Army Organization

[comeandtakeit]

How do most of you organize your armies?

[Prussian to the Iron]

usually I have:

1 General
2 Cavalry
6-7 Arty
8-10 Elite or Line Infantry
0-2 Light Infantry/Melee Infantry

Tip: Have some originality in new threads. this must be like the 3rd or 4th time this type of thread has been posted.

[Snite]

Nice to see another Texan on the forum,

I try to have:

1General
3-4 Cav
2-4Arty
6-8Line Infantry
2-4 Elite Infantry(including Riflemen in that one)

[comeandtakeit]

Sorry, let me elaborate then. Building an Army is one thing, but what I would like to know is other people's decision making process that goes into developing their units. For example, I prefer to think of each unit as a company element with the line infantry obviously being the main effort in my battles. Cavalry, artillery, light infantry are considered support. I prefer to support every two "companies" of line infantry with 1 battery of artillery and one troop of cavalry. Throw in a general and I have a small force. I like to refer to them as a battalion because, although smaller than most real army battalions, that is what I essentially have created.

I understand it is a small force, but I can combine them into what I call a Brigade of 4x Line Infantry, 2x Artillery, 2x Cavarly,1x Light Infantry, and a General when tackling larger foe. And of course I can combine two brigades into a Division to create a full 20 unit stack. The extra generals that once were battalion commanders when I combine units to form a Brigade or Division I use to lead supporting units such as extra artillery pieces, light infantry, grenadiers, etc across the campaign map.

Does anyone else try to do something like this or am I talking crazy?

[Snite]

That's the first I've heard of it myself, but a lot of people like to roleplay so it's probably not unique.

I like it.

[Sheogorath]

Since I use IS, it really depends on who I'm playing as. IS makes the factious seriously different, rather than just the piddly 1-point difference in stats you otherwise see.

For example, the Ottomans initially lack any sort of regular line infantry. Gotta use cavalry to take out cavalry. Or artillery. Hence I typically try to get a 50/50 ratio of cavalry and infantry.

Initial artillery is so slow on the campaign map that it's not worth taking except to a siege or in defense.

Still, though, the Ottoman units have an advantage in individual accuracy over the Europeans for the most part. Bashi-bazouks are a good, cheap, skirmisher unit that can wreak all kinds of havoc on European regulars. With the infantry, in most cases, I try to get a 3/4 skirmisher army with the remainder being Janissary units, preferably musketeers, which provides the close-quarters oomph needed to really kill some dudes.

[comeandtakeit]

What does IS mean?

[Monsieur Alphonse]

IS is Imperial Splendor. It is a mod.

[Hermann the Lombard]

Does anyone else try to do something like this or am I talking crazy?

Not crazy at all, and I presume you're doing this for tactical and operational flexibility rather than for role-playing reasons (nothing wrong with those either). I have read a similar approach which also see the standard LI unit as a company, and that player grouped them by threes to form a battalion, of course adding supporting units.

You can see from those other responses (and other threads!) that many commanders opt for about 8 line infantry, just as you have in your division. Some go much more heavily for line infantry, and some for a more independent mounted component (including horse artillery).

I still tend toward more ad hoc forces, but I guess that just means my personal level of research hasn't reached the military college stage.

[loony]

1 general
2 light infantry or militia
4 arty (2 12 pounders and 2 howitzers (later - mortars))
2 regular heavy cavalry
Rest - line infantry
(sometimes 2 dragoons, especially in wars i am winning hands down - to leave as garrison forces if need be).

I see the combination of line infantry, direct fire arty using canister and flanking by cavalry/light infantry/militia as the best combination to avoind significant battle losses.
the howitzers are also nice, especially if microing makes the enemy concentrate forces too much.

the main disadvantage of such army is that if the enemy has a lot of skirmishers, you have to micro the line infantry a lot.

[comeandtakeit]

I tend to keep my armies in some sort of organization in order to prevent confusion when I don't play for some time. I've played all but shogun total war and I've always had to organize my units into some sort of modular force especially in RTW. Nothing I hate more than trying to fight with the disorganized mass that is the HRE or the Ottoman Empire without first re-establishing some sort of military order. Same goes for economic priorities.

I have been experimenting with trying to use a sort of Combined Arms Battlion. It is a style of organization that my current US Army Brigade uses. The technology of the 18th century does not translate well to that sort of organization, obviously they didn't have mechanized units back then. The breakdown that I'm trying to use is:

1x General
4x Dragoons
3x Melee Cavarly
2x Horse Artillery

The Dragoons being a force that can skirmish or establish a base of fire while the melee cavarly move around to engage the enemy with charges to the flanks. The artillery can be used in order to support the dragoon's base of fire position or used to engage and displace from their own prospective positions. The greatest difficulty has been defeating the square formation after the initial charge. They honestly need to put some form of negative penalty on units trying to form the square after they get engaged in melee.


