Behind Enemy Lines?

[hereonceagain]

First off - HELLO!

This is my first post in these forums, so please forgive me if i'm covering ground already dealt with. I've read through many posts and a few members have touched on the theme of this thread.

I have the bog-standard unpatched 1.06d version installed. I've played and playtested it thoroughly, usually as the CSA from April 1861. All settings on average/normal plus fog of war.

Behind Enemy Lines...

One concept i find a little puzzling/unusual is the way 'raiding' forces WITHOUT leaders/commanders CAN act once deep inside enemy territory. This includes both player and AI forces. As an example take the lone cavalry brigades that often raid early in the game. Their colonels show a level of competance and ability far beyond what their basic rank would suggest. This is often made worse if the intercepting/hunting forces are commanded by an 'average' leader, who occasionally has inactive turns.

A second concept i find unusual is the way large/huge enemy forces sometimes 'raid' deep into enemy territory, leaving vital objectives of their own relatively unprotected. This sometimes seems very strange when the forces has a 'poor' leader or no overall leader at all. Game example being Hookers Div plus 3 other Divs during early 1862 marching past Jacksons corps near Alexandria, storming Frediricksburg, then to the peninsular to destroy a track, then storming Petersburg and advancing on Norfolk. While this was happening my 'reserve corps' under Beauregard (besieging Ft Monroe) remained inactive for 4 turns in a row (including 2 Div commanders) and unable to intercept. Eventually Jacksons corps caught and destroyed Hooker at Suffolk after a train move. All in all very odd in my view and a waste of Federal forces when compared to the gains.

To avoid the above i have the following suggestions for either a mod or a future patch.

Lines of Communication...

This applies only when a force attempts to enter an area which is controlled both politically (support) and militarily (control) by the enemy. Richmond at the April 1861 campaign start is a good example for the Federals (VERY enemy territory you might say).

It also applies only to movement within one single turn.


So we've established 'Enemy Territory' (ET) and now comes the rule changes.

Forces with no leaders entering Enemy Territory...

These forces MUST stop and end their movement in the first such area entered. Very simple.

Forces WITH Leader(s)...

The following rule uses the strategic rating of the 'overall' commander of the force.

The first ET entered has no restrictions. To enter a second ET a check is made against the commanders strategic rating. If passed the force may enter. If not it stops and ends its movement for the turn. To enter a third ET a check is made against the commanders strategic rating minus one. For the fourth, minus two and so on. The final rule is if a commander has enemy forces present in his area when he attempts to enter the next ET. Then a further minus one is deducted from his strategic rating.

Heres a probable game example or two to clarify things a little...

Campaign game, Late June 1861, Federal side.

McDowell commands a Federal army of 5 Divs at Alexandria. Harpers Ferry is covered by Mansfield. Washington has an adequate garrison.

Beauregard has the main CSA army just SW of McDowell. Johnston et al are in the valley at Winchester.

The player/AI intends to strike directly for Richmond. The planned move is south (avoiding Beauregard) one area, then Fredericksburg, then south, then besiege Richmond. Using no supply wagons (coming by sea Monroe/Butler) this may be feasable in one turn.

First move south - Enemy Territory - Leader in command - no restrictions - succeeds.

Second move into Fredericksburg area - Enemy Territory - Check against McDowells strategic rating (no enemy present in current area) which is 2 - succeeds.

McDowell has done well. He's in the Fredericksburg area. The CSA garrison is present. What happens next depends on whether McDowell is passive, defensive and so on. Lets assume hes VERY aggressive. He storms and wipes out the CSA garrison in a day. Well done again.

His third move order is south again - he checks against his strategic rating MINUS ONE (no enemy present) which is 1 . Amazingly he succeeds.

He arrives in the area south of Fredericksburg. He still has time left to move and hes outflanked the main CSA forces. To make his next move however his strategic rating is adjusted by minus TWO which makes it ZERO. Sadly for the Federals Mcdowells lack of ability (confidence in his own) overides his orders and he stops.

This seems to make sense to me.

To explain a little further, here are a few variables to the example. If Mcdowell had not stormed Fredricksburg, then the forces present modifier would have applied for his next move. Strategic rating 2, minus one for second ET, minus one more for enemy present in area. This makes him ZERO and he stops dead. His natural caution plus not wanting to leave enemy forces across his lines of communication causes him to stop for new orders next turn.

Imagine however it was a Hooker or a similar leader in command of a corps. He would move south as normal first move. Second to enter Fredericksburg against his far better strategic rating. Now he has a choice. Storm the place, with his next move south with a minus 1 modifier or leave it for a minus 2 modifier. Either way this smacks to me of real generalship in the field. Take some time to remove the garrison and secure your Loc or take a gamble insaving time and ignoring them.

The better the commander the more likely they are to use their own initiative or take a chance.

Anyway...

I hope members dont mind these few rule changes ive suggested to improve gameplay. They seem in my view to force both player/AI into far more logical/historical actions and make the use of commanders far more important. Deep cavalry raids and marches to the sea can still be made, but using these rules you need the proper (historical) commanders to make them. This in turn properly values generals like Moseby and Sherman and so the game should be more fun.

No more annoying uncommanded single brigade cavalry raids from Maryland into North Carolina or from Alabama into Ohio. Instead both the player and the AI now have to balance the risk of using a leader against the possible gains.

Summary of changes...

Enemy Territory - Both military and political control (51% plus on each).

Leaderless forces cease movement for the turn after entering the first ET.

Forces with a commander.

To enter -

First ET - No Effects
Second ET - Check against Strategic rating, pass enter, fail end movement
Third ET - As above but Strategic rating minus one
Fourth ET - As above but minus two
Fifth ET - As above but minus three

Modifier - enemy forces in commanders area when strategic check made, minus one to rating (cumulative) with above.

Last point...

I hope members dont feel my suggestions stem from sour grapes and the inability to achieve a win against the AI. So far my best CSA win has been in early 1863, settings as above and without the need to capture Washington!

All comments welcome.

Thanks

Gary

[Clovis]

1) Use 1;09e patch. simply better.

2) problem with your rule for units without leader is many side effects: for example, let's imagine I send Sherman's army acroos Confederate territory then I want to reinforce him with some new brigades: I will need a leader to send them to him across several regions where Confederate will keep control.

IMHO what's the game misses is a tiny force without leader should be unable to move across enemy regions in offensive posture. So a leader would be needed for raids and a move in defensive mode in enemy territory should get an additional movement penalty.

3) The same movement penalty should apply to units with unactive leader in the same conditions.