Feedback on Partisan Raids

[Le Ricain]

Setting aside the realism and over/underpower issues for a second, I have a couple of comments on how I use partisans, the Partisan Raid card, and raiding in general.

I rarely use the Raid card in actual "raids." I am usually use it to destroy depots that are directly supplying troops in contested areas, making it harder for the enemy to stop me on the front lines. The usefulness of this will change once we get a handle on how many troops it takes to stop a Partisan Raid an/or adjust the percentages. I am regularly burning depots out from under 300 power stacks in places like Springfield MO, Lexington MO, Salem IL, Dayton OH or Morgantown WV (I play CSA). This often causes Athena to pull back a lot of power from the neighborhood giving me local superiority. In other words, I am not using them deep in her back lines, but using them in or around objectives that I am actively trying to take, in order to force her to trim her defense to match the available supply infrastructure. Without depots she cannot recover hits and cohesion as quickly, and of course can't replace elements. As to the historicity or "gamey-ness" of this approach, I can't really say, I'm just using the tools available in the best way I see.

Partisans themselves are weak and sad units that evaporate at the first whiff of the enemy. BUT, if you put a couple of cav and a HA in a stack with a partisan, the stack becomes a fearsome raider with lots of special abilities that can pillage, destroy supplies, tear up tracks and even survive occasional contact with the enemy, plus it gets the cav's 5 detection, so is actually useful for scouting. (Rangers are even better than cav for this if you have them in-theater, although only 4 detect). Quantrill thus outfitted becomes a really useful leader that noticeably affects outcomes in the theaters he participates in. Again, probably gamey and ahistorical, but....

I find deep raiding (trying to actually destroy stuff, not just scouting) to be of limited usefulness, no matter the force composition. Sure, I can destroy tracks, etc., but eventually I lose the whole stack when they get in a fight and can't make it back to safety and supply because of low cohesion from the battle. It does make Athena chase her tail a bit, but not enough to justify the direct and opportunity costs. "Close raiding" on the other hand is vital. Tearing up the tracks, scouting, establishing MC and blocking retreats around my current target bring immediate and noticeable tactical advantages, allowing me to take objectives more quickly and easily and trap defeated stacks with more success. They stay in supply better and can make it safely back to a nearby strong point if they get into trouble, and get attacked less in the first place since an objective city threatened by multiple divisions can ill afford to pull troops out of the trenches just to chase after a couple of cavalry. (And all the better if they do!)

Athena so far (1.02, patching today) has done a poor job of using the Partisan Raid cards in any manner, and this may be one reason people think the card feels unbalanced.

I am not aware that the US depots in Springfield MO, Lexington MO, Salem IL, Dayton OH, Morgantown WV or anywhere else were destroyed in RL during the war by partisans. I am not aware that partisans destroyed any depots. If I am incorrect, I have no doubt that my ignorance will be pointed out to me. Failing that, it would appear that the partisan raid RGD card is overpowered. Reduction of available supply - fine. Destruction of depots - debatable.

[minipol]

The partisan raid works here. Not sure if I have seen it work on 300+ stacks though.

[Pocus]

Only reducing supply would be better perhaps... I'm thinking also of the misery done to the AI here...

[minipol]

This really would have to be tested (small scenario?) thoroughly before changing.

[ArmChairGeneral]

It was definitely low 300s once that I can remember clearly in Dayton OH. It took 3 tries. I have burned them from under defenders in the mid 200s at Springfield and Lexington MO early. I have gotten Salem a couple of times with mid 100s power defenders. The rest of the list was for illustrative purposes, the kinds of depots I was suggesting using the card on. All of these were in 1.02. I will look for an opportunity to try it again and get a save in my current 1.03 game, if that will help but I am out of town for most of the week, so won't get to play much again till next Monday.

[Citizen X]

I am not aware that the US depots in Springfield MO, Lexington MO, Salem IL, Dayton OH, Morgantown WV or anywhere else were destroyed in RL during the war by partisans. I am not aware that partisans destroyed any depots. If I am incorrect, I have no doubt that my ignorance will be pointed out to me. Failing that, it would appear that the partisan raid RGD card is overpowered. Reduction of available supply - fine. Destruction of depots - debatable.

Again. It his not about what HAS been done. It is about the way to best MODEL what has been done. Partisans were a constant threat to the infratstrure of the advancing army, wich lead to significant numbers of soldiers guarding said infrastructure in the rear, or occupied with policeactions. That's ecactly the effect it has now. The depots in the game are themselves only a high abstraction of that infrastruture. The concept of the raid cards is fantastic in its simplicity and accuracy. If the goal here was to model mechanics of warfare based on a historic background and not to reenact the historical events of a single conflict.

If the card will be rebuilt the way it is suggested here, there are some questions, that need be resolved first.

How many cards will either side receive?
How will either side determine where best to apply a card? (A side can see its own bottlenecks but not those of the opposing force. That way it will become a futile guessing game.)
How can the effect of the card be observed?
How much supply will be hindered to pass through?
Absolute figures or relative figures?
How long will the effect last?
How many regions will be affected?

That's just some questions. Instead of trying to find out best ways to handle the existing system, a totally new system is suggested here, with unforeseeable impact on gameplay, behaviour of AI and the efforts that had already been invested in the way it is now. I all for improvements, but most of the times it is proven that simple is better and running systems shouldn't be changed.

[Ol' Choctaw]

From what I see our depots represent wagon yards and more local merchants contracting goods. More local supply centers where they were available to be transported.

Nothing like the great depot built at Murphysboro which was a huge fortress.

What do you think you get by stationing 4 wagon companies in a town? Gibraltar?

There are quite a few examples of raids on the smaller types. Even on the rail marshaling yard and workshops at Piedmont WV. Numerous raids like that in Arkansas Missouri, and Kentucky.

Partisans were opportunists. Anything and everything could be a target. The rules have been adjusted so that they are of little to no use on their own, so now of course the cards too come under fire.

Some say it is not historic to destroy depots but if they had to escort every wagon load of supplies to front line units with a regiment, there and back again I am sure that would be tedious and too costly.

What if Partisans just blocked supply? It would be the same, Overpowered.

I don’t think those players are looking so much for accuracy as easy.

No Partisans, no raiders, no sea mines, no submarines, no unexpected difficulties! What does that say?

To me it says, that some people only play one faction and they just want the other one to lay down and die while they proceed on to their just victory.

Silly! It is a game and should present a challenge.

[Ace]

No need to get heated up on the issue. I actually like the proposal to burn GS/ammo and not the depot itself. What the partisans most often did is to prevent supplies from travelling if not adequately guarded. To model garrisoning every region on the supply path would be both cumbersome and not fun. I for one do not want to manage hundreds of small stacks.
So how do we MODEL that? Burning depots may be too harsh, but burning ALL the supplies and ammo inside the depot may be just right. But, to model importance of guerrilla warfare and what headache it did, I would double the number of partisan cards. So, the Union player would have trouble resupplying in enemy land if partisan activity is not checked, but without the rebuilding depot cost.

Of course, due to increased number of cards, I would omit NM bonus for successful action. Checking loyalty for success chance would be an added bonus.

Increase the number of tear rail cards as well, or tweak partisan ability to have increased chance of tearing a rail. That’s where they were most good at - interdicting transportation.

[James D Burns]

I don’t think those players are looking so much for accuracy as easy.

This is just obstinate, if anyone wants it easy it’s you. A partisan unit burning down a marshalling yard was damaging supply stocks, not wiping out production capacity across a region larger than a county or two. In my PBEM game AAR, I used one little partisan to destroy two large depots deep in Georgia all but wiping out inland southern depots in the state. Both depots were guarded and the partisan was being pursued every turn by cavalry yet it single handedly cost the south almost half a year’s production in destroyed inland depots. Had it not starved to death, it could have gone on to destroy Alabama’s depot’s next.

There is absolutely no historical precedent for 60 guys (hell less than 10 near the end as it took starvation hits) going through a state and causing the kind of havoc Sherman’s full army barely managed to create in his march to the sea.

Sure kill supply but leave destruction of infrastructure to large armies, which is historically accurate, not an a-historic fantasy like what we have now.

Jim

[James D Burns]

I actually like the proposal to burn GS/ammo and not the depot itself.

I think a better use for partisans would be to make them almost completely invisible (only pure cavalry should be able to find them and even then very rarely) and allow them to live off the land indefinitely in a loyal region and only use about one quarter normal supplies in enemy loyal regions and be twice as likely to successfully forage if needed. Then they could automatically burn a percentage of enemy supplies in the region they are in automatically every turn.

They should also be allowed an unanswered attack if they successfully ambush someone, a hit and run if you will. If they try an ambush attack and fail, then they will likely die from return fire, but if the ambush succeeds, they should get to fire and then automatically flee the battle and not suffer return fire. If an army has any supply wagons, they should be the target of the ambush and suffer the hits.

Jim

[Ol' Choctaw]

We have been working to try and get the chances of success pined to the loyalties of the regions.

Still pressing this point but don’t know where it is. Partisans working in Ohio CSA or Georgia Union would be unlikely to accomplish anything like that. The security of locations with a decent garrison should also be looked at.

Otherwise, it is just taking more away from them having any effect at all.

Since a depot is pretty much a locked supply unit, at least the level one depots, I don’t see it as a huge issue.
Not so sure about just taking the supplies. It seems weak in some instances and crazy in others were there are multi level depots.

Burning down a marshaling yard, destroying locomotives and cars and the workshops to support them along with a key bridge that force supplies to be routed around WV through PA and back into Ohio…

[Ace]

If succes chance based on loyalty is harder to implement, why not limit the ability to play the card in the first place, if the loyalty is lower than 50%. We can raise a partisan unit only in >50% loyalty areas. I do not see the reasons for not limiting burn depots and partisan raids to similar loyalty constrain as well. While this is not limited, such fantasy Georgia raids are possible.

[soundoff]

The issue of raiding bedevilled AACW and is doing the same to CW2. I suspect there is not a solution that will ever be agreed upon. Either raiding will be viewed as overkill and ahistorical from the perspective of 'it never happened or could never happen' to raiding being totally ineffective which would be equally ahistorical as would engineering a solution that meant that players did not really have to defend against raiding as it becomes merely an inconvenience. I fear the way the game is structured makes it impossible for a middle ground to be found. I do agree with Citizen X's view that changing it to simply hindering or reducing supply does bring in a whole host of issues regarding how that would work and what effects players would actually see. As things currently stand you darned well know if you manage to rip up a section of rail or destroy a depot and what the effects on the enemy are.

I shall always remain firmly in the auto garrisoning camp. That's my background kicking in. I'd still have it that if a depot is garrisoned by say a couple of regiments then a partisan attack would not succeed - yep I'd be that hard. If it was not garrisoned properly then open season to one and all. This would still mean that larger groups of regular raiders could take out depots even if they were defended.

Its one area where I think the introduction of the cards has done the game no favours at all.

[ArmChairGeneral]

For the record, I like the card the way it is, with an adjustment to the chance of triggering NM and with some clarification/possible reduction in the garrison required to prevent it. A loyalty requirement is an interesting thought, in that case you would need to use a Demonstration card to soften it up first. I'm personally not interested in complete historical accuracy as much as some players, but I do want to see raiding somehow included because a) it WAS a major part of the war b) we SHOULD from a wargame-logic standpoint have to expend resources to protect supply lines and c) it is loads of fun. If I were playing PBeM I don't think I would want to play with raid-nerfing house rules, I think we are in the ball-park now on the appropriate balance (although, of course those who play PBeM have a more informed opinion of how it plays out).

In regards to sea-mines and submarine, the NM effects mean that I can counteract most of the year's NM decay, preserving the gains that I have made in the field (don't see any problem with the with the damge/cohesion effects play-wise). If the yearly effects were more like 3-5 NM instead of 7 this would still allow you to slow the NM decay without being able to run up the score quite as easily. Maybe making a random check for sea-mine NM, or only giving NM to the first two sea mines while leaving the sub the way it is. Alternatively the sub could have randomness added giving it a range of 1-3 NM (or maybe dependent on the type of ship it sank). That said, NM is hard to come by in general and is a really fundamental mechanic, so maybe trusting the Beta-testers and leaving well-enough alone is the best course.

