LAVA

Makes perfect sense and I think that is what I kind of assumed what was going on. More importantly, the shattered men, I believe, not only return to the AI's recruit pool, but they also return with all the experience they have accumulated. Where you see if your efforts at "annihilation" is working is the proportion of 3 stars in their army. If you look at the first day of Gettysburg you will notice that the Confederate army has less than 50%. This is also why in the intelligence report the number I focus on is "Training." Keeping their training around the 50% mark means that I will not have to face an enemy that has 100% 3 stars and I think some where around 70%, that is what you see. So, overall, in my campaign, I do not expect the size of the AI army to come crashing down, as one would expect in a war of attrition. Scripting will keep the Confederates at a competitive level numbers wise. What I am expecting is that via annihilation, their army quality will steadily come down overall, while mine steadily increases, therefore making it easier for you to win.

The Confederates take 69,123 casualties at Gettysburg. How long can they keep taking such a beating? A really long battle. I was pretty exhausted when it was over.

Yep... it got rather close a few times. Thank goodness for all that morale my guys have. The down side, of course, is that though they hold their ground... they take a lot of casualties.

Here is an update on my battle results since Stones River: Battle US Losses CS Losses K/D Ratio Nansemond River 4,998/01 19,093/49 3.82 Siege of Suffolk 10,279/08 24,365/82 2.37 Supply Raid 3,166/02 6,139/28 1.94 Chancellorsville* 17,670/00 48,396/120 2.73 Salem Church 1,475/02 4,014/25 2.72 2nd Winchester 6,661/02 22,167/70 3.32 Gettysburg* 19,475/08 69,123/145 3.55 Totals 194,854/89 590,597/1,172 3.03 * = Grand Battles As for my playing style, I am trying to recreate history. To destroy the south through a war of attrition... the first modern war, if you will. Yes, my 4th Divisions may be carrying Springfields, but in Grand battles, they rarely see heavy combat. Normally the first 3 Divisions are the ones who are going to bear the brunt of the battle... and those brigades are well equipped. Got my first 3 star battery at Gettysburg (20pdr Parrot) and 7 other batteries have less than 10 points of experience before they get their third star. In total I have 6 12 gun batteries of 20pdr Parrots and they are being groomed to take on the Rebs when they start heavily using entrenchments. Also remember, though I halt the game at the beginning of a battle to give initial deployments, I never pause after that. I am always playing on real time, and therefore, things happen which I just have to accept because it happened to quickly for me. So... yea, I don't like a lot of micromanagement because I don't pause the game when I am playing.

Too each own, I guess. Good luck on your campaign.

That doesn't work on Legendary, mate. I tried that the first time around and failed. Medicine is far more valuable as it not only returns veterans to your army it also saves their weapons.

Another army wipe out, this time at 2nd Winchester:

At this point I have 10 in economy, 10 in medicine, 9 in Training, 8 in Army Organization, 7 in Politics and 2 in logistics with one point to spend. My army has 3 full Corps of 20 brigades each and a 4th Corps of 5 brigades. I'm leaning on increasing Army Organization as I believe I need to front load my forces for Gettysburg. An extra point in Army Organization will increase my Corps size by 1 brigade per division, allowing me to take my entire army into the battle with a very strong 1st and 2nd Corps, although I'm not sure whether my Cavalry will be of much use. I am so tempted to buy the extra 8,000 recruits with my reputation... but my reputation would be down to 20 total and would take a couple battles to recover, but the prospect of bringing 95,000 men to Gettysburg is very tempting... And Panda, you are once again correct in that I can be a relentless attacker and there are times when it is just better to chill for a little bit and make sure my artillery is in place before making the push.

Victory at Salem Church:

Thanks Colonel for your input. I think in most cases it is not a question as to whether I should destroy or capture. I would say the majority of the captures come at the end of the battle with the enemy heavily demoralized and it just makes sense to end the fight by charging in and hopefully capturing the remaining troops. Pandakraut is correct, however, that I am now outpacing my recruit resupply. At Chancellosville I had 65 brigades and a little under 88,000 men. My reserve of men is almost completely depleted. Before going into Gettysburg I'm going to have to make a couple tough decisions IOT maintain a minimum of 2,000 men brigades. I will be looking at whether I should disband 3 complete recruit brigades (approx. 6,000 men) or using my reputation to buy 8,000 men. I'm also not sure whether I should up my Army Organization so I can bring 6 brigades per division or stick my reputation in Politics. I'm leaning towards increasing my Army Organization and disbanding my 3 recruit brigades. But at this point I need to give it some thought. Any recommendations would be appreciated.

