Jarkko wrote:4) I have yet to have a single militia regiment on evade orders to be captured by anything else but cavalry. The militia raider is moving on evade orders, and the forces in pursuit forces are on the wild-goose chase. I can tell from experience it is frustrating as heck to chase the raiders they just evade your pursuit force.
Jarkko wrote:2) Suppy lines can be hampered not only by physically cutting the railroads, but also by standing in the way or capturing structures. Early war cavalry can't assault towns anymore (which is good), but militia can.
e.
I think this is an overly simplified view. Once you've acquired a sh*t-load of money and Conscript Companies (CC), you should ask yourself, how can they best be put to use. Every militia you buy -- those throw-away units in your strategy -- takes away from quality units that will still be doing their job in 6 months.Jarkko wrote:1) Why not use regular brigades? Because militia is essentially free (print money like mad, draft like mad -> loads of militia) and it thus doesn't matter if they croak on the raid or not. Because lets face it, not many (if any) of the swarm raiders are ever going to come back; they get a one way ticket, and they are detined to cause maximum mayhem before disappearing.
From where are they all getting their supply? In the IT as long as you have those Indian Villages you're okay, but I can't count how many times I've had regular army cav. and inf. kicked out of there by Standwatie hitting them one at a time. And if they push on past the Indian Villages to Panther or into Texas they can grab some local supply on-site, but that is almost immediately gone. Then what?Jarkko wrote:2) In my previous PBEM (as USA) game I sent during the first year (before Kentucky activated) 21 militia brigades behind enemy lines. Five regiments waded through the wilderness of WV, five through the prairies in west, the rest were sent on small ships to land in Florida, Lousiana and Texas and quickly moved inland. When the game ended in autumn 1862 I had lost in all six of those (of which one in Texas, one in Georgia, one in South Carolina, one in Arkansas and two in Virginia) and all the other 15 had turned into infantry somewhere along the road and were alive and well sitting behind enemy lines. The opponent had sent at least four full strength divisions (there might have been more, but I noticed four different divisions; one in the Atlanta area, one in Mobile area, one in east Florida, one in Lousiana) to hunt and/or defend the key positions against these raiders.
Depending on the supply line, supply can simply walk around a unit standing on the rail line. A few units standing left and right of the SL will probably effectively block it though, but they will have not staying power.Jarkko wrote:2) Suppy lines can be hampered not only by physically cutting the railroads, but also by standing in the way or capturing structures. Early war cavalry can't assault towns anymore (which is good), but militia can.
This idea has its merits, but it is far from a certainty. I can't say how many times I've tried to storm a small town defended by a single militia with for example a brigade of 2 regular infantry and a cavalry -- more powerful than 4 militia -- and just got left standing in the cold.Jarkko wrote:3) The individual militia regiment is weak, there is no question about that. Still, four militia going red-red seem to storm single regiment garrisons with no sweat.
I've chased a lot of wild geese in my days Maybe we should put all the theory to proof. I'm up for a bit of a challengeJarkko wrote:4) I have yet to have a single militia regiment on evade orders to be captured by anything else but cavalry. So while the "rail in reinforcements to kill the regiment" sounds nice on paper, it just doesn't work. The militia raider is moving on evade orders, and the forces in pursuit forces are on the wild-goose chase I have been talking about quite a few times. The wild-goose chase is one of the things you as a swarm-raider want to cause; I can tell from experience it is frustrating as heck to chase the raiders when you don't know where they go, and even if you succeed to guess the route right they just evade your pursuit force.
Captain_Orso wrote: From where are they all getting their supply?
True, true, I do that with cavalry raids often enough. There's Navasota on the western edge north-east of Houston, Jefferson at the end of the Red River and Natchitoche on the Red between Shreveport and Alexandria. A couple more harbors near the Mississippi, but I wouldn't expect militia to survive very long in the swamps there. Florida is divided between the more developed north and the wild-n-swampy south which only has some coastal towns with harbors. Alabama has the most lone-harbors up north.Jarkko wrote:There are lots of harbours along the rivers (not that many in Texas and Far West, but still quite a few). Usually they are not garrisoned, but they each have enough supplies to be looted that a lone militia regiment fills its quota for two turns.
Honestly, the last couple of times I played the South I built up my blockade runners as quickly as possible. I'm not sure how effective that actually is as far as return-on-investment goes. Somebody did do a statistic on that once, but I don't remember what the results were. But lots of runners in the Boxes will give you a steady flow of WSU that I don't think you could ever reach with industrialization.Jarkko wrote:Regarding quality troops, with money and manpower flowing out of your ears it WS which is limiting on how many quality troops you can recruit. What will you do with all that extra money and manpower, invest in factories and hope you get a few more WS sometime in the future?
Jarkko wrote:@Ace, you seemingly have no clue what and how a human wave attack is performed (despite both me and Orso (who did it in a much more eloquent way) have told how it is done). It is not about sending lone regiments against full armies (besides, those lone regiments would attempt to retreat before battle and very likely would succeed), it is triggering combat over and over again with a numerically superior army who has more supplies (aka supply-wagons) present against a weaker army with less supplies. So please, before you deal judgement left and right about what is gamey, at least try to understand what a human wave attack is
Captain_Orso wrote:So I still stand on the opinion, that the only issue is in the step which determines that the defender goes on the offensive to attack the supposed retreating or routed enemy. In Advanced Squad Leader terms, the automatically go Berserk and attack the closest enemy
Jarkko wrote:@Ace, you seemingly have no clue what and how a human wave attack is performed (despite both me and Orso (who did it in a much more eloquent way) have told how it is done). It is not about sending lone regiments against full armies (besides, those lone regiments would attempt to retreat before battle and very likely would succeed), it is triggering combat over and over again with a numerically superior army who has more supplies (aka supply-wagons) present against a weaker army with less supplies. So please, before you deal judgement left and right about what is gamey, at least try to understand what a human wave attack is
Ace wrote:I understood your post completely. The thing is, when you initiate new combat with new units, the defender will fire only on new units, not on ones already present there, and loose the ammo in the process. The only way I would not see this as gamey is when the new units would be approx the same size, or somewhat smaller than the initial Army. That would have a historical feel, like reinforcements arriving at the battlefield.
Am I right?
Jarkko wrote:You are wrong. You can see from the screenshots in the other thread, both forces were fully involved. I do not know what you are talking about, but you are definitively not talking about human-wave attacks.
Ace wrote:The screenshots can be deceiving, they show who was involved in the battle, not who is firing on whom. I am pretty sure Beauregard didnt fire on you initial force in any of the subsequent battles.
Jarkko wrote:Nice theory brother, but you seem to not know what you are talking about. Why don't you go and try it out yourself?
I suddenly did remember why I originally stopped posting on this forum anything regarding game mechanics.
Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests