Feedback on Partisan Raids

[Le Ricain]

During the Atlanta campaign in 1864 half of Sherman's army was assigned to protecting the supply line that stretched back to Louisville. In CW2, I have not needed to devote 50% of my army to the rear. The supply line, not the depots, was at risk.

In AACW, we had if a region had less than 50% loyalty, you had to keep a garrison in the region or the MC would fall until control was lost and supply would be blocked. I remember having to have a chain of garrison troops stretching from Louisville to Georgia. This was without worrying about guarded depots being destroyed.

[Ace]

I like the fact that now you do not have to have chain of troops all along the supply line. The extra small stacks would add to number of things to handle and reduce the fun factor. If all those troops are stacked in depot protecting it, it would simulate those troops protecting supply traveling from depot A to depot B rather well. Those troops were stationed on depot in RL, accompanying supply as it travels along the map. Supply travel is abstracted in the game (thanks for that). It feels right that supply transport protection is abstracted as wel..

So, what we have here is not the fault in the concept.

It is a mere bug in the rgd that needs fixing since obviously extra troops do not rule out depot burnin' (aka safe supply traveling).

[GraniteStater]

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.

Re underlined: No. Anyone with enough experience of AACW would be very reluctant to agree, I think. Maybe Ace didn't play it enough to see this - I won't put words in his mouth.

National Morale is Gold Beyond Measure in this model. In AACW, and arguably here, you have an excellent way to affect NM - take his strongpoints and smash his armies. Now, to be historically fair, there is almost no instance of a major formation being reduced into impotence, the exception being Franklin & Nashville - however, particularly with the North, results of major battles affected what is deemed NM in the game. The South simply had to convince the North to stop trying, to convince the North that their efforts were futile. This was well nigh true for 26 months.

I'm 0-4 in PbeMs. How the heck do you lose as the Union? Think about it - how do you actually lose?

Through NM, that's how. National Morale affects how high your Cohesion may be. If the Numbers are the same in CW2, 'normal' Cohesion is between 95- 105 NM. Above 105 and then other points, your Cohesion improves - above 115, if I recall, it really starts to take off. Conversely, below 95 it starts to slip; get under 80 & the Union can't Emancipate, the Cohesion bars get shorter (IOW, even at Full, you're below the oppo's Not So Hot) - it really, really stinks out loud & it starts to get really difficult to climb back up, because you are desperately seeking Major Victories, but even at 4:1 odds (raw), you're losing & Losing Regularly, because You S*ck.

I am rapidly getting to the point where I shall refuse PbeM with Cards, just from these threads. I learned and learned the hard way, it became seared into my eyeballs - losing entire Corps in a Turn, nay, two Corps in a battle causes Really Bad Things. NM is unbalanced right now - I can sit back, build & build & build, ignore Manassas altogether and Pay No Price. This deserves a thread to itself.

You want to raid the hinterland? Raise units, sucka. Make your choices - you can spend Stuff on 122 PWR brigades or build lotsa li'l beggars to annoy and bedevil, but pay up.

Want a Big Navy? You can have one, but your land power is going to suffer to a degree and you might have to put off that Richmond campaign for this season to get that 75% Blockade. Want to play to a Union strength and smash Johnny Reb with grapeshot and cannonballs that could care a fig about his martial ardor? Fine, but your Cav might be a bit weak.

If the Union is waddling around in <80 NM, it starts to get Really Bad, 'cuzza No EP. No EP translates to a punishing War Weariness (a metric in the game and in Real Life History), pooped units who tire easily, don't want to assault - you even start slipping on the waves. Like chess, the attainment of Position is very, very important, or should be. If you play me in PbeM and I'm the Union, what the heck do you think I'm going to do in KY? Why, approach from L & L, whilst neutralizing Paducahland and grasping the Bowling Green knife, ready to plunge from southern Indiana, what else? There is no better strategy on the map, the map tells you what to do. Anyone with a cursory grasp of history and rudimentary tactics is going to do the same thing, every game, really, as the Union (the South actually has more flexibility) - it worked & it works. A CSA player with any game experience at all knows what's coming, where and when.

