Is there a posting somewhere from the devs on what the design philosophy was behind the regional decisions?
Some of them seem reasonable; some really add a lot to the game, but most I am dubious about.
The ones I like: build redoubt, build stockade, build depot. Build depot as a regional decision in particular is really nice. In the vast expanses of the Far West, the only way to build a depot used to be to drag a supply wagon all the way there, and you cant build supply wagons any closer than Iowa. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that a small force could gather together local materials and hire local labor to build a depot and organise the collection and distribution of supplies locally.
Then there are the ones relating to loyalty and development. It seems like the development level of a region is not important for much, except a threshold for being able to use other regional decisions there. So mostly these boil down to converting money into VPs. I suppose it is nice to be able to do that, but since both of those are global resources it would save a lot of clicking to just have a slider somewhere that lets you convert money to VPs at some perhaps diminishing rate. Other regional decisions let you convert money into loyalty, which I can sort of see, but loyalty does not seem tremendously important, and my objection here is that there are too many of them. One or two demonstrations or suspend habeas corpus in a quarter might be interesting; a dozen is boring.
Then the resource gathering ones, draft and requisitions. There is already a mechanism in the game for drafting conscripts and getting money as political options. Having draft and requisition as regional decisions seems like a lot of clicking for no real gameplay interest. Since what you pay is mostly loyalty in the region, and there are plenty of highly loyal regions far from the front, it seems like a no-brainer to just do all of these as soon as you can. So in the end a lot of clicking for no real gain in interesting player decisions.
The plunder regional decision is more interesting, as the number of times you can do it is more limited, and the cost in VPs, loyalty, etc somewhat significant (though IMO not enough since you can use other decisions to buy VPs at 1 per money, while plunder gives you money for VPs at a better rate).
Partisans and loyalists are interesting, though I wish the cost included a loyalty diminishing component. This would reflect the concept that once the gung-ho partisans in an area have gathered together and gone off to bushwack, there are fewer gung-ho partisans left to recruit next time.
I think the partisan raid and partisan ambush actions are a bit overpowered. We already have a mechanic for destroying rail, a partisan in bad terrain with a good hide value will be very difficult for patrolling cavalry to root out. Partisan attacks on defended depots however do not seem realistic to me, especially considering that you can launch them from an adjacent space.
Then there are the ones with a random chance of success that if successful grant a point of NM. National Morale is tremendously important in CW2, and players organize their strategy around trying to gain it or avoid losing it. Randomly losing or gaining a point seems destabilizing. I understand that it represents a boost that the newspapers get to print "we did something cool", but 1 point of NM is about what you get from a narrow win in a medium sized battle with 1000s of casualties, and intuitively a minefield damaging a few ships does not seem in the same scale.
The regional decisions are quite new, I expect we will see some changes as we gain experience with the new options.
What a great post. No, your discussion is new.
I actually hated all these options, until I remembered my history.
Yes, there are game mechanisms for some of the outcomes you mention. But one thing many people do not know is that almost 80% of all 'combats' were between just a few combatants. And that of all the combats, most were not recorded battles.
Partisans required more than an army's worth of troops to keep the railroad open.
I am not at all in control of all the options, but unlike the game which inspired this revision, this game allows for all the conflicts, not just the major battles.
I actually hated all these options, until I remembered my history.
Yes, there are game mechanisms for some of the outcomes you mention. But one thing many people do not know is that almost 80% of all 'combats' were between just a few combatants. And that of all the combats, most were not recorded battles.
Partisans required more than an army's worth of troops to keep the railroad open.
I am not at all in control of all the options, but unlike the game which inspired this revision, this game allows for all the conflicts, not just the major battles.
Regional Decisions vary in usefulness and fun factor, as the war goes on some stop been useful altogether as resources mount
Early on as the Confederacy I can see the need for draft and requisitions and then try to counter their side effects with the ones boosting morale and loyalty, but I don`t know if anyone has done the math to prove it`s worth it
The ones related to buildings may come handy, the rest are mostly for flavor, I tend to use the partisans and loyalist to "simulate" a kind of general uprising in some places, but that`s it
The military options I almost never use, but the landing of artillery and men from the fleet is nice to have if just for pure flavor
Development decisions are mostly useful if you concentrate in some bottleneck for a particular reason, like trying to come down from West Virginia as the Union, or trying to mount some kind of far west offensive in the wild, not particularly appealing options, and again, probably not worth it
Overall, I woudln`t scrap the whole mechanic, but it`s not the strongest aspect of the engine, since you can pretty much ignore the whole thing anyway
Personally, I would very much enjoy a decision allowing for the detachment of some men/element when in enemy territory to form small or big garrisons in towns/cities/forts, in practice this is done moving up or down militia which doesn`t seem very realistic to use the as kind of military police and it`s probably a job for regular troops as "conquerors", in some places this happens automatically, but it should be possible to do it as a military option without having to leave whole brigades/batteries behind
Early on as the Confederacy I can see the need for draft and requisitions and then try to counter their side effects with the ones boosting morale and loyalty, but I don`t know if anyone has done the math to prove it`s worth it
The ones related to buildings may come handy, the rest are mostly for flavor, I tend to use the partisans and loyalist to "simulate" a kind of general uprising in some places, but that`s it
The military options I almost never use, but the landing of artillery and men from the fleet is nice to have if just for pure flavor
Development decisions are mostly useful if you concentrate in some bottleneck for a particular reason, like trying to come down from West Virginia as the Union, or trying to mount some kind of far west offensive in the wild, not particularly appealing options, and again, probably not worth it
Overall, I woudln`t scrap the whole mechanic, but it`s not the strongest aspect of the engine, since you can pretty much ignore the whole thing anyway
Personally, I would very much enjoy a decision allowing for the detachment of some men/element when in enemy territory to form small or big garrisons in towns/cities/forts, in practice this is done moving up or down militia which doesn`t seem very realistic to use the as kind of military police and it`s probably a job for regular troops as "conquerors", in some places this happens automatically, but it should be possible to do it as a military option without having to leave whole brigades/batteries behind
-
Ol' Choctaw
- Posts: 1642
- Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:13 pm
The demonstrations and habeas corpus are powerful little RGDs. Especially early on and can make a real difference. Lots are needed because they counter each other. If the Southern player drops them on one of your major production or recruiting centers you may see their need.
Development has an effect on supply and movement. They are also there for RGDs that are not quite working yet, for what ever reasons.
Drafting is a bit misnamed, it is more like impressments, which were used from time to time and also needed in the Sibley Scenario by both sides. It is something I usually don’t use unless there is a dire emergency. Requisitions and one or two other are sources of emergency money when all else is gone.
Loyalties of particular regions can be very important. If it is too low you may not be able to raise troops or take some other actions.
Partisans are much underpowered. The raids and destroy rails are something of a compromise to make them more of a threat. Without the RGD a single partisan has only a slim chance of destroying a rail line. With it, it means that players have to provide at least some security or face the consequences. When was the last time you had 50,000 men garrisoning your rails to prevent Mosbey or Mc Neill from tearing them up? And you think these are over powered? Have you ever used 20 to 50 regiments to secure your rear areas? Grant had deployments like that and still couldn’t stop the raids.
Ambush has little chance of success, particularly if done without the card. This just simulates the lightning raid where the ambushers are less likely to be completely wiped out. The size of your garrison plays a part in all of these.
With mines, I would actually see that more taking moral from the victim than gaining it but with submarines I see it having an effect on both sides.
The outlook on the usefulness of various RGDs may depend a lot on your playing style and how you see the game.
Development has an effect on supply and movement. They are also there for RGDs that are not quite working yet, for what ever reasons.
Drafting is a bit misnamed, it is more like impressments, which were used from time to time and also needed in the Sibley Scenario by both sides. It is something I usually don’t use unless there is a dire emergency. Requisitions and one or two other are sources of emergency money when all else is gone.
Loyalties of particular regions can be very important. If it is too low you may not be able to raise troops or take some other actions.
