Jamesk2

*This one is a duplicated post because of my mistake*

Lol at 1st Winchester you don't need to fight any units besides Union skirmishers at all. Just move all your brigade to the down right corner of the starting box, chase/kill the skirmisher unit that spawn opposite you, then move to the right edge of the map and straight south into the town. Almost 0 casualty. Cross Keys: I believe that defending the 2 objectives themselves is a mistake. Why? Because your north VP will be outnumbered hard without much space to deploy reinforcement, and the Unions will have really good positions to place their artillery or to fall back. Also fighting Port Republic and 1st Winchester helps - in total removing 10% of the Union forces. The better line to defend is cross the river, in the further side of the U-shaped woods. Have a brigade on the woods closest to the north edge of the map (like a - over the U), another brigade in the gap between the two woods. The northernmost point of the U will be the hardest hit, the rest of the U can hold well.

Just bring lots of units at them and concentrate fire. Fortified positions means nuts when you're bringing 3-4 brigades to bear on 1 brigades defending. Especially in Malvern Hill, where you can get up to 7(!) bridgades hitting the left fortification of the Union at the same time. It's actually a death trap.

I'm not unfamiliar with incorporating shock cavalry in my army - at Antietam on Normal I have 8k cavalry to 80k infantry. But with all the money shortage in Legendary, having 2 shock cavalry early is a massive investment. And bringing 2 is only possible in some rare scenarios - for example it's good on Port Republic, but not on Cross Keys. 2. I doubt it's a wise choice to inflate AI weapon. If your K/D is around 3:1 then you're still paying 3 guns from your side to get 1 gun from the AI (as you only get about 10%). I would rather settle with using Palmetto for a long time if it means I don't have to face M1855s from the Union. 4. Funny enough Ambush Convoy is the easiest battle I found on the Confederate side (well 1st Winchester is also easy, but you won't take as much kill). My losses totaled about 200 (the cavalry losses are from the given unit) and I wiped out the northern spawn to the last man. 5. In all battles I have created a set of fixed tactics that I would stick as close to them as possible. Still even with the exact same deployment AI would react differently. It's most visible on 1st Bull Run, sometimes they will attempt to cross the bridge with the initial Ohio-NY forces, sometimes they will just sit there and bombard you until Keyes/Steward arrive.

Whew, today I've just finished the 2nd Legendary try in a few days. The first time I kind of got stuck at Shiloh, and this time I abandon the campaign right before Gaines' Mills as my financial status is kind of sad (I spent too much on veteran reinforcement and luxury weapons). And these are my experience: 1. Most of the battles are not that much harder, probably because I'm already playing close to maximum efficiency on Normal. The only one where I had to rethink my strategy is Shiloh, where in the end I devised a brilliant blitzkrieg style attack by concentrate my force to exploit the gap between Shiloh Church and Hornet's Nest to rush for Pittsburg Landing while fighting delay action on both flanks. 2. But on the other hand, Camp management has become harder. Before, after a big battle, I would often get rolling in new guns taken from the Union, and I rarely have to pay for infantry guns. This time, even after a battle with 10k+ casualty for the Union, I would hardly get enough guns to replace my losses. Having to spend money on basic guns means you'll have less money on other stuffs like cavalry/skirmisher weapons or officers/training. Now I found most of my better infantry guns are from spending Reputation. 3. It also means that there are very few reasons to prolong the battle to wipe out the enemy. Basically the game devolve into "Grab the objectives then get the hell outta there". Some low-hanging fruit like the Ambush Convoy battle where you can camp the northern spawn point is still worth taking, but most of the time finishing the battle as soon as possible is more lucrative. 4. The one thing that is much more harder to deal with is skirmishers. On Normal skirmishers are just a slight nuisance, but on Legendary they are ALL equipped with the very best sniper guns, making their threats significantly higher. The only solace is that it means you can equip at least one Skirmisher unit with the same gun taken from Union skirmishers. 5. With the number disadvantage so large, many battles will be decided by random elements. Where and when the AI choose to attack, particularly with infantry charge, will drastically change its outcome. And it seems that AI actions are determined by a "personality" like in CW:G. Sometimes they will attack furiously right off the bat, while at other time they will move slowly and prefer to long range duels. Restarting until you get the favorable AI is essential for a successful campaign.

It would have been a welcomed feature if not for the fact that 90% of the time your units would crisscross each other on the way to the final position, especially when you're moving long distance, instead of keeping formation and taking the shortest path.

Today I managed to get 2 Thomas Jackson after 1st Bull Run when the Brigadier Thomas Jackson that was commanding in the battle got wounded.

Yeah Medicine late game is OP, even when compared to Politics which most people are maxing first. With Medicine you're getting extra manpower, extra EXP and extra gun - like a combination of Training + Politics or Training + a little Politics + Economy.

