Razing Cities - No Loyalty or Development Penalty or Other Effects?

[Bill's Boy]

Playing a PBEM with the latest version of CWII allowing the razing of Level 1 cities, I'm surprised that destroying the city apparently does not affect the loyalty or development of the region. My opponent razed Rolla, MO when he destroyed the depot there and the loyalty of the region is still 5% Union, 95% Confederate. He razed a city in New Mexico and the loyalty there is still 55% Union and 45% Confederate. The development levels of the regions are similarly unchanged. I would have thought that loyalty and development would change when one side burns down all the buildings, particularly when plundering a region shifts loyalty by 45% and reduces the development level, as one would expect.

It seems to me that there should be a National Morale effect too. If you raze one of your own towns, your NM should go down. If you raze one of your opponent's, there should be an effect too though one could argue whether your opponent's morale should go up because the population is incensed or go down because the population is demoralized. Perhaps there should be some chance involved like the effect of certain events on foreign intervention.

It's also not clear to me that razing cities should be allowed as freely at the start of the war as later on in the conflict, by which time the combatants had become more embittered.

Lastly, it's not clear to me that razing a city should be permanent. Buildings may be destroyed but the people are still there and they're going to rebuild.

I have no problem with tweaking things to maintain play balance but this tactic doesn't seem at all realistic.

[Mickey3D]

I think Bill's Boy is raising an ineresting point : Requisition and Plunder RGD cost you loyalty, VP, MC and development points; razing a town should have at least a similar effect.

In a more general way this new possibility seems to me a little bit excessive :
- Is there a lot of example of towns utterly whipped out in Civil War ?
- I can transform area (e.g. Western Arizona + Eastern Arizona + Western Mexico or Eastern Tennesse + Western part of Virginia) in a complete desert and this without any cost for my side.

[Paule3000]

I never thought of this, too,.
I think you are right, there should be a rather hard NM, loyalty and developement penalty for wiping out entire settlements.

[AndrewKurtz]

Agree... And likely an FI impact makes sense too

[Cardinal Ape]

I really don't like the idea of these small settlements affecting NM. I believe it would put too much focus/significance on them. It would be a huge change to game balance.

[Captain_Orso]

Sherman had Rome, Ga raised before he left Atlanta for the coast to prevent it being used by Hood or another to march on Chattanooga.

I think it was Sherman again who had some small town in western Tennessee also raised to the ground, but this time in retaliation for harboring CS raiders. It was a small town, who's name I cannot remember.

On the 30th of July, '64 Bg.Gen. John McCausland, under orders from Lt.Gen. Jubal Early, attempted to ransom Chambersburg, PA, and failing to gain the results he wished, burned a large portion of the town to the ground.

[Mickey3D]

Was it destruction of the infrastucture (depot, iron works, arsenals, ...) or complete destruction of the town to the ground ?

[Mickey3D]

I really don't like the idea of these small settlements affecting NM. I believe it would put too much focus/significance on them. It would be a huge change to game balance.

Maybe not NM or FI, but it is not logical that plunder cost you VP, loyalty and development points and destroying a town has no impact.

[Straight Arrow]

I- Is there a lot of example of towns utterly whipped out in Civil War?

During the American Civil War, when the US Army was unavailable to protect the frontier, the Comanche and Kiowa pushed white settlements back more than 100 miles along the Texas frontier.[

[Cardinal Ape]

Maybe not NM or FI, but it is not logical that plunder cost you VP, loyalty and development points and destroying a town has no impact.

Definitely agree on the loyalty. I could even see it have an affect state wide.

[BattleVonWar]

There is more to take into consideration here. During the American Civil War I do not know of many towns raised or plundered to the point of not existing, in fact until I read this I couldn't mention any. Though I would have guessed Indian Territory to be the most likely location of any of it.


The reality of War... Sherman was hell on Wheels in Georgia and worse in South Carolina... Though when he got to the state where I live in now, North Carolina he went easier. Why? A lot of NC men served in the Union Army.(Was it like 10k or more?) If their homes were burned this could have caused mass desertions or issues with local Loyalty in the North. Also this was the case in other places I assume? In the town where near I live, local troops met against Sherman but he went soft on us in this town. I know of other places he totally left nothing but Chimneys. What impact did this have on Southern Moral? Positive or negative? I hear it was a huge factor in ending the war. It plummeted Southern Morale.

Unwise to hit Pro-Union Regions though... here we had a Swamp Native uprising/local runaway slaves/escaped Unionists, Pro-Sherman, with larger bounties than Jesse James on the Kingpins head! :P Robeson County (Lowrie)

all over this was the case........................ Burn their towns?

Definitely agree on the loyalty. I could even see it have an affect state wide.

[Smitzer52]

Other effect that "razing" a city should have is raizing a harbor with it. Mostly because it looks weird to have lvl.1 harbors on map without cities.

[Captain_Orso]

Was it destruction of the infrastucture (depot, iron works, arsenals, ...) or complete destruction of the town to the ground ?

Once Grant progressed beyond territory he planned to maintain until the end of the war --Nashville, Memphis, Chattanooga, Knoxville, Vicksburg--, he principally destroyed any facilities he encountered outside of the aforementioned areas, which either belonged to the CS government or could be used to produce war material or facilitate the war economy, from foundries to gun-workshops, from blanket weavers to tent makers, and of course rail roads. When Grant moved his headquarters to the East and left Sherman, in direct control of the West, Sherman continued this strategy.

From what I read, Rome, Georgia was "raised". I haven't read details of this, but that he intended that it would be of no use to the Confederacy as a supply hub to march on Chattanooga. So I imagine its destruction was pretty much as close to complete.

That I know of, not a lot has been objectively written about such destruction. One reason so much is known about how much of Chambersburg was destroyed is because of the records of reparations claims made to the state and federal government after the war. There are entire lists of household good and housing lost containing everything from Persian rugs and silverware to expensive furniture; there were a couple of quite wealthy residence of Chambersburg.

Once a city was raised far enough, it ceased to have any functioning infrastructure. At that point, whether 30% or 0% of the buildings remained is inconsequential for other than the people trying to live there and their loss of housing and property.

As far as how loyalty and NM should be affected, it is difficult to say. Both are closely related. One author believes that much of the destruction was taken in stride and considered to be expected: Megan Kate Nelson. Ruin Nation: Destruction and the American Civil War.

My feeling is that the destruction Sherman caused on his 'March to the Sea' and through South and North Carolina was less the cause for despair than the fact that he could march through those states practically unopposed, thus demonstrating the Confederacy's inability to protect itself from the invaders leading to the conclusion of its imminent downfall.

[minipol]

I don't have a problem with how it's implemented now.
If we do go with a NM penalty, I think you should only get a NM penalty when raising towns loyal to your side.

[Paule3000]

I think a reduction of NM for razing cities loyal to your side and a raise of the enemy's NM for destroying cities loyal to your opponent would be kind of realistic. Perhaps there should be a modification of the extent of the NM hit relative to the degree of loyalty, maybe +/-1 point at 51-75%, +/-2 points at 76-90% and +/-3 points at 91-100% loyalty or something like this.
Not to mention modification of development level and local loyalty.

[Orphan_kentuckian]

I don't have a problem with how it's implemented now.
If we do go with a NM penalty, I think you should only get a NM penalty when raising towns loyal to your side.

In my current PBEM I ordered my militia unit to destroy the Rolla depot...the next turn they had destroyed the whole town. While I agree being able to burn settlements should have a penalty, ordering a depot destroyed is far from the entire town being put to the torch. If a penalty is put in place, this should be fixed also as I would receive a penalty for something I did not order.

[BattleVonWar]

Perhaps a resting period of time and then towns/ports/etc... rebuild themselves?

Going against the grain sorta of the Total War Strategy.

