Thoughts on Army Organization points

[General Kazden]

Hello all,

I was wanting to post this and see what others thought about the Army Organization in the career tab.  One of the biggest issues I have with army org is that it never feels like an option.  What I mean by this is unlike the other choices, like Medical, Recon, Politics and so forth, Army Organization feels forced and obligatory to pick.  I have a feeling there are commanders here who can win the campaign without any points in some of the other options, however there is no such chance to win without Army Org.  If you fail to put enough points in at the right time you will lose the game and have to start over to make sure you put the points in at the right time.

Now this might just be me but I don't like it at all.  My suggestion would be to remove Army Org and either replace it with something like a reduction in commander costs or commander chance of death reduction... something like that to make it feel like an option compared to the others.  I believe that as you progress through the campaign the additional slots and sizes for brigades, divisions and corps is awarded to you much like the end of the 1st Battle of Bull Run where at the end you are given a second corps.  I believe this would help players to focus more on the building/composition and maintenance of their army over the constant worry of if they have enough army org points for the next battle.  Currently it feels as if certain points are already allocated to army organization anyway since if you don't put them in you will not have a large enough army to win.  Having the game(government) promote you with a larger command would make more sense as well.

Which brings me to a quick thing of the player character.  I don't think we should really have an avatar or command part unless a command slot in the OOB is designated for a Army Commander.   It makes no sense to me that my avatar is "commander of the army" but also just a regular corps commander.  This is made more out of place if you play on colonel and place yourself as a division or brigade commander just to get exp to promote which could take several battles.  The campaign should start off with you being just a division commander at the start and then you promote and grow as the game progresses. 

Anyway those are my thoughts... maybe file it under, "random internet player #234213 suggestion", for the next game.. which I can tell you is already preordered in my mind.

 

General Kazden,

Cmdr. Army of the Potomac

 

Edited April 10, 2017 by General Kazden
spelling/grammer

[Wandering1]

Concerning Army Org, it's not required that you put any points into it at all; the enemy will scale depending on the size of your army.

Meaning if you put barely any points into army org, your 2 4-brigade divisions will only have to fight 600-800 size infantry brigades. Which is to say, within a 12-gun 24-pdr one-shot range. Clearly, whether that is easy or not will very map to map (i.e. Antietam's going to be a nightmare, whereas Fredericksburg will turn out to be even more of a joke).

It does spawn the idea of trying a run with as close to 0 Army Org as possible just to see how the very large maps turn out... 

[Fred Sanford]

8 minutes ago, Wandering1 said:

Concerning Army Org, it's not required that you put any points into it at all; the enemy will scale depending on the size of your army.

That's not true.  The grand battles have minimum numbers corps needed (it varies on the battle and the side) to even be able to start.

[General Kazden]

Does the AI scale the number of the brigades it fields or just the numbers in each of those brigades?

 

So is anyone up for the ultimate challenge..?  Legendary Difficulty + 0 Army Organization.  I think actual prize money should be given for such a victory.

[Wright29]

16 minutes ago, Fred Sanford said:

That's not true.  The grand battles have minimum numbers corps needed (it varies on the battle and the side) to even be able to start.

There'll never be more than 3 required and I'm pretty sure the first 3 are given automatically regardless of you army org. You need Army Org to get to four and five corps. 

But the basic point of the OP is valid. I think it should just be unlimited from the get go. you're already limited by the number allowed in the deployment screen, manpower, and money while extra men not deployed hurt you in autoscaling. Right now Army Org is just to pace the player from doing something very foolish in the early game. 

[Wandering1]

You get free corps count from 1st Bull Run, and 2nd Bull Run, as Wright mentions. Which basically makes Army Org, by default, only if you want more flexibility in your formations (as in, actually be able to use cavalry/artillery and not be hamstrung by the fact that you only have a small number of brigades).

It only scales the numbers of those brigades, but it does take total brigades into consideration on either side.

For example, the Union has 59 total brigades for Antietam. If you only have... 17 brigades? 2x4 for 1st and 2nd Corps, and a token unit in the 3rd Corps, it means by default the computer will be between 1/4 to 1/3 of their original sizes. It won't scale downward beyond a certain minimum, if I were to recall. To make sure that having 0 skirmishers doesn't mean the enemy also has 0 skirmishers (as much as some people around here would prefer that...).

 

[General Kazden]

1 hour ago, Wandering1 said:

It won't scale downward beyond a certain minimum, if I were to recall.

  This is what I believed happened to me the first time I fought at Shiloh.  I remember my army being 2 corps with 3 divisions at four brigades each and I couldn't cover my flanks properly against the number of enemy brigades they brought at me.  I think I only had 3 points at that time in the army organization.  I remember having some of my brigades get triple teamed by the enemy.  I ended up restarting the campaign to put more into army org to have at least 4 divisions per corps and 5 brigades per division and of course a better setup to win that battle.

All my playthroughs since have been putting points into army org after certain battles as if they were assigned already.  The points from other battles are the ones I feel I really get to customize or decide on what I really want like more supply, cheaper vets, more money, ect.