No I completely disagree with the sentiment. Having an AI that is aggressive and completely disregard casualties make the game harder and made a much heavier emotional impact on a player (at many points during the Battle of Antietam as Confederate I actually felt my heart racing fast and having short breath because of the pressure that the AI can exert). Playing an AI that's conservative and refuse to engage will make the battle dull and uneventful. And don't even think for one second that a passive AI is a good AI. I crushed Determined Union AI in UGG as Confederate with a casualty ratio of 1900 to 7900 in the first engage and 800 to 12000 in the second.

I don't want to be rude but seriously if you guys are having problems even on Easy than you should take a long look at how you're playing the game. Go watch some YouTubers that play well (Koro from the forum is a good choice, although he may not be as optimal as can be).

If the lagging comes from number of units, then make it Company of Heroes style: You have a small force at the beginning, and have to go out and capture strategic points to buy more units. Will also offer a nice dynamic to the map.

At Antietam you'll be required to bring 3 corps into the battle.

Antietam is generally just a bloody hell hole. I'm one of the more cautious player, even in Malvern Hill - Confederate I only lose about 15% of my forces (while generally players on the forum lose about 20%). That said coming into Antietam I still lose 20k/73k infantry I brought into the battle, and 2k/8k cavalry. So it's not only you that are losing too much on this battle. On your second question, it's impossible to answer if we don't see how you were playing and what kind of mistakes you made.

Yesterday I had a strange situation happened. In the Battle of Gaines' Mill, because my I Corps were too strong (and my skills too good, I suppose), the battle ended with most of my II Corps arriving from the flank not having fired a single shot or received a single casualty. However in the camp post-battle, even the brigades that did not enter combat and their respective commanders received EXP and leveled up. So am I correct to think that just arrive at the battlefield give brigades and commanders EXP, they don't have to actually fight?

In real battlefield a routed unit would be very difficult to be chased down, because if the pursuers don't break formation they won't have the same speed, and if they do, then they've just put themselves out of the battle as much as the pursued.

The biggest problem with a dedicated skirmisher unit is the fact that they're slot-ineffective. There is very few situations when a 2500-strong infantry brigade can't do what a 500-strong skirmisher unit does. Especially with detached skirmishers feature. On the contrary the skimisher unit can't do many things an infantry brigade can. Yes you can say that skirmishers are good when there's an open flank, but if you put an infantry unit there it will be just as much, if not much more effective. When you're on the defensive or having to break through a strong point, you will love to have 2500 bodies to throw on the melee rather than 500 guys with their negligible firepower. When it comes to cavalry, shock cavalry is the only useful option, because all the uses for a cavalry unit in the game are centered around their abilities to melee: either to kill skirmishers/artillery or follow an infantry charge to deliver maximum melee value. Yes carbine cavalry can be used to melee, but shock cavalry is just MUCH more faster and take way lower casualties to do the same job. If you don't believe me, play the first map in the CSA campaign, you'll see how devastating shock cavalry is.

That's still too crude of an approach. The best way to win is keep the firefight in the centre as attrition, but don't commit to any major attack, then use the reinforcement to swing around the Union right and envelope them from behind.

Buy a new general to replace your III Corps commander, then bring him to where you desire.

Tssk. You guys areall wrong with the mixing of artillery-infantry-cavalry. It's good in military and realistic to do, but in this game remember that each DIVISION COMMANDER has a choice between improving the performance of each of the three branch, and that the whole Corps would be deployed all together, not each Division to their own, so it's best just go all in with some Infantry Division, then an Artillery Division (which may have some Inf brigades, but this is where you put all your arty) and a similar Cavalry Division.

Actually Economic offers more dollar efficiency the longer you went into the tree. 100% cost and 125% income mean you can buy 25% more stuff. 75% cost and 100% income mean you can buy 33% more stuffs.

A "split" command would be well-appreciated. It is most relevant when you've purchased a few new weapons and want to incorporate them into the army but your veteran units are simply too large to carry them, and you don't want to give those shiny weapons to the green recuits. Yesterday I was extremely disappointed when found my only 2-star infantry brigade to be 50 man more than my stock of Fayetteville. For artillery it's even more necessary. Many times I've seen the advice "Don't create arty brigade bigger than 8 guns to ensure smoother upgrading". But when you have 5-6 spare guns of some calibre it became very irritating...

How can it be possible? I think it's a bug, because every single post/vid I've seen about this battle put the number of Union way less than Confederates (make sense since Confed is the attacker). Even when you add the 25% from Hard mode it's Union still only slightly outnumber...

Or just be a man and spend 0 point in it. What is the gameplay-relevant value of the "power bar" btw?

You know, I was suggesting changes, so "Economy increases number of weapon in shop" is what I WANT to see, not what it is right now. I do not look at the values too much, I only know that the M1855 is listed as more expensive than the Enfield so it should be better, no? And even if they're almost similar in quality, the fact that the amount of M1855 you pick up from battles is even higher than the amount of Enfield you can buy from the shop make the argument moot.

Hi Raht, you can check out my very detailed guide for the first battle here. By repeating my actions you'll start to subconsciously understand what is good and what is bad.