Matrix Games Forums

Is it best to have all Artillery, Cavalry and Infantry under the command of the relative leader types or have leader with all arms under his command? What are peoples prefrences?

I always keep Cavalry with only Cavalry leaders; I find it much easier this way for scouting and raiding.
 
If an Infantry leader has a good artillery number, I will put an artillery unit in with infantry; I also stack 3-4 artillery units with a good Artillery leader.
 
If you haven't tried it yet, I would highly recommend using the Corps Sub-Commanders (CSC) option; you can stack infantry, artillery, and leaders under one good Corps commander, with a lot of benefits.
 
Hope this helps.

Yes CSC is the only way to go ... all the leaders contribute up to the top guy's rating.

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff

Yes CSC is the only way to go ... all the leaders contribute up to the top guy's rating.

I'll try that my next game getting used to all the other features

Before the individual "arms" rating take effect (i.e. Custer is rated "4" with the cavalry arm) the unit must be committed.

To me, the first priority is getting the unit "committed" to battle or to have initiative to move. Ratings relevant to those issues are not "arms" related. Therefore, my preference is to assign units to leaders that will either move them or get them committed in combat. A subcategory here is that artillery with any leader can move down a road/railroad in non winter turns to an adjacent region not across water.

My second priority is the command rating of the leader for the arm in question, as this will influence likelihood of commitment in battle.

My third/last priority is the attack/defense rating of the leader (depending on whether I'm attacking or defending). They don't fight unless they're committed, so for me anything that encourages "commitment" (geez, I sound like a disappointed swain here) trumps everything else.

One can mix infantry and artillery in the same formation if you like; some infantry leaders are also very good artillery leaders. In fact, historically, some infantry leaders were transplanted artillery officers because they could achieve higher brevet rank in the infantry than the artillery. Early in the war I usually put the Union artillery under the command of the infantry leaders with a "2" rating for artillery as that is at least as good as any available artillery leader from the leader pool, and they have a far greater number of units to command (i.e. typically the infantry leaders command 6 or 7 units compared to only 1 or 2 for the artillery leaders).