Little versus Big Divisions?

[cptcav]

I know that there has been numerous posts on the ideal division composition. What I would like to know is what exactly is the disadvantage of having multiple small divisions, especially if you have enough good leaders to command them? For example, if you have a corps with three or four good one star commanders, what disadvantage am I facing by making three or four small divisions versus two "full" divisions (assuming that I can put a sharpshooter unit in each division regardless of size)?

[Banks6060]

You are spot on my friend. If you have the leaders...give them troops to lead.

[Dixicrat]

I know that there has been numerous posts on the ideal division composition. What I would like to know is what exactly is the disadvantage of having multiple small divisions, especially if you have enough good leaders to command them? For example, if you have a corps with three or four good one star commanders, what disadvantage am I facing by making three or four small divisions versus two "full" divisions (assuming that I can put a sharpshooter unit in each division regardless of size)?

There is no disadvantage, in skirmish or "single theater" scenarios. In fact, providing more (good) leaders is to your advantage, as Banks has stated.

However, in the Grand Campaign, you're limited to thirty divisions, no matter how many units you field. Believe it or not, you hit that limit a lot sooner than you'd think. So, I'm thinking that it's concern for this limit that underlies many posts in which full strength divisions are discussed.

[cptcav]

Thank you gentlemen.

I was looking at whether or not to form units into divisions at an earlier stage and, then, filling them up as reinforcements came about. Especially, given that I have so many leaders without commands available.

My concern is/was whether or not there are any disadvantages from a combat standpoint. As we all know, Napoleon said that victory goes to the bigger battalions; so, I wanted to make sure that this did not translate into bigger divisions as well.

Regards,
CptCav

[W.Barksdale]

The limiting factor about small divisions is CP. Your stacks will max out on command points before they max out on power. IMHO I think this is a bad idea in general. Although there may be certain situations where it could be beneficial. I can't think of any, however.

[Brochgale]

I am presently experimenting against AI by not not making divisions with what I would call weak Generals as I often find as CSA I get some really good generals later in game and those able Generals I have earlier in game can thus have what I would call full or close to full compliments of elements.

I do brigade the useless ones as I see it well away from front lines and in roles to watch out for any back door Fed moves.

The 30 Division limit has me experimenting as CSA. I am now using Bragg to drill stacks made up or recruited Line infantry to give them hopefully some experience before allocating them to front lines in Divisions - that though depends on Fed inactivity I doubt if I would get that luxury against human opponents.

I very rarely have more than 9-10 Divisions(18 elements) in a game with full compliments. Also Forrest and Stuart I usually make cav divisions with attached horse art just to give them a little strike power and they are usually small divisions.

I do Brigade what I would consider my useless Generals as is it is criminal not do so I think, even if I dont like them. Always good for repairing railroads and spotting Yank deep raids? I find these Brigades also useful for grabbing back control of map areas that have sliped under the control of Feds.

I keep the number of Independent Divisions, that is Divisions outwith an Army structure to a minimum. Well I am experimenting it is about trying to keep free Division slots so as I can employ what ar some very able Generals later in game. Instead of using all my division slots early in game.

When I first started playing game I would create as many as 4 CSA Armies of varying strength but now I just employ 2 Armies and fill them to be a strong as I can make them. 3 Corps per Army depending on how game develops Roughly 3 divisions in each, with 6 Independent divisions scattered around CSA and 6 in reserve to replace badly bashed Divisions after a fight or to deploy in emergency situations when AI pulls a sneaky - it is a strategy I tweak for games against my nephew though.

There is no ideal it just depends on what style of game you want to play. I like the idea of having free division slots to give Division commands to Generals that appear later in game a luxury that I suspect I would not get against a human opponent.

[Jarkko]

Napoleon said that victory goes to the bigger battalions; so, I wanted to make sure that this did not translate into bigger divisions as well.

It does, unless the geography allows all troops to line up from start. Say you have a corps with three understrength divisions. You are facing a corps with two full strength divisions. Say everything else is equal between the two corps (both sides on offensive, equal total power, same dice rolls etc). Let us also assume at most half of the units can fill in the frontage.

Battle commence. After a while the front divisions rout and in steps the divisions at rear. The problem is now that the side with three divisions most likely can't fill all the front slots anymore, as their lone understrength (with the other two who have taken damage licking their wounds at back) is now facing a full strength division. A battle that was 1:1 suddenly effectively changed to 3:2

Not to mention the corps with three divisions can have fewer corp artillery. Artillery is the king. More artillery is better.


In short: Bigger divisions are better divisions.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Hohenlohe]

In one of my last games playing the CSA I felt unhappy about the limit of 30 divisions because I could have made about 34 divisions at a certain time.
I had three full cavalry divisions commanded by Stuart, Forrest and Van Doorn and two additional small cavalry divisions commanded by Watie and Quantrill.I preferably used the smaller ones as heavy raider/striker divisions against the hinterland of the enemy disrupting railways, sacking/plundering depots and for diversion of enemy troops before making limited offensives with my main armies.I had four main armies sofar, in three of them I had each of the full 18-element cavalry divisions and often enough 2-3 corps around,but sometimes I tried a full army stack with some of my commanders without building corps as a small exploitation of my cp army limit and was therefore often experiencing a victory over the AI.
I have still no experience in terms of PBEM because I am playing 10 hours in a row/queue then pausing and playing some other game the next day and often enough there are some days without playing because I am sometimes working as a statist for the film industry here in Munich.
But now I am thinking about some PBEM with some of our experts at SI-Games forum.We have two or three good fellows who will be very good counterparts there.

greetings

Hohenlohe

[Banks6060]

It does, unless the geography allows all troops to line up from start. Say you have a corps with three understrength divisions. You are facing a corps with two full strength divisions. Say everything else is equal between the two corps (both sides on offensive, equal total power, same dice rolls etc). Let us also assume at most half of the units can fill in the frontage.

Battle commence. After a while the front divisions rout and in steps the divisions at rear. The problem is now that the side with three divisions most likely can't fill all the front slots anymore, as their lone understrength (with the other two who have taken damage licking their wounds at back) is now facing a full strength division. A battle that was 1:1 suddenly effectively changed to 3:2

Not to mention the corps with three divisions can have fewer corp artillery. Artillery is the king. More artillery is better.


In short: Bigger divisions are better divisions.

I was under the impression that frontage was measured in elements....not divisions...

[Heldenkaiser]

Napoleon said that victory goes to the bigger battalions

Napoleon said a lot impressive of things, but that one's from a French 17th century writer ("Dieu est ordinairement pour le gros escadrons contre les petits") and was popularized in German by Frederick the Great (not Bismarck, not Moltke) ("Gott ist immer mit den stärkeren Bataillonen"). Note that in the translation cavalry became infantry. But I suppose neither of them meant it 100% literally. Even though at least one later Prussian king (William I) thought that it was in fact the size of the battalions that made the difference, the more common understanding of the saying is that battalion is to be read as a pars pro toto for the army, so that the actual meaning, as commonly understood, is "God is with the stronger army". (As an aside, French battalions in the Napoleonic Wars were considerably smaller than those of most of their opponents, except the British. )

[Jarkko]

I was under the impression that frontage was measured in elements....not divisions...

Indeed. But when a division has had enough, it withdraws from the front, taking along all its elements. As you've probably noticed after combats, sometimes some divisions seem to not have taken losses at all, while others in the same corps have taken plenty; it just means the division with no losses was most likely sitting in reserve for (most of) the fight because their elements simply could not fit the front before the enemy already did rout.

For example, lets assume a fight in a terrain that allows 16 elements fit to the front and 8 to the back (for artillery and other support units); all other units present at the fight start in the reserve. Lets say I have two full divisions with 16 infantry elements plus 8 artillery elements at corps level, while you have three divisions each with 11 infantry and 2 artillery plus two artillery at corp level. Equal numbers, eh? Well, the combat starts, 16 elements line up on both sides, except that of course one division on both sides stays behind. Which means 16 front elements for both sides while I have all 8 artillery bombarding but you have just 6 (2 corp artillery and 2 from both divisions fighting). With equal rolls, both sides see the frontal divisions retreat to reserves at the same time, and in walzes the divisions from the rear. The numbers are now 16 infantry + 8 artillery (the corp artillery won't go anywhere until the fight is over) vs 11 infantry + 4 artillery (the corp artillery and the two from the fresh division).



Also, as I already wrote above, you can have more artillery at corps level if you have full strength divisions instead of (more) understrength divisions. It is, as was said above, inefficient use of the command points to use understrength divisions.

