How do I combine 2 brigades to a super brigade?

[Adelthorne]

Sorry Newbie question.

But tried some search but could not figure it out.

So how do I combine 2 brigades?

Does the general have to be killed?

[Hitorishizuka]

6 minutes ago, Adelthorne said:

Sorry Newbie question.

But tried some search but could not figure it out.

So how do I combine 2 brigades?

Does the general have to be killed?

Select two brigades from the same division whose total #s are less than 2500, hit the combine button. One will start walking towards the other, when it reaches it, they will combine. For best success, have them both stationary and right next to each other before hitting the button.

[KaleRaven]

So long as the combined size of the two brigades is less than 2500, you can combine them if they are in the same division. Put them near one another and press the "Combine Division button" with one selected.

[Sir Texas Sir]

Thanks this is handy as I had a few rookie ones take some big lost and this would of helped them not take more if they just combined in the battle between parts of it.

[James Cornelius]

Now if you could just permanently do this in the army management screen....

[Keepbro]

An interesting Easter egg is that multiple infantry brigades can combine with cavalry and artillery to form a Civil War Voltron in the shape of either Lincoln or Davis. The cavalry all go at the bottom to provide mobility whilst the arty goes on either arm and the head to deal damage. Infantry as ever just provides the meat. Be very careful though as if two Voltrons clash they can explode taking the entire battlefield along with them  thus resulting in a draw.

 

True dis - not making it up at all - no sirree

[Adelthorne]

Thx all for the help.

[GeneralPITA]

Quick Tip: You can merge up to six brigades, provided they sum to fewer than 2500 men. I just tested it by merging five brigades of 500.

This is useful for a reserve corps with smaller, poorly armed, lower ranking officers. You'll rank up seven officers at once, potentially.

The rifles don't need to match, but I haven't tested the effect of mixing weapon types yet. 

[Captain Orso]

I'm going to necro this thread back to life, because there is something I haven't seen mentioned about combining yet.

Per division as long as the division's combined-brigade remains less than 2500 strong, you can combine any number of brigades of a single to a just one single combined-brigade. A division cannot have more than one combined brigade!

I had a division with 4 infantry brigades. The first 2 brigades were setup for long range, and the last 2 were setup for melee. By the 3rd day of Chancellorsville, one of the first two bde had lost a leader and one of the last two had also lost a leader. Besides, all 4 had lost a lot of troops. I decided to combine the 1st and 2nd bde to one larger (still not close to 2500 man strong) bde with a leader, and the 3rd and 4th bde to another combined-brigade with a leader. But it was a no-go. After combining the first two, try as I might, even with the 3rd and 4th bde standing on each others shoulders, when I selected both of them, when I pressed the combine button the last one selected started marching toward the 1st-2nd combined-brigade to combine with it.

Discovering this really bummed me out to no end. 

Edited November 5, 2017 by Captain Orso

[The Soldier]

Yeah, most of that stuff is known.  Nothing you can do, combine them early and keep your divisions together on the field.

[Captain Orso]

Thanks for the answer. I understand now that this is WAD (Works As Designed). But I'm not sure what you mean by "combine them early" though. You can only create one combined brigade per division, and I needed 2. After each round of battle the combined-brigade is returned to its original state of individual brigades.

What follows is not a criticism of your answer, The Soldier, it's a critique of the game itself.

I had 4 very under-strength brigades, 2 with long-range rifles and trained for shooting--one of which had a leader, and 2 with rifles good in melee and trained for melee--one of which had a leader. What I was trying to do was only logical.

From what I've read, combining brigades puts them directly under the control of the division commander. In reality, the division commander is always commanding all brigades. He doesn't just lay back and let the brigade commanders do what ever they want, ever. If the division commander had to actually leave his divisional command post to go down and directly lead two brigades personally, it could have a very detrimental affect on his ability to lead any other brigades under his command. But if he had an officer available who could have taken over the task, why should he leave his division command to do that?

This is why I hate games with gamey rules which have no foundation in reality and love games that don't try to force me to think in alternate realities. If this were a fantasy game, I wouldn't expect reality. The rule IMHO is simply something the designer could do, with insufficient consideration to the meaning (does it represent reality?) and consequences (how is it accepted by the players). I'm one of the latter attempting to remain in the former. If the game claims to be trying to represent reality, I believe I have a valid expectation for it to do that, within reason.

From a programming perspective, IMHO, temporarily (for the rest of the duration of the battle) grouping the men of two brigades together in a combined-brigade under the command of the division commander is hardly more complicated than temporarily grouping them together under the command of their most senior leader. This concept is independent of the number of combined brigades in a division.

[LAVA]

4 hours ago, Captain Orso said:

From what I've read, combining brigades puts them directly under the control of the division commander. In reality, the division commander is always commanding all brigades. He doesn't just lay back and let the brigade commanders do what ever they want, ever. If the division commander had to actually leave his divisional command post to go down and directly lead two brigades personally, it could have a very detrimental affect on his ability to lead any other brigades under his command. But if he had an officer available who could have taken over the task, why should he leave his division command to do that?