Partisans are much underpowered. The raids and destroy rails are something of a compromise to make them more of a threat. Without the RGD a single partisan has only a slim chance of destroying a rail line. With it, it means that players have to provide at least some security or face the consequences. When was the last time you had 50,000 men garrisoning your rails to prevent Mosbey or Mc Neill from tearing them up? And you think these are over powered? Have you ever used 20 to 50 regiments to secure your rear areas? Grant had deployments like that and still couldn’t stop the raids.
Ambush has little chance of success, particularly if done without the card. This just simulates the lightning raid where the ambushers are less likely to be completely wiped out. The size of your garrison plays a part in all of these.
With mines, I would actually see that more taking moral from the victim than gaining it but with submarines I see it having an effect on both sides.
The outlook on the usefulness of various RGDs may depend a lot on your playing style and how you see the game.
If they are just for the flavour, I still want them in 
But I think that almost all of them can be brought to some usefulness. I, too, think that partisans are way underpowered and that the regional decisions make up a bit for that. What I would like to see is more dynamic in the system. Chance of mines and submarines to hit something should depend on size of the enemy and should target single ships rather then the entire stack. Success probability of raids should have loyalty in the region as a factor of calculation, as well as the depot decision.
Drafts and requisitions can be used to postpone a desperate situation as long as possible, rather to be used later. After all they speed up the building of an army as much as they might be used to maintain one.
But I think that almost all of them can be brought to some usefulness. I, too, think that partisans are way underpowered and that the regional decisions make up a bit for that. What I would like to see is more dynamic in the system. Chance of mines and submarines to hit something should depend on size of the enemy and should target single ships rather then the entire stack. Success probability of raids should have loyalty in the region as a factor of calculation, as well as the depot decision.
Drafts and requisitions can be used to postpone a desperate situation as long as possible, rather to be used later. After all they speed up the building of an army as much as they might be used to maintain one.
"I am here already.", said the hedgehog to the hare.
-
James D Burns
- Posts: 561
- Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:28 am
- Location: Salida, CA
The CSA pays 10k and plays demonstration cards the Union tries to remove as many demonstration cards as it can with counter-Intel for a cost of 25k, then the Union plays Habeas Corpus for a cost of 3 VP on the regions that take loyalty hits. Where’s the fun in that? These cards are nothing more than a massive resource drain on the Union and that’s before they even succeed or not. At a minimum the CSA should be paying at least half what the Union loses just for placing the cards.
I find these cards rather annoying and feel they add little to the game. There is no real strategy involved here, just busy work. If the CSA decides to initiate the card chain then the Union has to respond or it takes a hit, otherwise nada, zip, zilch, nothing is missing from game play if the CSA doesn’t start the card chains.
Given the heavy cost to place the counter-Intel cards, I’d say as the Union don’t bother to even respond to CSA demonstration cards unless a region gets hit with the 50% success chance. Then just take the 3 VP hit and play Habeas Corpus, but only if your regions loyalty has dropped enough to affect the regions income.
Personally I would prefer the cards were removed from the game and then just reduce the income for the Union since that is all the cards serve to do and was probably the intent of the person who created them. Forcing players to go through busy work like this adds nothing to the game and detracts from enjoyment.
If there were some strategy decisions involved that allowed both sides to affect the possible outcome of the card chains then perhaps it would be an interesting exercise. But their current implementation is nothing more than a downward income tweak that adds tons of unneeded micro management to game play.
Jim
I find these cards rather annoying and feel they add little to the game. There is no real strategy involved here, just busy work. If the CSA decides to initiate the card chain then the Union has to respond or it takes a hit, otherwise nada, zip, zilch, nothing is missing from game play if the CSA doesn’t start the card chains.
Given the heavy cost to place the counter-Intel cards, I’d say as the Union don’t bother to even respond to CSA demonstration cards unless a region gets hit with the 50% success chance. Then just take the 3 VP hit and play Habeas Corpus, but only if your regions loyalty has dropped enough to affect the regions income.