So a good CSA player uses those rivers, uses defensive MTSG to his advantage (oh, yeah, getting stomped twice in the same Turn by Jackson & Longstreet is All Kindsa Fun - and once, three times) and makes the Union pay dearly to advance upon or threaten key points.

How do you lose as the Union? I'll tell you - by a 'back rank mate', that's one way, Way #1. I dozed off, got frustrated with trying to pierce the Rappahannock, didn't watch the map and then my opponent *gasp* attacked! Crushed my front line, slipped about 2000 PWR along the flank, landed in Montgomery county and the carnage was on. DC fell three Turns later, after I was repulsed with extreme predjudice (about, oh, 3500 PWR vaporized into nothingness, desperately trying to dislodge the enemy from his position - it doesn't work when your Max Cohesion is 75% of his). Way #2 is Taking Too Long - those first eighteen months slip by, you're nowhere on the map, because a good CSA player fortifies N. O. and, if you let him, fortifies Paducah and blasts your river moves out of Cairo every chance he gets - guess what? NM is <80, no EP, the British ambasador sure ain't askin' you to tea, and you are on the road to a nice, quiet, inglorious loss - look up Petrosian, the chess Grand Master and World Champeen - position, position, position, nothing flashy, he wasn't Tal, but he was dreaded, because he owned the board and was Death Incarnate as Black.

I think I'll start a thread on NM, because right now, all a Union player has to do is just wait for the B-29s to show up. Just play D against Southern threats, build, build, build - hey, Jeff Davis, You Lose.

And now I can throw down the Jack of Clubs and gain NM?

Gimme a break. Let's just scrap the map and the units and we can have American Civil War IV: Pinochle.

[Ace]

Sorry, I did not understand your post.

Do you feel, NM effect for winning a battle should be higher or lower. I feel it should be a bit higher. After all, the only chance for winning the war for the South was the high NM cost for the Union to pay.

How did the Union feel after Second Mannassas in RL. How large NM hit would you award for it. How much in-game NM hit you would get for such battle?

On the second part of the post, regarding Union not being punished for being inactive. I agree with you and the reason is auto-balance of NM. If one side is below 100, it has a roll chance for gaining 1-2 NM every turn. It is a game mechanism meant to help the loosing side. But, actually at the start of the war, it is helping the stronger side.
I started a separate thread on the subject. The devs have seen my arguments, I do not know will they change something or not regarding it.

[GraniteStater]

NM in AACW was robust and fair. You learned or you lost - for some of us, both.

If one simply must have Cards, there should be no NM effects from their use, imo. We had a perfectly good NM mechanic that all understood and knew how to use, for gain or pain.

2 NM is not a trifle, or shouldn't be. I've seen Spectacular Victories yield three (3). A 5 NM gain because of the battle? Woo - motherlovin' - hoo, stop the presses and free beer!

NM should be the Grail, the Holy Rood, that which is Unobtainable Save for Sacnoth. Ya gotta earn it, in blood & toil. The Events that affected it were fair and the numbers modest (mostly).

Now I can bid 1 Club, wait to see if partner jumps or goes to No Trump, and if not, just pile up seven trick rubbers.

Bo - ring.

[Ace]

Agreed on the NM effect for the cards. It would add to the importance of NM from tha battles and city capture (that was what I was aiming at)
I would leave the submarine card effect, maybe lower it a bit. It had a NM effect in RL, at least I think it did.
This would mean changing partisan raids, sea/river mines. Are there any others that affect NM?

[GraniteStater]

I dunno 'bout the last. Glad to see someone of your analytical abilities chiming in on my gut feelings, though.

The Hunley? I'm sorry, but that should be laughed out of court and the attorney disbarred. Woo-hoo, we sunk the Housatonic! Yeah, after the loss of three crews in 'training', one combat crew and not a clue as to what to do next. Yeah, that's a real morale booster right there.

Are you kidding me? I don't mean you, personally, I'm using the 'impersonal you'. "Hey, our submarine just sunk a Yankee ship!" - "A subba - what?"

