Support units

[Bill the Bold]

I was reading that some people don't make use of support units, I just wanted to share some thoughts on the subject.  I use one carbine cavalry unit and one skirmisher unit per corps as the union.  I'm only about halfway through the CSA campaign so this may only be relevant for the union side but once I get access to enough of the right gear I fully intend to add support units for the CSA.

The skirmishers,  I've had excellent results with Sharps rifle armed skirmishers on both offense and defense.  I'll put them on an open flank and use detached skirmishers for scouting ahead of the main army, the Sharps guys are too valuable to be sparing with the enemy head on .  With 450m effective range they take their shot and back off before an enemy unit can return fire and with a 300 man veteran unit those volleys take a toll (1500 kills at Shilo).  They punch well above their weight and take very few casualties so are quite cost effective after the initial purchase of the rifles.  I will definitely increase the unit size as more Sharps come available.  I avoid rapid fire "shock" skirmishers for the reasons below.

The cavalry,  I changed my cav to carbines after Shilo because I read that's how they rolled during the war.  I didn't like it at first but now I would say overall they are more useful than the melee cav unless your strategy is to break inf lines with cav charges.  With the carbines they're still plenty good against arty in melee and a 400 horse charge on 200 skirmishers still sweeps them with minimal losses.  It takes a little longer so they are more vulnerable to counter fire than the melee cav but just as effective.  Defensively they have the advantage of dismounting and hiding like skirmishers.  I used them in one battle to hang back and defend my guns against the CSA cav, dismounted and just left them hiding in the woods covering the rear of the guns. When the enemy cav showed up my guys (around 300, armed with Smith carbines) stopped them cold and they never tried it again.  Offensively on South Mountain (I think) I worked an inf brigade up the hill on the right flank and was taking heavy losses from 2 enemy brigades on top, the cav was able to cross the little stream, get up the hill and into the woods in no time (it was my only unengaged unit and kind of far from the action).  Dismounted, walked around the open flank and let them have it, this time 400 guys with Spencer carbines and the enemy broke without much fuss.  

BUT... this leads to why I wouldn't use dedicated shock skirmishers.  The dismounted spencer carbine cav, like all skirmishers don't stand in there and pump rounds into the flanks like you want them too they bugger off backwards at the first sign of trouble and the range is so poor when the enemy eventually rallies you have a substantial range disadvantage.  Also by the time they rally you're probably almost, if not completely, out of ammo haha.  Now I think this works for cav because your mobility allows you to deploy and redeploy as needed for resupply or other dismounted skirmishing while still being able to charge softer targets when mounted.  My opinion on shock skirmishers is that if you're going to use a slot in your corps for skirmishers you're much better off getting sharpshooters or a cav unit with the same carbine.  Added bonus, a cav unit can be bigger.

I would submit that support units offer a lot of tactical flexibility for the price and are not manpower intensive if you're worried about scaling.  Of course having said all this if I can only deploy 10 brigades to a battle, yes I'll leave them behind but it's always a welcome addition when they're available.

 

Please share your feedback, thoughts and experiences with support units!

 

 

[Aetius]

4 hours ago, Bill the Bold said:

I would submit that support units offer a lot of tactical flexibility for the price and are not manpower intensive if you're worried about scaling.  Of course having said all this if I can only deploy 10 brigades to a battle, yes I'll leave them behind but it's always a welcome addition when they're available.

The scenario brigade limits are the main restriction on using support units of all types. I've had great success with sniper units, but they require a lot of micro-managing because their skirmisher AI likes to run away into the open instead of hiding in cover and they are often reluctant to fire without specific orders. Ranged cavalry works the way it did historically - they provide high mobility units to plug gaps and exploit flanking opportunities. Melee cavalry, on the other hand, is pretty ahistorical - in this game, they are brutally effective at turning routing units into dead units and shattering infantry charges. For example, I've had Crocker's 235-man cavalry unit in the Potomac Fort scenario get over 1,000 kills from running down routed units three times their size.

Skirmisher units with rapid-fire carbines are sort of a special case. I've had a lot of success placing them behind the main line, usually right on top of the objective. Their job is to sit there and pour fire into any melees around them, which shortens melee engagements and saves a lot of lives.

[MikeK]

I like that the game represents the psychological moments when units are teetering between two courses of action, and a well timed charge or threat can tip the balance as happened in the field. Both mounted infantry and regular cavalry used with care can use speed and mobility to do the job on a an appropriate target.  The big risk with this is overextending or being ambushed by undetected troops.  