[cptcav]

Indeed. But when a division has had enough, it withdraws from the front, taking along all its elements. As you've probably noticed after combats, sometimes some divisions seem to not have taken losses at all, while others in the same corps have taken plenty; it just means the division with no losses was most likely sitting in reserve for (most of) the fight because their elements simply could not fit the front before the enemy already did rout.

For example, lets assume a fight in a terrain that allows 16 elements fit to the front and 8 to the back (for artillery and other support units); all other units present at the fight start in the reserve. Lets say I have two full divisions with 16 infantry elements plus 8 artillery elements at corps level, while you have three divisions each with 11 infantry and 2 artillery plus two artillery at corp level. Equal numbers, eh? Well, the combat starts, 16 elements line up on both sides, except that of course one division on both sides stays behind. Which means 16 front elements for both sides while I have all 8 artillery bombarding but you have just 6 (2 corp artillery and 2 from both divisions fighting). With equal rolls, both sides see the frontal divisions retreat to reserves at the same time, and in walzes the divisions from the rear. The numbers are now 16 infantry + 8 artillery (the corp artillery won't go anywhere until the fight is over) vs 11 infantry + 4 artillery (the corp artillery and the two from the fresh division).



Also, as I already wrote above, you can have more artillery at corps level if you have full strength divisions instead of (more) understrength divisions. It is, as was said above, inefficient use of the command points to use understrength divisions.

So, the key is that if you have small divisions, make sure that they have plenty of artillery support either in the division or in the corps.

CptCav

[Jarkko]

So, the key is that if you have small divisions, make sure that they have plenty of artillery support either in the division or in the corps.

CptCav

Well, yes and no. Notice that you can not have as many artillery at corps level if you have more divisions, as you simply run out of command points. Also, if you have enough artillery per division to counter a full corps artillery battery, then that is quite inefficient use of your money and WS (because you have to have much more artillery present at the battle), which could have been better used to purchase full-strength divisions to start with

Sure, if you are swimming in WS and money, then why not, but at least I would always seem to be able to use more WS and money than I ever have at hand

[Banks6060]

Indeed. But when a division has had enough, it withdraws from the front, taking along all its elements. As you've probably noticed after combats, sometimes some divisions seem to not have taken losses at all, while others in the same corps have taken plenty; it just means the division with no losses was most likely sitting in reserve for (most of) the fight because their elements simply could not fit the front before the enemy already did rout.

For example, lets assume a fight in a terrain that allows 16 elements fit to the front and 8 to the back (for artillery and other support units); all other units present at the fight start in the reserve. Lets say I have two full divisions with 16 infantry elements plus 8 artillery elements at corps level, while you have three divisions each with 11 infantry and 2 artillery plus two artillery at corp level. Equal numbers, eh? Well, the combat starts, 16 elements line up on both sides, except that of course one division on both sides stays behind. Which means 16 front elements for both sides while I have all 8 artillery bombarding but you have just 6 (2 corp artillery and 2 from both divisions fighting). With equal rolls, both sides see the frontal divisions retreat to reserves at the same time, and in walzes the divisions from the rear. The numbers are now 16 infantry + 8 artillery (the corp artillery won't go anywhere until the fight is over) vs 11 infantry + 4 artillery (the corp artillery and the two from the fresh division).



Also, as I already wrote above, you can have more artillery at corps level if you have full strength divisions instead of (more) understrength divisions. It is, as was said above, inefficient use of the command points to use understrength divisions.

A very good argument sir, but suppose that 11 inf. 4 arty. division has Sam Hood at the head of it, with Jackson as his Corps Commander...facing...say...Sumner, with (hell I've say a decent one) Kearney on your side....all things being equal...Hood's troops and guns have a 42% better chance of hitting your troops and guns. while yours have only about a 14% better chance of hitting mine.

My point is simply that...especially for the south...you kind of have to give troops to your great leaders....because you don't have the resources to afford full divisions at the 30 division limit.

[Big Ideas]

Voltaire's quote was:"God is not on the side of the biggest battalions, but on the side of those who shoot best."

Napoleon's quote was:"God is on the side with the biggest battalions."