Personally I would prefer the cards were removed from the game and then just reduce the income for the Union since that is all the cards serve to do and was probably the intent of the person who created them. Forcing players to go through busy work like this adds nothing to the game and detracts from enjoyment.
If there were some strategy decisions involved that allowed both sides to affect the possible outcome of the card chains then perhaps it would be an interesting exercise. But their current implementation is nothing more than a downward income tweak that adds tons of unneeded micro management to game play.
Jim
While I agree with everyone on this post, even those with whom I disagree, the net outcome of the options is very positive.
I am sure that even though like James D Burns comment and agree, I am so annoyed by all of this busy work, it all make sense and works. I had a delightful American Civil War mentor, E. B. “Pete” Long who did a book, the Civil War Day by Day. The options in this game is the first time a Civil War game allows all of the thousands of minor actions as if they actually matter.
The real question is “are we playing at the strategic level,” Burns critique, or are we messing with every darn thing we can think of, everyone else's critique.
I am mixed. I like a clean game without complications the most. But given the complications of the options of this game, best I have ever seen.
I am sure that even though like James D Burns comment and agree, I am so annoyed by all of this busy work, it all make sense and works. I had a delightful American Civil War mentor, E. B. “Pete” Long who did a book, the Civil War Day by Day. The options in this game is the first time a Civil War game allows all of the thousands of minor actions as if they actually matter.
The real question is “are we playing at the strategic level,” Burns critique, or are we messing with every darn thing we can think of, everyone else's critique.
I am mixed. I like a clean game without complications the most. But given the complications of the options of this game, best I have ever seen.
James D Burns wrote:There is no real strategy involved here, just busy work.
While I can see you make valid points (allthough I disagree on them) this is just unfair to say. This could be said of every aspect of every game. It lies with the players to find and implement possible strategies to put use of every asset the designer gives them at hand.
For instance, with all the things loyalty can influence in the game, Habeas Corpus is more than just a reaction card. I also love the idea on putting the entire intel and guerilla aspect of the game onto a card basis. It gives the player so much more controll over what is going on.
"I am here already.", said the hedgehog to the hare.
Loyalty is crucial in this game. That aspect was missing in cw1. Regardless of csa demonstrations, US should try to use up all its habeas corpus cards because loyalty matters. When you see California producing 40 instead 30 $/trn because you increased loyalty there, you 'll start to appreciate those cards. Civil war was not about armies and battles only. It was very much about politics, censorship and loyalty of the people as well.
Using counter-intelligence is not wise - basically you spend 25 $ for csa's 10$.
Using counter-intelligence is not wise - basically you spend 25 $ for csa's 10$.
-
fred zeppelin
- Colonel
- Posts: 366
- Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:29 pm
Ace wrote:Loyalty is crucial in this game. That aspect was missing in cw1. Regardless of csa demonstrations, US should try to use up all its habeas corpus cards because loyalty matters. When you see California producing 40 instead 30 $/trn because you increased loyalty there, you 'll start to appreciate those cards. Civil war was not about armies and battles only. It was very much about politics, censorship and loyalty of the people as well.
Agreed. I think the decision cards add a nice new element to the game, one I hope can be expanded and refined over time.
-
James D Burns
- Posts: 561
- Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:28 am
- Location: Salida, CA
I wasn’t saying Habeas Corpus was a bad card, its fine and a good repair loyalty option for the game. It also goes without saying players will be using them to repair loyalty where needed. But the option to attack a players good loyalty regions was the card chain I mentioned and will be the usual chain of events players are dealing with once initial loyalty problems have been repaired early in the game.
I think a better card to make would have been one that focused on state wide loyalty (you play it on the state’s capital region) and was a long term investment (you pay every turn to maintain it) with small, slow, long term effects (each town in the state rolls every turn for possible 1 - 2 point shift).
There would be far less micro-management in a persistent card option like this. And players won’t have to remember every turn to scour the map or text messages to find if any new demonstrations have succeeded.
