control vs. ownership

[madgamer]

It seems to me as the union against the AI that it takes a lon time and even requires the occupying side to keep units in most regions to convert control to there side. As a result of this I had a large number of units just sitting in regions to try and keep them under control of the union side.
I have never really understood how the control vs. ownership works. I also found that I had to tie up large numbers of units to try and keep thoses pesky raids down to a small number. Along the border it looked a bit like WW 1 trench warfare with the long line of units and even then the raids would go on and did not seem to me to even be close to what really happened....I mean Reb cav. on the great lakes or in northern Iowa.....is that not stretching it a bit?
Has the "latest patch changed any of this?

[Daxil]

If you have 50%+ loyalty, or 50% + military control, FOW ois revealed. If you have both, your opponent has the opposite effect.

To stop the raids station militia in every city two layers back and include some cav for interdiction purposes.

[madgamer]

yes I was aware of this but what I was getting at was don't you think the process takes a bit to long and requires a fair number of troops tohold down some regions, or maybe I am the only one thinking this?

madgamer

[Rafiki]

As the Union, you need to prioritize; once you move South, you won't realistically be able to hold all regions. This is one of the reasons it's important to open and secure the waterways (Mississippi and others), so that you can use them to ferry troops and supplies.

Once you start relying on Southern railroads as lines of communication, you have to be prepared to provide some garrisons.

[Banks6060]

About the raiding so far north. I know how you feel...and while historically it was not done...it could have been done . This game models that possibility well. I think it's well agreed that neither side really effectively used its cavalry until later in the war...especially the Union.