Got any more? No. Any plans to build more? No, no one wants to crew them, 100% fatality rate discourages the recruits.

Take that sub card & sink it where the sun don't shine.

[GraniteStater]

Cards that are OK:

* CSA using Demonstrations. Not bad, affects Loyalty - good thought, good mechanic. Has a counterplay of corresponding weight & value.

* Development - if I get this one rightly, it's OK. If I get four Houses, can I build a Hotel?

* Telegraph - is there a great deal of difference between this and Development? Please elucidate.

* Martial Law, Habeas - not bad. Corresponds to an AACW mechanic.

* Draft - fair, a good thought.

etc., etc. - now that I've had my morning cuppa, I've cooled down some. I can see these as useful or interesting adjuncts, but some postings here are scaring the daylights outta me. The award is for Best Supporting Actor, not He Who Chews the Scenery Most Outrageously, if one gets my drift.

[Ace]

Have you tried using cards that appear form 62 onwards?

EDIT:

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.

I have said:

there should be more NM for cities and element destruction

I have not said:

if cards didn't have NM effects, we would need to get them from somewhere else, they are pretty scarce otherwise.

Just to clarify things.

[GraniteStater]

Naah. Not real crazy about the concept to begin with (Really, GS? Whoda thunk?). I need to play with these some more. Some are unnecessary, though - some are silly, imho - some are OK.

"Real guitarists don't use capos."

Not that I'm against capos, they certainly help if the vocalist wants a certain key and you don't want to transpose everything to A that you usually play in F. Kinda tough to do, in public, right then and there - capo solves that.

Still, real guitarists don't use capos, at least habitually, as a matter of course. I want to play the board, not address off-board concerns that (should) have little effect on the main train of conflict. Parking R E Lee in Alexandria should outweigh almost everything. Having the opposition open with 1 No Trump right off the bat is a Signal with Meaning, not something you can ignore because you have five clubs and a singleton ace. If you do ignore it, you should rue it. Ignoring White's 3. B-b5 in the Ruy Lopez (you probably know it as the Spanish Game) with something daft like ...h6 should come with a hefty price tag.

Cards should be adjuncts, not overpowered or too important to the main thrust of the war.

[GraniteStater]

Have you tried using cards that appear form 62 onwards?

EDIT:



I have said:


I did not said:


Just to clarify things.

Didn't say you did. Not to worry. Tried to be clear, but we all can be a wee turbid at times. My apologies, if wanted.

[minipol]

Do you feel, NM effect for winning a battle should be higher or lower. I feel it should be a bit higher. After all, the only chance for winning the war for the South was the high NM cost for the Union to pay.

I'm in 1864, have suffered about 185.000 casualties vs 333.000 casualties for the Union. Not counting the many loses to attrition
the Union had. Yet the Union morale hovers between 78 and 88. Too high for all the lost battles they had, and all the lost territory , men and ships. I agree that at the start of the war, the Union is in great shape morale wise, and gains easy NM by doing nothing while they shoul be pushing forward towards their objectives.

[Ace]

None needed, you just misread the above post which quoted me in the part of the post, with the added comment glued to my quote. I do not think anybody tried to put something in my mouth, it was just a coincidence.

Some of the card in 62 have some good potential, like cavalry screen for example. And yes, you are right, cards should be and mostly are flavor, not the main drive of the game.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Aw, you only get one a year right? How else are you gonna get the sub thing in the game? It was a colorful part of the war, the CW2 would be lessened without its representation somehow!

In terms of NM, against Union Athena on Lt. and high detection I am getting into 120+ and often higher morale range by late 62 (April starts, of course). Now in terms of PBeM (I am guessing) or of 1.17 that is high, which would lead me to agree that there is too much NM out there for the aggressive CSA player. I take a lot of strategic cities and objectives, take full advantage of Athena's every bad habit, and score a lot of NM in ones and twos along the way. Add to that the 7 NM per year I get from sea-mines and subs (are these NMs randomized already and we just not know about it?) and don't forget the scripted morale either. I'm not even going to count Raid Depot NM, blowing depots is so valuable tactically that the NM is inconsequential.