[Jamesk2]

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.

[Bill the Bold]

6 hours ago, Aetius said:

Skirmisher units with rapid-fire carbines are sort of a special case. I've had a lot of success placing them behind the main line, usually right on top of the objective. Their job is to sit there and pour fire into any melees around them, which shortens melee engagements and saves a lot of lives.

That is, I think probably the best use of rapid fire carbine skirmishers.  In south Mountain where I used the carbine cav dismounted as skirmishers I had to fight it out up there with just the one inf and the cav and what I found was that they were effective at the massive short range firepower "shock" role initially.  Once the enemy rallied and sent some of their own skirmishers to cover that open flank anytime I tired to move the cav offensively after that the enemy detached skirmishers always drove them off with losses before they could return fire.  They ended up being used like you did, behind the front line adding fire but they were out of ammo by then and had taken moderate casualties.  I think if people want to employ rapid fire carbines in their battle order they should consider putting them in a cav division.   I don't think rapid fire carbines make the best skirmishers  in general due to range and ammo consumption but in those right situations that firepower can be decisive.  As a cavalry unit that mobility means you can get them to the right place at the right time. 

 

3 hours ago, MikeK said:

I like that the game represents the psychological moments when units are teetering between two courses of action, and a well timed charge or threat can tip the balance as happened in the field. Both mounted infantry and regular cavalry used with care can use speed and mobility to do the job on a an appropriate target.  The big risk with this is overextending or being ambushed by undetected troops.  

I agree and I think both types have there place and that the choice between a mounted infantry style or the regular melee cavalry is one of personal tactics.  I like the flexibility of carbine cav because you have a reasonable charge against soft targets, guns, skirmishers, routed troops and you can be effective dismounted in the right right situation with the mobility to put yourself there.  I took far to many risks with melee cav and paid for it.

 

2 hours ago, Jamesk2 said:

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.

They may not be slot effective in small battles but when you have the whole corps is deployed I would suggest sharpes rifle armed skirmishers are both slot effective and cost effective.  

Slot effective for me in that I already have 13 inf brigades per corps, all deployed they are often in each others way and some see little combat even in big battles.  Cost effective in that high kills and low casualties mean more money to recruit veterans to the inf brigades which take the heavier losses.  That 2500 man inf sitting on the flank is a much larger investment in manpower and weaponry for the role its filling and therefore a waste.  When an enemy shows up to turn that flank the inf has to fight it out with him (losing men and weapons) until you can pull some units to help defeat him.  The sharpshooters simply kite that unit away taking no loss until you're ready to deal with it.  And then when he turns around to face your oncoming inf brigades he gets picked apart by rear flanking fire.  I wouldn't be so hasty describing the firepower of the sharps rifle in the hands of veterans as negligible.

I used only melee cav as union and my CSA campaign (forrests cavalry unit) is a melee unit until I can get enough suitable carbines to change him.  It was just after shilo I decided to try the carbines as union because I read that was more true to life.  I found them akward and not much use other than scouting, the only reason i didn't change them back was because I figured that the firepower in the end game might be such that melee cav would be too vulnerable and that I might as well try to work up their firepower stat (melee stat was already pretty high at this point).   After a few battles and realizing that they can still put up an effective charge against guns and such I really started to like the rapid deployment firepower of the carbines.  Again that flexibility.  Now I do suppose though that they are so effective at charging because they already had high melee skill from their saber days and that recruit carbine cav would probably be garbage.  Give it a try if you have some spare carbines laying around.  

 

Happy new year folks!

 

 

 

[Wandering1]

5 hours ago, Jamesk2 said:

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.

There is actually one little quirk about bringing 2500-strong infantry brigades over 500 man skirmishers or 750 man cavalry units: troop scaling. 2500 man squads cause more enemy scaling than skirmishers or cavalry units, which as an aside degrades the effectiveness of the 500 man skirmishers and 750 man cavalry units because they have larger squads to chew through, since skirmisher and cavalry unit caps do not scale with army organization, just more squads.

[Hitorishizuka]

2 hours ago, Wandering1 said:

There is actually one little quirk about bringing 2500-strong infantry brigades over 500 man skirmishers or 750 man cavalry units: troop scaling. 2500 man squads cause more enemy scaling than skirmishers or cavalry units, which as an aside degrades the effectiveness of the 500 man skirmishers and 750 man cavalry units because they have larger squads to chew through, since skirmisher and cavalry unit caps do not scale with army organization, just more squads.

