winchester 2 - whats the point?

[J. P. Armistead]

Previous threads have suggested that this extremely hard battle is likely to cost you 10K casualties, and you are recommended to take your best brigades(3* and 2*).

Just tried it on BG and was annihilated.
Why fight this battle?- Okay, for fun, or for the challenge. But not for the rewards!

In my army, with 10 points in medicine and 10 in training i have noted the following:-

Assuming 10k casualties
Replacement of 1 vet average cost $39 per man in a 2* brigade without buying new weapons.
Assumption: you want to maintain their stats so you won't replace with raw recruits.
To replace these troops (8000 after the medicine reduction) will cost you:

8,000 x $39 = $312,000. $312,000 !!!!

Even assuming 4000 casualties it still costs you $156,000.

For a victory in this bloodbath you receive $100,800 and 4,500 in the manpower pool.

Even assuming you gain some equipment, which you can sell , it in no way makes this battle worth fighting, especially as in the next battle - Gettysburg - you need a bigger army.


I'd love to hear from Generals who have won this battle and broken even or made a profit.

C'mon devs - whats the point of including a battle that the average player cannot fight without severely affecting his ability to continue with gettysbug and beyond?

Would it be possible to have a difficulty level selectable for each battle so those of us average players can just have some fun?

[J. P. Armistead]

Additional to my last post.....
Note that my (simplistic) calculations were only for the replenishment of 2* brigades, 3* brigades are much costlier ($64 per man in my game). Heaven forbid you lose your cavalry at a cost of $124 per man& horse!

[[BRE] Tancred]

You can manage to break even out of this one : build a long north south line around the woods west of the town and leave the most southern portion (the one with no cover) opened. Place only two units in the town to counter flanking attempts from the AI and use the rest of your army to build strong double-lines in the woods. The rebels only spawn in the west so with such a disposition you'll be able to throw back any offensive against your troops.

As a side note by the time you reach 1863 difficulty increases to reflect the rising horror of the conflict. It is not expected of the player (I think) to make huge profits out of late minor battles. That's where scaling starts to actually benefit the player. Even if your army gets smaller you'll still be able to pursue the campaign, up to a certain point of course.

It's a tough game and meant to be that way :)

[m4rt14n]

I think when it tells you to bring your best troops, you should go ahead and put forward your second/third corps. Dead rookies with 1842's are cheap

[J. P. Armistead]

Originally posted by m4rt14n:

I think when it tells you to bring your best troops, you should go ahead and put forward your second/third corps. Dead rookies with 1842's are cheap

So you lose.... and get -20 to reputation and can only replace a couple of thousand rookies with the "prize" money of $31,500.
Most of my 2nd and 3rd corps troops are 1* and 2* brigades. Surely it's better to not fight this battle at all?

Originally posted by Col_Kelly:

You can manage to break even out of this one : build a long north south line around the woods west of the town and leave the most southern portion (the one with no cover) opened. Place only two units in the town to counter flanking attempts from the AI and use the rest of your army to build strong double-lines in the woods. The rebels only spawn in the west so with such a disposition you'll be able to throw back any offensive against your troops.

As a side note by the time you reach 1863 difficulty increases to reflect the rising horror of the conflict. It is not expected of the player (I think) to make huge profits out of late minor battles. That's where scaling starts to actually benefit the player. Even if your army gets smaller you'll still be able to pursue the campaign, up to a certain point of course.

It's a tough game and meant to be that way :)

I take your point about the rising horror of the conflict and the toughness of the game.
I really enjoyed Antietam ,Stones River and Chancellorsville etc. And yes they were a little tough but at least i was able to gain the satisfaction of winning them.

In a previous campaign i won Rio Hill, not by my good tactics but by employing workarounds like having no skirmisher brigades with advanced weapons, and positioning several melee cavalry brigades in the woods to the NW to intercept the early advance troops, techniques gleaned from reading posts. A sigh of relief afterwards but not the satisfaction of winning by my good tactics.

I'm not trying to make a profit, but thats not the point.
I don't want to destroy the army i have carefully invested many hours into building up (i spend hours and hours agonising over the camp screen. I was really quite upset when i lost Reynolds at 2nd Bull Run, but was too exhausted to refight it.

Isn't it reasonable to expect to be able to reach the end of the campaign?
To be punished for winning a major battle is one thing, but a minor one that you do not have to fight at all?
Especially as the Union - because with hindsight the war was a foregone conclusion with the industrial capacity of the North and it's greater manpower. Lee's attempts to woo Britain and France were doomed once Britain switched sourcing of cotton to India.

It would be great if individual battle difficulty could be selected (with a sliding scale of rewards) to keep everyone happy and able to complete every battle to their individual level.

[XCLBR]

there are a couple battles like this and i take the loss rather than acrifice the army. i do take tghe field to get the men and money, but i withdraw immediately and take no casualties. you have to make sure you have the political numbers to take the loss. i usually plan for these. one big one for the rebs is malvern hill. fk this fight...not worth it

[uhamster9]

Why plan for a loss? If you're not gonna win, better just not fight it. You don't have to fight any minor battles.

[XCLBR]

for the men and money

[wanderingthoreau1987]

Originally posted by XCLBR_{W*A*R*}:

there are a couple battles like this and i take the loss rather than acrifice the army. i do take tghe field to get the men and money, but i withdraw immediately and take no casualties. you have to make sure you have the political numbers to take the loss. i usually plan for these. one big one for the rebs is malvern hill. fk this fight...not worth it:CSACavalry:

I totally agree. No matter how you approach Malvern Hill, it is an absolute ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ and hurts you because there are moments where the AI will just claw you in its way down as they've suffered 75% losses.

To me, more than anything, the Ai's poor logic shines in instances like these where the battle if a forgone conclusion but it launches mass wave attacks at the weakest unit ad though it'll do more than just kill more of both sides men and it cracks some of the immersion. I just hate Malvern Hill, it's close to Everettsville and Cedar Mountain as pain in the ass fights. Hell, just reading about the forested nightmare that is Chickamauga, I still haven't even played that battle.

[m4rt14n]

Every battle is winnable. I just tried again with my third corps, mostly 1842s with 1 star rookies. Stick in the forest to the left, but dont man the barricades. Have a couple brigades north and south part of the town. In the northen forest have 2 brigades on a fighting retreat. If you can bog them down, I was able to win with 7000 casualties easily.

Phyrric? Maybe. But I got 1100 fayetteville rifles to sell which amounts to much more 1855s to buy for the rest of my army. So I call it a good hard win.

War is hell.