Now, I'm a pretty experienced player and those are pretty high numbers, but 1863 is early in the war. I am rarely in a position to actually take DC at this point because Athena is pretty good at not allowing the back-rank mate, and it will be hard to make the 150 point NM cut in time without it (when does it switch to 200?) because I have already taken all the low-hanging fruit. Athena is able to finally get enough troops on to map to counter my aggression, I am strung out across the midwest from getting all the strategic cities, and though I hold the Potomac line I don't have anything like what it would take to make a breakthrough in the East. The end of my replacement and force pools are in sight, Union Athena is just getting to the best part of her pools and commanders, not to mention superior equipment, and her morale is beginning to recover. It seems like I'm doing well, but there's a long way to go and I have my work cut out for me. I'm not gonna be getting any more easy wins in the field, and you can only take Indianapolis once, so NM decay is going to start getting me soon even with the cards and then the Union's advantages are going to start piling up. Now for me, as the CSA player, I am pretty happy with this result in terms of balance: I am doing well enough to enjoy the game, but it isn't in the bag by a long shot and is worth continuing. A fun experience, and exactly what I was hoping for.

So if we are thinking about NM, the question is, where should I be at this point, given how I well am doing? 115? 110? In the 120's where I am now?

Another thing to consider when thinking about the current price of NM in single-player is that right now Athena isn't that good. I'm not gonna be able to ride North on the Indianapolis Express by patch 1.10 cause she's gonna get taught to build troops in Cincinnati before Kentucky lights up and think about actually doing something on the Mississippi. Plus she mishandles the Harper's Ferry decision at the start of game pretty consistently, letting me hold all of Northern VA, and that behavior is not gonna be around for long either. So what then, as she improves? Even in the current NM framework, if she had done those three things in any of my games I would be hard pressed to be at 110 NM by Early 1863. And don't even get me started on what's gonna happen when she figures out how to use cards herself. As she gets better the scarcity and relative value of NM go up, even without adjustments to any of the underlying mechanics. In 1.17, I would actually be pretty happy with 110-112, and that feels to me where it is trending.

Now I'm all about taking NM out of the cards (not submarine:coeurs , but if you do, you have the effect of increasing the price of NM, and the price is already increasing over time in single player, so if we are talking about adjusting up or down, we need to consider what we think it should be at the end-state. What are appropriate NM targets for CSA and Union players who are reasonably experienced and doing moderately well by 1863 and is there enough NM on the table to get there?

[ArmChairGeneral]

with the added comment glued to my quote. I do not think anybody tried to put something in my mouth, it was just a coincidence.

Sorry about that, that was me. I was casually referring to something you had said in the AAR but didn't make it clear which were my thoughts and which yours, and didn't go back to check the quote either.

This would mean changing partisan raids, sea/river mines. Are there any others that affect NM?

I don't think so, and after all that has been said I think the only argument in favor of keeping the NM has been giving Partisans a useful role (which they deserve IMO).

[Ol' Choctaw]

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.

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.

I am not sure about this!

I could be wrong but I think the model may count all your forces in the stack. If the partisan was with the army that could lead to some odd happenings.

Pocus may have to figure this one out.


A lot of reading but most guerilla actions were not well documented.
http://www.wvculture.org/history/journal_wvh/wvh12-1.html

What I did not find detailed there was in their first successful raid, with less than 30 men, they managed to destroy a marshaling yard burning down 7 workshops and warehouses, set fire to 9 locomotives and some 60 cars, stole two supply trains, captured a third, took down a bridge, taking 104 prisoners, in a nights work. This disabled supply transport for about a week and caused disruptions for a longer period.

Not destroying depots would seem a bit thin. It is still just another nerff. The only way to interrupt supplies moving from the depot is to eliminate it. Reducing the amount would have little impact. It is breaking the supply chain not just holding up supply a little.

It is a pretty worthless pursuit. Rather a distraction, just like commerce raiding is now. Nothing more than something to keep the CSA entertained while the Union goes about winning the game.

