Two 1500 man Brigades or one 3000 man brigade?

[hockey160029]

Has anyone tested to see if two brigades of 1500 men are better than one with 3000?

I would think smaller brigades would have the advantage of flanking and multi-directional gunfire which would hurt the moral of the larger brigade but I don't know if that would be enough to counter act the sheer volume of fire coming from the larger brigade.

Smaller brigades also allow for weapons that you may have less the 3000 units of. I'm thinking captured weapons your side might not make and the like.

[Stale Baguette Police]

It's an interesting thought. I think you might need to do some testing!

I don't know if the game is hardcoded to provide bonuses to larger brigades. IRL I would say that having small maneuver units is always better than one immovable block. Brigades we're made up of smaller regiments, themselves made up of smaller companies.

[Bon Scott]

I find i go with the 2250 as my front line and 1500 as my RES. and flanking units.

[Mr. Breeze]

Only thing is you need twice as many brigades to reach the same amount of troops which means you'll need twice as many officers to lead them. Attrition could become a problem

[[HPC] Crplsteve]

Big units have a slightly higher loss resistance if I do recall.

[Old War Dog]

I like making in a Division at least one big blocker at 3000 and two smaller 2250 if I can get away with it; however, depends on available weapons long range accurate go to the smaller Brigades. I build my Divisions with at least one Artillery unit depending on where I am on Artillery reforms best case a Battalion of Nepolions makes all the difference for a blocking force.

[SideshowCO]

I've found that on the latest builds of the game that the enemy AI has a tendency to attack the weakest and smallest of my brigades. So I tend to try and make my brigades 3K in size if at all possible. I usually merge new/untested brigades into veteran units to bring them up to the max size whenever possible.

[superfluke128]

If I am more or less defending, IE later in the war as CSA and more likely to be outnumbered and needing to fight from behind defensive works, I want large brigades. AI has tendency nowadays to swamp a point of attack.

Otherwise I prefer 2000-2250 or thereabouts and having a few extra brigades in an army for flexibility.

One other factor recently though, the AI is better and quicker about reacting to battlefield problems (flanking or rear threats) and so that extra brigade or two often doesn't come into play, so I want those big, beefy brigades at first contact.

[Fred Sanford]

Originally posted by Mr. Breeze:

Only thing is you need twice as many brigades to reach the same amount of troops which means you'll need twice as many officers to lead them. Attrition could become a problem

Put another way: twice as many officers building XP.

[Towlie]

1500 guys in front with rebored and 3000 on the flanks with things like halls. That way, even if the middle breaks, my flanks folding in on the sides

[Shirome Artiste]

I tend to prefer 2250 and the occasional 3000 infantry battalions myself.

While yes, 1500-sized battalions means you get to spread them out more (And thus get more ground covered with guns) and thus get easier flanking shots in, I keep finding the lack of raw manpower reserves in 1500man brigades to mean they buckle too quickly when trading fire. Which, given that as guns get upgraded that fire actually becomes legitimately dangerous even for shorter periods of time...

Bluntly put, if 200 out of 1500 end up dead, that hurts the unit more (in terms of morale) than 200 out of 2250/3000.

And yes, it does mean that one routed unit hurts less, but the routed unit morale penalty stacks, and with a lot of tiny brigades a chainrout is distressingly easy to orchestrate.

Why 2250 over 3000 in my case? It allows for more brigades spawned from a limited manpower resource - thus allowing more ground covered/easier flanking shots while having enough men per brigade that you can safely trade fire against opposing infantry for at least a little while to get other things done.

Also means you don't instantly break when the one time the charge mechanic doesn't completely derp out and a unit actually charges home instead of awkwardly shuffing around while getting blown to bits. (And you can actually attempt charges yourself occasionally, if you like tossing away a couple hundred/thousand manpower for giggles)

[Old War Dog]

I agree with all you said, with cavorts, when starting the foundations of a good and strong Corps At first of game called Armies, available weapons "love them Mississippi Rifles" , limited manpower and using using that manpower to start Artillery Units and Cavalry Regiments. My Divisional unit composition at the start is Three Brigades and a Artillery Section 1500, 3000, 1500 giving the 1500s the long range weapons, use the Artillery 6 Lbs as big shotguns where you feel needed, use the 3000 as a blocking unit with the 1500s maneuver elements, my final Army Corps is Three Divisions Commanding Three sets of Three Brigades and an Artillery Battalion each, Three Infantry Divisions as Above Each Corps has an Artillery Division with Three Battalions. Break Cavalry out into Independent Cavalry Corps Three Brigades each Division with a House Artillery Battery in each Division. Note I keep my Cavalry distracting enemy Armies by trying to get them to chase me around until they run into one of my Armies with the Cavalry close enough join the battle later. I know there is a lot of money and manpower involved in a force of that size don't always get there just a force goal. Four to Five Armies of the size or something close is fun to command depending on the situation wherever the AI takes the battle an Army Group can be deployed. Final note don't build the Army/Brownwater Navy at the expense of Economy and critical infrastructure.