Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
The author of this topic has marked a post as the answer to their question.
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
The less XP a unit has the faster it gains XP. The more XP a unit has the harder it is to gain XP. One or two battle should level up an INF unit from 0 to 1 *. Four or five more battles to level up to 2*. About 10+ to get to 3*. It depends on how much they are involved in the battle. If you have a Colonel in charge most CSA INF will start at 1*. For the USA you need a high XP MG or LtG to make a 1* INF from scratch.
An exception is when they have 2 stars and you can keep the second star by buying partial rookies and partial veteran units.
Veteran replacements for 3-star units are too expensive, unless they have like Spencers or Henries.
All in all, you're better off buying better weapons: 1855's for example do twice the amount of damage over time than Mississipy rifles. And 1861s or Richmonds do 30-40% more damage damage than those 1855s.
Which is why it's probably best to do Politics, then Medicine, then Economy (with Army Organisation when needed): if you follow the above rules, you will be spending more money for weapons (economy) than for veterans (training), even with the one-time cost of 250,000$ to make a bunch of 3-star cannons (see the other post about this).
Something else that you can do is to mix rookie with veteran replacements if you don't want to lose a level from a 2 star unit. You fill the unit with rookie replacements until they are about to drop one level, then you stop and fill the rest up with veteran replacements. That way you don't spend too much money on veteran replacements (3 star units are really expensive) and don't lose too much of the units stats. Also when training your 3 star units keep in mind that they cost more money in terms of veteran replacements the bigger the unit is. Depending on how much money you have you should keep those 3 star units at 2000 men because at 2500 they cost you an arm and a leg. And your firstborn child.
Don't get me wrong, they are totally worth the money and you want to have at least two of those ASAP but be careful not to make too many of those units. Only use them as your reserve, i.e. send them into the front line once your fresh recruits, 1 and 2 star units are beaten. Then your 3 star unit can wipe out the enemy or hold the position until the battle is over. That way you can minimize the losses on your 3 star unit and save a lot of money. Oh and make sure to have at least a Brigadier General in command of these units. Don't bother with anything less or your 3 star unit will not be performing at its best.
More generally on this, I have been adding vets to a few special units so that I can get them to 2-stars, then I keep them there with a mix of vets/rooks each time -- and coax them upwards. At the same time, I bring along a few more promising units to that 2-star level. It's rookies for the rest. At BG level, anyway, this has left me with a large money-supply throughout the campaign. And I have been winning with many more 1-stars and no-stars than I did during my Colonel campaigns and 1 quickly aborted BG campaign. (I'm currently about to fight Chicka-MeOhMyOh-Mauga, fyi.)
Here is what i do: From the start up until Shiloh i use most of my reputation points to buy Generals from the goverment. I also try to buy every General that is available in the Barracks. But i only buy them after all my units are set up, i.e. size of the unit, weapons etc. and if i have money left i buy the Generals. Of course you need some luck because sometimes there will be no General available to buy for money but the ones you can buy for reputation points will always be there. If you're lucky and there are Generals available to buy for money go for it. They will push you over the edge in terms of how many Generals you have available for Corps, Division and Brigade command. Don't forget to buy other Officers too because you need them for your units.
Now that we have all the Generals we need, we need to level up our two 3 star units. Make sure they get plenty of kills in each battle while at the same time minimizing their losses. Remember, we only use veteran replacements on these two and that costs a lot of money. Which means we won't have 3 star units for a long time. Depending on how good you are at micro managing your units (and these two units should be micro managed) you can have them at 3 stars by Malvern Hill, maybe before. Don't worry too much if it takes you longer than that to get your 3 star units because i mostly end up getting them right after Malvern Hill.
