James D Burns wrote:I'd like to see an option added to the game options where units can only enter non-controlled (less than 50% military control) territory if lead by a leader who has passed his activation roll for the turn. This would go a long way to preventing these crazy 400-800 mile deep raids we see.
Then make it so a leader who is wounded without a proper retreat path (i.e. at least one non-red zone to flee to) is captured instead, and players would have to spend a lot more thought on the cost effectiveness of the raids they choose to launch with their partisan leaders.
Make it so partisan leaders all have a strategy rating of 5 or better, and they'd be active enough to make raids into enemy held territory a possibility, but the risk of losing the leader would make very deep raids a very risky venture.
And leaderless units would only be operating in contested regions of the map where military control is in flux.
Another possible solution would be to make it so destroying rail or supply in an area was an attack roll. Give each region an intrinsic strength based on local population and then modify that strength by the percentage of military control for the area.
Then units trying to destroy the rail or depots in an area would have to perform a combat against that intrinsic strength before succeeding in destroying anything. But this would probably be a lot harder to implement than the above suggestion.
Jim
If we're talking in terms of AACW2, I would think the simplest solution to handling partisans would be
1 - Associate each partisan unit with an "area" or "region" in which they're raised in.
2 - Have them "melt away" within a single turn if they move outside of the region
3 - The exception would be if they're lead by a partisan "leader", (Mosby or Quantrell).
4 - Allow Partisan units to be easily brought to battle in 100% controlled areas (with the chance decreasing based on MC).
A collarary change might be for "Martial Law" and "Habeus Corpus" to, instead of influencing loyalty (which seems somewhat illogical) rather have it influence Military control. (Possibly allowing a Unit to exert MC into all regions directly adjacent and increase MC quicker in the area it is in).
It's important to understand the true effect of partisans in the American Civil War. They did not, as regular cavalry forces under Morgan, Wheeler, and Forrest, normally do significant damage to depots or rail lines. While Mosby and others, at times, disrupted rail supply, it was generally superficial (mainly along the lines of a derailment or the disabling of a locomotive) and not the sort of "rail damage" actively represented in the game mechanics which requires 2 to 4 weeks to repair. That sort of damage usually involves the destruction of key rail bridges and the twisting and ruining of rail, activities generally beyond the ability of the typical partisan's manpower and time.
The number one effect of Partisans was simply intelligence. This is the role they should be shifted towards. Secondary was the disruption of supply, but normally on the order of disrupting individual rail shipments or, more commonly, overland wagon supply.
In that regard one might tie "supply efficiency" with Military control. A partisan in a poorly garrisoned area (for instance, Southwest Missouri) could reduce supply efficiency to Union forces in NW Arkansas by simply existing. This would give strong incentive to the Union player to institute martial law and use cavalry forces to establish 100% MC, and either push partisans out or bring them to battle and destroy them.
The other value of partisans would be in border areas or hard to patrol areas (like Northeastern West Virginia or Northwestern Arkansas) as essentially spies on the movement of Union forces.
You could even have Partisan's not directly tied to Military control but rather have them influence a populations loyalty or, perhaps, the rate at which a population's loyalty in turn influences Military control.
Anyways the key goal would be a historic use of Partisans, within home regions in friendly areas that are poorly controlled to indirectly reduce supply efficiency and keep tabs on Union forces. There would be allowances for "exceptional leaders" like Quantrell or Mosby to execute something along the lines of Quantrell's Lawrence Kansas massacre, but doing so would require a concentration of partisans in order to resist at least a Yankee cavalry regiment without being destroyed and be limited to those "exceptional" leaders.
