Feedback on Partisan Raids

[Q-Ball]

Not sure how others feel, but I think the Partisan Raid card is way too overpowered.

It's pretty easy, first of all, for either side to play the card. Just get a Partisan adjacent to a depot in one piece; that's it. Pretty simple really.

After that, a 50-50 chance of that card being successful

Torching the depot is bad enough; losing depots is a serious drain on resources, particularly for the Union, if you have to replace them

But much worse is the 1 NM gain. There is no reason that a player cannot successfully complete 1 Partisan Raid per turn, or even 1 per month, thereby inflating the NM. Over a 3-year period, basically your NM gain will be the total number of Partisan raid cards, divided by 2. How many does each side get? 12 a year?

The NM gain, IMO, needs to go. It's too easy to pump NM through this mechanism.

That is my opinion of the day, not sure what others think

[ArmChairGeneral]

Agree 100% on the NM gain, that should go. I like the tactical result, (removing depots). The tooltip implies that it shouldn't work if the depot is guarded sufficiently; maybe the definition of sufficiently should be examined more closely.

Some cards need work in terms of game balance IMO. Some are overpowered (sea-mine anyone?) others are essentially useless (telegraph and road).

[Keeler]

Some are overpowered (sea-mine anyone?) others are essentially useless (telegraph and road).

Sea mines should a) be changed to "River Obstructions" which damage organization and have a small chance of removing one element b) take two turns to be deployed c) have a Clear River Obstructions counter card along the lines of Demonstrations/Counter-Intelligence.

[GraniteStater]

Started a thread about Cards in general.

[GraniteStater]

losing depots is a serious drain on resources, particularly for the Union, if you have to replace them

Not a serious drain after the Union gets Up & Running. What's a full Supply Unit? 24 warm bodies? Not that big a deal. In the later Union stages, even by mid-62, People are the constraint. My last game, I did just two rounds, two choices (signatures) for Iron Works. just those, and I have ~1500 WS almost every Turn. You don't need more, afaics. $$ will come along rather nicely, if you just pay attention - Wagons are a bit pricey, but, the Union should have these funds in Petty Cash at a certain point. Wagon are among the biggest People builds, but other than that, No, I don't think losing Depots is a serious blow.

In the abstract - where & when is a different matter. Also, that's what Militia spams and 4 Cav/2 HrsArty stacks are for. Shouldn't lose too many Depots to urchins & beggars.

Would have to see what the South would need to do for the corresponding threat.

[Ol' Choctaw]

Not sure how others feel, but I think the Partisan Raid card is way too overpowered.

It's pretty easy, first of all, for either side to play the card. Just get a Partisan adjacent to a depot in one piece; that's it. Pretty simple really.

After that, a 50-50 chance of that card being successful

Torching the depot is bad enough; losing depots is a serious drain on resources, particularly for the Union, if you have to replace them

But much worse is the 1 NM gain. There is no reason that a player cannot successfully complete 1 Partisan Raid per turn, or even 1 per month, thereby inflating the NM. Over a 3-year period, basically your NM gain will be the total number of Partisan raid cards, divided by 2. How many does each side get? 12 a year?

The NM gain, IMO, needs to go. It's too easy to pump NM through this mechanism.

That is my opinion of the day, not sure what others think

I think you guys miss the point entirely!

You want to stop partisan raids? It is called troops!

Garrisons and forces to chase the buggers away. Don’t let them next to your depot. Protect your lines of communications and your supply lines.

It is not supposed to be easy and you are not always able to put every last regiment in a division and put it on the front lines.

Garrison your soft spots and keep them out. Even when it means next to something.

Most people think everything they build should be up front where it could go into battle and then get excited when raiders and partisans tare up everything behind them.

We now have auto garrisons in places but they are not dependable and they shouldn’t be.

You still need to garrison if you don’t want your stuff broken.

[ArmChairGeneral]

What constitutes enough troops? As the CSA I have been surprised at how often I can destroy Union depots that have 200-300 power stacks in the region. What is the cutoff? Athena has never used one against me, things would be more balanced if she were doing the same thing to my depots.

The tactical advantage to destroying depots is already high. I am not sure if we need NM on top of that.