I may be going in the wrong direction, but right now, I'm all about attrition and if I can wipe out a Reb army, I will. At Chancellorsville I take 17,670 men killed and wounded and the Confederates suffer 48,396. My cavalry division of 5 brigades in 4th Corps make an appearance at the end of the battle and do pretty well. It's a lot easier to handle them when they are all in one division because you can just click on the division and then order them around. I guess the same applies to sharpshooters but at the moment I have only 3 brigades. Anyway... Chancellorsville:

Siege of Suffolk - a bit dicey at first but I wipe the Confederates out and take 1 brigade prisoner:

Convenience. I realize it costs less to add veterans first but with such a large army it's just faster. Going into Chancellorsville now and my army numbers a tad under 88,000 men. What I was trying to show there in my camp is how I set a minimum efficiency number for my 3 classes of infantry. If a brigade is getting close to moving up in its status, they will get all veterans to maintain their efficiency to qualify for a better weapon or be close so that after the next battle I can raise them up easily after a bit more experience to get a better weapon.

The most I have captured was 4,851 infantry (3 brigades) of which 3,951 were exchanged for 1,000. Weapon wise I captured 1,347 rifles. In total I killed 12,800 infantry. So it would seem capturing more than 1,000 men is "unprofitable."

Ah, thanks! Guess prisoner taking will continue to be a high priority.

Until anybody says otherwise, I thing I will do the same thing and avoid taking prisoners in the future and if I do, send them back into battle at the end so I can destroy them. War is hell.

Sounds interesting, however, because the gaining of experience/efficiency is a gradual process, I'm not sure if you will see much distinction. If there is any you should see it in the next minor battle of River Crossing. I've got an idea I will try and we can compare results.

Nansemond River - I get sloppy at the end and 2 infantry regiments survive. Nevertheless a 3.82 K/D ratio and 3 infantry brigades surrender: I'm starting to wonder now if it is better to just completely wipe out the brigades because when they surrender, they are then given back to the Confederacy in a prisoner trade. If I am fighting a war of attrition, I don't really want to do that.

I don't think it works that way because you are dealing with the entire Confederacy and not just a particular army. So the smaller the force you are fighting, the smaller the effect is on the overall impact to the confederacy as a whole. So if you are fighting against a reduced force, your efforts don't impact the overall army sufficiently to drop their levels of training and use of advanced weapons. If you want to have a real impact, I do believe you actually want the enemy to bring as many troops as possible to the minor battles. Of course, forces from different theaters can be interjected and are and that can impact training and armory and it appears that at certain times the army resets a bit. So, for example, although it would appear that I have the Rebs on the ropes after the Supply Raid (1 star infantry armed with re-bored farmers and no star skirmishers), at Nansemond River their skirmishers and infantry bounces back to 2 stars with 3 batteries of 3 stars. And after having wiped them out, at the Siege of Suffolk the Confederate army is packed with 3 star infantry units, though the artillery and cavalry is still at 2 stars. However, even when I wipe them out at the Siege of Suffolk, they get a big bounce in men, training and armory in the intelligence report. But when I then fight them at Chancellorsville their cavalry is almost non-existant because I have been slaughtering their cavalry for quite some time and even when I bring a full cavalry division of 5 brigades of 300 cavalrymen to the battle. Their general quantity of artillery is low and 2 star and their infantry is also I believe 2 star as well. Though I have to tell you those results were had when I decided to take my army after Nansemond River and without reinforcing (except adding my cavalry division before Chancellorsville) then played through the Siege of Suffolk and Chancellorsville at double time. Officially, I am now at the Battle of Suffolk for actual game play. So I believe that while you can actually influence the overall quality of their army by wiping out as many brigades as possible, there is also some scripting in there that allows them to bounce back at certain points (3 star artillery batteries at Nansemond River and 3 star infantry at the Siege of Suffolk) and you have to start again to reduce their quality. This stands to reason as, if not, you wouldn't have a very challenging experience in the overall campaign.

It appears that the only reason to pay attention to scaling is to reduce the number of men to the absolute minimum you have to fight and win battles. Thus, it makes it easier to win battles. Winning battles means you get all the rewards, plus you suffer fewer casualties and increase the efficiency of your units. But while winning battles is the name of the game... unfortunately, it isn't the whole game. By using your scaling techniques you are more likely to win... but you are less likely to actually do grievous harm to your opponent. For example, I am now up to Nansemond River. In your case Aetius, you were facing a foe who has training in the region of 70%. Because of this every single unit you fight in the battle is a 3 star brigade. In my campaign, the Confederates training and armory for Nansemond River is below 50%. Though I haven't fought the battle yet, I'm pretty sure there won't be a lot of 3 star brigades that I will have to contend with. In the scenario before that, at Supply Raid, I was facing Stuart's 3 star cavalry, but the infantry was only 1 star and the skirmishers actually had no stars. In reality, the most important factor in the game is totally eliminating enemy brigades because by totally eliminating them, they lose all the experience they have gained from past battles. Why should you want the enemy to bring as few troops possible to a battle that you know you can win easily? The fewer troops they bring the less impact your victory has on the overall enemy army, especially in the minor battles. After slaughtering the Rebs at Gaines Mill and Mulvern Tavern, I saw an almost immediate effect on the quality they were bringing to the minor battles. The minor battles are a "training ground" for not just your army but for your enemy as well. If they survive, they gain experience. If you use scaling to reduce their numbers to the lowest possible you miss a huge opportunity to deal body blows to their main army. Damn! Let them bring as many as possible! At Kettle Run I wiped them all out. I wiped them all out at Thouroughfare Gap, Crampton's Gap, Iuka, and Parker's Crossroads. I completely destroyed around half of the enemy units at Perryville and Supply Raid (including 4 out of 5 of Stuart's 3 star cavalry brigades). And I totally expect to wipe them all out at Nansemond River. After that I expect to see lots of 1 and 2 star units at that bugger of battle, the Siege of Suffolk. And if that is what I encounter, I expect to wipe them out there as well. By reducing the amount of troops you encounter at minor battles via scaling techniques, you are actually helping the Confederates maintain a qualitative advantage. Why would you want to do that?

Oh yes, indeed, they are highly effective and I am trying to have one sharpshooter brigade per Corps. I've watched Aetius slaughter folks with his sharpshooters. At the moment though (puts on his Ulysses S. Grant hat) I would rather slaughter his. Just finished Supply Raid where you command Stoneman's cavalry Corps and I ran into 3 star cavalry brigades (Stuart), 1 star infantry brigades and NO STAR skirmisher brigades. I wiped out three 3 star cavalry brigades and captured another. I also completely wiped out 2 no star skirmishers brigades and one 1 star infantry brigade. I did lose one 1 star cavalry brigade and another captured. But, I think it was well worth it. Here is the video (the introduction to the battle is well worth listening to I believe):

Be careful, because at some point, those briefings become prone to error. Congratz on your victory!

The problem with dedicated skirmishers and even to some extent with my cavalry is that in Grand Battles I have so many units on the field that I just don't have time to micromanage them. I am trying to not only fight the battle but am looking for weakness which I can exploit. That is why at Perryville I noticed that the Rebs were split and attacked them via the center crushing their right flank. At Stones River I lost a great opportunity when after holding the right flank, I didn't realize that the Confederates had essentially abandoned their center and once again, if I had made a general advance and filled that vacuum, there was a good chance I could have annihilated every unit on the battle line before I was forced back to hold my position. That isn't to say that I don't like skirmishers... I love skirmishers and I use them quite a lot to protect my flanks, to run down broken enemy brigades and to attack artillery. They are fast which makes them great for plugging holes and outflanking. But if it comes to a point where I must micromanage 4 or 5 small specialized units to the detriment of the other 55 brigades... I'd just rather not. Perhaps that will bite me in the butt later on...

Fredericksburg - pretty much an army wipe out including 4 infantry brigades (one of which is a 3 star) captured: Parker's Crossroads - I wipe out the rebs and capture 2 infantry and 2 cavalry brigades: Camp preparations for Stones River (there are some problems with noise in this video) which show how I am preparing my army and why: And finally, Stones River, where the Rebs receive a real drubbing (3.52 K/D ratio) and I capture 3 infantry brigades: On to Chancellorsville...

Here is an update of my battle results beginning after Thoroughfare Gap for my present campaign ending the year 1862: Battle US Losses CS Losses K/D Ratio 2nd Bull Run* 7,513/07 14,960/30 1.99 Crampton's Gap 3,512/00 8,674/15 2,47 South Mountain 4,381/00 9,698/32 2.21 Antietam* 19,609/08 51,927/106 2.64 Iuka 2,503/00 7,313/18 2.92 Perryville 2,247/00 11,710/32 5.21 Fredericksburg* 15,112/06 37,525/71 2.48 Parker's Crossroads 4,299/00 12,166/15 2.82 Stones River* 13,739/05 48,383/74 3.52 Totals 131,130/66 397,300/653 3.03 * = Grand Battle