerations being made to allow for that style of play. However my first priority is to make the game conform to historical precedence and add in these sandbox capabilities after such considerations.

The raids are a problem and I'm still struggling over a realistic way to limit them, but it's not for lack of trying and even now I'm still trying to find some sort of realistic solution.

Posted: **Fri Feb 27, 2009 6:39 pm**

Gray_Lensman wrote:Rail and Transport capacity are already calculated at the element level anyhow, much the same as resource production costs. You don't get a break on resource cost by buying a bigger all-in-one unit, nor do you get a break when it comes to how much rail or transport capacity is used. Currently the only "break" you actually get is in the CP points required for these units, which is not correct either since these are "artificial/non-real" brigades designed just for User Interface restrictions and not for any real Civil War historical purpose.

You are correct in regards to the quoted Virginia "mixed brigade" with 4 inf, 1 cav, and 2 arty. However, historically, there was no such creature of this composition called a brigade in the Civil War. This is in fact a mini-division. and, (though currently not possible), by game rules really ought to be subject to the divisional count.

Here's some current oddities that are just begging to be corrected

The above totally ahistorical CSA mixed brigade is currently assigned a CP of 4 (as if it were getting some sort of Division CP break, but it doesn't count as a division), yet there's a CSA single element unit made up of a Zouve that cost 2 CPs, where's the rationale in that?

Also, the single element cavalry and artillery units are all charged a CP of 1, yet when combined in a fictional "Mixed brigade" which should have corresponding CP increases due to the mixed nature of the force they now compose, they appear to have their CP cost totally negated. These costs should only be negated if the player actually makes a division out of them, paying the cost for the additional upper level command structure.

I'm not disputing the oddity, nor the historocity of the example brigade. But in regards to RR usage. The thing you are not taking into consideration is, if I produce 1 mixed brigade in Virginia as the rules are now? I have all those elements in place in Virginia. If I have to produce 3 brigades for the same unit? But I have to produce some elements in other states? Which is not unusual in mid to late game. Then my RR usage will be higher. There is no way around that. Not to mention the logistics of getting those elements to the region you want them in and the time it takes. Once again if you times that times multiple brigades? It becomes a huge change. For the Union this is not as damaging an issue as for the CSA. The Union has tons of resources to throw at the logistical problem this will cause. But The CSA will certainly be negatively affected.

The CP issue is a totaly different thing. If it is possible to just make the CP cost of mixed brigades higher? Then do it for all the mixed brigades on both sides.

Nial

Posted: **Fri Feb 27, 2009 6:51 pm**

They will have the same weight whether they are in one big brigade or several smaller ones. Sure you have to line them all up in the right region, but you always have to do that. What's the big deal?