I like the premise of attacking loyalty via use of card options, I just don’t like the way it is currently implemented with all the micro-management. It’s really easy to simply forget about them when turns get really active or to overlook an affected region and miss the loyalty loss because the text message lines are so tiny. I guess a filter in the ledger that listed all regions by loyalty, income, military control, etc. would make things a lot easier and cut down on the micro-management time to hunt down regions that need attention.
Jim
I think a better card to make would have been one that focused on state wide loyalty (you play it on the state’s capital region) and was a long term investment (you pay every turn to maintain it) with small, slow, long term effects (each town in the state rolls every turn for possible 1 - 2 point shift).
There would be far less micro-management in a persistent card option like this. And players won’t have to remember every turn to scour the map or text messages to find if any new demonstrations have succeeded.
I like the premise of attacking loyalty via use of card options, I just don’t like the way it is currently implemented with all the micro-management. It’s really easy to simply forget about them when turns get really active or to overlook an affected region and miss the loyalty loss because the text message lines are so tiny. I guess a filter in the ledger that listed all regions by loyalty, income, military control, etc. would make things a lot easier and cut down on the micro-management time to hunt down regions that need attention.
Jim
-
fred zeppelin
- Colonel
- Posts: 366
- Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:29 pm
An old DOS game - I think it was No Greater Glory - had a nice internal political element involving quarrelsome governors and cabinet members. I think Forge of Freedom had a similar mechanic involving state governors. In both games, part of the challenge was keeping the various factions happy so that you could fight the war.
The decisions here do some of that but I'd like to see the concept expanded.
The decisions here do some of that but I'd like to see the concept expanded.
aaminoff wrote:Hm. So it sounds like folks think Loyalty is pretty valuable, for a bunch of reasons, but Victory Points are not that big a deal? So paying 3VP for Habeas Corpus is a good deal?
Develop certainly seems like a good deal, you get both VP and loyalty for very little money.
You can play develop only in wild areas, so if you wish to raise Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and San Francisco loyalty, you would need Habeas corpus. I would not play those cards in short scenarios, only in Grand campaign were increased loyalty can justify the cost.
They are, as one of you said, also for flavor purpose. And also to cover some rare aspects of the war that would not fit in a regular game rule.
About the whole demonstration/counter intelligence thing, if they are bothering you, I suggest that before starting a PBEM, you agree to not play them with your opponent. It's true that they ask for regular supervision. That they are a money drain on the Union is on purpose.
A lot of good posts. Some decisions might probably enjoy a revision also, we never said we have the Truth.
Loyalty is rather important, it boosts production of the region and provides free detection point. Normally you can't use powerful decisions altering loyalty (like draft aka Impressment
) in regions without structures, so it should hurt you to lower loyalty. not that much if we are talking of a region with a level 3 city, but still, it's a bit less supply for example. And don't try that in an industrial region, or you'll lose money and war supplies.
Development is indeed a pre-requisite for others decisions. Is it an un-needed chore? Well, it's also there to provide some historical consistency. People may have fun 'developing' wild regions before placing telegraphs or roads, they might get the sense they are 'civilizing' the land. This is not something attractive to all players, but some enjoy that.
And dev. is also providing a not un-significant boost to move speed, attrition.
Drafts might be the additional tool you need to get enough conscripts, if the big options are not enough. it really depends if you are in competitive play or if you are already rolling over your opponent. Some decisions may also have more or less importance if we are talking of the grand campaign or a scenario. But if we remove them from either the GC or a scenario, people will ask why there is no decision X in scenario Y whereas it exists in scenario Z. See?
Partisans/burn depot etc. things, they are very sensitive to enemy presence and will almost always fail if the enemy has more than a few regiments. You can hit hard the enemy in an un-garrisoned region, but you'll do zip if he protects his assets.
Decisions are just an aspect, almost optional of the game. It should be mostly there to provide flavor and also give some tools tailored to specifics situations. They are indeed not there to be the game-changing feature and should not break or make the game either. As said in a tutorial, never using them is fine and you can play CW2 without.
