Page 1 of 1
How to prevent those pesky raids...
Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:45 pm
by Henry D.
into the north-western states?
In my recent game (April 61/USA) I came up with the idea to simply build LOTs of gunboats and stationing them in every single river zone from St. Louis/MO to Charleston/WV early on. It wörked just fine and didn't hamper army build-up (much, I'm still fielding 15+ fullgrown divisions and have already fortified Springfield/MO, Harpers Ferry, Washington and Alexandria in September 61), yet this somewhat smells like an exploit or at least "over-kill" to me. It ist much cheaper (manpower-wise) than raising a lot of militias from Illinois to Ohio (though I miss out on the nice free Cavs which are raised to counter incursions).
I guess I'll have to live with raiders in Missouri, Kansas and the Indian Territory (and later in Kentucky, Tennessee et. al.) but since that's where my armies and militia garrisons are anyways, there's not much harm done...
However, I'd like to know how YOU are dealing with them pesky bushwhackers, do You just live with them, try to prevent them from entering Your home stastes entirely, assemble rearguards to chase them around as they come or what?
Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:49 pm
by PBBoeye
If it costs the same, I'm not sure I'd call it an exploit. I'd say it was a strategic option. It would be hard to ford a river in force if there were much naval opposition on it. Who wants to have a cannon or firearms pointed at them while on the water?
So it's an option, and different than perhaps the USA would have addressed it, but that's fine.
Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 12:25 pm
by Hobbes
It sounds to me as though this needs some tweaking. It would also prevent armies from crossing all along the river. I'm sure raiders would be able to find a quiet spot to cross over in so much territory or at dawn or dusk.
Maybe a gunboat should drastically slow a crossing enemy unit and maybe cause some cohesion loss. One problem with this is that the game often doesn't show the position of gunboats so the player would not know he risks
any cohesion loss.
I would say just make crossing painfully slow with a small cohesion hit.
Only make crossing impossible when there are > x number of military ships.
Cheers, Chris
Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 7:46 pm
by Cetacea
Henry D. wrote:into the north-western states?
In my recent game (April 61/USA) I came up with the idea to simply build LOTs of gunboats and stationing them in every single river zone from St. Louis/MO to Charleston/WV early on. It wörked just fine and didn't hamper army build-up (much, I'm still fielding 15+ fullgrown divisions and have already fortified Springfield/MO, Harpers Ferry, Washington and Alexandria in September 61), yet this somewhat smells like an exploit or at least "over-kill" to me. It ist much cheaper (manpower-wise) than raising a lot of militias from Illinois to Ohio (though I miss out on the nice free Cavs which are raised to counter incursions).
I guess I'll have to live with raiders in Missouri, Kansas and the Indian Territory (and later in Kentucky, Tennessee et. al.) but since that's where my armies and militia garrisons are anyways, there's not much harm done...
However, I'd like to know how YOU are dealing with them pesky bushwhackers, do You just live with them, try to prevent them from entering Your home stastes entirely, assemble rearguards to chase them around as they come or what?
I guess there is no single strategy that is 'best'. What I like to do is: trying to place militia in key cities; placing river gunboats in those stretches where raiders are absolutely not allowed to cross; and trying to lure them into relatively unimportant cities. Once they are in there they should be butchered. I got the impression that in such a city, they tend not to evade as readily as out in the bush. As a Union player I love to construct cavalry divisions that consist of a good general, a few cavalry elements and one or two horse artillery elements. Great for hunting!
BTW, did anyone ever notice the the number of gunboat units required to seal a river stretch seems to vary with the difficulty level selected upon initiation of the game?
Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:00 pm
by PBBoeye
Now that is gamey sounding to me.
Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:07 pm
by Nial
PBBoeye wrote:Now that is gamey sounding to me.
*slight nod*
Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 9:58 pm
by Cetacea
PBBoeye wrote:Now that is gamey sounding to me.
If you mean: exploitative of the engine: perhaps. But it could work against a human opponent. (In fact, the engine seems to behave in raids like rascals such as Morgan and Forrest!). If you mean: fun in a slightly sordid way, you're positively right!
Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:11 pm
by Nial
This is one I sorta give the AI. I let them come, then just designate some Cav. to hunt them down after they are in my territory. They don't cause half the probs/ damage as my raids into the AIs backyard. So I figure it's allready something thats tilted in my favor. I've used a single bushwacker to cut a swath through the western RRs.
Nial
Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 12:28 am
by Jagger
Cetacea wrote:If you mean: exploitative of the engine: perhaps. But it could work against a human opponent. (In fact, the engine seems to behave in raids like rascals such as Morgan and Forrest!). If you mean: fun in a slightly sordid way, you're positively right!
There is nothing gamey about your tactic. Cavalry chases down raiders. Militia defends their cities. Gunboats cut off likely river crossing points.
It is a totally historical tactic.
Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 12:31 am
by Sheytan
agreed.
Jagger wrote:There is nothing gamey about your tactic. Cavalry chases down raiders. Militia defends their cities. Gunboats cut off likely river crossing points.
It is a totally historical tactic.
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:13 am
by Hobbes
Having read up a little more about this sort of occurrence I think the ability of a small gunboat force to prevent any opposing stacks from crossing a river in an entire region is far too powerful an ability and not historical. I certainly think a force made entirely of cavalry or irregulars or any force containing artillery should still be able to cross with possibly a time delay added to the crossing and possibly some extra cohesion loss.
Failing this, like blockades, there needs to be a minimum number of ships/elements in a region to prevent crossing.
Cheers, Chris
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:39 pm
by KillCalvalry
Hobbes wrote:Failing this, like blockades, there needs to be a minimum number of ships/elements in a region to prevent crossing.
Or a minimum Patrol Value. I agree completely. A fleet of Ironclads should prevent an army from crossing, sure. But one gunboat? No way.
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:43 pm
by GShock
I stick to chris' opinion....something like the basic upkeep is missing here.
That would prevent building more and more units.
Navy and Army in game do need supplies but i'm more inclined to think strategic-wise without the need to add supplies. A max manpower number (based on the regions loyal to you) or an increased cost to pay (neg affecting $$$) when you surpass a X number of units might be the cherry on the cake also to boost those industrial investments. It makes sense then.
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 11:04 am
by Hobbes
KillCalvalry wrote:Or a minimum Patrol Value. I agree completely. A fleet of Ironclads should prevent an army from crossing, sure. But one gunboat? No way.
It can have a horrible effect if one gunboat stops an army from retreating!
It's a nice tactic to try and cut off you opponents retreat route or just to prevent a crossing but it's far to easy to accomplish at the moment. I really think this warrants some attention.
Cheers, Chris