I'm no expert at this, but I think you overestimate the capacity of a division staff during the war. Most of the folks were actually "staff" corps members who performed staff duties such as an engineer, medical officer, paymaster, etc. Doubt if they would be on the battle line. By today's standards, staffs were very small, so there weren't many general officers about to command brigades or regiments. And certainly the Division Commander was not in a command post but riding about with his troops; which is why so many got killed. Note that there is a distinction between general and staff officers. A general officer is one who is qualified to lead troops in battle; while a staff officer is not.

So, historically speaking, I think you will find there were actually very few "extra" general officers running about who could assume the role of a brigade commander.

Personally, I think if you are "planning" to combine under strength (perhaps high quality) right from the start of the battle, you are probably gaming the system. I don't use this "feature" very often and doubt if it was common place on the battlefield. So be happy it is even in the game.

Cheers!

[Captain Orso]

Regiments already had staff, for supplies etc. Certainly it was not standardized as it is today, but it was already there.

Depending on circumstances, during battle, staff were not really carrying out their assigned staff duties. Nobody is filling out requisition forms during a battle. They were supporting their commander in what ever capacity they could. Carrying messages to higher-up commands and subordinate units, helping keep up with information flow, etc. And often times when they carried orders to subordinate units since the had the authority of the commander, even though they were below the rank of the commander of the subordinate unit, they had the responsibility to insure that the orders were carried out as the commander intended, including ordering the subordinate unit's commander, who outranked the staffer. At First Manassas, a staff lieutenant commanded William B. Franklin's brigade for nearly the entire battle after Franklin had been wounded early in the battle. Nobody questioned that a lieutenant was commanding full colonels, because Franklin ordered him to take charge and gave him the authority.

Some brigade and division commanders loved to be down on the line taking charge of things. Some liked to control from a distance. The problem with having a division commander down on the line--besides the danger to him, is that he's then hard to find. Orders from above might not reach him, as well as information from below and above, unless his staff at the division HQ is well versed in managing this situation.

This all underlines why I expected to be able to create more than one combined-brigade per division.

[James Cornelius]

9 hours ago, LAVA said:

I'm no expert at this, but I think you overestimate the capacity of a division staff during the war. Most of the folks were actually "staff" corps members who performed staff duties such as an engineer, medical officer, paymaster, etc. Doubt if they would be on the battle line. By today's standards, staffs were very small, so there weren't many general officers about to command brigades or regiments. And certainly the Division Commander was not in a command post but riding about with his troops; which is why so many got killed. Note that there is a distinction between general and staff officers. A general officer is one who is qualified to lead troops in battle; while a staff officer is not.

So, historically speaking, I think you will find there were actually very few "extra" general officers running about who could assume the role of a brigade commander.

Personally, I think if you are "planning" to combine under strength (perhaps high quality) right from the start of the battle, you are probably gaming the system. I don't use this "feature" very often and doubt if it was common place on the battlefield. So be happy it is even in the game.

Cheers!

 

I use it towards the end of long battles because it also prevents a brigade that might otherwise be shattered and annihilated from becoming so, by artificially making it larger. I believe (but am not certain) that you can combine a 3rd or 4th brigade to an already created "super brigade"/division.

 

2 hours ago, Captain Orso said:

Regiments already had staff, for supplies etc. Certainly it was not standardized as it is today, but it was already there.

Depending on circumstances, during battle, staff were not really carrying out their assigned staff duties. Nobody is filling out requisition forms during a battle. They were supporting their commander in what ever capacity they could. Carrying messages to higher-up commands and subordinate units, helping keep up with information flow, etc. And often times when they carried orders to subordinate units since the had the authority of the commander, even though they were below the rank of the commander of the subordinate unit, they had the responsibility to insure that the orders were carried out as the commander intended, including ordering the subordinate unit's commander, who outranked the staffer. At First Manassas, a staff lieutenant commanded William B. Franklin's brigade for nearly the entire battle after Franklin had been wounded early in the battle. Nobody questioned that a lieutenant was commanding full colonels, because Franklin ordered him to take charge and gave him the authority.

Some brigade and division commanders loved to be down on the line taking charge of things. Some liked to control from a distance. The problem with having a division commander down on the line--besides the danger to him, is that he's then hard to find. Orders from above might not reach him, as well as information from below and above, unless his staff at the division HQ is well versed in managing this situation.

This all underlines why I expected to be able to create more than one combined-brigade per division.

 

Your historical example about Franklin's brigade at First Bull Run is not typical, and the fact that it happened at First Bull Run should say something in itself. Why else were colonels typically commanding brigades in the Union Army, and even in the Confederate side despite them having four grades of general? Many staff officers were not qualified or able to command large units in the field - hell, many of the line officers commanding large units in the field were not capable of doing it!

 

It is NOT historically correct to have two "super brigades" formed from, say, four brigades in a division. That just didn't happen. Even the current system of combining two brigades to essentially operate as a miniature division is not really accurate since it was extraordinarily difficult to get an entire division to act in concert and took an exceptionally skilled division commander, good ground for communication, and a little luck that the brigade and regimental commanders would do what they were supposed to do.

[Captain Orso]

In July '61 the Federal Army was still trying to catch up to requirements in every way. So brigades were very often lead by full colonels and divisions by brigadiers. I could go on and on about how efforts to sort out good from bad leaders was taking place, and cases where good leaders were being sorted out, while bad leaders were advanced through political and personal agendas. But that's not the subject I'm focusing on.

The game assumes that when a brigade leader is killed or wounded, that basically nobody takes command, or that whichever inherent leader who takes command is always completely incompetent to fulfill the role. This is historically not the case. The quality of many leaders shined through in exactly such cases. But I'm not requesting to spontaneously generate a good leader coming to light per random chance either.

I'm also not asking to create "super brigades". I am asking to merge the command of a brigade missing a leader into a brigade with a leader while staying within the allowed size of brigades per the rules. I don't want to cheat nor circumvent reason nor logic nor reality.

[Andre Bolkonsky]

11 hours ago, Captain Orso said:

In July '61 the Federal Army was still trying to catch up to requirements in every way. So brigades were very often lead by full colonels and divisions by brigadiers. I could go on and on about how efforts to sort out good from bad leaders was taking place, and cases where good leaders were being sorted out, while bad leaders were advanced through political and personal agendas. But that's not the subject I'm focusing on.

The game assumes that when a brigade leader is killed or wounded, that basically nobody takes command, or that whichever inherent leader who takes command is always completely incompetent to fulfill the role. This is historically not the case. The quality of many leaders shined through in exactly such cases. But I'm not requesting to spontaneously generate a good leader coming to light per random chance either.

I'm also not asking to create "super brigades". I am asking to merge the command of a brigade missing a leader into a brigade with a leader while staying within the allowed size of brigades per the rules. I don't want to cheat nor circumvent reason nor logic nor reality.

The easiest path to creating a divisional brigade is to isolate the two brigades, and give the merge order to the brigade you want to be dominant for reasons of command or weaponry. The desired consort brigade must be relatively close to the command brigade. It is difficult to do this while they are both in line while under fire, one of them tends to break and run before the merger is complete; but it can be done. 

[Captain Orso]

I know how to do the combining. My biggest issue is that I would like to create more than 1 combined brigade within one division.

[Andre Bolkonsky]

1 minute ago, Captain Orso said:

I know how to do the combining. My biggest issue is that I would like to create more than 1 combined brigade within one division.

You cannot. The divisional commander will assume command of the divisional brigade. You can only have one of them per division, and there is a size limitation to the unit. 

Understand also there will be a degredation in command for your other brigades within the division, and the divisional brigade has a morale penalty on top of everything else. 

[Captain Orso]

I know.

I thought I was clear in my previous posts. I want to combine a brigade, which has lost its leader, with a brigade which has a leader, so that the leader of the brigade with a leader is leading all the men of both brigades.

I know that currently the combined-brigade is put under the command of the divisional commander. I'm arguing for being able to put the combined brigade under the command of the highest ranking leader of the two combined brigades, especially if there is only one leader between the two brigades. IF the combined-brigade and no leader at all, then it would make sense for the division commander to take command. But before that, there is a brigade commander who can do the job.

[Andre Bolkonsky]

1 minute ago, Captain Orso said:

I know.

I thought I was clear in my previous posts. I want to combine a brigade, which has lost its leader, with a brigade which has a leader, so that the leader of the brigade with a leader is leading all the men of both brigades.

I know that currently the combined-brigade is put under the command of the divisional commander. I'm arguing for being able to put the combined brigade under the command of the highest ranking leader of the two combined brigades, especially if there is only one leader between the two brigades. IF the combined-brigade and no leader at all, then it would make sense for the division commander to take command. But before that, there is a brigade commander who can do the job.

Your argument has merit. While It is a virtual certainty the game at this point will not be revised in any meaningful way, I can tell you a full examination of the OOB command structure is on the list of requested enhancements for future projects.

[Captain Orso]

 that's kind of sad. This game has only be out of beta for a few months.

[James Cornelius]

13 hours ago, Captain Orso said:

The game assumes that when a brigade leader is killed or wounded, that basically nobody takes command, or that whichever inherent leader who takes command is always completely incompetent to fulfill the role. This is historically not the case. The quality of many leaders shined through in exactly such cases. But I'm not requesting to spontaneously generate a good leader coming to light per random chance either.

I do agree with you here. From a gameplay standpoint I understand why it is the way it is, but to be more historical then yes, the senior regimental commander (or brigade commander if it was the division commander killed, and so on) would always step up.

 

But, that would be a free way to get officers and in the current model I understand why that is not going to happen.

[Captain Orso]

Actually, I wouldn't be getting any officers. In fact, I had already lost two in just that one division. I would simply be making good use of the few officers and troops I have.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Captain Orso

[Urkhardt]

So, can we get the ability to assign more than one officer to division and/or brigade staff, getting diminishing returns (Maybe even no bonus for second officer) on efficiency but having a backup in case commanding officer is killed and allowing division staff officers to take command of different combined brigades?
Also, does division commander "command" stat apply to brigades aside from combined one once division commander takes command of combined brigade?

[A. P. Hill]

I would rather have the option to micromanage division commanders same as corps commanders.