So what do you do about a CSA player that

[LSSpam]

just sends wave after wave of partisans into the old Northwest?

They're not overly dangerous, but it's kind of annoying to lose 3 or 4 rail lines a turn because West Tennessee or Arkansas "partisans" are traveling into central Illinois.

[DaemoneIsos]

I think a single gunboat can stop their river crossings.

[slimey.rock]

There's really not a whole lot you can do as far as engaging them. The best course of action is to clean up their wake and, like DaemoneIsos said, attempt to stop river crossings. The problem used to be a lot worse in 1.13b. Now, because of cohesion loss, I don't see raiders as nearly a big of threat anymore.

[LSSpam]

There's really not a whole lot you can do as far as engaging them. The best course of action is to clean up their wake and, like DaemoneIsos said, attempt to stop river crossings. The problem used to be a lot worse in 1.13b. Now, because of cohesion loss, I don't see raiders as nearly a big of threat anymore.

A single gunboat stops crossings? Thought it took 8 elements

[soundoff]

There's really not a whole lot you can do as far as engaging them. The best course of action is to clean up their wake and, like DaemoneIsos said, attempt to stop river crossings. The problem used to be a lot worse in 1.13b. Now, because of cohesion loss, I don't see raiders as nearly a big of threat anymore.

Just shows you different strokes for different folks. Me I hate 1.14. I'd rather have raiders rampaging over all of the continent chewing up rails at will than have the current situation where depots are virtually impervious to attack until 63 so players now have little need to worry about garrisoning key locations early or mid game.

[W.Barksdale]

Just shows you different strokes for different folks. Me I hate 1.14. I'd rather have raiders rampaging over all of the continent chewing up rails at will than have the current situation where depots are virtually impervious to attack until 63 so players now have little need to worry about garrisoning key locations early or mid game.

+1

[LSSpam]

Just shows you different strokes for different folks. Me I hate 1.14. I'd rather have raiders rampaging over all of the continent chewing up rails at will than have the current situation where depots are virtually impervious to attack until 63 so players now have little need to worry about garrisoning key locations early or mid game.

We're playing with the new draft rules. As Union I don't get a "draft" until 1863, so that's less of an issue (in regards to not having to furnish manpower for garrisons in central Illinois. Which is ridiculous anyways).

I certainly garrison my forward depots (like Bowling Green, Columbus, Springfield, Rolla, etc) and can't imagine why that'd change.


Beyond which it, simply, doesn't make any sense whatsoever to have a "partisan" unit pop up in Northern Arkansas, cross the Mississippi river, and tear up railroads near Chicago.

If the confederate player wants to send a cavalry raiding force (ala Morgan) and risk it, fine, but free units that can't be brought to battle and the CSA player doesn't mind letting melt away....there's no way you think that should be part of the "strategy" of the game.

[Colonel Dreux]

Just shows you different strokes for different folks. Me I hate 1.14. I'd rather have raiders rampaging over all of the continent chewing up rails at will than have the current situation where depots are virtually impervious to attack until 63 so players now have little need to worry about garrisoning key locations early or mid game.

I like 1.14 better, but I raid much less often. No more hurrying along to Grafton or Cairo to blow up those depots. Plus I want to play a long game and want the Union to stay in the game as long as possible, so I hold back.

[LSSpam]

I like 1.14 better, but I raid much less often. No more hurrying along to Grafton or Cairo to blow up those depots. Plus I want to play a long game and want the Union to stay in the game as long as possible, so I hold back.

See I defended those early on.

I'm not talking/complaining about fullscale raids (i.e. 3 or more calvary regiments, a brigade or more of infantry) it's those darn partisan units you cant bring to battle for the life of you.

If you want to risk 20 manpower on a raid, go for it. I think the reward (blown depots and rail lines) should justify the means.


But sending free partisan units that you cant block and (by definition of "free") have zero risk attached is just annoying. It's not that they're really overly disruptive, it's just incredibly a-historical and therefore a personal nuisance to me.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[runyan99]

No the game does a poor job. Instead of a few concentrated raids by famous cavalry leaders, as you site Lensman, the most common tactic used in game instead reflects what the original poster complains of; namely a large number of small indepentent raiding units. The ability to pull this tactic off turns the game into Vietnam.

