Antietam (Confederate Side)

[AegorBlackfyre]

Hello i was playing the battle Antietam as a confederate and i lost the battle (duh) but i was really wondering if this result was achieved in real life would the confederate be able to win the war?

i mean in the real battle the union casualties were 12,410 while the confederates casualties were 10,316, so this time the Army of the Potomac took some serious casualties leaving it with only 47 thousand men but one would also argue saying that the Army of Northern Virginia is completely destroyed only 16000 men. 

so what do you generals think?

   
 

Edited December 15, 2016 by AegorBlackfyre
mistook the strengths for the Casualties.

[Hitorishizuka]

Yeah, the Antietam scaling is a little ridiculous. As usual, ran out of supply on almost everyone, even with capturing a couple early supply from the enemy. The hard cap on Supply just isn't meant to deal with these kinds of numbers, it's pretty frustrating.

[Alavaria]

Cap on supply... another good reason to be really sparing with the numbers you bring to that battlefield I guess.

(Also when considering artillery)

[Hitorishizuka]

6 minutes ago, Alavaria said:

Cap on supply... another good reason to be really sparing with the numbers you bring to that battlefield I guess.

(Also when considering artillery)

It just feels like too gamey of a system. I guess it's finally a reason to run Recon 4 if only to see pre-battle numbers and take the bare minimum soldiers before scaling kicks in.

[KaleRaven]

This (and other large battles) are where logistics points really start to become worthwhile. Also, it offers an advantage for using a larger number of smaller corps.

So is this the thread for posting Antietam screenshots?

Edited December 17, 2016 by KaleRaven

[Hitorishizuka]

11 minutes ago, KaleRaven said:

This (and other large battles) are where logistics points really start to become worthwhile. Also, it offers an advantage for using a larger number of smaller corps.

Or you can just use small Veterans only and never need Logistics. You brought 15k more men than me and the AI picked up 40k in return. Kind of annoyingly pointless, no?

[KaleRaven]

9 minutes ago, Hitorishizuka said:

Or you can just use small Veterans only and never need Logistics. You brought 15k more men than me and the AI picked up 40k in return. Kind of annoyingly pointless, no?

I'm guessing the difference is bigger partially because I was playing on hard. In a prior hard campaign, when I brought 53k and the AI had 112k.

I don't mind at all, honestly. It was a fun challenging battle that had me restart and try different strategies a couple times. If the AI value was fixed at something like 90k, it would have been a cakewalk and I likely would have encircled and crushed the Union army. For comparison, on 2nd Bull Run, the Union took 34k casualties while I only took 4.8k.

Edited December 17, 2016 by KaleRaven

[Alavaria]

So what is the minimum scale # for line infantry, skirmishers, cavalry, artillery for Antietam anyway?

[Kloiste]

I just played Antietam again on Hard last night and I didn't have a problem with supply, although I think that was because I had very few cannons, but I had split them 5 batteries - 4 smaller batteries and 1 battery of 24. I had 25k supply with my first Corps, 10k with the second, and the third had 0, and captured 1 supply wagon.

What I did to conserve ammunition was to have all the cannons except the 24 battery on hold fire right behind the infantry, and would always wait until the enemy engaging in front of me before turning them off hold fire. The sparse use of artillery and the low numbers of guns I had conserved ammunition really well. I wish I had brought 1 more unit of cavalry (melee) to the fight as I found them instrumental in holding the line, they're very easy to lose track of and you have to micromanage them heavily, but I valued them more than the artillery, which another benefit since they don't actually spend any ammunition. Having too much cannon is what usually leads to a lack of supply, infantry barely consumes any.

[Hitorishizuka]

7 hours ago, Kloiste said:

I just played Antietam again on Hard last night and I didn't have a problem with supply, although I think that was because I had very few cannons, but I had split them 5 batteries - 4 smaller batteries and 1 battery of 24. I had 25k supply with my first Corps, 10k with the second, and the third had 0, and captured 1 supply wagon.

It's not cannons...well, that could be a contributing factor, but you're still within the bounds of "this is a reasonable amount of soldiers" at 26k. I brought double the amount of soldiers and cannons but yet can only still bring 25k on the first 2 Corps. (3rd Corps had no problems and had 25k also but they were isolated to the Stone Bridge.)

[General Hancock]

Currently the "scaling" or benefits of wining a battle and proceeding to the next battle are out of whack.

Good news the Devs are aware of the problem and said it will be fixed in next patch.