[Q-Ball]

I think you guys miss the point entirely!

You want to stop partisan raids? It is called troops!

Garrisons and forces to chase the buggers away. Don’t let them next to your depot. Protect your lines of communications and your supply lines.

It is not supposed to be easy and you are not always able to put every last regiment in a division and put it on the front lines.

Garrison your soft spots and keep them out. Even when it means next to something.

Most people think everything they build should be up front where it could go into battle and then get excited when raiders and partisans tare up everything behind them.

We now have auto garrisons in places but they are not dependable and they shouldn’t be.

You still need to garrison if you don’t want your stuff broken.

I don't think I'm missing the point. My main beef that I outlined in the original post is the NM gain. This part is pretty ridiculous.

Also, I've lost depots and also torched depots with up to 15,000 or so troops in the hex. How much is enough? Way more than it should be.

It's one thing if Forrest or Wilson descend with 4000 trooopers and trash the depot; fair game. Happened in CW. But a rag tag band of partisans avoiding 15,000 troops to destroy it? And inspiring the nation to the exact same extent if, say, Norfolk falls?

The balance isn't right

[Highlandcharge]

Just a thought guys, does it matter if the garrison is inside the city with the depot?

[Ol' Choctaw]

I don't think I'm missing the point. My main beef that I outlined in the original post is the NM gain. This part is pretty ridiculous.

Also, I've lost depots and also torched depots with up to 15,000 or so troops in the hex. How much is enough? Way more than it should be.

It's one thing if Forrest or Wilson descend with 4000 trooopers and trash the depot; fair game. Happened in CW. But a rag tag band of partisans avoiding 15,000 troops to destroy it? And inspiring the nation to the exact same extent if, say, Norfolk falls?

The balance isn't right

Uh, I think you did.
If the depot is that important you don’t want partisans getting next to it.

Partisan Units are weaker than militia units. Rather than having 30 elements guarding a depot, ring your depot with units. If they can’t get next to it they can’t blow it up.

One or two regiments in a region should be enough for that.

Grant had 10s of thousands of men guarding his supply lines from Mosby’s 600. Those raids, McNeill’s raids, and Shelby’s and Forrest’s raids were inspiring.

If the enemy has partisans in your rear it is going to take a lot of troops to cover your bases.

[Q-Ball]

Uh, I think you did.
If the depot is that important you don’t want partisans getting next to it.

Partisan Units are weaker than militia units. Rather than having 30 elements guarding a depot, ring your depot with units. If they can’t get next to it they can’t blow it up.

One or two regiments in a region should be enough for that.

Grant had 10s of thousands of men guarding his supply lines from Mosby’s 600. Those raids, McNeill’s raids, and Shelby’s and Forrest’s raids were inspiring.

If the enemy has partisans in your rear it is going to take a lot of troops to cover your bases.

Isn't this an unreasonable burden for the CSA player? Union has partisans too, and should use them.

[Ol' Choctaw]

It is an equal burden to both sides. They chose to prevent it or they accept the consequences of their decisions.

It is actually harder on the CSA player because the weak areas for him have a more critical rail links than those in the Union areas.

[James D Burns]

Partisan Units are weaker than militia units. Rather than having 30 elements guarding a depot, ring your depot with units. If they can’t get next to it they can’t blow it up.

Not going to help, just put your partisan stance to green/green and give them evade combat and they can easily enter a region with just a few militia on defense, then they play the card in the next turn and move away. Even if they are unlucky and get killed in the attempt to leave, the card still gets placed. The only chance to prevent them getting to place a card would be if the militia was already in attack posture when they move into the region and that’s suicide if a sizable stack of cavalry comes calling.

The partisan card while a good concept is simply borked right now due to how powerful it is. A small unit of 30-60 men can blow up a level 4 depot with 15,000 men guarding it... please. A better result for partisans would be to allow them to destroy a certain percentage of the on hand supplies in a region, it simply makes no sense that they can destroy the industrial infrastructure in a region in just two weeks time. Perhaps an argument can be made for the small band to be able to destroy a level 1 depot, but larger depots represent munitions production and other war industries smaller than the large arsenals players can build from the ledger.

