Stone Rivers, Advice/Something?

[Slaithium]

9 minutes ago, Zwerty99 said:

I don't know the history behind it but from a gameplay perspective, there should probably be a higher reward or less elite opponents. Or perhaps the game could give players pre-set troops (like in shiloh and salem church)

Sounds sort of inconsistent don't you think to have only a  pre-set for some? What about the other battles?

[Wandering1]

If it's the minor battle with 3 3* melee cav squads a boatload of 100 all stats skirmishers, if I were to recall, the big thing you have to do to neutralize the melee cav at the start is to catch them while they're crossing the north river, and have negative cover. Once they retreat from getting shot, it becomes a lot simpler.

If you do not have your own cavalry coming in as reinforcements, the map will get significantly harder as on hard, all of the skirmishers have JF Browns. Doesn't change the fact that they won't kill you very quickly if you sit in the buildings on the VP. Once they engage a unit in 100% cover sitting on the VP, you run cavalry around the back to eat all of the arty, and then start mopping up individual squads.

It isn't a simple map by any means, but if you only have mostly infantry, it's going to hurt a lot since sniper skirmishers are the bane of infantry formations in general.

[Slaithium]

8 minutes ago, Wandering1 said:

If it's the minor battle with 3 3* melee cav squads a boatload of 100 all stats skirmishers, if I were to recall, the big thing you have to do to neutralize the melee cav at the start is to catch them while they're crossing the north river, and have negative cover. Once they retreat from getting shot, it becomes a lot simpler.

If you do not have your own cavalry coming in as reinforcements, the map will get significantly harder as on hard, all of the skirmishers have JF Browns. Doesn't change the fact that they won't kill you very quickly if you sit in the buildings on the VP. Once they engage a unit in 100% cover sitting on the VP, you run cavalry around the back to eat all of the arty, and then start mopping up individual squads.

It isn't a simple map by any means, but if you only have mostly infantry, it's going to hurt a lot since sniper skirmishers are the bane of infantry formations in general.

I will keep that in mind thank you.

[Zwerty99]

4 minutes ago, Slaithium said:

Sounds sort of inconsistent don't you think to have only a  pre-set for some? What about the other battles?

It's already inconsistent (look at cavalry raid as union, or that battle where you control Trimble's brigade as rebels). Especially in a set of 4 hard battles for confederates in 1st Franklin and Blackwater, it makes some sense. Not the only solution of course, but a possibly viable one. 

[dsfgsdfgsdfgdsfgsdf3q4]

9 hours ago, vren55 said:

Another good idea is to make sure you have three full corps... then ignore the lower VP, hit the top VP, whilst making your way to the NW as fast as possible (not running, marching) Break the Union Salient around the wood/hill with your troops and then with the ones across the river, flank and take Nashville West. 

I'd be warey though... Nashville West's cover hasn't been fixed yet. SO even if y ou shoot the enemy from the rear it's not going to rout them (if they're entrenched). It's necessary to sortof do a slow, tigtening of the noose with Stones River from West to East. 

On the final day, repeat the same strategy, slowly mind you. And no charging,. that's not a good idea. Unfortunately expect the majority of your losses with this battle to come from the fact you cannot rout garrisoned units by shooting them.

 

Edit: I realize you've been playing on hard... this was on medium so... take my advice with some salt.

But is it really worth losing half of your army? I think its way better if you loose some victory points but keep your army intact and add a few thousand men and a few cannons more. Thats at least what i did at Antietam. Stones River is my next battle and i think i will do the same.

[Slaithium]

5 minutes ago, Zwerty99 said:

It's already inconsistent (look at cavalry raid as union, or that battle where you control Trimble's brigade as rebels). Especially in a set of 4 hard battles for confederates in 1st Franklin and Blackwater, it makes some sense. Not the only solution of course, but a possibly viable one. 

That is quite upsetting and annoying come to think of it if that is the case and should be addressed promptly if that is the case.

[vren55]

34 minutes ago, Acika011 said:

But is it really worth losing half of your army? I think its way better if you loose some victory points but keep your army intact and add a few thousand men and a few cannons more. Thats at least what i did at Antietam. Stones River is my next battle and i think i will do the same.

Highly likely the casualty count will decrease after whatever cover patch the devs are coming out. I got a lot of casualties because of that.

And no, losing the victory points is just not a good idea. Besides in Chancelloresville, you only can take two corps. So take the losses, get those victory points and the reward. 

[Speedkermit]

9 hours ago, Slaithium said:

Thanks that is great and thanks for the effort. I tinkered and tinkered with it, I manged to figure out a strategy where I just by pass the entire army with the first corps and rush them into Nashville Pike before the Union gets there and take up cover where they normally defend. So It cuts them off and prevents them from having fortification buff. So It puts me on the defensive which musket warfare playing the D gives you a advantage. I just hold while the two hills get pounded. Still take heavy casualties but if the battle went any longer I am sure I could of annihilated the whole army given I had 8 arty pieces right there on the node with infantry in front of it. And them trying to get in there holes or trying to attack.

This was very similar to how I handled this battle. But what a bloodbath it was. I (Confederates) lost over 20,000 men, but I literally wiped out the entire Union army.

I wasn't happy with how it went, and I noticed a fair few bugs with this battle.

[Don't Escrow Taxes]

I can't get past this battle as CSA on hard.  I'm bringing 69k men to the field.  Driving me nuts.  I'm able to cut the union army in half at the third VP but they have too many men for me to hold off once the turnpike VP's spawn.  Any other tips or strategies beyond what's discussed in this thread?

[Wright29]

The key is to inflict tons of damage on them in the first two phases so they have minimal forces to defend the entrenchments. 

If you wait long enough and do a really wide flanking maneuver to the Union right (to the point where none of your units are visible to the enemy), the Union will attack your forces in the middle and the northeast part of the first phase. They might completely leave the southernwoods open for your forces. It's not the VP, but the woods itself that is the most important thing to hold. 

Accordingly, the problem with attacking the northern VP at the beginning is that the Union is bunched up in the woods to the south. Sure, you will destroy them eventually, but it will be less efficient than hitting them in the open as they do a continual retreat. 

I always use the Corps on the other side of the river to actually take the final VPs because hitting the rear of that position is far easier. Just hit the west VP and continually roll the flank. The AI is pretty bad at moving reinforcement because it prioritizes keeping units in the entrenchments. No broad attacks at this final phase. One entrenchment at a time. 

Expect about 15-25% casualties

Good luck! 

[Hitorishizuka]

Quite late, but I've been slacking and lazy. My new CSA campaign only recently got up to this battle, so if'n anyone still needed a video for help with possible battle strategies, here you go.