And now why it is so important to have them ASAP. It is very simple: You get the most bang for your buck if you have them as early as possible. Later in the campaigns the battles get so bloody and chaotic that micro managing your 3 star units becomes a real hassle, especially if one is already micro managing Cavalry, Skirmishers and Artillery. Yes, Artillery needs some micro management too, especially those 24 pdr. Howitzers. The early battles are less bloody and chaotic and therefore it is much easier to use your 3 star units without them taking too many losses. After all, you want to build up a nice pool of manpower and money for those later battles. And in those early battles they make a real difference (i'm not saying they won't be making a difference later on) simply because they will crush the enemy because on BG difficulty the AI won't have that many 3 star units to throw at you. Most of the time you will be facing 1 and 2 star units (there are, of course, some exceptions) and your two 3 star units will make all the difference in the world especially against units with no or just 1 star. Later on you will face more experienced troops which will reduce the effectiveness of your 3 star units a bit. And the battles will be more bloody and chaotic. Think about Chancellorsville, Chickamauga, Gettysburg and the minor battles between them. Mule Shoe is one hell of a battle for the Union and the CSA faces similar nightmares. But of course, if you don't get all the Generals you need early on (let's not forget about wounded and dead Officers) then you should be fine with just one 3 star unit.
Oh, Chickamauga is your next battle? Well, if you're playing it as the CSA good luck, you will need it. Same as the Union but in my experience, at least for me, it is less chaotic playing this nightmare as the Union. Before i forget it: If you play as the Union and want to level 3 star units, pay very close attention to the deployment pattern during Shiloh. Because your units will not be deployed in the normal order, especially if you have two Corps at Shiloh like i have. I recommend checking out how your units are deployed and then reloading in order to get the most kills for your potential 3 star units while at the same time minimizing their losses.
youre absolutely right, i saw a replay from reviewgamex and he said that for the CSA he must try to compensate the lack of armory and training with more infantry (so he refill his brigades with rookie infantry)
And this is logic as well, because you can make only huge flank movements with sufficient infantry on the field.
Oh no, no, no.
It's a lot more complicated than that quote makes it sound.
First of all: obviously, if I can keep a perk by just putting in 100 veterans vs 100 rookies, I always pay for veterans, regardless of cost. No sense losing a perk because I didn't pay the 5000 for 100 3-star vets. Even at 3-stars, 100 vets won't break the bank unless you are doing something wrong in the meta.
Secondly: I'd much rather give my few 3-star units anything, anything other than repeaters. Repeaters already give you such a high fire rate that even a pretty lowly unit, veterancy-wise, is going to have a pretty high rate of fire. If anything, I tend to give repeaters to my 2-star units, because they can have the fire-rate or accuracy perk already, but don't have the Elite perk yet (which would have given them good melee ability... see the third point below).
Third: linked to the second point, I almost always give my 3-star units something with good all-around stats including melee... this tends to be Lorenz, CS Richmonds, Fayettevilles, etc. The repeaters have very mid-line melee stats, so I almost never give them to a 3-star unit unless it happens to be one with poor melee ability. As Union, I keep Lorenz's on my 3-stars pretty much all game, because you can't get enough captured CS Richmonds and the Springfield 1861/63's have low melee for a late-game weapon.
Fourth, and easy to miss because of how counter-intuitive it can be: it's actually *more efficient* to pay for 2-star and 3-star vets than it is for 1-star in many cases, so I save on the lower units and give them rookies often times while *only* really buying vets for 3-star and high 2-star units. After all, unless you are replenishing 75% of the unit, at 1-star the vets typically won't matter a whole lot... you're going to win back that veterancy quickly anyways, so why pay even just 3,000 supply for 500 1-star vets? Much rather pay 15,000 for 250 3-star vets than 3,000 for 500+ 1-star vets, actually... the 3-star unit will have a much harder time re-couping its experience than the 1-star will.
