Big Brigades

[jwsmith26]

I haven't been playing the game that long so my opinion on this may alter when I've got a few more games under my belt, but my initial impression so far is that the game really pushes you to keep your brigades at full strength, or at least as big as you can get them, which is rather counter to historical norms, especially for the Confederates. Those guys tended to let brigades wither into thin shells of their original strength - tough as nails but pretty thin. 

Again my inexperience could be giving me a false impression, but it looks like if you have more brigades in the corps that you have deployed than are allowed in the battle then the game gets to decide which brigades get deployed. As a result, in the game you have a much better chance of controlling which of your troops are involved if you create big brigades so you have fewer of them, allowing you to more accurately determine which will be involved in the battle. Besides, if you only get 4 brigades, you certainly don't want 4 that are half strength. This system, that determines your on-field strength based exclusively on the number of brigades that you can deploy, pushes you to create ahistorically full-strength brigades. This problem (at least I see it as a problem) could be corrected by determining battlefield deployment based on overall manpower rather than number of brigades. The game could determine the maximum manpower strength allowed and then let you decide which brigades to deploy within this maximum. From a player's standpoint this would certainly be a more satisfying way to enter a battle and would not punish you for having an army composed of small brigades.

Another way the game rewards you when you have brigades that are absolutely full strength is when you occupy prepared fortifications - in that case your brigade always completely occupies the fortification even if you've only got 200 guys in the brigade. It's much better if you can stuff 2000 guys in that same space. 

Melee in general also seems to favor the big brigades. I've seen a big Union brigade charge across a river, up a bank, and into a dense forest, all while absorbing continous fire from 1000 experienced Confederates that are supported by artillery. The Union brigade made contact and blew the Confederates out of their protected position simply because they had a bigger brigade. I understand that having twice as many men will have that effect on a melee, but if I can't possibly stop the charge with gunfire then what chance do I have when faced with charge after charge if I have smaller brigades. The answer that the game provides is - get bigger brigades.

That just doesn't seem right to me. It wasn't the brigade structure that determined who got deployed to a battle and it wasn't brigade size, but rather the total number of men (among other factors), that determined who won melees. Why can't several small brigades occupy a fortified position? That is purely a game mechanic that has no basis in historical reality and unrealistically compromises the effectiveness of an army with smaller brigades.

I'm enjoying the heck out of UG:CW but there are a few things that bother me and the need to maintain big brigades is one of them.

[GS_Guderian]

Guess you are right here.

Big is beautiful. First thing in my GC after a few games was reaching 2000. That way they have a good chance to work, even with skirmishers out.

[ajffighter86]

The only thing I can think of is try to combing your brigades into division strength before you tell them to occupy a defensive position. however, this can become a nightmare since only brigades from the same division will combine, and that can be hard to make happen when your army becomes all mixed up in the bigger battles.

There should be a way to simply select 2 random infantry brigades and tell them to combine, perhaps with a slight command penalty for not being in the same division if that has to happen.

[GS_Guderian]

Soldiers really tend to dislike fighting with anyone they don't know. 

Usually adhoc units have zero to none military value after the first shots have been exchanged.

No trust in your neighbor valuing your life as high as yours - you won't stick around for long.

[JaM]

i think the main problem here is the firepower.. Big brigades have more men, therefore have higher firepower, while smaller ones less.. I think it would be better if only first three lines were actually considered as deployed for shooting, and everybody else would be in reserve. This way, even small brigade could have same firepower as big one, just not as many men to replace the losses..

[Andre Bolkonsky]

7 hours ago, GS_Guderian said:

Soldiers really tend to dislike fighting with anyone they don't know. 

Usually adhoc units have zero to none military value after the first shots have been exchanged.

No trust in your neighbor valuing your life as high as yours - you won't stick around for long.

Yes, very true when you're discussing something like the German ad hoc kampfgruppes where they just grabbed men and created brand new units and threw them into combat as they did at the end of WWII. 

But would the same thing apply when you merge two existing units on a battlefield for an assault under the division leader, each with their own existing elan and comraderie? 

[GS_Guderian]

I say yes,

just look at how units even react to a wounded leader being replaced with someone less familiar.

The men around you are your family. It's not easy to integrate new family members.

I guess they would rather get smaller areas of responsibility for the small units instead of broader boarders with a merge.

Also gamewise, what happens to range and reload if 40% have farmer musquets and 60% Lee rifles.

Edited December 11, 2016 by GS_Guderian

[ajffighter86]

3 hours ago, GS_Guderian said:

I say yes,

just look at how units even react to a wounded leader being replaced with someone less familiar.

The men around you are your family. It's not easy to integrate new family members.

I guess they would rather get smaller areas of responsibility for the small units instead of broader boarders with a merge.

Also gamewise, what happens to range and reload if 40% have farmer musquets and 60% Lee rifles.

Not sure but it would probably be calculated the same way as when you merge two brigades in the same division that have different weapons.

Edited December 12, 2016 by ajffighter86