pillaging

[Linstock]

Is there really point to pillaging? It seems to make so little difference in the game. Am I missing something?

[Durk]

Is there really point to pillaging? It seems to make so little difference in the game. Am I missing something?

Usually not, as you observe. But, if your opponent is in a bit of a supply crisis you can deny them the small relief they may get.

[ohms_law]

I agree, there's usually little point. Really, there's too much supply in the game (especially for the confederates, who historically had significant problems feeding and supplying their armies).
Then again... it is a game.

[grimjaw]

Pillaging doesn't matter much but it can also depend on the time of year and the area involved. Early on in the full campaign, in the winter as the CSA I have trouble keeping large numbers supplied in NW Arkansas even at depots. A single raider unit out west can cover many miles in a turn, capturing and pillaging several forts on the way. Any substantial force getting stuck out there will quickly starve out if forced to subsist on what supplies a stockade will produce.

[Linstock]

Does pillaging affect the money produced by the province? That might make a bit of a difference.

[Merlin]

Pillage is a beautiful thing out west, especially as the CSA. If the Federals advance forces into Misery, just send a raider to pillage everything in front of them, and a partisan to drop the rail wrecking card behind them. They'll retire quickly, and if you're playing a person, may demonstrate the ability to learn from mistakes by coming back inside a cav/militia cloud.

It's even more effective in the territories, and I've had games where I've burnt down every region west of the Red River.