Fifth, and finally: at least IMO, repeaters are over-rated. Henry's and the Colt Revolving Repeaters are especially lackluster because their high rate of fire is off-set somewhat by having just mediocre accuracy and range. Only the Spencer seems all that much of an improvement over the Springfield 1861 or CS Richmond, and even there you've sacrificed around 100 range for that rate-of-fire. In most cases, I'd much rather take the Springfield 1861 or CS Richmond over a repeater, even the Spencer, simply based off the cost alone (you'll pay more, for fewer, Spencers, and the Spencer is just not THAT much of a boost to justify it).
Malkor2, while re-reading your (outstandingly helpful) reply, it "clicked" for me -- the earlier appearance of 3-star units on the battlefield will (hitting my forehead here, yes) OF COURSE have more impact, especially with their relative importance being greater earlier rather than later in the campaign. I confess that I'm not happy about the micro-ing involved in building them up, but there it is. And it seems clearly worth it. (To this point, I've mainly let them gain the 3-stars "naturally" -- and then I've often placed them in reserve until later battles. Hm.)
Aluminum EM, special thanks for the tip on being careful to keep the stars that a unit has earned -- and how to do it. I've started seeing this more clearly, how that mixture of rooks/vets is not just economical; it's sufficient... because we're simply trying to keep a unit's stars. (I'm also taking notes on your weapon selection tips. I have favored the Lorenz as my first "choice" weapon once I can get them, but haven't seen much praise for it around the forum. I too keep them around until the end, as much as their seeming scarcity allows.)
#1 - The unit has a high melee value itself (some vet units will not have high melee stats, especially if they primarily have been only engaging in ranged attacks).
#2 - I'm playing as the Union.
The Lorenz is actually not a perfect weapon (fire rate isn't much better than average, and its range is a bit less than most of the late-game options). But as the Union, it's probably one of the best all-round weapons you can get at a price you can often afford. But as the CSA, both the CS Richmond and Fayetteville are better all-round, with the CS Richmond being at least somewhat available in large enough numbers to fully equip a number of 3-star units.
Yes, obviously, that goes without saying :)
I don't know if you ever did the math, but if you do, you'll see that there is a high jump between some rifles. I'll do a more detailed post about it someday, but basically if you multiply rate of fire, accuracy and damage (which together would be a good indicator of raw damage over time in MOST cases), you'll see...
- there is a 100% in ranged damage increase between Palms and Mississipies
- 70% beyween Mississipies and Lorenz
- 20% between Lorenz and Patterns/1855s
- 10% between Patterns/1855s and Harpers
- 10% between Harpers and 1861s/Richmonds
- 10% between 1861s/Richmonds and Fayettes
- 50% between Fayettes and Spencer/Henry
That is a BIG difference for the Spencers & Henry. Put them in the hands of a 3-star unit of 2,500 and they will singlehandedly route any S-star unit of 3,000 men from aside. With a Lorenz you just won't pack that much punch.
And the melee argument... I don't know how often you melee, but I do it very, very rarely unless it's at routing units.
ll that is true, but... you need ALOT of veteran units to win the campaign. The end-battles are very, very hard and you lose alot of troops in each battle after Jackson. IMO, you need to make two new veteran (read: 2-star) infantry troops at each battle from the beginning of the campaign if you want to win the campaign (at least on MG).
So, what I do is that I protect my 2-star units with 1-star units. For example, at Antietam on MG, I lose 24,200 troops, but 16,000 of them are green recruits. That way, you come out of that battle with alot of 2-star troops that have 200-300 casualites each, troops you rebuild with veterans.
At least that's how I do it :)
Spencers & Henry have a 50% boost over Richmonds and Fayettes. Rate of Fire x Damage x Accurancy of Spencers and Henry are over 75,000. 1861, Richmonds and Fayettes are 47,000, 48,000 and 52,000 respectively (I'll re-verify these numbers when I make my bigger post on this).
That's significant IMO.
Surely, you don't need 5 units of these. But 2 Spencers or Henries on a flank and you can roll that flank up so fast that the AI doesn't have time to sent new troops in.