The Defense -- A Tactical Checklist

[KG_Soldier]

I don't recommend keeping them all shooting when they're all tired, I usually have a few regiments laying down resting close to the lines the whole time. When they're fresh again, I rotate. I just never keep fresh units out of the fight. If you keep all your men fighting without any rests they'll all be exhausted and you won't be able to do much after a while.

Well. . . that depends. If you're winning the firefight and about to run the enemy off, you should keep all your regiments in line and firing even if they're tired or even weary and sometimes even exhausted (especially if you're on good ground). You can rest when the firefight ends.

[Garnier]

Yeah that's the part I was editing in while you replied.

If I expect to be attacked again before they're all rested though, I'll often rest some while the fight is ongoing.

[WriterJWA]

A clarifying statement about "reserves."

It's INCREDIBLY subjective, and based on personality, but the idea I was hoping to get across (and seemingly failed) is that it's a good idea (IMO) to have troops available to respond to contingencies. If I have three enemy regiments in front of a friendly brigade of five regiments, I'll have four of the five shooting with one behind the line available to send elsewhere, or maneuver if need be.

Now, that being said, if I have the same five-regiment brigade getting hit by two brigades, then rest assured all five regiments will be employed. If a defender is getting his tail kicked hard and he has regiments that he's put in reserve and simply left them there because he wants to keep a "reserve," then he's dead wrong and obviously missed the point entirely. Its' about discretion and using intuition to determine employment of reserves.

In the attack, however .... reserves don't really apply.

[SouthernSteel]

I wonder if it would be more interesting to have resting go faster, but have the men take significantly longer to stand up when they're laying down. The math there would be less realistic perhaps, but it might lead to more realistic and fun behavior -- if you let your men fall out to rest near the front line the enemy might take them off guard, aka shoot them while they are slowly getting up.

Honestly, they do actually take a bit of time to get standing as is, especially if you purposefully issue the order yourself. If you let the AI handle it, the unit is usually up as a single man, basically. It's actually somewhat annoying to have to sit and wait for every last man to stand up and get in line while under fire, but perhaps that was intentional to simulate the effect you're talking about. Plus, as soldier mentioned, with the LoS changes, being caught off guard is entirely possible. I think Kester now uses the assault column more than any other formation, even line. It used to be fairly thrilling to watch an attack go in like that, one of the first I saw was at the angle, so it was a pretty desperate affair but definitely cool to watch. Now, it's fairly well old hat.

A clarifying statement about "reserves."

It's INCREDIBLY subjective

In the attack, however .... reserves don't really apply.

Quite. Wasn't meaning to attack your position (no pun intended) as originally written, just to try and make this more of a discussion as per B2S. It really is a lot about personal preference. Rotating regiments in and out of the line is somewhat complex so kudos to those who can do it well.

As for the attack tactic described, as I understand it, this was what Napoleon used to a great extent, except his attack columns were more precisely that, meant, I think, to have a narrow front to punch through the enemy line and then exploit the break. It wasn't entirely novel, sure, and you have proof there, although that's over a year after the present battle and works better, probably, against more static positions.

I have come across discussions before, however, of units and men refusing to obey orders they regarded as suicidal, to the point that most of the veterans of the AoP were actively refusing to expose themselves in a manner they regarded as needless by the Overland Campaign. This, in turn, has sparked a debate about whether these men were cowards or what their particular motives might have been. I don't have any of the sources readily available anymore, even my computer they were on is out of commission right now. So I reject your reality and substitute my own. Resistance is futile!

[Sharpe55]

From personal experience in playing against him, I think kg spoom is one of the best users of reserve tactics and would be interested in hearing his input when he is able to.

My personal position on reserves (like most things in this game) is situational. If I am defending a position, it depends a lot on some of the other factors that Writer has written about, namely the ground itself and how much of it you are trying to hold. If you are holding a hill or a narrower front, reserves are a good idea and sometimes a necessity. If you are caught in a situation where you have to defend a larger amount of ground, reserves may not be such a great idea. The problem with this situation is one that Barlow and I experienced a few games back at the base of Culps hill when Writer launched his attack. I had some men there with the rest of them wrapping around the another part of the hill but no immediate reserves.

Not having reserves makes you VERY vulnerable to bayonet charges (the previous situation being an example). If not for barlow rushing in and acting as my reserve, Our line could have been cut in two.

While we often gripe about bayonet charges (me included sometimes), to a degree this is relatively historical. If you notice a thin spot in an enemy line where you have numerical or qualitative superiority, a charge does make sense. Properly used reserve tactics make such charges such as these futile for the most part.

[Garnier]

Honestly, they do actually take a bit of time to get standing as is, especially if you purposefully issue the order yourself. If you let the AI handle it, the unit is usually up as a single man, basically. It's actually somewhat annoying to have to sit and wait for every last man to stand up and get in line while under fire, but perhaps that was intentional to simulate the effect you're talking about.

I just tested it and as far as I can tell, it doesn't matter if you click "stand up" yourself or un-TC the regiment and let the AI do it -- the speed is the same. The only factor is the unit's experience level. 4, or maybe 5, or greater stand up instantly. This can be modded, so if we wanted laying down to be more risky, we could.

[Beef Stu]

no way, getting up takes way to long as it is .if it took the union that long to stand up for picketts charge they would have been overrun . why is there a risk involved with laying down? is it to balance some aspect of the game?

[Garnier]

It does take too long for some regiments, but is instant for others.

Started a topic about this here so we don't overrun this tactics thread.

http://www.norbsoftdev.net/index.php?op ... =124#36099