[Wandering1]

21 minutes ago, General Kazden said:

  This is what I believed happened to me the first time I fought at Shiloh.  I remember my army being 2 corps with 3 divisions at four brigades each and I couldn't cover my flanks properly against the number of enemy brigades they brought at me.  I think I only had 3 points at that time in the army organization.  I remember having some of my brigades get triple teamed by the enemy.  I ended up restarting the campaign to put more into army org to have at least 4 divisions per corps and 5 brigades per division and of course a better setup to win that battle.

All my playthroughs since have been putting points into army org after certain battles as if they were assigned already.  The points from other battles are the ones I feel I really get to customize or decide on what I really want like more supply, cheaper vets, more money, ect.

Shiloh is doable with 12 on BG; just have to be aggressive enough that the enemy doesn't get to concentrate all of his reinforcements before the initial brigades are more or less destroyed.

As far as tactical options per point of Army Org goes though, you can pretty much stop after 6; not all battles allow you to field 24 brigades in 1 Corp.

[Aetius]

32 minutes ago, Wandering1 said:

Shiloh is doable with 12 on BG; just have to be aggressive enough that the enemy doesn't get to concentrate all of his reinforcements before the initial brigades are more or less destroyed.

As far as tactical options per point of Army Org goes though, you can pretty much stop after 6; not all battles allow you to field 24 brigades in 1 Corp.

6 points is also where I normally stop. One more point will get you 2500-man brigades, but you can't fill them on the higher difficulty levels, and 20 brigades is pretty much the most you'll ever take into a small battle.

I should also add - it's because it's generally better to have more brigades, up to a pretty large number. Flanking matters, and two 1250-man brigades shooting at a 2500-man brigade will easily win if the target small brigade is in good cover and the other small brigade is flanking. And especially in later battles, having a 1250-man brigade in two locations is decidedly better than having one 2500-man brigade in one location and nothing in the other.

Edited April 10, 2017 by Aetius

[Andre Bolkonsky]

As the battles grow larger, add to AO gradually. By the time you hit the first battle when you can even use 5 corps, that fift corps becomes an outstanding parking lot for valuable units awaiting reconstruction going forward

[General Kazden]

4 hours ago, Wandering1 said:

Shiloh is doable with 12 on BG; just have to be aggressive enough that the enemy doesn't get to concentrate all of his reinforcements before the initial brigades are more or less destroyed.

Unfortunately I am more a McClellan than a Jackson.

 

4 hours ago, Aetius said:

6 points is also where I normally stop. One more point will get you 2500-man brigades, but you can't fill them on the higher difficulty levels, and 20 brigades is pretty much the most you'll ever take into a small battle.

I should also add - it's because it's generally better to have more brigades, up to a pretty large number. Flanking matters, and two 1250-man brigades shooting at a 2500-man brigade will easily win if the target small brigade is in good cover and the other small brigade is flanking. And especially in later battles, having a 1250-man brigade in two locations is decidedly better than having one 2500-man brigade in one location and nothing in the other.

I was always in a sorta panic when I saw 2500+ man confederate brigades that I just started trying to max out all my brigades at the highest manpower.  Maybe a few 1500 elite types and 2500 man rookies.

 

13 minutes ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:

As the battles grow larger, add to AO gradually. By the time you hit the first battle when you can even use 5 corps, that fift corps becomes an outstanding parking lot for valuable units awaiting reconstruction going forward

I have been looking for AO tips that would give me a good idea of what to prepare for.  Sort of like 4 points by Shiloh, 6 points by 2nd bull run, 7 points by Gettysburg ect..

[Andre Bolkonsky]

2 minutes ago, General Kazden said:

 

I have been looking for AO tips that would give me a good idea of what to prepare for.  Sort of like 4 points by Shiloh, 6 points by 2nd bull run, 7 points by Gettysburg ect..

I am at max AO by Antietam. I like the extra supply wagons if nothing else. And, like I said in the past, I like playing around with my OOB, and having that extra space works for how I like to do things. 

Plus, nothing wrong with 2,500 man brigades. 

[Wandering1]

At the end of the day, it's more what size army you're comfortable with, and take it from there; at most, again, you only need 3 corps for battles, and those 3 corps are provided to you regardless of whether you put more points into AO or not.

Also whether your logistics strategy works out well enough for the higher AOs; on the higher difficulties, the reduced income and increased casualties (from larger enemy sizes) makes for even reinforcing 2000 man brigades difficult, before taking weapon replacements into consideration if you're not doing the optimal rookie strategy of just feeding the cheapest weapons to the meat sponges.

As far as optimal AO if you don't want to handicap yourself for the big maps? You can get 6 by 2nd Bull Run, and you should be fine for the rest of the campaign. The first big map you really have coverage problems with is Antietam, and that's if you're going for a victory as CSA and not a draw or simply withdrawing at the start.

[Andre Bolkonsky]

6 minutes ago, Wandering1 said:

At the end of the day, it's more what size army you're comfortable with, and take it from there; at most, again, you only need 3 corps for battles, and those 3 corps are provided to you regardless of whether you put more points into AO or not.

Also whether your logistics strategy works out well enough for the higher AOs; on the higher difficulties, the reduced income and increased casualties (from larger enemy sizes) makes for even reinforcing 2000 man brigades difficult, before taking weapon replacements into consideration if you're not doing the optimal rookie strategy of just feeding the cheapest weapons to the meat sponges.

As far as optimal AO if you don't want to handicap yourself for the big maps? You can get 6 by 2nd Bull Run, and you should be fine for the rest of the campaign. The first big map you really have coverage problems with is Antietam, and that's if you're going for a victory as CSA and not a draw or simply withdrawing at the start.

Well said. 

[General Kazden]

13 hours ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:

I am at max AO by Antietam. I like the extra supply wagons if nothing else. And, like I said in the past, I like playing around with my OOB, and having that extra space works for how I like to do things. 

Plus, nothing wrong with 2,500 man brigades. 

I like that idea for the extra supplies.  I try to favor logistics when I can as I hate running out of ammo half way through some grand battle.

13 hours ago, Wandering1 said:

At the end of the day, it's more what size army you're comfortable with, and take it from there; at most, again, you only need 3 corps for battles, and those 3 corps are provided to you regardless of whether you put more points into AO or not.

Also whether your logistics strategy works out well enough for the higher AOs; on the higher difficulties, the reduced income and increased casualties (from larger enemy sizes) makes for even reinforcing 2000 man brigades difficult, before taking weapon replacements into consideration if you're not doing the optimal rookie strategy of just feeding the cheapest weapons to the meat sponges.

As far as optimal AO if you don't want to handicap yourself for the big maps? You can get 6 by 2nd Bull Run, and you should be fine for the rest of the campaign. The first big map you really have coverage problems with is Antietam, and that's if you're going for a victory as CSA and not a draw or simply withdrawing at the start.

This all sounds good.  It's nice to know I won't need to max out AO and 6 would still allow me to fight against the enemy effectively.  I have been using the strategy of making a few bullet sponge rookie brigades maxed out with Palmetto muskets though I think maybe they should have Lorenz rifles.  My more elite brigades I try to get the Springfield 1855. 

[Bigjku]

To make army organization more important I think they need to force some harder choices in the strategic screens where you pick where to battle.  I shouldn't be able to use one corps to fight battles separated by a handful of days hundreds of miles apart then refit the same prior to each one.

I think the mechanic itself makes sense but it and recon both should play out more on the strategic level than the tactical.

[Wandering1]

2 hours ago, General Kazden said:

I like that idea for the extra supplies.  I try to favor logistics when I can as I hate running out of ammo half way through some grand battle.

This all sounds good.  It's nice to know I won't need to max out AO and 6 would still allow me to fight against the enemy effectively.  I have been using the strategy of making a few bullet sponge rookie brigades maxed out with Palmetto muskets though I think maybe they should have Lorenz rifles.  My more elite brigades I try to get the Springfield 1855. 

Speaking from experience in the higher difficulties: you don't even run Palmettos and Lorenz's for bullet sponges. You just use Farmers or M1842s if you're Union. Because at the end of the day, you're not expecting the majority of enemy casualties to come from your bullet sponges.

Among other things though, the max size CSA BG campaign I'm running right now, has all of my bullet spongers in the 70+ melee range, so that tells you pretty much how I end up using my bullet sponges... 

[General Kazden]

19 hours ago, Wandering1 said:

Speaking from experience in the higher difficulties: you don't even run Palmettos and Lorenz's for bullet sponges. You just use Farmers or M1842s if you're Union. Because at the end of the day, you're not expecting the majority of enemy casualties to come from your bullet sponges.

Among other things though, the max size CSA BG campaign I'm running right now, has all of my bullet spongers in the 70+ melee range, so that tells you pretty much how I end up using my bullet sponges... 

I just feel bad for those units I have absorbing all the fire so I try to give them any advantage I can.  Because of that I never thought of giving my brigades the farmer muskets that I captured but now thinking about it would really help in holding the line against Confederate charges in the early game.  My goal was always to get away from the Springfield 1842s asap and get into the Lorenz and Springfield 1855s once available. 

[Wandering1]

55 minutes ago, General Kazden said:

I just feel bad for those units I have absorbing all the fire so I try to give them any advantage I can.  Because of that I never thought of giving my brigades the farmer muskets that I captured but now thinking about it would really help in holding the line against Confederate charges in the early game.  My goal was always to get away from the Springfield 1842s asap and get into the Lorenz and Springfield 1855s once available. 

Consider it another way; if that money could have been spent getting 24 pdrs, or other things that would cause the enemy line to break quicker, then you're also getting the net same effect of preserving your force, just with less loss of valuable rifles.

Little differences in melee skill (around 10ish) don't really change the melee equation much; if the enemy is charging you with 5000 men, it's going to cause a break if you don't have anything to support the bullet sponges.