Strategies for The Battle of Antietam

[A. P. Hill]

5 hours ago, go_rocco said:

If you play C.S the best tactics is anihilation of U.S. army at 2nd Bull Run(plus capturing the last object Henry Hill?). Then their numbers at Antietam are "manageable" ...

I'm sorry I have to disagree with this.  From my understanding NONE of the battles in this game at this point directly correspond with each other as far as the AI goes.  The only army that carries sufferable consequences from battle to battle is the player's.

[Wandering1]

To be clear, not in as direct a fashion as most players would like. Some of the battles create the -5% or -10% army size penalty for the opposing side, but this in general is a drop in the water compared to the numbers that are being fielded.

~140k troops versus ~130k troops is not going to make a big difference.

[go_rocco]

11 minutes ago, A. P. Hill said:

I'm sorry I have to disagree with this.  From my understanding NONE of the battles in this game at this point directly correspond with each other as far as the AI goes.  The only army that carries sufferable consequences from battle to battle is the player's.

I don't have any info if battles correspond or not, I'm only writing what I've seen. I'm comparing last two Antietam's I played. First one was fought after a hard fight at Bull Run. I've lost +10k of my man, capture all the flags while counter attack and massacred the U.S. troops. It was near 1-4 in causalties.

Second time I played, I stayed in the woods, didn't counter. I've lost less then 3k to 10 or 11 on U.S side and won causing more causalties and holding the ride.

The difference between two Antietams was huge and my numbers weren't that different so I don't think that was the reason. 

[Wandering1]

The scaling in Antietam is very large in general, to simulate the fact that McClellan had a huge advantage in total troop count over the CSA troops at Antietam. So, not losing the 7k men does give basically at least an additional 14k troops to the Union for Antietam.

[Hitorishizuka]

4 hours ago, AJ McCully said:

 

Completely agree. 

I made the same point in a steam discussion but focusing more on the way the AI behaves with what it has.  McClellan was a very cautious Union general in a war that could've been ended by one aggressive Union general very early on. At Antietam, he failed to pursue the confederate army relentlessly both during and after the battle. He never fully concentrated his forces, perhaps out of fear of high casualties that his superiors and the rest of the North wouldnt be happy about.

 

That's not being entirely fair to McClellan, his Corps commanders were fairly ineffective in their own right as well, even if he didn't enable them for success. A more aggressive general could well have lost the war early also just due to taking a tremendous embarrassing defeat and leaving DC open.

Anyway, my strategy is in the last thread and I stand by it. There's enough good terrain that you can generally punish the AI with. All you need to do is withstand the opening phase's attack and the battle's pretty much won.

[veji1]

With armies that aren't too big (45k CSA soldiers against 100k USA more or less) Antietam is both a massive pain and fantastic fun to play as the CSA player, so much manouvering falling back then back forward, etc... My last play I had held the north pretty easily by puttin brigades in Nicodemus Hill woods, goading the Union into focusing its attack there and when I fell back to the wood lines behind I could hold it wiht infantry and arty. This meant that  pressure on the cornfield wa manageable (no 4/5 brigades melee blob). I withdrew from bridges which was a mistake because the Sunken road hill focused all the Union's activity and was a bloody mess, I fell back in the plain between Sharpsburg and Dunker church but what allowed me to countercharge was my arty taking horrible loss fighting from the front and most of my northern front bigares making the switch south and charging through the fields east of Dunker church allowing me to retake the Sunken road 3 mins before the ticker expired... It was an exhilaratingly bloody mess and I had great fun.

[Bobby Fiasco]

This one goes squirelly for me. It starts out great as I inflict massive casualties north of Dunker Church, then continue to hold as each side gets reinforcements. I just cannot hold the sunken road though from the Union troops who cross Stone's Bridge. The screen chops off basically right at the bridge, which is where the Union guys pop into existence, so I have very little time to fire at their huge units before they are across and hitting me. Plus their artillery hits me from off the map. Then, those units flank the sunken road, so I can't use its fortifications.

Does anyone else have this problem? Maybe it's a patch issue because I've read that defending that bridge should be an easy slaughter. Right now I have a save game where I'm falling back to Sharpsburg to fight for a draw, which I'm confident about. 

[Bobby Fiasco]

On 4/14/2017 at 2:38 PM, Wandering1 said:

To be clear, not in as direct a fashion as most players would like. Some of the battles create the -5% or -10% army size penalty for the opposing side, but this in general is a drop in the water compared to the numbers that are being fielded.

~140k troops versus ~130k troops is not going to make a big difference.

I'll still take it. That's a division flanking me.

[Wandering1]

14 minutes ago, Bobby Fiasco said:

I'll still take it. That's a division flanking me.

One thing that may not be clear: the number of divisions or brigades does not change with regards to the total size. Meaning, in the case of Antietam, where I believe the enemy is fielding 59 or 60 brigades, the difference of 10k troops would effect an additional 170 troops per brigade, approximately.

So it's not an extra division flanking you, it's just more men hitting you in the front if you didn't have a division flanking.

[Bobby Fiasco]

24 minutes ago, Wandering1 said:

One thing that may not be clear: the number of divisions or brigades does not change with regards to the total size. Meaning, in the case of Antietam, where I believe the enemy is fielding 59 or 60 brigades, the difference of 10k troops would effect an additional 170 troops per brigade, approximately.

So it's not an extra division flanking you, it's just more men hitting you in the front if you didn't have a division flanking.

Good to know! I definitely concede the point then.

[Wandering1]

48 minutes ago, Bobby Fiasco said:

Good to know! I definitely concede the point then.

This also inherently means that there is a ceiling in terms of number of troops that you have to face, by virtue of infantry brigades not scaling past 2950 and cavalry brigades not scaling beyond 1050.

Whether anyone would field a 100k army just to spawn a 200k army for the enemy though is an entirely different matter. 

[civsully1]

On 5/18/2017 at 2:23 PM, Wandering1 said:

This also inherently means that there is a ceiling in terms of number of troops that you have to face, by virtue of infantry brigades not scaling past 2950 and cavalry brigades not scaling beyond 1050.

Whether anyone would field a 100k army just to spawn a 200k army for the enemy though is an entirely different matter. 

True.

I had posted in another thread before finding this one and asked, If anyone has played this battle on the latest final release patch as CSA? If so, would appreciate comments regarding army org/size (with resultant scaling effect for the union), strategy and outcome. Thanks in advance.

[A. P. Hill]

3 hours ago, civsully1 said:

True.

I had posted in another thread before finding this one and asked, If anyone has played this battle on the latest final release patch as CSA? If so, would appreciate comments regarding army org/size (with resultant scaling effect for the union), strategy and outcome. Thanks in advance.

I am personally at this door.  Last night I cleared the field of 2nd Manassas (2nd Bull Run,) rolled into Chantilly, and took Harper's Ferry.

My stats from those 3 battles and going into Antietam are as follows:

2nd Manassas

• Union had 47,457 Infantry    I had 44,850 Infantry
• 3150 Cavalry                           game said I had 0 - but I had recently adopted a new policy I had one 750 man brigade per division (2250)
• 111 Artillery                            90 Artillery.
• Union lost 35,260 Infantry    I lost 18,695 Infantry
• 72 Artillery (1799)                  12 Artillery (2198)
• 0 Cavalry                                 0 Cavalry,  also in error as I lost two 750 man units
• 871 Missing                           0 Missing

Chantilly

• Union had 18,810 Infantry    I had 12,150 Infantry
• 0 Cavalry                                 again game said I had 0 but I had two 750 man units
• 48 Artillery (1200)                 32 Artillery (800)
• Union lost 7,387 Infantry     I lost 3,091 Infantry
• 14 Artillery (390)                   0 Artillery (0)
• 0 Cavalry                                game said 0 losses for Cav, but I lost 320 approximately
• 0 Missing                               0 Missing

Harper's Ferry

• Union had 7,437 Infantry     I had 9,456 Infantry
• 815 Cavalry                           game finally acknowledged my Cavalry 513
• 66 Artillery (1575)                28 Artillery (700)
• Union lost 3,158 Infantry    I lost 3,111 Infantry
• 35 Artillery (882)                  0 Artillery (0)
• 122 Cavalry                           267 Cavalry
• 0 Missing                              0 Missing

Presently my Army of Northern Virginia stands as follows:

I Corps

• 15,800 Infantry    64 Artillery (1600)     2,492 Cavalry

II Corps

• 10,162 Infantry    41 Artillery (1004)    1,217 Cavalry

III Corps

• 8,438 Infantry    16 Artillery (373)    1,100 Cavalry

IV Corps

• 5,500 Infantry     0 Artillery    0 Cavalry

Grand Totals

• 39,900 Infantry   242 Artillery (2,977)    4,809 Cavalry.

[civsully1]

I'm just behind you A.P.  Have you decided your initial Corps placement for the battle and thoughts on the best method of defense?  What is the estimate of Union strength facing you? Can't wait to hear all about your next victory!

[A. P. Hill]

@civsully1

Well Sir!  Apparently  your good wishes were what I needed for my Antietam battle.

According to the game AAR:

Antietam

• Union had 67,522 Infantry           I had 45,830 Infantry
• 3,062 Cavalry                                 950 Cavalry
• 218 Artillery                                    I think I've found an issue for the devs to focus on, I was reported to have no guns but (2997)men
• Union Losses 46,000 Infantry     31,211 Infantry
• 1,748 Cavalry                                 721 Cavalry
• 110 Artillery                                    35 Artillery (906)
• 299 Missing                                   0 Missing

 

[civsully1]

1 hour ago, A. P. Hill said:

@civsully1

Well Sir!  Apparently  your good wishes were what I needed for my Antietam battle.

According to the game AAR:

Antietam

• Union had 67,522 Infantry           I had 45,830 Infantry
• 3,062 Cavalry                                 950 Cavalry
• 218 Artillery                                    I think I've found an issue for the devs to focus on, I was reported to have no guns but (2997)men
• Union Losses 46,000 Infantry     31,211 Infantry
• 1,748 Cavalry                                 721 Cavalry
• 110 Artillery                                    35 Artillery (906)
• 299 Missing                                   0 Missing

 

Good job AP!!!! Would appreciate hearing about your setup and strategy and tips would all be great! Particularly interested on how/where you placed your Corps during setup. Strongest one on the Left Flank or Center?  I'm thinking of placing my best corps in the center and my second best on the Left.......

Also curious to know about your Cav and what flank and how used? I mean geez those Fed Cav losses are something especially given how many they started with! This would have been a fun battle to watch how it played out.  Thanks again AP for sharing your thoughts and results for this battle. I'll probably be playing this later this evening. And congrats once more for taking the victory!

[Captain Hutch]

My MG battle a few days ago went as follows:

(I counter attacked hard at 2nd Mannassas as to try to reduce the union forces and it worked)

Union: 

75033 infantry

2541 calvary

183 guns

CSA:

57610 infantry

835 calvary

96 guns

 

Losses:

Union: 

42021 infantry

84 guns

787 calvary

820 missing

CSA:

14815 infantry 

16 guns

86 calvary

 

This was my best round yet. I held the tree line around dunker church while performing a "weak front" delaying action in the field and trees east of the church north of the sunken road to slow the union advance allowing me to set up a L defensive line. Used 2 sniper skirm brigades coming down off nico hill and flanking to completely wreck the 3* union brigades and cannon. Once I took out the 3* iron brigades and others and had bled the union a great deal with them charging the church and bloody lane, I sent my 4 elite brigades and destroyed their right flank. By the time the union reinforcements arrived over the creek, all I had to stop was 2 pushes and I won the day. 

[civsully1]

4 hours ago, Captain Hutch said:

My MG battle a few days ago went as follows:

(I counter attacked hard at 2nd Mannassas as to try to reduce the union forces and it worked)

Union: 

75033 infantry

2541 calvary

183 guns

CSA:

57610 infantry

835 calvary

96 guns

 

Losses:

Union: 

42021 infantry

84 guns

787 calvary

820 missing

CSA:

14815 infantry 

16 guns

86 calvary

 

This was my best round yet. I held the tree line around dunker church while performing a "weak front" delaying action in the field and trees east of the church north of the sunken road to slow the union advance allowing me to set up a L defensive line. Used 2 sniper skirm brigades coming down off nico hill and flanking to completely wreck the 3* union brigades and cannon. Once I took out the 3* iron brigades and others and had bled the union a great deal with them charging the church and bloody lane, I sent my 4 elite brigades and destroyed their right flank. By the time the union reinforcements arrived over the creek, all I had to stop was 2 pushes and I won the day. 

I'd say from your results CH that this may be hard for you to improve upon! How large and equipped were your two sniper brigades?

[Captain Hutch]

250-300 if I recall using scoped whitworths. Both ended with around 2k kills. But even more valueable is their effect on enemy morale. They can wreck the flanks as the AI tries to build up for an offensive. 

On a previous campaign, I made a sniper skirm brigade for the heck of it and was amazed how effective they can be if you can take the time to micro manage. So on this campaign, I made sure to buy up every scoped whitworth I could.

Edited August 13, 2017 by Captain Hutch

[civsully1]

1 hour ago, Captain Hutch said:

250-300 if I recall using scoped whitworths. Both ended with around 2k kills. But even more valueable is their effect on enemy morale. They can wreck the flanks as the AI tries to build up for an offensive. 

On a previous campaign, I made a sniper skirm brigade for the heck of it and was amazed how effective they can be if you can take the time to micro manage. So on this campaign, I made sure to buy up every scoped whitworth I could.

And did you see a scaling effect from the Union? 

[The Soldier]

12 minutes ago, civsully1 said:

And did you see a scaling effect from the Union? 

Do note the enemy doesn't scale to your weapons anymore - they only scale between the listed armory values.  Meaning you can outstrip the enemy's weapon technology or similarily get left behind if you don't get better weapons.

[Captain Hutch]

1 hour ago, civsully1 said:

And did you see a scaling effect from the Union? 

No, Not really. The union starting using Harpers Ferry's early around Gaines mill but only recently got into the good stuff right before Gettysburg. 

[A. P. Hill]

Good Luck to you General Civsully1. 

[civsully1]

Well I finished the Antietam fight and the outcome was far better than the first go round to be sure. This is due to all the excellent suggestions folks posted here. And the other factor which I've realized from Col Kelly's video series is to often times embrace the defensive part of the battles. From the beginning I was far to aggressive on the offense and not the best parts/times of battles. There really wasn't any time during the different phases of this battle that I really felt threatened. So again thanks to all the commenters posting here! And thanks to my fellow General A.P. Hill for the dialogue we've had too!

Casualties

                             Feds                                        CSA

Inf                        33313                                     12587

Guns                           60 (1557)                                5 (174)

Cav                          553                                          348

Missing                3624                                               0

It's interesting the number of Fed missing and I would have been much happier if those were kills instead!   My loss of lower end Cav was disappointing due to the lack of focus in micromanaging them. It doesn't take but one or two cannister shots when attacking arty is ill-timed from adjacent batteries....Ouch!

The added plus were the large number of captured Lorenz and Harper Ferry M1855's that now are in my armory.  It will be quite a joy to refit my best brigades with the 1855's to be sure!  And a haul of 17 Napoleons will come in handy going forward as well.  Now onto the next battle......      

 

[A. P. Hill]

Congrats General Civsully1!

I assume this is the AAR report ... I'm hoping you didn't go into Antietam with 12,587 men.