It is of little challenge playing the Union now. Why would you want to make it easier?

Do that with difficulty settings. Some of us want to see a hard fought duel where we can actually lose on occasion. Not just a stroll in the country with on victory after another facing a too weak opponent.

[Ol' Choctaw]

I like the fact that now you do not have to have chain of troops all along the supply line. The extra small stacks would add to number of things to handle and reduce the fun factor. If all those troops are stacked in depot protecting it, it would simulate those troops protecting supply traveling from depot A to depot B rather well. Those troops were stationed on depot in RL, accompanying supply as it travels along the map. Supply travel is abstracted in the game (thanks for that). It feels right that supply transport protection is abstracted as wel..

So, what we have here is not the fault in the concept.

It is a mere bug in the rgd that needs fixing since obviously extra troops do not rule out depot burnin' (aka safe supply traveling).

No, all those troops stacked in a depot just mean that you have to raid with a whole corps.

Maintaining control of outlying areas should need looked after. Supply lines should need patrolled. Areas raiders or armies pass through should revert after time to the general loyalties of the region.

If you are occupying unfriendly ground you should have to maintain control or lose it.

Whether it is Billy Yank in Little Rock or Johnny Reb in Cleveland the population is not going to be loyal just because you stopped by for a day or two. It should revert and you should need to at least patrol it from time to time.

Curtis marched an army through Arkansas in 62 from Fayetteville to Helena. How much of that do you think the Union controlled when he got to where he was going? Just so you know, it was Helena. Everything else reverted when he left. If it isn’t garrisoned, it should not stick.


Also, I don’t see why special acts such as burning a depot, carrying off a spectacular ambush or raid or using a submarine to sink enemy shipping should not raise NM.

It is the propaganda machine at work for one side. I is not taking it form the other. Generally it is gone in a turn or so anyway. A short term gain.

[soundoff]

NM in AACW was robust and fair. You learned or you lost - for some of us, both.

If one simply must have Cards, there should be no NM effects from their use, imo. We had a perfectly good NM mechanic that all understood and knew how to use, for gain or pain.

2 NM is not a trifle, or shouldn't be. I've seen Spectacular Victories yield three (3). A 5 NM gain because of the battle? Woo - motherlovin' - hoo, stop the presses and free beer!

NM should be the Grail, the Holy Rood, that which is Unobtainable Save for Sacnoth. Ya gotta earn it, in blood & toil. The Events that affected it were fair and the numbers modest (mostly).

Now I can bid 1 Club, wait to see if partner jumps or goes to No Trump, and if not, just pile up seven trick rubbers.

Bo - ring.

I still cannot understand why folks are getting so upset over NM and raiding. For me its about protecting and destroying or interdiction and the partisan cards currently do not do that well its just too easy to destroy depots irrespective of how well they are guarded I'm quite happy to see depots destroyed but without taking on the defenders when they are being protected.
.
I was originally under the same impression as you GraniteSlater that NM in CW2 worked the same way as in AACW but it does not. As I have said before there is now autobalancing of NM. If one sides NM is over 100 there are several dice rolls per turn (irrespective of what actually happens in the game) each roll giving a chance of lowering that NM. Similarly if NM is below 100 then there are several dice rolls per turn each one with a chance of lifting NM even if nothing else changes. Just play the Union and look at how the NM is made up. Each turn you might see it lift by 1 or 2 points even when all the forces stand still. NM is no longer the 'holy grail' as we knew it.

[Ace]

Correct me if I am wrong, but there was autobalancing event in AACW as well, but with much smaller chances to fire. You had to have NM as low as 50-60 to have reasonable chances to fire.

[GraniteStater]

Egg-zackly.

The bumps you got was when your NM was in really bad shape. It was meant as a Keep the Fun Going tool, more than anything else. Helped mitigate Lucky Streaks & stuff like that.

I've played one (1) game to Victory, as the Union, in 1.02. CSA NM was down to 44, then in the 30s, then 32, then...AutoVic. Once it was under 50, well, I kept piling on, so it never recovered.

Now, I just sit in Alexandria, swilling lemonade and polishing brass, I can't go outside because of the eggings by irate mobs, but...my pollsters say I'm just fine, had a small blip at 78, but recovered quickly, as in Next Turn, back to 84. Then, right on the heels of that, up to 94.

I've seen CSA NM be below mine by early '62 - not for long, but I've done nothing to deserve it. I think in my current game, in which I scratched together three moderate Divs and sailed to Louisiana with Banks in command - my earliest taking of NO, March 62, this resulted:

CSA NM went from 110 to 92.

This is too much. From 110? 98, maybe.

Both sides should sweat like stevedores in the tropics, should triumph mightily in contests of shot and steel, to budge NM five points or more. The game should be between the 90 - 110 yard lines; once you start fading or triumphing, it should snowball. Low NM should be hard from which to claw back & I mean claw. High NM should mean carpets strewn with roses and ladies swooning.

The Emancipation Proclamation should be HUGE. It was in real life. It changed everything. The Union should have something, a Victory of note somewhere, just to be able to issue it. Something. Antietam was Close Enough to justify Seward's conditions (man, ya gotta go there & see that ground - there is absolutely nothing on Lee's left, nothing - stopping Hooker was a paean to Southern martial prowess , courage, determination & manliness. MacClellan was 'uninspired' that day, he should've crushed the ANV then and there - Butler could've done it, even).

"Well, we finally left our camps and got whupped by Beauregard at some place called Culpeper. Lost two Divisions entirely - they surrendered. We came back to Fairfax. Thass OK, though, NM will be back up in a trice. Pass the whiskey."

The Union needs a fire under its keister; mid-war, the Southerners should start to get a bit gloomy as the Blue Hordes appear on the horizon.

[GraniteStater]

And we may have totally hijacked this thread, but the discussion is worth it, imho.

[minipol]

It's a very useful discussion and better to come to some kind of agreement before the devs even consider changing anything.

[soundoff]

Correct me if I am wrong, but there was autobalancing event in AACW as well, but with much smaller chances to fire. You had to have NM as low as 50-60 to have reasonable chances to fire.

Quite right Ace, yes there was, but as you say NM had to be extremely low for it to kick in and although I might be recalling incorrectly it only applied if your NM was extremely low. By that time the war was nearly won or lost.

Now the auto balancing kicks in from turn 1. The one real advantage the CSA has in the early months of the war is if it maintains a NM advantage yet its being automatically taken away without the North having to do anything. That's why I'm all for the CSA especially getting +1NM for destroying a depot. Once NM equals out it sure as heck is not going to get many in battle.

[GraniteStater]

You have a point there, but it's kind of an awkward mechanic, ne c'est pas?

*sigh* NM was just fine.

[Citizen X]

Good to see you cooled down a bit, Granitestater. Coming home and reading all your posts in one go was quite an experience on its own

I have now played several PBEMs (rarely play single player) with extensive use of cards on both sides. I have used every card in the game (or almost) in various ways and I am sure to say that you need not worry in that extend as you expressed. No single card in the game has the potential you described. Nor any combination of two cards. Notably NM gets altered so quickly when out of certain borders that still a major military campaign is needed to shift it in your favour. What is good with cards is the concert that they make, all of them together. But you have to try around a lot to see how they can actually make the difference for you. In 1.02 for instance, the CSA were so weak that I couldn't imagine how to survive even the first 12 months of the war against a fairly competent US player. They can, at times, bring in an element of surprise, but it is the long perspective that makes out their real value.

[minipol]

I think we better identify the issues raised, what imbalance
they might cause, and what might be a solution, taking in account playability in single player and Pbem.
Otherwise, the thread will produce many posts but nothing useful for the devs to work on.

Some issues in the thread, feel free to add to the list:
- Union gets decent NM at the start while doing nothing, while the CSA should have the advantage in the early years.
- Autobalancing the NM at the start works in favor of the Union at the start of the game.
As a result the Union is not motivated to pursue it's early objectives.
Even later in the game after lots of losses of men, material and regions, they still have a high morale.
- Partisan units are nerfed, should be stealthier, and survive better in the wild (needed supplies)
- Partisans/RGD Partisan Raid card should destroy a percentage of supply, and what I would add, have a percentage
change to destroy the depot. Percentage would be linked to the loyality of the region, and the number of troops
present at the depot. This would add the need for the player and Athena to guard the depots better in stead of
just sending all troops to the front.
- Sea mines might produce a too big NM gain
- Submarine might produce a too big NM gain
- Destroying depots might produce a too big NM gain
- AI should defend the depots better to guard against partisan raids
This would result in the CSA player not having to match the big arms race and actually freeing some money
to invest in industry and brigs, which is now very difficult even by begin 1863.

If we identify most issues, the powers that be can discuss with the betas to see if action is needed and how.

[James D Burns]

A lot of reading but most guerilla actions were not well documented.
http://www.wvculture.org/history/journal_wvh/wvh12-1.html

While reading about their exploits makes it seem like they accomplished a lot, in game terms they did not. This line shows they operated only within 1-3 game regions for most of their war exploits:

Hardy County was to be the main base of operations for the guerrillas as well as the adjacent Hampshire County and nearby Maryland.

Most of their listed accomplishments would equal the capture or destruction of a single wagon train unit in game or perhaps the destruction of a rail line. Their big military accomplishments (capture of enough troops that might equal 1 company on a combat results screen) usually occurred while cooperating as advance scouts for the regular southern army, not when acting as a small independent band deep in the federal rear on their own. So in game terms they’d have been part of a large stack of regular troops for those actions.

I’m sure they had some great one-off achievements now and again, but their predominant effect in game terms is attacking Union supply and rail in a very restricted 1-3 region area of the map for most of the war. AACW2 is a strategic level game and I don’t see any examples of strategic successes here, just tactical successes that would be negligible in game terms.

One thing I do note that may be something for consideration, McNeill’s Rangers acted as a foraging arm of the regular army many times. I’d like to see partisans convey a supply reduction of 25% to any stack they accompany to simulate their expertise at stealing cattle and other food stocks from the enemy.

Jim

[ArmChairGeneral]

minipol,

Thanks for aggregating everything I think you have made a timely and useful summary of this far-ranging discussion.

- AI should defend the depots better to guard against partisan raids

I would clarify that most posters seem to feel that the underlying issue with the Partisan Raid card is not that the AI isn't defending her depots but that the card is allowing depot destruction even when they are appropriately defended. This piece of the puzzle is not WAD, and it sounds like it is being looked into already.

[GraniteStater]

I think we better identify the issues raised, what imbalance
they might cause, and what might be a solution, taking in account playability in single player and Pbem.
Otherwise, the thread will produce many posts but nothing useful for the devs to work on.

Some issues in the thread, feel free to add to the list:
- Union gets decent NM at the start while doing nothing, while the CSA should have the advantage in the early years.
- Autobalancing the NM at the start works in favor of the Union at the start of the game.
As a result the Union is not motivated to pursue it's early objectives.
Even later in the game after lots of losses of men, material and regions, they still have a high morale.
- Partisan units are nerfed, should be stealthier, and survive better in the wild (needed supplies)
- Partisans/RGD Partisan Raid card should destroy a percentage of supply, and what I would add, have a percentage
change to destroy the depot. Percentage would be linked to the loyality of the region, and the number of troops
present at the depot. This would add the need for the player and Athena to guard the depots better in stead of
just sending all troops to the front.
- Sea mines might produce a too big NM gain
- Submarine might produce a too big NM gain
- Destroying depots might produce a too big NM gain
- AI should defend the depots better to guard against partisan raids
This would result in the CSA player not having to match the big arms race and actually freeing some money
to invest in industry and brigs, which is now very difficult even by begin 1863.

If we identify most issues, the powers that be can discuss with the betas to see if action is needed and how.

Don't forget to add "GraniteStater is gonna need a prescription real soon."

[ArmChairGeneral]

Don't forget to add "GraniteStater is gonna need a prescription real soon."

Take 2 sea-mines and call me in the morning.