[Brochgale]

I forgot to mention the command points factor. Another reason I am experimenting against AI. The Commnad points factor pretty much forces CSA player into replacing Beauregard with Lee I think. Despite the political cost which I nearly always have to pay.
Although Beauregard and JJohnstone make for better commanders of Army of Tennessee than AS Johnstone.
The command penalty that associates with the lower ranked Generals is something of a problem for CSA when trying to configure an effective Army of NVA and Army of Tennessee, AS Johstone is very limited in my view. Although perhaps in 1861-62 that is not so much of a problem but from 1863 onwards it does become a problem even against AI and against a human opponent it is crippling?

[Jarkko]

Hood's troops and guns have a 42% better chance of hitting your troops and guns. while yours have only about a 14% better chance of hitting mine.

True. And yet, 8 cannons firing with +14% chance to hit will score more hits than 6 guns with +42% to hit. Bigger simply *is* better, and artillery is the king

[GraniteStater]

Who was is it that said, "Give me Southern infantry and Northern artillery and I shall whip anyone!"?

[denisonh]

True. And yet, 8 cannons firing with +14% chance to hit will score more hits than 6 guns with +42% to hit. Bigger simply *is* better, and artillery is the king

Depends on the base chance to hit. You are right if the base chance is greater than 70%, otherwise the expected value for number of hits for 6 guns at +42% is greater than 8 guns +14%

[GraniteStater]

This is an excellent thread. Now, to be clear, as some other people could tell you from my posts in another company's game forums, in this type of game I'm not looking to crunch numbers. What I seek is the modelling; after all, I'm usually playing this because I know the subject well.

Does the program reward me for doing that which 'should' make sense? Does it punish me for doing that which goes diametrically opposite the historical or factual reality?

This game models the problems facing the North very well, from what I've seen so far - all I've played is US. Now, to stick to the subject, I took a closer look at my force structure and realized that although I tend to recruit 'heavy' Bdes, I'm ending up with some rather light Divs, some with just 9 elements. This is 'cuz I got "4" stuck in my head somehow and was restricting my Div composition to 4 Inf Bdes, or 3 Inf w/Arty or w/Cav.

Now I see that the 18 element criterion is much more relevant. My recruiting pattern, as mentioned, is preferably the 'heavies', particularly the NY/MA 3 Inf Rgmt/Cav/Arty Bdes., or the similar ones in WI/MI/OH. So I tend to have 'integral' Arty anyway, in most of my Divs. I tend to put separate Arty Bttys at the Corp/formation level.

I think I'm outgunning the Rebs with this - most of my battle reports show me with the greater number of guns.

Recruited some Gatlings, BTW; are they worth it? Oh, and having Cav in formations helps with screening and maneuvering, right?

[Chertio]

There's lots of debate about the "perfect" arrangement but for a division

4x guns
1x sharpshooter
1, 2x cavalry
and the rest infantry

seems to be a standard. Plus 4x guns at Corps level, the heavies if possible as they will get engaged regardless of which divisions do the fighting.

Gatlings are powerful at short range and look cool. Probably Rodmans etc would do more damage overall in a fight, as they do ranged fire as well.

[GraniteStater]

I really don't bother with the 11 Inf Regmt, etc. composition. I do choose which Bdes under which 1* Ldr, but that's about it. Since checking my Div structure, I'm composing Divs with 15+ Regmts; most of my Divs end up with 2, 3, or 4 Arty Bttys apiece.

I expected the Gatlings were short range. In my present game, mid-63, I'm at 55 Divs already. Some of these could have some Bdes added to the Divs.

I don't like 'loose' Inf in my Corps; tend to go with Cav or Arty. I think Service assets are probably under-used by most players.

Which comes down to Economy and Production. I've just done some light Industry in NY, NJ, DE, PA, WI, MO, IL, and MI at the start in 61 and that seems to be all I really need, at least for WS. The bottlenecks are either $$ or men, depending. It being mid-63, I pulled the trigger on Full Mobilization - plenty of warm bodies now. Not enuff $$, never enuff $$, although I chose Income Tax, too, IIRC.

[Big Ideas]

For the promotable leaders I give them the best:5xart,1xcav,1xss,10xinf the elite infantries and bigger guns go here to help with promotions. Leaders have to score more hits than they receive to gain seniority.

For the non-promotable one-star leaders I normally give them the standard 4xart,1xcav,1xss,11 inf, slightly favouring any leaders that might have some special skills or stats.

The Confederates can't leave some of their infantry inside the corps structure because they never have enough. But I always try to have 4xart in the corps.

[Vegetius]

As Sun Tzu said :

"Un ramassis d'hommes est autant une armée qu'un tas de matériaux de construction est une maison".

