Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 2:23 pm

Razing of level 1 structures

Sat Sep 05, 2015 5:32 pm

My current game is the first one where as the USA I have faced a deliberate Confederate strategy of razing level 1 structures. This prompts a couple of observations.

1. Shouldn't there be an opportunity to rebuild the demolished structure if the owner wants to do so at a cost of economic points and/or through the use of a dedicated regional decision card.

2. I understand that there is no penalty for this activity other than loss of revenue for the owner. If so shouldn't there be one for the perpetrator especially during the early part of the war when such a deliberate strategy would have outraged the civilian populace. Frankly the adoption of this approach as early as 1861 seems totally wrong as it is better suited to the tendency towards more total war from the emancipation declaration or even 1864 onwards. To reflect this how about a boost to the USA morale (or CSA if they are subject to it) to reflect x number of structures razed and also perhaps a appropriate impact on foreign entry , with such a penalty being scaled back as the war progresses until there is no effect in 1864 and 1865.

User avatar
Projekt Pasha
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2014 3:30 pm
Location: Exile

Sat Sep 05, 2015 11:42 pm

Frankly, its difficult to get away with not razing structures as the CSA. Whilst there are obvious benefits to laying waste to territory so Union logistics are awful, much more subtlety but as if not more important one often needs to raze structures to "correct" the Retreat logic and get your troops to retreat in the direction you want (the retreat logic prioritizes regions with structures)
Current Russian player in the third Paradox OT Forums Mass AAR.

Former Ottoman Player in the first Paradox Forums TEAW Mass Multiplayer AAR. Victor of Tripoli, Tyr, and Xanthi. Defender of the Holy Cities of Jerusalem, Mecca, and Medinah. Conqueror of Kuwait and Kitchener. Bane of the British and Sword of the House of Osman.

Militant confederate in my spare time. :neener:

Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 8:08 am

Sat Sep 12, 2015 7:56 pm

The reason I raze level 1 structures as the CSA is to try and limit the Union options of advance (without building the resource-expensive forts to protect their supply lines) and to limit the places they can put their forces in the Winter without attrition effects. The ultimate goal is to make the Union supply lines more vulnerable.

In the actual war razing of small towns was common, even early in the war. For example, on the Kansas-Missouri border Union forces under the command of Jim Lane raided into Missouri and burnt Osceola, MO, to the ground in retaliation for raids by rebels into Kansas where some communities like Humboldt and Osawatomie were raided and/or burnt. Eventually, the Union commander forbid ANY occupation of the Missouri counties bordering Kansas. The resentments grew, especially with the locals that were forced to relocate from their farmsteads, eventually resulting in the burning of Lawrence (and the murder of many of its residents) in 1863, and lingering resentments that fueled the James gang and other notorious post-war folk. The Civil War on the western frontier was not civil, and had not been since at least 1856.

I wouldn't be opposed to seeing a 1 VP loss for the side that isn't protecting their level 1 towns adequately, and perhaps a 50% chance of a 1 NM loss to the side being so evil. But both sides saw razing towns as a strategy to punish their opponents.

Bill's Boy
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 10:40 am
Location: New Jersey

Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:10 am

Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 2:23 pm

Sat Sep 19, 2015 10:02 am

Thanks Bill's Boy.

If its not possible to allow the rebuilding of razed structures, another option - which would also act as a deterrent to the practice - would be to add an extra stockade card for each structure razed that year on the next annual issue of regional cards.

A lesser sanction would be to immediately create a new cavalry or partisan unit for the affected side in response to the razing of a structure.

Of course, these sanctions could be reduced or removed later in the war to reflect the greater willingness to endorse more extreme measures as the conflict became more total and desperate.

User avatar
Gray Fox
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1520
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:48 pm
Location: Englewood, OH

Mon Sep 21, 2015 1:29 pm

As you can see in post #16 of this thread:

Razing a town really has no effect for the production in a region. I often raze my own size 1 towns (stacking limit 10 elements before overcrowding) to make way for a stockade (stacking limit 25 elements).
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!

Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 2:23 pm

Mon Sep 21, 2015 4:21 pm

Thanks, that's useful to know. Its the military effects for holding or delaying purposes that are my concern i.e region more exposed, winter attrition, can't use redoubt card and rebuilding can only be done with scarce stockade cards which otherwise would be available for the wilder regions that are structure free from the start.

User avatar
General of the Army
Posts: 612
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:33 pm
Location: Paris France (by way of Wyoming)

Tue Sep 29, 2015 5:25 pm

Are we talking about things like depots? It was pretty common during the war, if a force was deliberately evacuating a place and had the time, to destroy stores, depots, infrastructure etc. so that it wouldn't fall into enemy hands.

User avatar
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Tue Sep 29, 2015 7:28 pm

I don't think the OP ever actually clarified what kind(s) of structure he was talking about. But, yes, there was a lot of campaigning during the war specifically against industries which supported the enemy's war efforts.

The South mostly targeted transportation and supplies, but they also were very active working against industry in West Virginia. Mostly they didn't have the opportunity to reach any industry in the North and even when Lee invaded twice he avoided destroying private property when possible.

The North didn't start out trying to destroy infrastructure in the South, but the more territory they took, the more the came across infrastructure they which was of no use to them, and so it was destroyed. Otherwise they'd have to guard it against recapture. See the Battle of Jackson and the Meridian Campaign. And of course I don't think I have to mention Sherman's March to the Sea or north through the Carolinas.

Return to “Civil War II”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 3 guests