I have been throughout the South on foot .. from Texas to NOLA, to Atlanta to Miami, to Northern Virginia and everywhere else in between. Though the place I would say I feel the wraith of the North most is North and South Carolina. The feel of this place is just depressed from that miserable war. You can still as you drive North and I've heard people agree crossing the Mason Dixon line the total utter destruction still felt today. Grant's and Sherman's intentions were no less then total.(it's very well known down here) Now the factories of the North rust, and some Chinese Slave Labor does the same job..(not to get too political) but raising cities is fun to cause more attrition and withhold strategic points and removing it from the game is unlikely to better the game........but something could be implemented for sentimental value? I think a little something....

In my current PBEM I ordered my militia unit to destroy the Rolla depot...the next turn they had destroyed the whole town. While I agree being able to burn settlements should have a penalty, ordering a depot destroyed is far from the entire town being put to the torch. If a penalty is put in place, this should be fixed also as I would receive a penalty for something I did not order.

[Rod Smart]

It should NOT affect national moral. Burning a two bit town in West Texas shouldn't affect the war more than a three division fight for Winchester.

It SHOULD affect local loyalty, and possibly some victory points. Plundering and requisitioning costs stuff, so should destroying a town.



And yes, it did happen.

[DrPostman]

Other effect that "razing" a city should have is raizing a harbor with it. Mostly because it looks weird to have lvl.1 harbors on map without cities.

Most "harbors" of that day were basic landings, not easy to destroy given that
they were either dirt or composed of thousands of small cobblestones. Memphis
"harbor" looked like this during the Civil War:

St. Louis from 1852

[Straight Arrow]

@DrPostman,

A picture is worth a thousand words. Most excellent, the point is made.

[Cardinal Ape]

In my current PBEM I ordered my militia unit to destroy the Rolla depot...the next turn they had destroyed the whole town. While I agree being able to burn settlements should have a penalty, ordering a depot destroyed is far from the entire town being put to the torch. If a penalty is put in place, this should be fixed also as I would receive a penalty for something I did not order.

I would guess that the militia you used was one from an RGD card? Those units, for both sides, seem to burn stuff without orders in disloyal regions. I'm not sure why that is. Maybe they should have a pillager trait to denote this.

One thing to keep in mind is that razing a settlement does not come with any of the benefits of the Plunder, Scorched Earth, or Indian Pillage cards. There may be a distinction to be made between ordering your troops to actively seize citizen property and forcing citizens to abandon their homes.

[FightingBuckeye]

Would you be less upset with some power if they burned your home and your town down to ashes vs coming in and grabbing your let's say SUV or some such for the war effort? Completely destroying a little town and your home along with it seems like it would be worse than just taking some stuff. And it definitely should lower the development level of the region in question. As for other effects, well we've all seen sensationalist reporting stirring up emotions and just plain turning something out of nothing. It's not exactly a new phenomenon and it existed in the Civil War as well.

http://historyofjournalism.onmason.com/2009/09/30/journalism-during-americas-greatest-conflict/

Maybe to reflect on whether a specific action is sensationalized, there should be a certain randomness to the effects. Say it always affects local loyalty and the civilization level of the region. Then 50% nothing else happens, 25% state-wide loyalty drops by a couple points, 10% a local partisan unit is formed in an adjacent region and joins the other side, 10% NM goes up and down 1 point for each side, & 5% FE shifts 2-3 points against the razing side. And obviously this wouldn't apply to plain old stockades like the ones that litter the west and great plains. It might cause both sides to rethink razing settlements if there could be a small NM shift or FE could be affected.

[Cardinal Ape]

I think some homesteaders value their herd of livestock more than their wooden homes.

Most of the suggestions seem fairly realistic so far. I'm just wondering to myself if the suggestions were implemented, would I ever use the feature? Without it having any side effects it is currently a choice about strategic real estate. If it were changed to have a fair amount of negatives attached to it, it may become a no-brainer decision. Would you ever play the plunder card if you didn't get any money from it? I wouldn't.

I think I would rather have the feature removed. It doesn't really add much to the game.

The same issue raised by the OP could also apply to the Indian Pillage card. It destroys a settlement while netting the user $15 - it has no side effects whatsoever.