Think of dozens and dozens of small ma and pa cottage industries (blacksmith’s, bakers, etc.) spread throughout the region all tasked to create and furnish war supplies. Now imagine 60 guys sneaking in and trying to first identify them all and then trying to destroy them all in just two weeks. All this while being chased by tens of thousands of troops tasked to guard said industries. At best they might manage to intercept and destroy a baggage train or two and burn a few store houses, nowhere near enough damage to utterly wipe out all production in a region.

So in my mind allowing partisans to attack the stockpiled supplies makes sense as it’s easy to identify those as everything in the region is moving towards the storage point. Letting them destroy the infrastructure that makes all the supplies makes no sense at all, that would be a task for a far larger force, and shouldn’t even be allowed unless you have 100% military control and no sizable military opposition in the region.


Jim

[GraniteStater]

Persuasive points - I wasn't thinking about the bigger depots in CW2 when I commented above. A strong candidate for a change in .04, I would say.

[Ol' Choctaw]

Not going to help, just put your partisan stance to green/green and give them evade combat and they can easily enter a region with just a few militia on defense, then they play the card in the next turn and move away. Even if they are unlucky and get killed in the attempt to leave, the card still gets placed. The only chance to prevent them getting to place a card would be if the militia was already in attack posture when they move into the region and that’s suicide if a sizable stack of cavalry comes calling.

The partisan card while a good concept is simply borked right now due to how powerful it is. A small unit of 30-60 men can blow up a level 4 depot with 15,000 men guarding it... please. A better result for partisans would be to allow them to destroy a certain percentage of the on hand supplies in a region, it simply makes no sense that they can destroy the industrial infrastructure in a region in just two weeks time. Perhaps an argument can be made for the small band to be able to destroy a level 1 depot, but larger depots represent munitions production and other war industries smaller than the large arsenals players can build from the ledger.

Think of dozens and dozens of small ma and pa cottage industries (blacksmith’s, bakers, etc.) spread throughout the region all tasked to create and furnish war supplies. Now imagine 60 guys sneaking in and trying to first identify them all and then trying to destroy them all in just two weeks. All this while being chased by tens of thousands of troops tasked to guard said industries. At best they might manage to intercept and destroy a baggage train or two and burn a few store houses, nowhere near enough damage to utterly wipe out all production in a region.

So in my mind allowing partisans to attack the stockpiled supplies makes sense as it’s easy to identify those as everything in the region is moving towards the storage point. Letting them destroy the infrastructure that makes all the supplies makes no sense at all, that would be a task for a far larger force, and shouldn’t even be allowed unless you have 100% military control and no sizable military opposition in the region.


Jim

Sure! The alternative would be killing the partisans and requiring 20,000 to 50,000 man garrison in each state to cover all of those cottage industries.

I am not the one who thought up the partisan card and it could be done better but weakening them further I don’t think is the answer either.

They have been nerffed to the point that they can’t destroy rail lines without the use of a card. An ambush with them is suicide and the ambushed player recovers the losses in the next turn.

Players think the whole darned army was on the front lines when more than a third of it was in the rear on guard duty.

Mosby doesn’t tie down 50,000 men. McNeill is not even in the game, Partisans can’t tare up 200 miles of track in Missouri in a week. They can’t sneak into a region and capture your leaders. Even though they had to constantly evade larger forces to do their work it is seen as over powered.

Yes, depots were mostly wagon yards and open air warehouses. They seldom produced anything but they add flavor and needed supplies to the game. I guess there is no way a few guy could set fire to anything like that.

By the way, they can only take one level from a depot. Regulars or Cavalry can’t touch the big depots, only capture them.

I don’t know how many troops are enough to keep them out. That is likely set too high but instead of looking to change that everyone would rather they just go away and be nerffed again.

Great Plan! Just keep playing my side wins and get rid of the headaches. Right?

[Ace]

Not sure how others feel, but I think the Partisan Raid card is way too overpowered.

It's pretty easy, first of all, for either side to play the card. Just get a Partisan adjacent to a depot in one piece; that's it. Pretty simple really.

After that, a 50-50 chance of that card being successful

Torching the depot is bad enough; losing depots is a serious drain on resources, particularly for the Union, if you have to replace them

But much worse is the 1 NM gain. There is no reason that a player cannot successfully complete 1 Partisan Raid per turn, or even 1 per month, thereby inflating the NM. Over a 3-year period, basically your NM gain will be the total number of Partisan raid cards, divided by 2. How many does each side get? 12 a year?

The NM gain, IMO, needs to go. It's too easy to pump NM through this mechanism.

That is my opinion of the day, not sure what others think

You have made some solid arguments. Guard troop numbers needed to lower the card success rate may be too large. Pocus knows actual odds. And the morale boost may be too large as well. The morale boost should not happen on every successful depot burn. At least the card was envisioned to have two rolls for success, one for burning, and then if successful one for NM gain, with different odds for each one.
Historically, CSA did receive morale boost after successful raids, but I agree it may be too much if 1 NM is gained for every depot burned. The guerilla warfare was an important part of Southern strategy. Do you have some suggestions how to portray its importance differently?

EDIT:

I saw you mentioned NM impact for loosing/taking cities being too low. I could not agree more. NM change from objective capture and from battles needs to get buffed up IMO, especially if balanced with small scale things like burning a depot. Why would a partisan burning a depot give higher NM boost than Forrest taking the depot by force and burning it the turn after.

[James D Burns]

Great Plan! Just keep playing my side wins and get rid of the headaches. Right?

No one is advocating that, I clearly stated larger formations should be the ones who burn down the depot when they have 100% control. That would put the focus of destroying depots squarely on the shoulders of Forrest and the like instead of tiny 60 man groups. Let the tiny bands of men live off the land and burn up supply, just don’t let them destroy any infrastructure, for that larger formations make far more sense.

Just because a card was created to destroy depots doesn’t necessarily mean that is the best solution. In fact in practice I think it is a bad idea, since when you try and justify what is occurring it makes no sense.

Get rid of the card and let depots get burned by regular military formations. Turn the partisans bands into what they should be, nuisance units that give you Intel deep in the enemy rear and harry your rear area supply stocks. The fact they are so tiny means they should easily be allowed to live off the lands like they did in past titles and they should be all but impossible to catch. The fact they made them so uber powerful with the ability to place destruction cards is probably why they now require regular supplies and die of starvation if they stay in enemy territory more than a couple of turns.

Jim

[minipol]

That actually sounds like a good idea. These small units should be less powerful, but harder to catch and always be able to live of the land.

[Ace]

I think burning GS/ammo supplies (similar to what raiders do when they pass through regions on evade combat stance), not depots, is a good idea. Also I would like theirs' success rate tied down to region loyalty, as well as their ability to live off the land. In fact, I would make them suffer from attrition (hitpoint hits) if they venture outside loyal areas(<20-30%). Theirs' ability to cut rails should be increased through partisan ability in loyal areas. +1NM boost should happen occasionally, not every time. I would like to know how garrison troops influence success chance as well.

[soundoff]

On the issue of garrisoning I have a great deal of sympathy with Ol' Choctaws view. Trouble is I cannot see a way around the problems without creating a game that not many want to play. I doubt that many players actually garrison anything as they ought to do or would have been done historically. Its not only depots. Its the way invading armies can waltz into say Memphis and waltz right out again the next turn without leaving a single unit behind to guard/quell. The destruction of depots is problematic because of the 14 day period to accomplish. Once you see an enemy force appear on a depot you know you have 14 days to react when often the insurgents cannot hang around for that length of time. Most unlocked units automatically get funnelled to the front but I see no way of stopping players from doing this.......not and retain a very entertaining game.

My favoured solution (although not ideal) would have only regular formations able to destroy depots but alongside that I'd have the game coded so that if a depot was not permanently garrisoned by say a minimum of 2500 troops that it would degrade automatically over time and completely disappear within 4 turns (2 months)

[Ace]

Sherman left almost noone behind to guard/quell. He simply marched onwards.

Simpler thing would be to have partisan card low chance of success if the depot is guarded by large number of troops. If it is guarded by a full division, I would wish for it to be very small success chance for depot burning.

[soundoff]

Sherman left almost noone behind to guard/quell. He simply marched onwards.

The fact that Sherman did it does not invalidate the concept that it was and is not the usual done thing in warfare, Civil War or otherwise. Of course if you could adopt Shermans actual policy of scorched earth and destroying everything in your path then I'd agree that there would be no need to guard/quell. Trouble is in the game when a structure is captured the invading side usually need to use it.

[James D Burns]

What the game needs are garrison brigades similar to fortress troops used in other titles. Large immobile brigades that stay with their depot and are not allowed to leave that region. They should appear automatically on any depot (conscripts should be auto-deducted every time they appear), and they should automatically reappear a turn or two later if they get destroyed somehow.

But unlike auto-garrisons that spawn when enemy units enter a region, they should be on map and subject to attrition at all times. The cost in attrition hits players would need to buy replacement chits for should mitigate their addition to the game I would think, and it would keep players from putting 100% of their conscript points into front line troops.

Jim

[Citizen X]

Funny thing, as a player who mostly plays the South I don't have the impression that the cards are overpowered, neither raids nor seamines. As it were in 1.02, the South was so far behind in capability, that it seemed, that the creative way to use the cards seemed the only way to even things out a bit. Now, as it is beefed up I don't know. I had wished for the South provided with just a bit more money gain and twice as much raid cards. The NM hit might be a bit hefty when more cards are in play but that can be altered for haveing, let's say, a 25% check. Although NM gain is not such a big deal as the game tends to melt 100+ figures down quite quickly.

At least against the Union rebels I had good experience to hunt them down with cavalry. Great chance of success. This might be different the other way around.

Roads and telegraphs are far from being useless, as are the other developing cards. As the Union you can effectively use them to threaten a CSA flank that is mostly held by wilderness, rather than troops. Like Arkansas, West Virginia or New Mexico.

Some cards have odd concepts at first glance, like Habeas Corpus raising loyalty, but think it a bit different, name it Propaganda and substitute loyalty with open support (for the ooposite cause) they make much more sense, while still having the same effects.

I agree that there are things sometimes, that are potentially gamebreaking, for everthing else there's creativity. Those cards belong in the second category. Especially the raid cards, that nearly perfectly model the concept that an advancing army needs to guard their lines of communication. (Sherman is a very special case here, as he took enough supply with him, rigorously lived off the land and finally reacjed a seaharbour that could resupply him. His march didn't aim at keeping ground, but destroy industries. He effectively lead a gigantic raiding party, rather than an army).

Thus I say, give me more of them.

[Ol' Choctaw]

The only reason I can see that partisans have become so very impotent is player complaints. They just want to be secure without doing anything at all.

Now how historic is that?

Did they destroy depots? Yes. All they had to do was slip in and set fires. If it was unguarded they took all they could and burned the rest.

Did they blow up bridges and wreck rails? You bet they did.

Were they always successful? No but if there are no enemy troops in a region there was nothing to stop them.

Simply tie the success rate to the patrol values of the units in the region. This means no garrison, no problem, small garrison a decent chance, major garrison slim to no chance. Regions with about 20 patrol points should be 90 or 95% safe from partisans doing damage to infrastructure. Just maybe a threat of ambush.

You don’t need a corps sized element to protect them, which may be part of the problem now. Having a relative idea of how much is safe would help.

Partisans were a serious nuisance to both sides. They held a lot of units off the front lines. If there had been no garrisons they would be a threat to supply lines.

If a player has decent garrisons there should be little chance of partisans doing serious damage.

I agree with Ace that regional loyalties should also play a part.

But all this said, how do you code it. The algorithms! Remember those? Likely why it is in a card and not coded into the units.

A lot of that is going to depend on what our Devs have time for and what can reasonably be expected.

Making them weaker, yet again, is not what is needed. Knowing roughly how many units make a region safe is more in order.

[John S. Mosby]

The only reason I can see that partisans have become so very impotent is player complaints. They just want to be secure without doing anything at all.

Now how historic is that?

Did they destroy depots? Yes. All they had to do was slip in and set fires. If it was unguarded they took all they could and burned the rest.

Did they blow up bridges and wreck rails? You bet they did.

Were they always successful? No but if there are no enemy troops in a region there was nothing to stop them.

Making them weaker, yet again, is not what is needed. Knowing roughly how many units make a region safe is more in order.

Agree 100%.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Setting aside the realism and over/underpower issues for a second, I have a couple of comments on how I use partisans, the Partisan Raid card, and raiding in general.

I rarely use the Raid card in actual "raids." I am usually use it to destroy depots that are directly supplying troops in contested areas, making it harder for the enemy to stop me on the front lines. The usefulness of this will change once we get a handle on how many troops it takes to stop a Partisan Raid an/or adjust the percentages. I am regularly burning depots out from under 300 power stacks in places like Springfield MO, Lexington MO, Salem IL, Dayton OH or Morgantown WV (I play CSA). This often causes Athena to pull back a lot of power from the neighborhood giving me local superiority. In other words, I am not using them deep in her back lines, but using them in or around objectives that I am actively trying to take, in order to force her to trim her defense to match the available supply infrastructure. Without depots she cannot recover hits and cohesion as quickly, and of course can't replace elements. As to the historicity or "gamey-ness" of this approach, I can't really say, I'm just using the tools available in the best way I see.

Partisans themselves are weak and sad units that evaporate at the first whiff of the enemy. BUT, if you put a couple of cav and a HA in a stack with a partisan, the stack becomes a fearsome raider with lots of special abilities that can pillage, destroy supplies, tear up tracks and even survive occasional contact with the enemy, plus it gets the cav's 5 detection, so is actually useful for scouting. (Rangers are even better than cav for this if you have them in-theater, although only 4 detect). Quantrill thus outfitted becomes a really useful leader that noticeably affects outcomes in the theaters he participates in. Again, probably gamey and ahistorical, but....

I find deep raiding (trying to actually destroy stuff, not just scouting) to be of limited usefulness, no matter the force composition. Sure, I can destroy tracks, etc., but eventually I lose the whole stack when they get in a fight and can't make it back to safety and supply because of low cohesion from the battle. It does make Athena chase her tail a bit, but not enough to justify the direct and opportunity costs. "Close raiding" on the other hand is vital. Tearing up the tracks, scouting, establishing MC and blocking retreats around my current target bring immediate and noticeable tactical advantages, allowing me to take objectives more quickly and easily and trap defeated stacks with more success. They stay in supply better and can make it safely back to a nearby strong point if they get into trouble, and get attacked less in the first place since an objective city threatened by multiple divisions can ill afford to pull troops out of the trenches just to chase after a couple of cavalry. (And all the better if they do!)

Athena so far (1.02, patching today) has done a poor job of using the Partisan Raid cards in any manner, and this may be one reason people think the card feels unbalanced.

[Citizen X]

Partisans themselves are weak and sad units that evaporate at the first whiff of the enemy. BUT, if you put a couple of cav and a HA in a stack with a partisan, the stack becomes a fearsome raider with lots of special abilities that can pillage, destroy supplies, tear up tracks and even survive occasional contact with the enemy, plus it gets the cav's 5 detection, so is actually useful for scouting. (Rangers are even better than cav for this if you have them in-theater, although only 4 detect). Quantrill thus outfitted becomes a really useful leader that noticeably affects outcomes in the theaters he participates in. Again, probably gamey and ahistorical, but....

I merely only play PBEM and tried this composition but found it a bit too much. I have a unilateral houserule of not having more than just one stack of that kind and have all other partisans run around alone.

Other than that I totally agree with the post.

[Pocus]

I think auto-garrisons was a good move to tone down deep raiding.

For the partisan card, I'm surprised you can burn depots with 300 combat power, normally the script should be much more difficult here. Are others confirming?

About Athena and the playing of RGDs, there is a possibility to teach her to play them much better, by scripting (no code involved here), but so far we did not had the resources for that. If a volunteer want to step in, we can explain him how to do so. You must have a good analytical mind, a sound experience of ACW/CW and you are at ease editing an excel file (this is the only tool needed here, this is not a developer job but more of a modding job)

[Ol' Choctaw]

LOL!

I can Not confirm because I have never gotten Partisan Raid or Partisan Ambush to work successfully.

But it is more my luck with the odds in the game.

I am sure it is just luck. 1% chance and succeed 40% of the time 80% change succeeds 10% of the time. Go figure.