What's gamey these days, and how do you counter it?

[Ubercat]

I've been slowly but steadily increasing my knowledge of the game vs. Athena, and I'm getting more and more interested in a PBEM game.

Before taking the plunge, however, I'd like to know what exploits are still in use. Reading in the strategy section of the forum has turned up some horror stories of giant Confederate armies and fleets, sweeping all Union forces away, spamming hordes of militia that will mostly upgrade for free into line troops, as well as the old cavalry raid spam. Some of that stuff is a couple of years old, so I'm hoping that it's mostly been fixed.

Basically I'm seeking reassurance that it's possible to play a somewhat historical game without getting crushed. I don't want to commit to 100+ turn campaign if it's likely to turn into a Civil War fantasy land. Are there any solid, easily overseen house rules to fix the most common exploits? etc. etc. Thanks!

p.s. If it's relevant, I'm leaning towards playing the Union. I think they're more forgiving of inexperience.

[Paul Roberts]

Cavalry raids have been neutered by the fact that cavalry-only forces can no longer take cities until much later in the war (by which time your cities should be well enough garrisoned to resist mere cavalry raids).

Militia is still cheap, but they now cost 1 war supply instead of zero, so spamming them is a less viable tactic.

I've been involved in several PBEM games lately, and the house rules we've used are these:

--No unreasonable leader relocations: since relocation implies safe rail transport of just a handful of men, all relocations must be from provinces joined by safe, secure roads/rails. No teleporting leaders into a territory containing enemy units, no jumping from D.C. to occupied New Orleans etc.

--Either side can select partial mobilization any time, but CSA is not eligible for full mobilization till the early April '62 turn and USA is not eligible till early July '63. This represents historical limits on military drafts, which would not have been politically viable earlier in the war.

Other than these, no house rules have seemed necessary. Maybe I've been lucky enough not to have gamey opponents, but AACW seems pretty historically valid now. I do think it's possible for the CSA to build larger armies than history, but not ridiculously so, and the next version of Clovis' "Struggle for a Vast Future" mod is specifically designed to address this.

[Ubercat]

Thanks for the timely response. MP is looking better and better!

Looks like you're in my neck of the woods, even. I lived in Philadelphia for almost 19 years, but I'm near Allentown now.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

I would advise a gentlemans agreement about cavalry raids at the minimum. Even though they can't capture cities by themselves anymore, they're still frustratingly hard to pin down and stop. I haven't figuered out what the best rule is yet, but I'd recommend coming up with something.

[marecone]

But what is csa without riders? Forrest, morgan, van Dorn... Perhaps some setting with let say 1 raiders group per theatre. Or something like this:
Single cavalry regiment can be used for scouting only.
3 regiments minimum for raiding with max 3 groups for csa and 1 for usa. Usa can have 2 more cavalry commands for police purpose.
Something like that.
Taking away raids from rebs makes game too unhistorical and gives usa even greater advantage.

Just my 2 cents

[Paul Roberts]

If this is not too fanciful, how about something like this:

Leaderless cavalry units may not enter more than two provinces into enemy territory (representing the necessity of keeping a route open back to home turf). Since the first two provinces at the border are usually well-patrolled, this will limit the effectiveness of cavalry raids.

Only cavalry stacks *with leaders* may venture farther into enemy territory. Since leaders are relatively scarce, this will put a limit on the number of raiding groups operating in the interior.

[Ubercat]

If this is not too fanciful, how about something like this:

Leaderless cavalry units may not enter more than two provinces into enemy territory (representing the necessity of keeping a route open back to home turf). Since the first two provinces at the border are usually well-patrolled, this will limit the effectiveness of cavalry raids.

Only cavalry stacks *with leaders* may venture farther into enemy territory. Since leaders are relatively scarce, this will put a limit on the number of raiding groups operating in the interior.

That sounds like a great idea.

Of course, I'm not yet familiar with how many leaders the south has available at any given time. In late April of '61, the Union gets a ton of generals which it takes me a few turns to get enough troops for. In January of '62 I get an even bigger batch of generals which I now need to scramble to find commands.

This is the first play through where I've actually reached 1862!

Thanks for the help, guys. I'm going to play another year or two of the game, and mess about with playing the south too, before I'll feel safe playing a human.

[Paul Roberts]

If this is not too fanciful, how about something like this:

Leaderless cavalry units may not enter more than two provinces into enemy territory (representing the necessity of keeping a route open back to home turf). Since the first two provinces at the border are usually well-patrolled, this will limit the effectiveness of cavalry raids.

Only cavalry stacks *with leaders* may venture farther into enemy territory. Since leaders are relatively scarce, this will put a limit on the number of raiding groups operating in the interior.

On reflection, I might even amend this to say that only leaders with the "Cavalryman," "Ranger," or "Indian" traits can lead deep cavalry raids. The CSA gets a few of these early on (e.g. Ben McCulloch, Stand Watie) with more to come, while the Union doesn't see a cavalryman until 1862, and it always has fewer than the CSA. Since these leaders are basically the only ones who actually led deep raids during the war, the limitation is historical.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

On reflection, I might even amend this to say that only leaders with the "Cavalryman," "Ranger," or "Indian" traits can lead deep cavalry raids. The CSA gets a few of these early on (e.g. Ben McCulloch, Stand Watie) with more to come, while the Union doesn't see a cavalryman until 1862, and it always has fewer than the CSA. Since these leaders are basically the only ones who actually led deep raids during the war, the limitation is historical.

This actually is a pretty good idea. Rail breaking is much more advantageous for the north just consdering the fact that the South has a much weaker rail system. You can cut the south in half with 2 cav units if you want. I'm gonna try to use this rule in my next PBEM.