Upon thinking about the power question re: Depots a bit more, I wonder what day the destroy check is made. If it happens at the end of the turn it is possible that Athena moved troops out of the region during the turn allowing the successful check at the end (she shuffles troops around a lot). I was too busy high-fiveing my Partisans to pay attention to how many troops were still there on the NEXT turn, I'm reporting how many were in the region when I gave the order.

I hope someone takes Pocus up on the offer to give Athena a hand with RGDs, I am really starting to think that this would address some of the "balance" issues in single-player. Why does she build Redoubts in Connecticut for example? I have a lot of experience with AGEOD games, but am not sure I am the best person for the job, as I wouldn't know what to tell her to do with about half of the RGDs.

[James D Burns]

Not so sure about just taking the supplies. It seems weak in some instances and crazy in others were there are multi level depots.

I need to clarify, I do not think partisans should destroy 100% of supplies on hand or you will create a totally new problem in game. Players will keep their partisans with their main army and play the attack cards on cities under siege the same turn the army enters into a siege. Then the defenders (even if larger) will instantly start taking supply hits due to no supplies before they have a chance to try and break a siege. 50% supply destruction would be the max I’d advocate for to keep them a serious threat to supply lines and not turn them into something else they shouldn’t be.

Jim

[soundoff]

For the record, A loyalty requirement is an interesting thought, in that case you would need to use a Demonstration card to soften it up first. I'm personally not interested in complete historical accuracy as much as some players, but I do want to see raiding somehow included because a) it WAS a major part of the war b) we SHOULD from a wargame-logic standpoint have to expend resources to protect supply lines and c) it is loads of fun. If I were playing PBeM I don't think I would want to play with raid-nerfing house rules, I think we are in the ball-park now on the appropriate balance (although, of course those who play PBeM have a more informed opinion of how it plays out).

I'm with you all the way Armchairgeneral with that part of your post. The whole issue of raiding is one that filled me with dread as soon as in AACW I got embroiled in an argument with Gray Lensman when I disagreed strongly with introducing the rule that Cavalry could not take undefended cities/depots etc. I've always believed that its up to the player to protect internal lines however hard that may be. And before anyone says.....yep I've been on both sides of the 'impossible to target cavalry and bring them to action' IMHO all that was needed was to seriously reduce supply for any type of unit operating in enemy loyal areas. That way you could easily avoid the argument that 'Cincinnati could never have been taken by a single regiment of cavalry'

The cry that 'it did not happen historically' never has cut any ice with me purely because I'm playing a game not a simulation. As such I intend to attempt to alter history ....... to avoid historical errors and exploit what could have been exploited but never was. If I was so keen to play historically then there would never ever be a chance of FI......'it never happened'

The only area I would disagree with you over is the playing of 'demonstration ' cards. All the opposition have to play is the 'Habeas Corpus' card and lift loyalty by 20 percent.

The trouble is there are not enough players who are prepared to play 'secondary' lines. Its everything to the front line.......the rest is boring for the majority of players. Consequently I do accept that as its a business for the Phil's ......sales are everything at the end of the day and guarding interior lines for most I am sure would hit sales.

[soundoff]

I need to clarify, I do not think partisans should destroy 100% of supplies on hand or you will create a totally new problem in game. Players will keep their partisans with their main army and play the attack cards on cities under siege the same turn the army enters into a siege. Then the defenders (even if larger) will instantly start taking supply hits due to no supplies before they have a chance to try and break a siege. 50% supply destruction would be the max I’d advocate for to keep them a serious threat to supply lines and not turn them into something else they shouldn’t be.

Jim

For how long will this 50% maximum reduction last? If only for one turn it becomes meaningless and will not hold up any advance nor cause players to guard vital assets. Its as Citizen X said (to paraphrase) you open up a whole new can of worms.

[ArmChairGeneral]

The only area I would disagree with you over is the playing of 'demonstration ' cards. All the opposition have to play is the 'Habeas Corpus' card and lift loyalty by 20 percent.