Correct. Playing minimum size increases the effectiveness of all cavalry, skirmishers, and artillery units because they don't have to try and mess around with the AI's 3000 man brigades to the same degree. A 750 man cavalry brigade doesn't have to wait around for the battle to progress if the enemy's biggest brigades are only 1200.

Sniper skirmishers are really strong on offense because they can fairly easily pick off enemy artillery that is slightly behind enemy lines while you're still engaging the primary force. They still do fine on defense, especially around the flanks. I haven't played with rapid fire skirmishers yet but putting them on a VP right behind someone who gets meleed a lot sounds like a great idea. I do want to use them for flanking, they either bait a turn which means the enemy eats flank shots from all of your main brigades or they quickly rout the enemy anyway themselves.

It took me awhile but I finally came around to ranged cavalry, though you have to baby them so much. They're a lot safer at killing enemy artillery that still has some infantry buddies around because they take do enough damage in the first volley to rout to still protect themselves from counterfire but won't be on top of the artillery which will cause them to get shot by nearby units. They also are actually capable of contributing reasonably effectively in line vs line pushes at corners and adding decent damage in, while melee cavalry still sit around and wait for opportunities to go after a single brigade not really engaged or for the whole line to waver so they can break the entire thing. I would still want melee cav as the hammer but ranged cav definitely has its place.

[Bill the Bold]

13 hours ago, Hitorishizuka said:

I haven't played with rapid fire skirmishers yet but putting them on a VP right behind someone who gets meleed a lot sounds like a great idea. I do want to use them for flanking, they either bait a turn which means the enemy eats flank shots from all of your main brigades or they quickly rout the enemy anyway themselves.

It is a seductive idea but tricky in practise.  I've been using spencer carbine cav as mobile "fire brigade" trying to put them into the situations like you mentioned above and using them dismounted, the biggest disadvantage is range of the carbine.  The 1855 has a 60m effective range advantage so its not difficult for enemy detached skirmishers to keep you at arms length on offense and defensively behaving like skirmishers when dismounted they fall back when taking any kind of fire (everyone out ranges them) so there's that micromanaging issue of all ways running them back into position behind VP.  They chew through ammo like crazy too obviously.

When you do get those carbines into that perfect position though, the firepower can be decisive and it really is funny to watch enemy formations melt under a sustained rapid fire.  Almost, but not quite, as satisfying watching your canister rip them down in my view.

[Hitorishizuka]

Because of the range of their carbines, it's better in practice to keep them mounted. They don't need cover or stealth, they're not supposed to actually get shot at and they'll be too close for stealth. Mobility to get them in and out of range is more important IMO.

[Bill the Bold]

I agree and that's why I think rapid fire carbines are best utilized in a cavalry brigade not in a skirmisher brigade, mobility.  For the most part I keep them mounted for running down guns and skirmishers and only dismount in those desperate, bitter fighting type situations where the cav is my last uncommitted unit.  I feel like they are better shooters on the ground and take fewer losses when you need them to stand in there and brawl.

[Hitorishizuka]

20 minutes ago, Bill the Bold said:

I agree and that's why I think rapid fire carbines are best utilized in a cavalry brigade not in a skirmisher brigade, mobility.  For the most part I keep them mounted for running down guns and skirmishers and only dismount in those desperate, bitter fighting type situations where the cav is my last uncommitted unit.  I feel like they are better shooters on the ground and take fewer losses when you need them to stand in there and brawl.

That's because they act as standard skirmishers and as such get their additional cover bonus, which they don't when they're mounted.

[Bill the Bold]

47 minutes ago, Hitorishizuka said:

That's because they act as standard skirmishers and as such get their additional cover bonus, which they don't when they're mounted.

Exactly, but what would you say about their shooting?  It seems to me like they're more effective dismounted at pouring in the rapid fire

[Hitorishizuka]

52 minutes ago, Bill the Bold said:

Exactly, but what would you say about their shooting?  It seems to me like they're more effective dismounted at pouring in the rapid fire

They might get a reload bonus or you might be only seeing the effect of them not retreating as far between volleys and wasting time. I haven't personally seen much of a difference but I admittedly don't feel the need to dismount them that often.