[RoverGrover]

Jeez KaleRaven,

 

I thought the 125k they took against me was ridiculous.  You had to fight even more.  Any tips?  You fought a much cleaner battle than me and took a lot less casualties.  (Do agree about your fixed value assessment though.  I completely surrounded the union troops mostly even before my reinforcements arrived at 2nd BR.  Very fun :D) 

[KaleRaven]

1 hour ago, RoverGrover said:

Jeez KaleRaven,

 

I thought the 125k they took against me was ridiculous.  You had to fight even more.  Any tips?  You fought a much cleaner battle than me and took a lot less casualties.  (Do agree about your fixed value assessment though.  I completely surrounded the union troops mostly even before my reinforcements arrived at 2nd BR.  Very fun :D) 

I took a relatively forward defensive position straddling the northernmost fence fortifications. It was pretty much an east-west line along the edge of the forest. I had all my best troops and artillery in my first and second corps. I had several large artillery batteries that I put just behind the fence line. So long as you maintain a solid line and make sure your troops are in heavy cover, your line should be virtually unbreakable. Just make sure you identify where the AI is focusing their attack and have extra brigades there to fend off charges. 

When the second phase starts, I rush north a division from the Sunken Road. You will want to refuse the flank a bit and some of your troops will end up in the open. Just try to ensure the troops in cover take the brunt of the fire. It can be a good idea to rotate out brigades if they get tired or low on ammo.

The most challenging part of the battle is when Burnside attacks from across the river. You must fall back in a orderly manner or you will get flanked badly. I detach skirmishers and have my infantry start falling back. By now, the earlier attack waves should be quite depleted, preventing the Union from putting too much pressure on your retreating troops. At this time, I move pretty much all my artillery to below the Sunken Road. My new battle line is an angle anchored by the three objectives. Sharpsville offers great cover and so is an ideal place to anchor your line.

The hardest fighting will be at the salient created by the Sunken Road. That's why I put all my artillery there. There will be heavy losses here and you will need extra brigades to replace retreating or exhausted troops at the Road. Ideally, you can pull a few brigades from the northern flank by this point. I use skirmishers extensively throughout the battle to flank or draw fire. Careful micromanagement of your brigades can do a lot to maximize your firepower and minimize losses. Having units fall back when being charged can be very effective. I would also use melee cav to counter charge enemy units that were engaged in melee with my own. Be sure to have the cav fall back once the enemy starts retreating though. 

Edited December 25, 2016 by KaleRaven

[Hitorishizuka]

FWIW, an alternate approach:

Stack your biggest brigades at Dunker Church with Napoleons to back them up. The AI will be most likely to mass charge during phase 1 because of a manpower advantage and fresh troops. If you can survive that, you're pretty much clear. Use the vertical line of forest at Dunker Church, bend towards the fortifications around the Sunken Road, then keep some extra brigades watching the flank on that side and just break the Union troops along that line, they have terrible cover and just walk forward to get murdered. If you are bold, you can put 3-4 brigades watching the eastern bridge with artillery backup and shred Porter's Corps as they spawn in, but it's a gamble. They should fall back south slightly ASAP once the map expands but before then they can sit in the good cover and keep that defended. Eventually once numbers even out you can just do a swinging gate starting from Dunker Church and sweep them off the field by crushing them against the river. Your cavalry will have the most play in the North picking off their artillery and starting to clean off routing brigades starting on the northern flank and freeing up your advance from there sooner.

Make sure you rush artillery down to the Stone Bridge once III Corps spawns in and maybe even rotate a couple brigades down there from the Sunken/Dunker area if you only had light brigades there normally, as the AI will also start mass charging the fortifications there and artillery will be needed to push that back and rack up the casualties.

[RoverGrover]

Thanks,

My strategy was actually fairly similar to Kales.    I also tried taking a very forward defensive position anchored by the fencelines.  I think a lot of my problem was that when Porters Corps showed up I tried the 3-4 brigades idea that Hitorishizuka suggested, but it didn't really work.  I got pushed back easier than I'd have liked.  I still won handily if you count casualties inflicted.  But I felt as if I also took more than I really wanted.  Porter REALLY shows up with a lot of troops.  I guess considering how many I'd already slaughtered I never really thought they'd still have that many more coming to party  

Agree with the arty on stone bridge.  That helped a lot.  Annoyed that they can fit like 6k guys on that bridge though.  That's a small bridge .

 

I think maybe I'll try the suggestion of anchoring on Sharpsburg and holding a a defensive line around the town itself.  Can't hurt to try  

 

Appreciate the tips!

 

 

 

[Hitorishizuka]

5 minutes ago, RoverGrover said:

My strategy was actually fairly similar to Kales.    I also tried taking a very forward defensive position anchored by the fencelines.  I think a lot of my problem was that when Porters Corps showed up I tried the 3-4 brigades idea that Hitorishizuka suggested, but it didn't really work.  I got pushed back easier than I'd have liked.  I still won handily if you count casualties inflicted.  But I felt as if I also took more than I really wanted.  Porter REALLY shows up with a lot of troops.  I guess considering how many I'd already slaughtered I never really thought they'd still have that many more coming to party  

I'm pretty sure I had II Corps's general hanging out around there because I didn't need him around the Sunken Road FWIW. Porter crosses with a division at first of like 3 infantry brigades and a couple artillery, that should be beatable. After that I'd probably want to retreat before the next 2 divisions come.