I don't know that we are actually disagreeing. Habeas Corpus sounds like a great response! Then we are in a card duel, and that is exactly what we are looking for: a struggle between players to utilize the available tools and rules to protect/destroy depots, the most important tactical structures in the game. Both sides have options and have to balance the need to use their resources in other places, leading to decision making complexity, tradeoffs, etc., etc. Good stuff!

(I like burning Depots, it makes me happy, and my enemies sad!)

[Ol' Choctaw]

Over time with all of the complaining, nerffing, complaining, and nerffing again Irregulars in general and patricians in particular have suffered until most of their real abilities are mostly lost and it takes RGDs to allow them to do anything.

All irregulars should be stealthy. Rangers, Indians, Partisans, light infantry and even individual sharpshooter units. All of them should be difficult to detect. At least so long as the entire stack is made up of such units.
Units capable of using Ambush should behave as James D Burns say, have a chance of a free shot at the enemy and withdraw without harm. That was the main tactic of irregular units. What everyone has forgotten.
Partisans in particular were hard to catch and eliminate. That is because when being pursued they scattered to meet up at a later date at a prearranged location. Something like a % chance the following turn to reform in nearest friendly region with over 50% loyalty to their side rather than engage in combat at all greater than 1 to 2 odds.

Their favorite targets were railroads, supply of any type and isolated troops.

Railroads were fixed targets. Now, since we have a chance of self repairing rails, partisans and other irregulars should be able to tare up railroads in regions with no garrisons and have some chance of doing it in garrisoned regions.

Depots represent supply and as there are no supply convoys or wagon trains they should be able to torch ungarrisoned ones and having a chance to sneak in and do the same with garrisoned ones. Patrol value rather than power should be the factor here. Factors above 20 should be 90 or 95% safe from such raids and 0% above 30, regardless of regional loyalties, provided we can at some point factor those.
They would actually interdict or capture supplies moving in to regions they occupy but that would be difficult to implement I think.

McNeill and Mosby both captured generals from their beds but I don’t think anyone would take kindly to them stealing leaders out of stacks. :P That is why burning depots is not so very outlandish.

They were no supermen. They were little threat to large formations except in difficult terrain, like bridges, river crossings and defiles.
They should have more difficulties moving or maintaining supply far from friendly populations.
Raiders in Wisconsin are outlandish just as the would be in Georgia with Union troops still in Virginia

I know it results in a lot of hair pulling. But really, that is what it is supposed to be.

[soundoff]

I don't know that we are actually disagreeing. Habeas Corpus sounds like a great response! Then we are in a card duel, and that is exactly what we are looking for: a struggle between players to utilize the available tools and rules to protect/destroy depots, the most important tactical structures in the game. Both sides have options and have to balance the need to use their resources in other places, leading to decision making complexity, tradeoffs, etc., etc. Good stuff!

(I like burning Depots, it makes me happy, and my enemies sad!)

I only disagree because the playing of Demonstration and Habeas Corpus cards relies on expending cash. If it was at nil financial cost so both sides were equal so to speak rather than this artificial 2 -1 Union advantage in 'EVERY' aspect of the war I'd totally agree with you.

[ArmChairGeneral]

I too have noticed that Ambushes are almost non-existent in the game. Even in WIA it was (is) tricky to use them and the terrain and preponderance of irregulars should have meant it was a first-choice tactic. I am curious if anyone has had better success with them. I may not be using the order correctly, or it may be that they are just appropriately difficult to pull off because of the nature of the conflict.

Agreed, Patrol would seem to me to be a more relevant statistic than raw power for prevent Raid cards. (It may be that way now, we still don't know how the check is made.)

I personally get a lot of use out of all my irregulars, especially rangers.

In terms of destroying supply stockpiles, units that move with evade orders are in "raid mode" according to page 55 of the manual. They replenish themselves and then destroy remaining supply stockpiles along their path, but not in their final destination region. Not sure that I have seen this happening, but only recently realized it is something to try, so will report back if I find out more. They clearly pillage along the path, but are they actually destroying supply stocks in the structures they go past? If so, then sneaking through a region with supplies would sort of do what Burns is suggesting. Hide value goes to one in the presence of an enemy fort (stockades are forts, as are 5+ entrenchments) unless the sneakers are in passive mode, so when trying this be sure to stay green or you will get caught out on the way through. Irregs in passive mode should be pretty hard to catch doing this since they get to keep their full Hide value, though I don't know off the top of my head what any of their Hide values are, it hasn't been that relevant before.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Soundoff,

Aha, makes sense.

[Q-Ball]

I can confirm you can burn depots that are well garrisoned. I just burnt one in a PBEM vs. Gunnulf; he had nearly 5000 AV in the hex at Montgomery, AL.

Maybe the chance is lessened, but you can do it

Of course, I picked up a NM for that.....probably the 20th time or so I've done that.

[GraniteStater]

Not 5000 troops. 5000 PWR.

This distresses me. They had no pickets, apparently. No one on guard duty. Ten divisions, more or less, and the 1168th Specially Sneaky Forces platoon burrows in & torches the place.

I M BA LAN C E D.

[Q-Ball]

Not 5000 troops. 5000 PWR.

This distresses me. They had no pickets, apparently. No one on guard duty. Ten divisions, more or less, and the 1168th Specially Sneaky Forces platoon burrows in & torches the place.

I M BA LAN C E D.

Yep. And no chance to defend the depot by occupying adjacent regions, because my army was in the adjancent region; Partisans were along for the ride

And correct....not 5000 men, but 5000 AV, which is likely 60,000+ troops......should be enough to cover it

If we are looking at the Civil War as well, someone please me if I am wrong, but I do not recall an instance where a small-ish band of partisans destroyed a major depot. Certainly, Confederate troops did; Jackson at Manssas, Van Dorn at Holly Springs, Taylor at Brashear City, and Forrest a couple different times. In all those cases, though, CSA forces defeated or chased away the garrison, and ended up occupying the town; they then destroyed the depot. I have no problem, actually, awarding a NM in these instances, since they were significant events. The presence of Forrest or Cav raiders should force the US to keep a garrison of enough to discourage that Cavalry Division, which is probably at least 250 AV or so well dug-in and led by a 3-1-1 leader. Maybe more.

What partisans did do is tear up rails; that I also have no issue with in-game.

Anyway, I can live with the way partisans are now, but I think they are overpowered for sure; awarding 1 NM for a Partisan Raid is the biggest problem, but blowing depots all over is a also a problem, IMO, particularly for the CSA who cannot afford to replace them

[ArmChairGeneral]

I definitely want to be able to blow up depots with the card, but I have no historical or game-play justification other than that it is fun. As much as I like doing it though, it really knocks the AI for a loop, and feels a bit gamey watching whole divisions scurrying out of the area heading for the nearest supply stockpile. I have come to think that the problem is not the NM, but the way troops aren't preventing the card.

250 sounds like a reasonable amount of power to me, too. I also like Ol'Choctaw's point about Patrol values being important, and loyalty should be an issue somehow.

If 250 PWR becomes the standard, (which it sounds like is roughly what was originally intended) depot-popping would be less common, so then no need to change the NM effects? Blowing a depot is a big deal, I can see why it has a NM effect, if there were fewer blown up the NM might actually be an appropriate extra reward since the card will be less use-able overall.

Partisans are only overpowered because of the card, but I think we have a lot of good ideas for addressing that. If you nerf the card (even with a power fix) partisans should get a buff somehow. I see no reason, other than to balance the current effects of the card, why partisans should not have the highest percentage chance of rail destruction of any unit in the game. Autorepair already tones down track busting, I think it would be safe to see a bit more. 5 detection is not unreasonable either.

Alternate ideas for the card:

Make NM gain or loss dependent on your loyalty in the region. Destroy a depot in a less than 40% region, gain a NM. Destroy a depot in a greater than 60% region, lose a NM. This could apply to depot destruction no matter how it happened: it is a blow to morale if you have to destroy depots (and thus your ability to fight) on your own turf, as your citizens can see that you are losing the war.

NM effects could be entirely removed from the card, instead rewarding NM for capturing and destroying a depot the old fashioned way, which it seems strange that you do NOT have a chance at NM for.

Restrict the card to regions with some particular loyalty level.

Substitute a statewide loyalty check for the NM gain, similar to loyalty checks when taking a strategic or objective city.

Help Pocus make Athena better at using cards so that it isn't as one-sided in single-player.

Lower the cost of supply wagons to make up for all the depots you will need to replace. (Athena would have to know how to Partisan Raid for this to work.)

[GraniteStater]

I don't think Cards should affect NM at all, no time, no where, no how.

Blowing Holly Springs affected the morale of Grant's army & caused a definite change in operational plans - they gave up on an overland approach to the Big V, re-assessed and went downriver. Somehow, I don't think reading about it in the Clark County Courier upset the good folks of Indianola at their breakfasts that much.

National Morale, National Morale - it's definitely different from AACW. I've been Mr. Cautious & Take Yer Time as the Union and have not paid any real price in CW2. The Northern papers want my head on a pikestaff, but I don't seem to pay the piper like in AACW. There is little to no incentive for the Union, most especially in Virginia, to Get a Move On. This is...really not what it used to be.

At the same time, NM is too valuable and important a metric to be affected by Blowing Stuff Up, imho. Taking Objectives, destroying enemy Divisions and Corps - yeah, these are NM changers. Mr & Mrs Taxpayer could care less about Holly Springs, that's Grant's lookout, that's what we pay him for.

I am becoming less and less friendly towards Cards by the thread, post & minute.

[James D Burns]

For how long will this 50% maximum reduction last? If only for one turn it becomes meaningless and will not hold up any advance nor cause players to guard vital assets. Its as Citizen X said (to paraphrase) you open up a whole new can of worms.

I would like to see them automatically deduct supplies from the region they are in every single turn (the % successfully burned would be modified by region loyalty). But right now it looks like we are stuck with the card system. If that’s the case make the cards automatically succeed and double or triple the number available.

If the ambush ability I suggested was used, going after the supply wagons of large stacks would make large bands of several partisans especially dangerous to armies. I could see players needing to halt their advances and sit on their own depots while they wait for cavalry troops to hunt down or chase away bothersome partisans.

Jim

[ArmChairGeneral]

Burns,

So a card might be played to destroy, say half of a region's stockpile, possibly modified by loyalty, and you would have a bunch of them. Interesting. That may be what Pocus was getting at earlier.

I would definitely like to be able to mess with supply wagons more, but anything that caused them hits might break the game- they are really expensive to replace, even losing two would put a serious pinch on the CSA.

Partisans currently prevent supply from transiting their region, but I'm pretty sure the supply alg. reroutes around them if possible instead of just failing when the shortest route is blocked. Perhaps Partisans could block supply in adjacent regions as well, so if they hovered around between a wagon and its supply source they would be sure of preventing the wagon from refilling. (Assuming of course that the card is nerfed and Partisans then need to be buffed.)

GraniteStater,

I think cards are cool, and the more I play with them the more I like them. I thought they were gimmicky at first, but I picked up a copy of AJE/BOR when I bought CW2, and found its cards to be really well implemented. These just need some fine-tuning. We are still pretty early in the life-cycle here, I'm sure they will continue to improve. Plus, we don't know a lot about them yet; as more information comes in we will get better at using them and there won't be as many pointless ones.

I think you are on to something when it comes to cards and NM. They are Regional Decisions, not National Decisions; those are in the ledger. The exception would be submarine; that's an important and well documented event that had propaganda effects far exceeding the damage done, and is nicely modeled currently. I think Ace has mentioned that he thinks there should be more NM for cities and element destruction; if cards didn't have NM effects, we would need to get them from somewhere else, they are pretty scarce otherwise.

[minipol]

I like the idea of making the partisan unit a bit more powerful. Make them harder to detect. They seem to quickly get out of supplies which doesn't seem right either. Then the raid card could have the NM bonus removed again, and destroy supplies instead of the depot itself. Have Athena use more troops to defend depots, which also would mean the game is more balanced instead of having all troops march to the front and leaving the rest of the country vulnerable.