Commerce Raiders / Posture?

[Heldenkaiser]

I would think this ought to have been asked before, as it's not in the manual, but I can't find it anywhere on this forum either ...

In sending commerce raiders in the shipping box, does posture make a difference? I suppose they ought to be on offensive to attack shipping, but then they will also attack the USN escorts, which isn't the idea ... so maybe they can be on defensive (or even passive?) and evade combat?

Thanks!

[arsan]

I would think this ought to have been asked before, as it's not in the manual, but I can't find it anywhere on this forum either ...

In sending commerce raiders in the shipping box, does posture make a difference? I suppose they ought to be on offensive to attack shipping, but then they will also attack the USN escorts, which isn't the idea ... so maybe they can be on defensive (or even passive?) and evade combat?

Thanks!

Hi!
Inside the boxes posture don't matter at all for engaging in combat or not.
It seems a different system is used there to check if there is combat or not. Probably something regarding the evasion and patrol values of the ships (just guessing here )
So its recommended to put the raiders, runners or any other ship there on defensive so no cohesion is lost every day.
I have no idea if the evade combat special order works here or not. But i always use it on my runners or merchants there just in case
By the way, the posture does count on the way from the boxes to ports and back.
CHeers

[W.Barksdale]

I wouldn't bother raiding Union shipping. The damage done to their resources is marginal, however, your oppurtunity cost is comparatively large. Those resources can be put to better elsewhere.

[enf91]

"Opportunity cost"? Is someone here an economist? But yeah, he's right. The North has so much native WS and money production that the few dollars or WS sunk won't make much of a difference. 2 or 3 extra dollars or WS for the South, however, is a greater comparative difference. Plus, there are 2 blockade boxes, so it's easier to smuggle.

[Heldenkaiser]

Hi!
So its recommended to put the raiders, runners or any other ship there on defensive so no cohesion is lost every day.

Thanks! -- Why not passive?

[arsan]

Thanks! -- Why not passive?

Mmm... don't know.
Probably it works just as good, but it gives no cohesion advantage on the boxes so it has no benefit compared to defensive IIRC.
And i'm not 100% positive it does not have some bad effect on the engagement results...
Regarding the raiders, yes i doubt they are cost effective to build them, but well, you have to do something with the few frigates you get for free as the CSA

[Franciscus]

(...)
I have no idea if the evade combat special order works here or not. But i always use it on my runners or merchants there just in case
(...)
CHeers

I also am not sure, but I usually leave also my raiders with evade orders ON, to try and avoid battles with USA battleships - and they will continue "raiding" US shipping even so. Unless I am completely mistaken, of course

[Heldenkaiser]

Mmm... don't know.
Probably it works just as good, but it gives no cohesion advantage on the boxes so it has no benefit compared to defensive IIRC.

I thought so they can get away better when being attacked by US warships?

In blockading coastal or river waters, I believe you need defensive, not passive, as the latter does give count for the blockade ... but in the boxes, if just being there is enough?

[Jim-NC]

Personally, I always put my blockade runners on passive. I still get money/WS flowing in from them.

As to raiding Union shipping, the removal of money is not worth it, but the removal of transports (if you can) is worth it. They also supply those pesky union outposts (Ft. Pickens, etc). You can starve a union amphip assault by removing the sea bourne supply route.

[W.Barksdale]

As to raiding Union shipping, the removal of money is not worth it, but the removal of transports (if you can) is worth it. They also supply those pesky union outposts (Ft. Pickens, etc). You can starve a union amphip assault by removing the sea bourne supply route.

I dream of a CSA player spending resources to do this!

[slimey.rock]

Whenever Southern raiders and the Union shipping fleet exchange hits, the transports are the last ships to recieve any damage, so you would have to destroy all of the escort frigates first. And the Union always has more escorts than the South has commerce raiders...

[Heldenkaiser]

Whenever Southern raiders and the Union shipping fleet exchange hits, the transports are the last ships to recieve any damage, so you would have to destroy all of the escort frigates first. And the Union always has more escorts than the South has commerce raiders...

Surprisingly it seems to work without actual combat. I have two raiders in the shipping box and this turn reportedly they "have sunk merchant ships worth 3 War Supply".

[Franciscus]

Surprisingly it seems to work without actual combat. I have two raiders in the shipping box and this turn reportedly they "have sunk merchant ships worth 3 War Supply".

AFAIK that's exactly how it is supposed to work. When you place raiders in the US Shipping box you are effectively raiding US commerce, and you usually receive someting every turn. The problem is when US battleships go to the Shipping box. That's why I put my raiders with evade orders - they are raiding merchant ships but avoiding battle

[arsan]

"have sunk merchant ships worth 3 War Supply".

Take this as just as an "interesting" way of telling you that your riders are doing damage to the USA (worth 3WS lost for the USA in that turn).
Th sunk merchants are just flavor merchants, not real enemy units. Its just a way to explain the USA WS loss.

[Heldenkaiser]

flavor merchants

[slimey.rock]

Like Barksdale and Enf mentioned, it's better for the CSA to get 1 WS than it is to take 1 WS away from the Union.

[DaemoneIsos]

I don't know much about CSA commerce raiders. Did they strictly seek to destroy? I would have thought that privateering would have been the draw (seizure being preferable to destruction, and profitable). Was that not militarily feasible, or was it a cultural issue, or maybe something else going on?

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

I would think that if no other country recognizes the CSA as a "valid" nation, then privateering would be seen as piracy and punishable by all. But then again, CSA raiders were able to put in to neutral ports. So what do I know...!

[DaemoneIsos]

The "neutral" powers are key validators. I am presuming the destruction the CSA raiders are wreaking is on USA-flagged vessels only. After all, the French will be upset whether you steal their goods or just sink them!

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

In reality, an overeager USA naval officer attacked a CSA raider docked in a neutral port--Brazil, I think. An international incident ensued. Per Lincoln and His Admirals. A must-read book for those interested in the naval aspect of the war.