There is far too much command and control flexibility for regimental sized units.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[arsan]

I think things have definitely improved with 1.14.
At least small raiding parties will have to go back soon for lack of supply or starve.
I think a gunboat line on the front line rivers to block most of the raid should help a lot with LSSpam problem.

Still, against a PBEM opponent that "gamey" raid and destroy rails up to the Canada i guess the best is to pact a house rule like single units raiding allowed only on border states or something like this.
Regards

PD: GL, is not loyalty instead MC what now affects the possibility of blowing standalone depots??
IMHO is not so bad. I think i even like it more as it limits still more the gamey raiding deep in enemy territory.
And in any case, stand alone depots are pretty uncommon...

[MrT]

When a region has high loyalty to the other side it can still be captured with cavalry arsan, which for me is quite a nice feature... people would celebrate there "liberation'' even if it was only for for a few hours.

Otherwise yes its all about the MC.

[Lew]

just sends wave after wave of partisans into the old Northwest?

1. Block the Ohio with gunboats. If I remember correctly, you'll need 4 combat elements per river province, which mass-building of gunboats (and brigs if you run out of gunboats) will most easily satisfy. 2 units of gunboats/brigs = 4 elements.

2. Invest only smallish resources in playing wack-a-mole against raiders. Try about 10 cavalry elements in penny-packets to cover KY, OH, IN, and IL. Some repair rails, some try to get lucky with partisans. Use the cheap kind of cavalry. Beware wintertime weather and running out of supply.

3. MOST IMPORTANT: Take the fight to the enemy - don't let him bog you down with raiding! Conduct your own raids. Lots of them. Saturate the region south of the front line with cavalry, partisans, sharpshooters, and even militia and tear up as much rail as you can. Your objective is to keep temporarily shutting down the rails between Virginia and Tennesee and - ideally - between the eastern, central, and western Confederacy.

Rotate units to allow some to resupply and others to keep up the harassment. A well-supplied, well-guarded seashore depot in AL, LA, MS, or GA can send out hordes of raiders into the Deep South relatively safely.

When, and only when, you've torn up so much rail that your opponent starts seriously suffering and (ideally) beginning to whine, suggest a new house rule.


As for the game balance issue:

I entirely agree with you that this is an exploit. Partisans need a supportive population and they're not getting it in the Old Northwest. Most partisans also like to work near their homes and are lousy at force-projection.

In the real war, a small, indifferently-led Confederate force operating north of the Ohio would be quickly caught by the local militia and sent packing or even forced to surrender. The same would happen to any ad-hoc Union bands operating far south of the front line.

Opinions differ on what limits on raiders players should accept over and above what the game already imposes, but it's abundantly clear that ACWI needs some help from self-disciplined, fair-minded players to recreate the conditions of the war as they really were.

[LSSpam]

Wrong. I suggest reading some good Civil War history books or at least Shelby Footes' 3 vol. narrative.

I've read them. I strongly suggest reading my post and actually addressing it.

Forest and Morgan disrupted Rail traffic for most of the war in Kentucky/Tennessee especially Forest. So much so, that there were several attempts to launch deliberate reprisal tactics against them especially Forest, but Sherman was never able to completely stop Forest no matter how much he tried to push his sub-commanders to do just that.

The game does a darn good job of allowing these tactics against RR lines themselves and if it's a nuisance to you imagine how much of an historic nuisance it was to Sherman and Grant.

This has nothing to do with anything I posted. Your response is obtuse in the extreme.

[LSSpam]

My point is that at no time during the rework process was it ever comtemplated to restrict the destruction of RR lines themselves since it was an historically documented behavior.

I can't believe you fundamentally cannot grasp the basic premise being presented. Let me try again, with bold letters to make it explicit


Using free partisan units, with no associated cost to losing them and no ability to bring to battle that ostensibly are raised in response to Union aggression in Arkansas, to ride across the Mississippi and tear up rail lines near Chicago and Indianapolis is not remotely historical.


We're not discussing Forrest's or Morgan's concentrated cavalry forces riding in Kentucky in Tennessee. We're not discussing disrupting and raiding of forward depots and supply lines in hostile territory. We're not even discussing the use of organized forces with some associated "risk" attached riding as far as New York city if they can get there.


It's the a-historic use partisan units ostensibly raised due to Union presence in specific regions to exploit their nature (free and unable to be stopped) to do a-historic damage to rail lines deep in Union territory.

The closest thing to that in history was Quantraills raid on Lawrence Kansas which

1) Included over 400 partisans to even accomplish

2) Couldn't even be recognized in game terms because there was no depot to be burned there and he didn't destroy any rail lines

The "wave" nature of partisan units, that at any given time the CSA can have 3 or even more "Tennessee" or "Arkansas" partisan units operating central Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio makes it even more ridiculous.

And if you think that's historical I can only strongly suggest you re-read the books you named and understand the qualified difference between Morgan hugging the Ohio river with 2,000 organized CSA cavalrymen and 40 Ozark Partisans destroying multiple rail lines near Chicago.

[Franciscus]

Yes, "auto"-raised partisans should be restricted to the state of origin, IMHO. Maybe for AACW 2...

[James D Burns]

but then you are talking about a new design with significant design changes, something that can't really be addressed within the current game design.

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

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[arsan]

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

Very interesting ideas!
I would definitely add them to the AACW2 Wish list thread!

[Colonel Dreux]

See I defended those early on.

I'm not talking/complaining about fullscale raids (i.e. 3 or more calvary regiments, a brigade or more of infantry) it's those darn partisan units you cant bring to battle for the life of you.

If you want to risk 20 manpower on a raid, go for it. I think the reward (blown depots and rail lines) should justify the means.


But sending free partisan units that you cant block and (by definition of "free") have zero risk attached is just annoying. It's not that they're really overly disruptive, it's just incredibly a-historical and therefore a personal nuisance to me.

No, I agree. The few times I've played as the U.S., not even talking about partisans, raids have been carried out by Jackson, J. Johnston, and others to Philidelphia and New York City. I was like what? Raids with brigades of infantry no less too. Never would have happened. Now if a 60000 army were to end up in Philly, I can see that, but a small several thousand command force, not so much.

[LSSpam]

No, I agree. The few times I've played as the U.S., not even talking about partisans, raids have been carried out by Jackson, J. Johnston, and others to Philidelphia and New York City. I was like what? Raids with brigades of infantry no less too. Never would have happened. Now if a 60000 army were to end up in Philly, I can see that, but a small several thousand command force, not so much.

Well I anticipated much of that early on (1861). I kept large forces in Grafton and Pittsburgh in particular and only stripped them down partially when I captured Winchester and finally mostly (but still leaving decent garrisons) when I completely cleared the Shenandoah. If the CSA wants to risk the forces, I think they should be able to. The key point is there has to be an associated risk. Sending brigades of infantry that deep should, against an appropriately cautious USA player, result in their destruction and a negative cost/benefit.

It's the expendable nature of Partisans that is bothersome. Because there is zero associated cost with using them even their gnat like nuisance value is, technically speaking, in the "infinite" column of cost/benefit. Zero cost + even marginal benefit makes them "infinitely" valuable.

I agree with game mechanics which force the US player to proceed cautiously. The American Civil War should be a game of maneuver and logistics more then anything else. Again, it's the free nature of partisans and they're associated completely a-historic use that's troublesome.

[LSSpam]

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.

[cptcav]

I hope everyone that is concerned about the South conducting ahistorical raids will willing accept the same restrictions on the North. Because it is equally frustrating to have numerous Union regiments running around behind the lines.

Regards,
CptCav

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Colonel Dreux]

I hope everyone that is concerned about the South conducting ahistorical raids will willing accept the same restrictions on the North. Because it is equally frustrating to have numerous Union regiments running around behind the lines.

Regards,
CptCav

I agree, although it's not that bad in 1.14 I think. Although some smallish command forces have penetrated as far South as Chattanooga and Atlanta well before Bowling Green or Nashville were taken.

[Lew]

Also I have learnt a new annoying tatic the union can use, board cavs onto ships, park ship in deep south river unload cav, reload cav, cav gains new food, repeat. Thats quite gamey Barksdale quite gamey.

First test this to make sure you can use this trick, and then tell your opponent about it.

Suggest to him that he can have a exploit-fest where the best expoiter wins, or he can have a straight-up match of skill.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted