Raiding

[ohms_law]

Is anyone willing to write some sort of walkthrough about how you manage raiding? Especially as the CSA.
Every time that I try to do some sort of raiding, my units are frustrated by auto-garrisoning and, ultimately, starvation. I've come back to the conclusion that it ends up being a waste in the long run, but I feel as though I must be missing something!

[ArmChairGeneral]

If someone does, this would be a good subject for a Wiki entry which could then be corrected and expanded on by others. I don't do a lot of deep-raiding myself because my cav are busy doing other things, but am also interested since some have reported successes with it. Deep raiding in CW2 is very different from AACW.

[ohms_law]

Absolutely.

[Mickey3D]

Don't forget that a turn is two weeks : do not expect to send your raiding party on a several turns long trip. The best you can achieve is with foot partisans because they have 4 supply points and consume 1 per turn (if this is right when your partisan is operating in friendly territory, it should change [I know it's not possible] to 2 SP per turn when in ennemy territory : you can easily find support in friendly towns and villages, this is no more true when raiding ennemy States).

There is some sites (sorry I don't remember the game name of this kind of location at the moment) that are not cities or forts and you can use to supply your raiders. By example there is one of them in the region just North-East of Cairo (sorry I'm not in front of the game).

[ohms_law]

"just North-East of Cairo"... I don't know.

[ATTACH]30833[/ATTACH]
Woodlands in the Elizabeth, IL province? Or maybe you're referring to the farmlands in Vincennes?

[Mickey3D]

Sorry, I meant North-West

The site is Chester. You have the same on the East of Cairo : Metropolis.

[ohms_law]

ok, thanks. "Settlement" then. I seem to recall them still auto-garrisoning, but I may be wrong. I'll find out soon enough!

[Merlin]

I generally engage in four types of raiding: Spoiling, Short range reconnaissance-raiding, Mid-range raiding (most common), and Deep raiding.

Spoiling

Partisans are great for this, as are rangers, Watie's Cherokee, and Indians in general. The primary goal is to harass an opponent's immediate rear as well as pillage and use the Destroy Rail RGD in front of an advancing enemy force. This type of action doesn't require more than single units, and often doesn't require leaders. Units should be set to B/G/Evade Combat. Extremely effective in the Western Trans-Mississippi, Territories, and Lower Trans-Mississippi.

Reconnaissance-Raiding

The goal here is to gather information on partially concealed forces, and tear up the occasional rail. This is never more than a 2-3 turn project and rarely more than 2-3 regions into enemy territory. Units should be less than half to a full division in strength and commanded by a general with high initiative and good raiding traits; the fast movement, cavalryman, ranger, forager, and most importantly, adept raider traits are all useful and important to survival. Forrest, Mosby, Grierson and Sheridan are all excellent raider leaders. Units should be set to B/G/Evade Combat. Most players should occasionally engage in this type of activity in every theater, and Stuart's rides around the Army of the Potomac are good real world examples.

Mid-range Raiding

This is what most players think of when raiding is mentioned. The goal of mid-range raiding is to tear up rails and create chaos. Again, this is generally a 2-3 turn project, but can be multiple regions behind enemy armies. This type of activity should never be attempted without high initiative generals with the very fast movement and at least one other raiding trait. Force size is generally one full cavalry division with horse artillery. Units should be set to B/G/Evade Combat unless targets of opportunity present themselves. ROE should never be set higher than blue. Players should avoid assaulting garrisons unless desperate.

Deep Raiding

I've never had an opponent do this to me, though I tend to do it at least once a game when playing as the CSA. The objective here is to destroy everything your raiding force can get its hands on. This is generally a multi-month operation deep (5 or more regions) behind enemy armies. Never attempt this with less than a full cavalry corps of at least three divisions complete with horse artillery, and all three should be led by the absolute best raiding leaders available to you. A typical CSA deep raid will see Forrest, Mosby, Quantrill (under Forrest) and Hampton. The best way to accomplish a deep raid is to quickly push into enemy territory and start ripping up rail. After the first turn, split your forces, tear up more track, and by the third turn, recombine for an attack on a depot or town in the actual target region. Depots are obviously preferred targets and will often completely resupply both GS and ammo. Maintain the raid as long as possible, leaving at least two turns of uninterrupted riding to get back to friendly territory. Units should be set to B/G/Evade combat when destroying track, and R/O or even R/R when hitting depots and towns.

Additional advice:
Never, ever raid in bad weather. Never use less than the best for leadership. Never intentionally engage in combat unless the odds are lopsided. Beware of Gatling guns; they eat cavalry. Never use your full movement allotment, unless it's the first turn entering enemy territory. Don't head for the most logical regions; keep your opponent guessing.

[ohms_law]

Excellent!
Now I'll have to try some of that out.

Does B/G/Evade combat mean "Defensive Posture" (D hotkey)/"Retreat if Engaged" (shift-P hotkey)/Evade combat button (self explanatory)?
What about using passive posture? I saw someone mention that elsewhere, I think.

[Merlin]

Yes. Passive posture gives a combat penalty, so don't use it unless you know you won't be fighting.

Note also that units set to evade under superb raider leaders like Jo Shelby can breeze right through enemy-held regions as long as enemy MC is less than 90% when they do it.

[ArmChairGeneral]

A standard convention when posting about AGEOD games is to use the first letter of the button color for the posture/orders abbreviations: B/R = Blue/Red = Defend/Hold at all costs; R/B =Red/Blue =Assault/Conservative Attack etc.. This makes it clear exactly what orders you mean in a concise way, and without overlap. It has the added benefit that many non-native english speakers know the english words for the colors and letters do not get changed unrecognizably by text translators.

(Abbreviation Conventions needs to be a Wiki topic....)

[ohms_law]

Yes. Passive posture gives a combat penalty, so don't use it unless you know you won't be fighting.

Note also that units set to evade under superb raider leaders like Jo Shelby can breeze right through enemy-held regions as long as enemy MC is less than 90% when they do it.

Ah, good tips there!

A standard convention when posting about AGEOD games is to use the first letter of the button color for the posture/orders abbreviations: B/R = Blue/Red = Defend/Hold at all costs; R/B =Red/Blue =Assault/Conservative Attack etc.. This makes it clear exactly what orders you mean in a concise way, and without overlap. It has the added benefit that many non-native english speakers know the english words for the colors and letters do not get changed unrecognizably by text translators.

(Abbreviation Conventions needs to be a Wiki topic....)

Seems reasonable, but I've seen other conventions used.
If that's what everyone wants to do, then I'm fine with it.

[ArmChairGeneral]

G/G/Evade does give a good chance to evade combat altogether, which I would use if I had a tiny scouting force like a partisan or a one or two element cav stack: no matter what their orders they will get wiped out if a brigade or larger force engages them, so better to avoid in the first place. For larger stacks like Merlin is talking about (cav divisions and hallf-divisions) B/G/Evade is better since they will survive an encounter anyway, G/G will inflict needless extra casualties on yourself.

ohms_law:
Perhaps I should have said a common convention rather than standard.

Merlin:
Great stuff!

[ohms_law]

Are there opportunities to raid in 1861 or 1862 at all?
I suppose that there's always a reason to use "spoiling" and "recon".

[ohms_law]

Are Confederate Ranger units (described as "Raiders" in the unit panel) useful for raiding?

[Captain_Orso]

Capturing a location with <50% friendly loyalty requires either at least 1 Late War Cavalry or 1 Infantry element.

Starting with Early June '62 the both sides will start upgrading Early War Cavalry elements to Late War Cavalry, with the Union having a much greater probability of of selecting elements for upgrading. By '64 the South will nearly catch up.

Once captured a location--fort, city, harbor/settlement, etc--within a region with <50% loyalty, if left ungarrisoned, will revert to being "uncontrolled" with all the affects associated with that, such as not giving VP's.

[ohms_law]

Good idea, Captain_Orso. Let's make this thread a clearinghouse of relevant information (with a goal of putting it into the wiki, eventually).

So, as the Confederates, I tend to make it one of my goals to clear out the stockades in Indian Territory, Kansas, and further west. This seems to be a useful task for Rangers early on. Does anyone have any thoughts, comments, or criticisms about that?

[Merlin]

Are there opportunities to raid in 1861 or 1862 at all?
I suppose that there's always a reason to use "spoiling" and "recon".

Yes. Your early raiding is the Confederate equivalent of Federal coastal fort-busting. It doesn't really accomplish much, but it sure promotes people quickly.

Are Confederate Ranger units (described as "Raiders" in the unit panel) useful for raiding?

Very much so. I don't know why, but they seem to pillage nearly every non-civilized region they enter. They're also extremely fast and pack a decent punch. They're the kings of spoiling.

Good idea, Captain_Orso. Let's make this thread a clearinghouse of relevant information (with a goal of putting it into the wiki, eventually).

So, as the Confederates, I tend to make it one of my goals to clear out the stockades in Indian Territory, Kansas, and further west. This seems to be a useful task for Rangers early on. Does anyone have any thoughts, comments, or criticisms about that?

Union Athena doesn't really care, and her territorial raiding assets are relatively weak. You can certainly play around in the IT, but burning down CO, KS, and MO is a lot more fun and productive. A powerful ranger force can even take Golden and hold it for a while, if a few extra dollars is worth your time.

[ohms_law]

I always seem to be short of cash in '62 anyway, so a few extra dollars is definitely worth it.

ps: I think that Athena does care, after a fashion. She seems to send a lot of cavalry out west to try to stomp my raiders...

[Mickey3D]

So, as the Confederates, I tend to make it one of my goals to clear out the stockades in Indian Territory, Kansas, and further west. This seems to be a useful task for Rangers early on.

+1

They (rangers) are also good at scouting and very fast.

[ArmChairGeneral]

And they (Rangers) cost 0 command points, which is handy.