I am not well rehearsed in 18th century tactics and it took me a little while to figure out how to fight in ETW, and I'm still learning, but I believe the basic concepts are always the same.

1. Find the Enemy
2. Fix him into disadvantaged situation
3. Finish him with overwhelming firepower.

[Prussian to the Iron]

dragoons will never stand up against even militia, so unless you are just spamming very expensive dragoons, with less effectiveness and half the strength of line infantry, I wouldn't reccomend them. they are only rally good as reserve troops, so that you can fill holes quickly, and garrison troops, so you can keep the populace down with twice the effectiveness.

[NimitsTexan]

Early wars I will use:

1 General
7 Line Inf
1 Grenadier
6 Heavy Calvary
3 Dragoons
2 Foot Art

Late

1 General
2 Light Infantry/Rifles
7 Line/Elite Infantry
1 Grenadier
2 Heavy Calvary
3 Light Cavalry/Dragoons
2 Foot Artillery
1 Howitzer/Rocket/Mortar
1 Horse Artillery

[Servius]

2 Generals
4 Cav (usually Dragoons)
12 Line Infantry
2 Grenadiers

I'm still experimenting with the Grenadiers. I have yet to find anything they're exceptionally better than Line Infantry at. Chucking grenades at enemy units in buildings tends to break those units, eliminating the need to storm the building, but Grens also get chewed up pretty easily in ranged and melee when fighting vs Line Infantry.

I never bring any artillery because I've never found it to be more effective than line infantry at anything. Low accuracy, slow rate of fire and failure to kill even when it does hit makes it essentially useless. Maybe if there were 6 cannon in each unit instead of only 3 it might be a bit better. But with nearly every map being a featureless flat affair, the lack of chokepoints and natural barriers makes it pretty easy to outflank them, unless you babysit them with other units that could be out killing stuff themselves.

I may drop 1 General and the 2 Grenadier units and replace them with cannons just for the hell of it. I like to give arty a try every once in a while, just in case I might stumble up on a use for them.

[Fisherking]

dragoons will never stand up against even militia, so unless you are just spamming very expensive dragoons, with less effectiveness and half the strength of line infantry, I wouldn't reccomend them. they are only rally good as reserve troops, so that you can fill holes quickly, and garrison troops, so you can keep the populace down with twice the effectiveness.

I disagree. Light Dragoons are my cavalry of choice and very flexible. They will force the infantry into square and quarter their fire power while they, infantry, or cannon deal with those units. They also carry more ammunition and have better accuracy then most infantry units.

They keep other cavalry from your flanks and are just as good as most other cavalry at killing the enemy's artillery. Using them to flank infantry already engaged by fire is a good method too.



I think of the units in terms of company/troop strength too but beyond that I usually think of a full stack as being a brigade.

In an all horse organization I usually use three light dragoons and a horse artillery battery. Having two melee cavalry in such a stack is also helpful.

In my typical all arms stack I use three light infantry or rifles,
not more than four artillery batteries,
four cavalry (preferably light dragoons),
and the rest some verity of musket infantry with a general sometimes.

[comeandtakeit]

I find fixed artillery to be virtually useless for offense. Defensively it is adequate until you get foot artillery or horse. I normally use it on slight incline so that I can safely fire at the enemy's first wave. On defense, as in I have the option for trenches and fences, I use a unit to set up a fence about 20 meters in front of the artillery piece. It doesn't stop infantry from come over but it does slow them down for a few good volleys of grape shot that will rout them most of the time. The enemy normally tries to follow the path of least resistance in those situations anyway so they go for my infantry allowing my guns to inflict mass casualties unharassed.

[Servius]

I hope my question doesn't take this threat OT, but how often do you all get attacked/fight a defensive battle? In my games, I feel like it's always me who's attacking. The AI might go for a city, but it never goes for my armies. The reason I ask is that, back during MTW, when the AI only had to move a stack into an enemy region to trigger a defensive battle, I remember having very different structures for offensive and defensive stacks. My defensive stacks would be heavy with archers and spearmen, while my offensive stacks would be heavy with swordmen/polearms and light on archers or spearmen.

In ETW the basic Line Infantry unit is just so tough and flexible that it fills the role of nearly all infantry units from previous TW games in both offensive and defensive situations. They're ranged units who can melee about as well as other infantry units they might face, and once you get some bayonettes and the square formation, are just as good vs cavalry as the old spearman units used to be.

In ETW, if I fought more defensive battles, I might have more use for cannons since I hear their cannister shot is pretty impressive when you can get the AI to attack you, but I've not been impressed by any of the arty units on the attack.

[cmv1087]

I hope my question doesn't take this threat OT, but how often do you all get attacked/fight a defensive battle? In my games, I feel like it's always me who's attacking. The AI might go for a city, but it never goes for my armies.

What I notice, generally, is that the AI tends to go for the armies it outclasses, which makes sense. If you're always invading or raiding or whatever with full stacks, it generally won't attack. In my Prussian game (normal/normal since it's my first one for ETW <_<), the AI stack defending Bavaria will usually challenge my units if any end up in their territory, usually from chasing off an Austrian half-stack that was running around Saxony a bit. Since it's not the main front, I don't have anywhere near a full stack there, so it's mostly a few militia, some dragoons, and the odd arty.

Once, Bavaria sent a single line inf to a half-stack I had barely in their territory to attack Austria's but didn't quite reach it, bringing in the Austrians as reinforcements. So, yeah, about as often as you have weaker armies marching about.

[Hermann the Lombard]

I never bring any artillery because I've never found it to be more effective than line infantry at anything. Low accuracy, slow rate of fire and failure to kill even when it does hit makes it essentially useless.

Canister is truly devastating in both casualties and demoralization, and round shot is useful to goad the AI into giving up a defensive posture and attack...incidentally often bringing the enemy in range for canister.

In one battle i expected to pound the enemy with cannon and then finish them off with infantry, but the AI adopted a nifty reverse-slope defense, immune to my cannon and meaning that I would have to close to point blank range to even see them, not what I had in mind. I sent a battery of horse guns to their flank and they abandoned the reverse slope and went after the horse guns and then my main line (and very nearly overwhelmed my line, but that's another matter).

Since the AI's goal is often to get to the guns it's effective to set up a shallow "V" with the guns at the bottom and line infantry slanted in on both sides. When the enemy advances they enter a killing ground of overlapping musketry and canister.

Goading the enemy into attacking is a way to turn your attacking battle into a defensive one. Similarly, if you attack a city and lay siege they seemingly never surrender, they sally to try to break the siege, turning you into the defender in the battle. (The other way to become the defender is to get caught with an inferior force, or hopefully a force that the AI *thinks* is inferior.)

[A1_Unit]

I have to bring artillery or the AI will defeat me.

[Prussian to the Iron]

I don't think i've had more than a couple battles where arty really saved the day, and those battles had tons of arty.

1. So I'm Prussia in India (inorite?) and I've just taken one of the Maratha provinces 2 provinces west of Bengal. So, my main army is marching on Bengal (with my Mughal allies) and I leave the town before relatively unguarded (2-3 company infantry, 4 howitzers, 2 mortars) just to keep the populace under control. Well, the Marathas don't like me being so cocky apparently.

So, with overly spammed cavalry, and some very, very elite infantry (using the AUM mod) they come to attack me from 2 sides. My Howitzers, once calibrated right, started kicking some ass as enemy infantry fell, marching perpendicular to me, along a road ready to turn at me. The cavalry was taken out relatively (and astonishingly) quickly, but then the damned dervishes and hindu swordsmen came. I barely survived that. Thier cavalry is regrouped, now i'm totaly screwed. So, I bear all arty on them, and oddly enough, rout them. then there is just 2 units of foot arty left. They then proceeded to rout all 3 of my line inf, and were too close to hit with my arty as the final cav charge began. I lost, but it was easy taking it back with so few defenders.

2. Another battle against the Marathas. This time, I have a full army (with elite Swiss Guards from the AUM mod) with like 6-8 arty (about half howitzers, half horse arty) against a full stack of Marathas (unsurprisingly spamming cavalry and elephants). My line is set up with my main elite infantry in a line about 4 men deep, my Cavalry on the left flank, and my arty + another line inf(maybe swiss guard, not sure) in a line to the side, aimed toward where the enemy will be crossing the fields.

So the main enemy advance comes. Lots and lots of Shrapnel shot is raining down on these guys, and elephants are dropping like flies. A couple bargirs advance through some trees to attack my arty, which is promptly stopped by my guards. While that is happening, about 3 units of Bargirs decide to attack my arty head-on. they got annhilated by the canister shot.

I probably could have beat them without so much arty, but with much more casualties than I recieved. the crossfire with the bargirs ripped my arty crews apaart though.