New Force Compositions?

[enalut]

So given all the recent discussion on frontage and Artillery--excellent work Dixicrat.

I was wondering what division composition were looking better?

As a preliminary question--how does the new cavalry follow through work--I remember reading in one of the patches that if 4 Cav elements were present, additional casualties could be inflicted on defeated troops--is this 4 elements per unit/division, per group, or per battle?


Supplemental (and depending on how the above question is answered):
I was thinking of changing the composition of my standard division (previously 10 Inf, 1 SS 2 Cav and 4 Art) to one of 2 configurations--the independent force and the constituent division

Independent: 8 Inf (possibly 7 Inf 1 Marine depending on where it will be used), 1 SS, 4 Cav, 4 Art.
Constituent: 8 Inf , 1 SS, 2 Cav, and 6 Art.

I usually group 3 Divisions, a Marine, 4 Art, 1 Balloon, 1 Signal, 1 Hosp. and 2-4 Supply wagons in each corps.

Artillery was (before the new upgrade changes) group as 6lbs-10lbs at division and 12-20lbs and Rodmans at corps/Army. Now I plan on placing the 6-12lbs at Division and using the rifles at Corps/Army levels.

Given the new understanding of frontage, I am tempted to reduce a corps to 2 divisions and increase its allotment of Artillery.

I also make a few what I consider "Guards" divisions that include 1 elite unit and as many of the reinforced/extra men elements as I can concentrate and give them heavier artillery than a normal division--then these get grouped as separate corps under the best commanders.

Thoughts?

[Jarkko]

I have termed my two division types as "Indy" and "Line" (I thought "Meat" did sound a bit degratory, so I have teached myself to say now Line instead of Meat :P).

It depends on what you intend to do with the independent division. If it is used (like I do) as a flanking force, holding or taking postions in the flanks, then 4 cavalry can not be IMO justified. One calvalry is enough to provide some scouting, while 4 cavalry is a liability if you are hit by a hostile corps. Keep the cavalry separated, for deep raids and forward scouting.

When the independent division meets a garrison, the artillery will be needed to nuke down the defenders fast. If the independent division have to stand its ground vs a corps, you need the cannons to break the enemy morale.

For maximal punch and mobility, I do suggest for independent divisions a composition of 1 SS, 1 marine/sailor, 8 infantry, 1 cavalry, 7 artillery. This is a relatively cheap division (buy militia for infantry, they'll upgrade to regulars in no time), but still has quite a punch and staying power. If the sole purpose of the division is to hold some important location, then swap out the marine and swap in an artillery. Dig it in, and a conventional corps should not be able to push it away.


I still lack proper tests with bigger units, but my gut feel is that the cavalry should not be intermingled into "line" infantry divisions. Keep the cavalry under corps/army commanders, they should be able to pursue just fine from there. Line infnatry should IMO have lots of infantry, and that's really all they should have Keep the killers (artillery) and scouts/pursuers (cavalry) under the corps and army commanders.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jarkko]

Okay, I'll bite... I figure the Indy for "Independant Division", but I'm at a loss for "Meat" unless you are implying a "Meat-Grinder Division"?

Indy is indeed Independent Division

Meat is meat-shield, ie the thing that protects your artillery while being pounced by the other sides artillery :P
"Lookout, a cannon-ball!"
"I got it, I got it, I gaaaargh..."

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[soundoff]

Indy is indeed Independent Division

Meat is meat-shield, ie the thing that protects your artillery while being pounced by the other sides artillery :P
"Lookout, a cannon-ball!"
"I got it, I got it, I gaaaargh..."

Ahhh obviously the Irish brigades. As in the olympics...... gold medalists at catching the javelin and heading the shot. LOL

[Coffee Sergeant]

For maximal punch and mobility, I do suggest for independent divisions a composition of 1 SS, 1 marine/sailor, 8 infantry, 1 cavalry, 7 artillery. This is a relatively cheap division (buy militia for infantry, they'll upgrade to regulars in no time), but still has quite a punch and staying power. If the sole purpose of the division is to hold some important location, then swap out the marine and swap in an artillery. Dig it in, and a conventional corps should not be able to push it away.

7 arty seems alot to pack in a division. I thought there was a frontage limit of 4, depending on factors like terrain.

[aryaman]

I have termed my two division types as "Indy" and "Line" (I thought "Meat" did sound a bit degratory, so I have teached myself to say now Line instead of Meat :P).

It depends on what you intend to do with the independent division. If it is used (like I do) as a flanking force, holding or taking postions in the flanks, then 4 cavalry can not be IMO justified. One calvalry is enough to provide some scouting, while 4 cavalry is a liability if you are hit by a hostile corps. Keep the cavalry separated, for deep raids and forward scouting.

When the independent division meets a garrison, the artillery will be needed to nuke down the defenders fast. If the independent division have to stand its ground vs a corps, you need the cannons to break the enemy morale.

For maximal punch and mobility, I do suggest for independent divisions a composition of 1 SS, 1 marine/sailor, 8 infantry, 1 cavalry, 7 artillery. This is a relatively cheap division (buy militia for infantry, they'll upgrade to regulars in no time), but still has quite a punch and staying power. If the sole purpose of the division is to hold some important location, then swap out the marine and swap in an artillery. Dig it in, and a conventional corps should not be able to push it away.


I still lack proper tests with bigger units, but my gut feel is that the cavalry should not be intermingled into "line" infantry divisions. Keep the cavalry under corps/army commanders, they should be able to pursue just fine from there. Line infnatry should IMO have lots of infantry, and that's really all they should have Keep the killers (artillery) and scouts/pursuers (cavalry) under the corps and army commanders.

What about an artillery division withon a Corps or an Army? should still be protected by the rest of infantry?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[enalut]

By Independant--I am meaning a division not associated with a Corps--usually operating out west--KY/TN and the TransMississippi

My thought for including so much cavalry was to get the 4 cavalry for teh rout bonus casualties.

[Le Ricain]

"withon"? (meaning)

I believe he means 'within'.

[Jarkko]

7 arty seems alot to pack in a division. I thought there was a frontage limit of 4, depending on factors like terrain.

Yes, there is a frontage limit. Of about in 40 in most terrain. People have been believing there is a limit of 4, but it has been notified it is not true. Which is why I believe the OP started this thread

[Jarkko]

By Independant--I am meaning a division not associated with a Corps--usually operating out west--KY/TN and the TransMississippi

My thought for including so much cavalry was to get the 4 cavalry for teh rout bonus casualties.

The rout is only usable if you win the fight. If you lost, you won't pursuit. Therefore, in my opinion, it is better to focus on actually winning first, and then worry about pursuit, rather than lose the fight and never get to pursuit

[Dixicrat]

Yes, there is a frontage limit. Of about in 40 in most terrain...

I must respectfully disagree with you, Jarkko. Using the calculations which PhilThib provided, Jabberwock has calculated maximum frontage for Infantry and Artillery. The median value seems to be more on the order of twenty-something.

The rout is only usable if you win the fight. If you lost, you won't pursuit. Therefore, in my opinion, it is better to focus on actually winning first, and then worry about pursuit, rather than lose the fight and never get to pursuit.

Pocus has recommended 4 elements of Cav in Divisions of 16 CP or more, as explained here. Aside from considerations of pursuit and screening, there are additional factors such as evasion, patrol values, and so forth.

[Jarkko]

I must respectfully disagree with you, Jarkko. Using the calculations which PhilThib provided, Jabberwock has calculated maximum frontage for Infantry and Artillery. The median value seems to be more on the order of twenty-something.

Most of the terrain where corps/armies are used in is clear or in some cases woods. Why plan your army for wilderness conditions when you are not going to use an army there? An independent division will do just as fine in wilderness because of the frontage, except that is much more cost-effective than an army. You are going to use armies in clear and sometimes in woods, plan your armies for that

Pocus has recommended 4 elements of Cav in Divisions of 16 CP or more, as explained here. Aside from considerations of pursuit and screening, there are additional factors such as evasion, patrol values, and so forth.

Of course each to their own if it suits their plans. If I want to be evading stuff, then I'll have a cavalry brigade/division doing that; they are also excellent for patrolling and so forth With an independent division I want to be able to take and hold places. For that more than one element of integrated cavalry is simply put total waste. If the enemy evades my division when I am heading for my target, who lost? If the enemy evades my division when I hold a key position, who lost?


In essence, if you ask me: Plan where and how you are going to use your forces. You have the tools available, take maximal effectiveness out from it. Going for anything but maximal effectiveness will see you waste resources and getting pounded by smaller forces.



EDIT: Ahaaah! I finally understood what Dixicrat said! Yes, it took a while, but even the dullest of us can sometimes figure out things Yes, my wording is poor in the post you quoted. I say "in most terrain", when my intention to say was "in most places (where you fight)". Blame it on lack of coffee and my lack of grasp for the English language