AGEOD Forums

How should the Union prevent this? Is a mass of militia at every single border province the only solution?

Putting a gunboat in every river area works too, especially if you mod the number required down to one. But you have to keep rotating them. It's a pain in the ass, no doubt. I think the answer is to change the AI to make it less common. The Confederacy sent raiders into Union territory (that is, states that neither seceded nor considered seceding) exactly twice during the war. I think it should be a political option with some cost for victory points. Otherwise as you say the AI will continually send its cavalrymen off to die in southern Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, etc.

obviously a weak-point in an otherwise well thought out game....I doubt too many southeners would be really that eager to volunteer for obvious suicide missions......should be a possible morale or VP loss as Doc sugessted for Cav troops dying of starvation in foreign territory if possible.

Pepe: Where you been man!! I missed you. T

Welcome back Pepe

thks all but not really gone, resting you could say lol

...or could implement a rule that you must have a leader in a stack to conduct offensive operations into regions that are controlled by the enemy (that would stop all these leaderless cav raids). That fits with history (Morgan, N.B Forrest, etc). I can't recall any significant raids that were not led by a ranker.
.

Not necessarily led by a general...a colonel or a captain perhaps were detached from the main group of troops. Since AACW only starts ranking with 1* general, leaderless troops are not really considered to be leaderless.

It's probably a problem related to AI aggressiveness. Gonna be fixed very soon for sure.

chainsaw wrote:...or could implement a rule that you must have a leader in a stack to conduct offensive operations into regions that are controlled by the enemy (that would stop all these leaderless cav raids). That fits with history (Morgan, N.B Forrest, etc). I can't recall any significant raids that were not led by a ranker.
.

you can already do something very similar with current rules....makes the game too tedious I quess for most, no offensives without a leader.

On the contrary, you will notice that the real problem with offensive operations is not the lack of a leader but its status of inactive leader.

I strongly advise you to play PBEM. Forget the SP, AACW is 100 times better when you face a REAL opponent. Then you will see no AI crazy behaviours and even a MIL can be set on assault without leader by your opponent.

As seen in the "why don't people play PBEM"-thread, it's often not by a straight-forward choice that people stick to single-player.

Personally, I don't consider "play PBEM!" to be a very constructive answer to when people wish to point out areas where the AI seems to be doing a sub-optimal job and discuss how the AI can become better.

(If the above seems a bit harsh, that's not how it's really intended)

GShock wrote:On the contrary, you will notice that the real problem with offensive operations is not the lack of a leader but its status of inactive leader.

I strongly advise you to play PBEM. Forget the SP, AACW is 100 times better when you face a REAL opponent. Then you will see no AI crazy behaviours and even a MIL can be set on assault without leader by your opponent.

Also, I think Pepe was suggesting it as more of a 'house rule', not implying that you actually couldn't send the troops forward leaderless.

Playing against Athena I try to keep the game as historical as possible from CSA point of view.
I limit my raiding to WV/Kentucky/Missouri/Maryland and as far as Harrisburg as that is an acceptable target. I have no desire to sacrifice units for purely gamey purposes. I am ever short of conscript point and take view that I cant afford to waste them. Especially playing on hard settings - Feds are always bleeding my eastern armies and I do hold cavalry in reserve to chase down those suicidal Fed raiders? Also to repair RR as they do tend to destroy large parts of my RR before I can catch up with them - a real pain in the proverbial that.