Side Missions

[Noggs]

I feel like these should be an opportunity where if you perform well and manage troops correctly, you should be able to upgrade your army between grand battles.  But even when after Antietam, I start hitting side missions where I'm like...ok i killed 10k of his troops, lost 3k myself, captured alot of goods, ok not too bad.....oh i only got 2500 troops for that mission.  Then later on it's getting worse.  As CSA I have to attack fully entrenched Union forces with no flanks, if there are flanks the only way I achieve it is by running brigades in a 4 man file between the union forces and the out of bounds or a river.  

I just think, these should provide us an opportunity to do well and reinforce before our next big battle, not oh I completed all the objectives and inflicted 3x more casualites, but only gain half my troops back.

[Slobodan]

6 hours ago, Noggs said:

I feel like these should be an opportunity where if you perform well and manage troops correctly, you should be able to upgrade your army between grand battles.  But even when after Antietam, I start hitting side missions where I'm like...ok i killed 10k of his troops, lost 3k myself, captured alot of goods, ok not too bad.....oh i only got 2500 troops for that mission.  Then later on it's getting worse.  As CSA I have to attack fully entrenched Union forces with no flanks, if there are flanks the only way I achieve it is by running brigades in a 4 man file between the union forces and the out of bounds or a river.  

I just think, these should provide us an opportunity to do well and reinforce before our next big battle, not oh I completed all the objectives and inflicted 3x more casualites, but only gain half my troops back.

Can you be more specific about those problematic battles? I also play as CSA and all minor battles are not that hard to win (with lower casualties than reward for win) except Rio Hill.

On which level of difficulty are you playing?

 

[Col_Kelly]

This is intentional for CSA. The goal is to reflect the war's attrition since the confederates were very limited in manpower. Union has a tough time in early campaign while CSA really struggles at the end of it. Even though your army tends to get smaller after Antietam you can still manage to beat the campaign. 

I personally like this dynamic as it really reflects Lee's struggle : by the end of the war Virginia had mobilized 94% of it's military aged male population which basically means everyone served in the army except disabled people and administrative staff. 

[Noggs]

Playing on Normal just to get a feel for it, I've also tinkered with about 10-15 different variations of army comp/career points/veteran unit builds.  But I'm playing on my best "so far" build and I've hit the battles before Chancellorsville and it's like I'm lucky to break even on the side missions.  It just seems too that when I have to attack the union they're in a Fort with layered defense and when I get to defend it's a fence line that gets flanked from every direction.

I thought this was a good build cause I crushed Antietam and Fredricksburg with 7:1 casualty ratios.  So i know what i'm doing but Rio with all the snipers getting scoped weapons, I feel like I may have equipped too many units with high end weapons or something.

Edited March 10, 2017 by Noggs

[Wright29]

It's been pointed out a couple of times that you can "game" Rio HIll by having your own skirmishers ALL equipped with lower-tier guns. The enemy matches your best equipped skirmisher unit at Rio Hill. Makes it much more cost efficient. 

It sounds like you're having some macro issues as well. Macro-wise there are three key things that apply to every player in every Confederate campaign: 
1. Max out politics, then Medicine with enough Army Org to keep up with the campaign. Everything else is less valuable. 
2. You only need 3 corps as CSA with the possibility of having 24 brigades per corps. In practical terms, you will want about 3 corps of 20 brigades and can shift guys for all of the 2 corps battles with 24 brigades each. 
3. 24-lb Howitzers are the most efficient weapon and unit combo in the game. Max out purchases after every grand battle without exception. 

It sounds like you're having trouble with individual missions. Any specific problems other than Rio Hill? On normal, all side missions are possible to have less casualties than the reward if you keep trying new things. Let us know how we can help

[Aetius]

On 3/9/2017 at 6:20 AM, Slobodan said:

Can you be more specific about those problematic battles? I also play as CSA and all minor battles are not that hard to win (with lower casualties than reward for win) except Rio Hill.

On which level of difficulty are you playing?

 

Everettsville is the worst offender - particularly on Legendary. Your choices are an uphill grind through rough terrain into layered defenses, or slipping your units around one of the two flanks through narrow gaps between entrenched Union units and the map edge. The frontal attack on Legendary is suicidal, so the flanks are the only sane option. The best I've ever done is about 8,000 casualties. It's a boring, tedious, slow-moving slugging match with little tactical challenge.

Blackwater Heights isn't much better - your only avenue of attack is across a bridge into a pocket of open space surrounded by dug-in Union troops. This requires liberal use of the Hold command to make sure your units don't stray into the line of fire while you're assembling them once across the bridge. 1st Franklin is significantly easier, but it's again a choice between a fairly suicidal frontal assault or a long march around the flank. Fortunately, however, the Union units have a lot less cover at 1st Franklin so you're able to clean them up quite cheaply once in their rear.

And honestly, it starts before that - 1st Winchester is a very similar scenario where flanking is the only sane choice. It does offer a more open flank on the Union left, though, if you're willing to march your troops all the way around. I'd say it's almost like most of the Confederate scenarios are designed to make you lose manpower even when you win.

Edited March 10, 2017 by Aetius

[Noggs]

1 hour ago, Aetius said:

Everettsville is the worst offender - particularly on Legendary. Your choices are an uphill grind through rough terrain into layered defenses, or slipping your units around one of the two flanks through narrow gaps between entrenched Union units and the map edge. The frontal attack on Legendary is suicidal, so the flanks are the only sane option. The best I've ever done is about 8,000 casualties. It's a boring, tedious, slow-moving slugging match with little tactical challenge.

Blackwater Heights isn't much better - your only avenue of attack is across a bridge into a pocket of open space surrounded by dug-in Union troops. This requires liberal use of the Hold command to make sure your units don't stray into the line of fire while you're assembling them once across the bridge. 1st Franklin is significantly easier, but it's again a choice between a fairly suicidal frontal assault or a long march around the flank. Fortunately, however, the Union units have a lot less cover at 1st Franklin so you're able to clean them up quite cheaply once in their rear.

And honestly, it starts before that - 1st Winchester is a very similar scenario where flanking is the only sane choice. It does offer a more open flank on the Union left, though, if you're willing to march your troops all the way around. I'd say it's almost like most of the Confederate scenarios are designed to make you lose manpower even when you win.

Pretty much all this.

Rio Hill is a combo of them outranging my units and having faster fire rates.  I have 1 skirmisher unit armed with whitworths non scoped.  Should I equip them with something lower?

I may start over on my playthrough, I noticed the changes with the patch and some of those will speak better to my play style.

 

 

[Nicolas I]

1 hour ago, Noggs said:

Rio Hill is a combo of them outranging my units and having faster fire rates.  I have 1 skirmisher unit armed with whitworths non scoped.  Should I equip them with something lower?

Yes, been there, done that. It was somewhat easier after removing the good rifles of my lone skirmisher unit as all the enemy units weapons scaled down.

Also, I used cavalry to destroy the enemy skirmishers and artillery. After that the infantry reinforcements attacked the dismounted cavalry that I attacked from the sides or behind.

[Wright29]

9 hours ago, Aetius said:

Everettsville is the worst offender - particularly on Legendary. Your choices are an uphill grind through rough terrain into layered defenses, or slipping your units around one of the two flanks through narrow gaps between entrenched Union units and the map edge. The frontal attack on Legendary is suicidal, so the flanks are the only sane option. The best I've ever done is about 8,000 casualties. It's a boring, tedious, slow-moving slugging match with little tactical challenge.

For Everettsville, I feel like the only real option is to do a heavy-weight frontal charge where the enemy is stretched over a wide area. In the middle near the VP is ideal. Four or five brigades attacking one has worked for me on all levels.  Capture the VP and end the scenario as soon as possible. Best you can hope for is 1:1 casualty rate on Legendary. Not the most satisfying mission...

[Aetius]

The best I've done on Everettsville is roughly 1.5 to 1 (13k Union, 7.5k Confederates), on patch 0.75, using an attack on the far Union left:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Va5MSttuRLE

I've tried the frontal assault twice in tests, with one win and one loss - however, casualties were north of 10k both times. For a battle with such a small victory reward, it's just painful. When I play it again, I'm definitely going to push harder on that flank - the supporting attack on the fortifications was unnecessary, I think.

[sonnypemberton]

Antietam is the only map on my major general playthrough that I have not gotten more men than I lost (17k losses). Similar to Aetius, on Everettsville I push the far left for best results and then rush the center when they have retreated. Over 4 campaigns, my best was 3470 lost to their ~7400.

Rio hill I won with only 1800 losses, but got fewer than 4000 kills. I would rather win than draw or lose (obviously), but I am not going to game the system for weapons at the expense of my army.

My 2 most recent CSA campaigns (I only play major gen or legendary) my army sits at 60 - 70k with ~20k in reserves. The only battle I have yet to play is Chickamauga due to the fact that I always wait for the next release to play the last map.

 

[civsully1]

16 hours ago, Nicolas I said:

Yes, been there, done that. It was somewhat easier after removing the good rifles of my lone skirmisher unit as all the enemy units weapons scaled down.

Also, I used cavalry to destroy the enemy skirmishers and artillery. After that the infantry reinforcements attacked the dismounted cavalry that I attacked from the sides or behind.

I know it's been said before but it is necessary for the Developers to hear it until it changes. They have to remove this scaling/matching of weapons when playing the AI. Now when they develop a MP version it shouldn't be an issue. But for players against the AI it needs fixing. The real concept I hate in any war game is...."gaming the system". It makes that more important than implementing your best strategy..win or lose. It's your victory or defeat. The idea of having the AI "level up or down" on their equipment to yours automatically is a No Go for me. Get it out and have the AI use whatever build /equip algorithm that matches historical norms. But with all that said...I really like what they are doing with this game overall! Especially with the responsiveness to the gaming community input. Amazing!