About the whole demonstration/counter intelligence thing, if they are bothering you, I suggest that before starting a PBEM, you agree to not play them with your opponent. It's true that they ask for regular supervision. That they are a money drain on the Union is on purpose.
A lot of good posts. Some decisions might probably enjoy a revision also, we never said we have the Truth.
Loyalty is rather important, it boosts production of the region and provides free detection point. Normally you can't use powerful decisions altering loyalty (like draft aka Impressment
) in regions without structures, so it should hurt you to lower loyalty. not that much if we are talking of a region with a level 3 city, but still, it's a bit less supply for example. And don't try that in an industrial region, or you'll lose money and war supplies.Development is indeed a pre-requisite for others decisions. Is it an un-needed chore? Well, it's also there to provide some historical consistency. People may have fun 'developing' wild regions before placing telegraphs or roads, they might get the sense they are 'civilizing' the land. This is not something attractive to all players, but some enjoy that.
And dev. is also providing a not un-significant boost to move speed, attrition.
Drafts might be the additional tool you need to get enough conscripts, if the big options are not enough. it really depends if you are in competitive play or if you are already rolling over your opponent. Some decisions may also have more or less importance if we are talking of the grand campaign or a scenario. But if we remove them from either the GC or a scenario, people will ask why there is no decision X in scenario Y whereas it exists in scenario Z. See?
Partisans/burn depot etc. things, they are very sensitive to enemy presence and will almost always fail if the enemy has more than a few regiments. You can hit hard the enemy in an un-garrisoned region, but you'll do zip if he protects his assets.
Decisions are just an aspect, almost optional of the game. It should be mostly there to provide flavor and also give some tools tailored to specifics situations. They are indeed not there to be the game-changing feature and should not break or make the game either. As said in a tutorial, never using them is fine and you can play CW2 without.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
At the moment raising development value of the land gives little to the player. Given the fact that money is relatively scarce, what do you say about proposal to give slight bonus to money production for Rich and Civilized regions, and slight penalty for Wild regions.
For example, if the gold is mined in the wild region of the Colorado, if there were roads and infrastructure in the region, more gold could be mined in real life. As is it now, there are very few incentives for the player to use land developing cards.
For example, if the gold is mined in the wild region of the Colorado, if there were roads and infrastructure in the region, more gold could be mined in real life. As is it now, there are very few incentives for the player to use land developing cards.
-
James D Burns
- Posts: 561
- Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:28 am
- Location: Salida, CA
This idea makes me nervous. There were not huge nationwide development projects underway during the civil war. Putting a mechanic into the game to tempt players into doing them just to get more use out of some cards is a dangerous precedent. I say stick to history. I can see it now, players spamming half the west with development cards and by the end of the game it’s all civilized or rich. Something like that is totally non-historical and wasn’t even possible in the time frame of the war.
I like the notion that you need development cards to simulate building in a road to an area or something to unlock other cards that require a minimum level of development before they can be played. Making them an integral part of the economy and a way to increase overall resource incomes though is going too far I’d say.
I would like to see the chance of spontaneous Indian uprisings whenever a development card (or any other card that simulates building something in Indian lands) is played out west. If successful they would decrease the development level in the region they attack and burn down any structures.
Jim
I like the notion that you need development cards to simulate building in a road to an area or something to unlock other cards that require a minimum level of development before they can be played. Making them an integral part of the economy and a way to increase overall resource incomes though is going too far I’d say.
I would like to see the chance of spontaneous Indian uprisings whenever a development card (or any other card that simulates building something in Indian lands) is played out west. If successful they would decrease the development level in the region they attack and burn down any structures.
Jim
I get the point. I doubt the far west in the game would get civilized that easily - there are not enough cards. But, you are saying why are we civilizing it in the first place - this is civil war, no need for far west developing action. You are right, there is no need to emphasize their use now. Development cards are here mostly for flavor. Where they could be more appropriate is eventual Indian wars scenario. There development of the region could be the goal, and enemy Indians could be there to twart US plans.