[KaleRaven]

13 hours ago, RoverGrover said:

Thanks,

My strategy was actually fairly similar to Kales.    I also tried taking a very forward defensive position anchored by the fencelines.  I think a lot of my problem was that when Porters Corps showed up I tried the 3-4 brigades idea that Hitorishizuka suggested, but it didn't really work.  I got pushed back easier than I'd have liked.  I still won handily if you count casualties inflicted.  But I felt as if I also took more than I really wanted.  Porter REALLY shows up with a lot of troops.  I guess considering how many I'd already slaughtered I never really thought they'd still have that many more coming to party  

Agree with the arty on stone bridge.  That helped a lot.  Annoyed that they can fit like 6k guys on that bridge though.  That's a small bridge .

I think maybe I'll try the suggestion of anchoring on Sharpsburg and holding a a defensive line around the town itself.  Can't hurt to try

Appreciate the tips!

When I tried defending the bridges, I got overwhelmed by just the sheer amount of manpower the Union had there. I had 2 divisions at the bridge east of the road and they still got repulsed by the amount of raw firepower and numbers that the Union had. The problem was that there wasn't much cover there except directly against the river where you can be shot from the other side. The Union also had quite a bit of artillery that was constantly shelling my exposed troops. I'll probably try it again sometime.

[michaelsmithern]

On 12/16/2016 at 9:10 PM, Hitorishizuka said:

Yeah, the Antietam scaling is a little ridiculous. As usual, ran out of supply on almost everyone, even with capturing a couple early supply from the enemy. The hard cap on Supply just isn't meant to deal with these kinds of numbers, it's pretty frustrating.

yeah, ever since i started listening to more of the guides and tips on the forums i've done really well, but have run into non stop supply issues, although i fixed this by making smaller corps(with smaller brigades and stopped leaving my supply wagons right beside my cannons) it helped a tiny bit, but still same result i have too many men and not enough supplies to help all of them

[Col_Kelly]

Mmmh, it kinda proves that melee cav should be tuned down, at least when engaging their own allies in melee. I'll let you imagine what such tactics would give in real life (not to mention that cav charging infantry was a pretty rare thing at that time, horses weren't trained to charge formations like they were in the middle-age).

Using them to counter charge will give the player an unfair advantage as his lines will become insensitive to mass breakthroughs.

Congrats on such results however.

[Hitorishizuka]

You can't tune down melee cav too far or there's no reason to take them at all, though, and one of the unique tools in your kit gets degraded. Ranged cav are actually a fair bit safer even if they tend not to pick up the massive kill numbers and melee cav is really your only fast hammer to use when timing is tight and positions needs to be taken now. (Melee charging with infantry is honestly generally not worth it.)

[Col_Kelly]

Melee cav is super useful in other cases, more tactically accurate as well : cleaning skirmishers, destroying arty batteries, running down routing brigades, especially when combined with ally skirms.

I was also amazed at first to see how useful they were in counter-charging tactics but later down the road doing so just felt wrong as it took the challenge off the campaign.

[dowdpride]

1 hour ago, Hitorishizuka said:

You can't tune down melee cav too far or there's no reason to take them at all, though, and one of the unique tools in your kit gets degraded. Ranged cav are actually a fair bit safer even if they tend not to pick up the massive kill numbers and melee cav is really your only fast hammer to use when timing is tight and positions needs to be taken now. (Melee charging with infantry is honestly generally not worth it.)

I actually find infantry charges to be crucial in my union campaign. the confeds can have as many 1200 man 3 star brigades as they like, doesnt help them when charged and outnumbered 5-1

[RobWheat61]

I absolutely agree with Col_Kelly's statement about cavarly and melee.

On a sidenote, I would also like to see the size of dedicated skirmisher units reduced to 250 men.

Edited December 25, 2016 by RobWheat61

[Hitorishizuka]

30 minutes ago, dowdpride said:

I actually find infantry charges to be crucial in my union campaign. the confeds can have as many 1200 man 3 star brigades as they like, doesnt help them when charged and outnumbered 5-1

Unless the unit has guns kitted for melee and a good melee stat, though, the best benefit you get is displacement, they don't actually kill a whole lot for being in melee (unless outnumbered enough for a surrender) and rapidly drain Condition. That's the more important part, 0 Condition units move glacially and have to be rested or just accept a very slow pace of advancement. Plus, being in melee blocks everyone else from shooting and opens you up more to being shot at by their buddies coming in behind.

[dowdpride]

thats why you just throw more brigades at the other ones :P. My antietam had me as the union with 120k vs the confeds 57k so i just swarmed them and it didnt matter.