Disclaimer: Nicolas my quote here isn't anything against what you said regarding your strategy. It's just related to the units weapons scaled down in the game. I'm picking up many great nuggets from your posts. Once again...thank you!

[Don't Escrow Taxes]

Re: Everettesvlle.  Actually this one isn't so bad for me.  Believe it or not I attack from the front.  There is a big piece of high ground right in front of Yankee entrenchments.  Bring a TON of guns - LOTS of guns, okay - and what I did was i detached skirmishers from all of my brigades, deployed a strong skirmish line in front, backed up by TONS and tons of guns, blasted the living hell out of the union entrenchments, and then kept inching closer.  The battle is like what, 3 hours in game time, so you have plenty of time to blast away.  

The reasoning behind the skirmish line is to provide enfilade fire onto the forward entrenchment while risking very few casualties.  As you inch closer and closer and start working on the next set of earthworks you can then use your melee brigades to exploit the gap.   In fact in general I am finding more and more that detached skirmishers in a line in front of your brigades is VERY effective vs. entrenched units because of the different angles of fire in exchange for far fewer casualties.  The only way the AI can counter you is their own skirmishers which is seldom seen beyond dedicated skirmisher units. 

 

Now... can someone help me on Stones River LOL

 

Edit: realize I'm only bringing 48 guns here but that's probably 6 batteries of 8 guns each.  Also i used my III Corps to get them experience for the next grand battle. 

2nd Edit:  I watched the youtube video linked above and they are bringing more troops than me however the casualties percentage is less for me with the frontal assault 

3rd Edit:  I'm playing only on major general, not legendary 

 

Edited March 12, 2017 by Don't Escrow Taxes

[A. P. Hill]

One of these days, maybe I'll be fortunate enough to see some of these "side battles" that irritate so many.  I never seem to make it past Antietam.

[Don't Escrow Taxes]

the way I win Antietam as the rebels is to turn the northwest and the woods north of dunker chruch (west wood i think it is called right) into one big delaying action. the AI falls for it every time.  Last time they never even attacked my position at sunken road.  I defended sunken road with just enough units to man the fortifications there in case the AI got crafty .  I used the rest of the sunken road garrison to relieve my units in the west wood north of dunker church who took heavy casualties since most of the fight took place there. This also allowed me to dispatch a a bunch of arty batteries and some brigades to bottle up the union forces that try to cross the bridges to the east so they are never a threat.  They take insane casualties trying to cross those bridges.  

[Wright29]

6 hours ago, Don't Escrow Taxes said:

the way I win Antietam as the rebels is to turn the northwest and the woods north of dunker chruch (west wood i think it is called right) into one big delaying action. the AI falls for it every time.  Last time they never even attacked my position at sunken road.  I defended sunken road with just enough units to man the fortifications there in case the AI got crafty .  I used the rest of the sunken road garrison to relieve my units in the west wood north of dunker church who took heavy casualties since most of the fight took place there. This also allowed me to dispatch a a bunch of arty batteries and some brigades to bottle up the union forces that try to cross the bridges to the east so they are never a threat.  They take insane casualties trying to cross those bridges.  

I WISH they would attack the woods more often. you have to lure them into the northwest and that takes some skill but a whole lot more luck. It always pisses me off that the Union throws Porter's corps pell-mell against the Eastern side of the Sunken Road. It's so far from what historically happened that it ruins the spirit of the battle. 

[Slobodan]

On 3/12/2017 at 9:48 AM, Wright29 said:

I WISH they would attack the woods more often. you have to lure them into the northwest and that takes some skill but a whole lot more luck. It always pisses me off that the Union throws Porter's corps pell-mell against the Eastern side of the Sunken Road. It's so far from what historically happened that it ruins the spirit of the battle. 

AI always attacked woods in my battles, probably because I station 2 art units there (and third at church fortification). I guess this is what "draws" it to the woods

I agree with Don't Escrow Taxes that making firm stand in woods is a key, but I always drop back to thel left of Sunken road after some time, to prevent my troops taking to much casualties. By that time AI is significantly damaged so you should be able to defend Sunken road and counter attack in last part of battle.

My toughest challenge at Antietam is defend that stone bridge in center, AI is very determined there and last time it also switched Burnside corps to attack in center, overwhelming my defense which made me to rush reinforcements from north and south to plug gap. But this is why I like this game so much, AI always surprise me in some way

 

 

[Jamesk2]

48 minutes ago, Slobodan said:

My toughest challenge at Antietam is defend that stone bridge in center, AI is very determined there and last time it also switched Burnside corps to attack in center, overwhelming my defense which made me to rush reinforcements from north and south to plug gap. But this is why I like this game so much, AI always surprise me in some way

 

 

The trick is never defend that bridge. Just make a giant pocket around it so that any Union brigades moving out of the bridge will get hit by several of your own.

[A. P. Hill]

When the battle shifts that direction for me, I always send a whole division to form at the foot of the bridge. 

They rack up quite a few kills. 

I guess my problem with the woods and the hill on the left is I never seem to have sufficient troops.