"A gathering of men is as an army than a stack of building items is a house"

Sorry for the approximative translation !

Wich involved that a huge stack of milicians will not stand very long to a little stack of good troops.

[GraniteStater]

As Sun Tzu said :

"Un ramassis d'hommes est autant une armée qu'un tas de matériaux de construction est une maison".

"A gathering of men is as an army than a stack of building items is a house"

Sorry for the approximative translation !

Wich involved that a huge stack of milicians will not stand very long to a little stack of good troops.

Rome: Total War has a great many quotes from the ancients embedded in the game that are displayed when transitioning from and to the realtime battlefield.

They attribute this one to Socrates, I believe, who would've known; he was a veteran of Marathon, IIRC.

In English, it's closer to: "A mob is no more an army than a pile of lumber is a house."

[Dixicrat]

[...]Recruited some Gatlings, BTW; are they worth it? [...]

[...]Gatlings are powerful at short range and look cool. Probably Rodmans etc would do more damage overall in a fight, as they do ranged fire as well.

Here are a few interesting facts about Union Gatling Guns:

1. They're range is "3": identical to Infantry with muskets.
2. The have the highest "Defensive Fire" in the game. (36%) Only Siege Artillery is close. (35%).
3. They have a ROF (rate of fire) of 4. (!!) Using the equation 1 - (1 - hit %) ^ ROF we see that there's a 83% chance of achieving at least one hit on a target. Nothing else in the game comes anywhere close to that.
4. The Gatling Gun is the only ordnance which can share (and receive) supply with/from other units.
5. Gatling Guns don't take hits for being out of supply.
6. The "out of supply" movement penalty for all ordnance except Gatling Guns is 35%. GG suffer only 25%.
7. Of course, the Gatling Gun shares the same combat penalty for being out of supply as all other ordnance: 75%.
8. GG only use 1 supply, vs. 3 for other FA.
9. GG only use 1 ammo, vs. 4 for all other Union Ordnance.
10. GGs don't have as good of a rating for land and sea detection, as any other Union ordnance.
11. Finally, they're worthless if captured by the Confederacy. Unlike all other ordnance, no VPs are won when the GG is captured.

Hopefully, this information will help with your decision making.

IMHO, I believe that they're best utilized for point defense in non-open terrain. In particular, GG's are well suited for "difficult" terrain, such as forests and wooded hills. This is primarily because of the much shorter initial range of engagement, in these terrains.

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

I used Gatling guns in point defense of Harper's Ferry to close that corridor of CSA approach. My 8,000 troops dug-in with Gatlings fought the 24,000 of Bobby Lee to a stalemate. Just a single data point.

[Banks6060]

Here are a few interesting facts about Union Gatling Guns:

1. They're range is "3": identical to Infantry with muskets.
2. The have the highest "Defensive Fire" in the game. (36%) Only Siege Artillery is close. (35%).
3. They have a ROF (rate of fire) of 4. (!!) Using the equation 1 - (1 - hit %) ^ ROF we see that there's a 83% chance of achieving at least one hit on a target. Nothing else in the game comes anywhere close to that.
4. The Gatling Gun is the only ordnance which can share (and receive) supply with/from other units.
5. Gatling Guns don't take hits for being out of supply.
6. The "out of supply" movement penalty for all ordnance except Gatling Guns is 35%. GG suffer only 25%.
7. Of course, the Gatling Gun shares the same combat penalty for being out of supply as all other ordnance: 75%.
8. GG only use 1 supply, vs. 3 for other FA.
9. GG only use 1 ammo, vs. 4 for all other Union Ordnance.
10. GGs don't have as good of a rating for land and sea detection, as any other Union ordnance.
11. Finally, they're worthless if captured by the Confederacy. Unlike all other ordnance, no VPs are won when the GG is captured.

Hopefully, this information will help with your decision making.

IMHO, I believe that they're best utilized for point defense in non-open terrain. In particular, GG's are well suited for "difficult" terrain, such as forests and wooded hills. This is primarily because of the much shorter initial range of engagement, in these terrains.

Great information Dixiecrat!

I knew they were a pontent weapon in point defense, but had always mused about how to most effectively use them.

Gatlings weren't the most effective of all weapons at the time, artillery was still king of the battlefield, but for rear area defense...it would seem they are invaluable.