-
aaminoff
- Corporal
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 5:36 pm
- Location: Beverly, MA, USA
- Contact: Website
one thing many people do not know is that almost 80% of all 'combats' were between just a few combatants. And that of all the combats, most were not recorded battles.
Partisans required more than an army's worth of troops to keep the railroad open.
This is a fair point. However, I don't think the current system does a good job of modelling this.
One issue is that partisans (as opposed to raiders) are really very local. They move through the civilian population like fish through water (paraphrasing Mao). It is nonsensical history to imagine taking Mosby and sending him by rail to Missouri and having him do the same stuff he was doing in the Shenandoah Valley; but in the game you can do that. You can even take a partisan, put them in with your corps, and advance into highly loyal enemy territory, then execute the partisan raid/ambush actions just as well. This makes no sense. It also makes no sense to me that you can give orders to partisans the way you can to your regular troops. This is not 1943 when members of the resistance all over Europe listened to coded messages from the BBC like "Aunt Mary has a new shawl" which directed them to do something; I doubt Mosby or Quantrill ever got much in the way of specific orders from Richmond.
My suggestion would be to get rid of partisans as units entirely, or at least remove their special abilities. Instead, let there be regional decisions "partisan attacks" which could be launched in any territory with some minimum amount of loyalty, and the chance of success increases with loyalty and decreases with the amount of enemy troops stationed there. So effectively an invading force has to leave forces in every space along the rail line.
-
Ol' Choctaw
- Posts: 1642
- Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:13 pm
Missouri, Arkansas, and Kentucky were partisan playgrounds.
For a while Arkansas was almost exclusively defended by partisans. They turned the Army of the Southwest away from Little Rock and it contented themselves with taking Helena.
The Partisans did coordinate with regular troops. When Price went on his 64 Raid he gathered more than 6000 in the state and moved with his army doing all the things partisans do. Foolishly he also brought them back with him, leaving little resistance behind in Missouri. Mosby moved with Stuart on a number of occasions but undertook special tasks on others.
McNeill started out in Missouri and went to West Virginia and formed a partisan unit that lasted longer than he did. His son took it when he was killed.
Partisans should be more effective in areas of higher loyalty, that is true. Quantrill got himself killed in Illinois. But partisans could and did combine for raids, work with regulars, etc.
The best defense against them is to garrison your towns and rails and not keep every unit at the battle front as you point out.
But partisans are rally rather underpowered and do not pose the threat to communications and rail networks they did in the war, or you would see 50,000 man garrisons in rear areas and it would be a chore to keep men at the front.
For a while Arkansas was almost exclusively defended by partisans. They turned the Army of the Southwest away from Little Rock and it contented themselves with taking Helena.
The Partisans did coordinate with regular troops. When Price went on his 64 Raid he gathered more than 6000 in the state and moved with his army doing all the things partisans do. Foolishly he also brought them back with him, leaving little resistance behind in Missouri. Mosby moved with Stuart on a number of occasions but undertook special tasks on others.
McNeill started out in Missouri and went to West Virginia and formed a partisan unit that lasted longer than he did. His son took it when he was killed.
Partisans should be more effective in areas of higher loyalty, that is true. Quantrill got himself killed in Illinois. But partisans could and did combine for raids, work with regulars, etc.
The best defense against them is to garrison your towns and rails and not keep every unit at the battle front as you point out.
But partisans are rally rather underpowered and do not pose the threat to communications and rail networks they did in the war, or you would see 50,000 man garrisons in rear areas and it would be a chore to keep men at the front.
-
fred zeppelin
- Colonel
- Posts: 366
- Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:29 pm
aaminoff wrote:My suggestion would be to get rid of partisans as units entirely, or at least remove their special abilities. Instead, let there be regional decisions "partisan attacks" which could be launched in any territory with some minimum amount of loyalty, and the chance of success increases with loyalty and decreases with the amount of enemy troops stationed there. So effectively an invading force has to leave forces in every space along the rail line.
I like this idea. The partisan unit is a holdover from AACW, which didn't have the decision mechanism of CW2. I like the idea of using the latter to handle partisan activity.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests