Reasons Why the West and Far West Matters

[Straight Arrow]

It has been stated on this forum that there is no reason to be fighting in the Far West or even in the West.

I can think of several most excellent reasons to spend time and energy in the West.

1st - Western involvement is historical; can you image the political cost to Lincoln of writing off ½ of the northern states and focusing only on building a blue steamroller in the East? He would have been impeached.

2nd - The small battles, the maneuvering, turning the sky black with smoke from burning stockades and scrambling for supplies in MO, TX, AZ and NM is fun.

3rd – And most importantly, the Far West can be a rich source of NM from destroyed units. It's much easier to kill a unit in a small garrison or army. And small garrisons and armies are all you have to work with in the Far West.

If the North loses 20 NM for Manassas and not being within 2 areas of Richmond, what good will a steamroller do if your NM is in the mid-70 range and the South's is in the mid 120's?

Because of NM modifying, the numbers above will produce a 25% increase in CSA NM effects! Think of it, you will be facing a 25% increase in combat power as well as the advantage of defending and good leadership.

NM leveling? Forget it if the South keeps killing small, auto spawned garrisons in West, you won’t be able to climb out of the hole.


So yes, I believe there are excellent reasons to fight in the West and Far West. If you don’t believe me, try playing a game against a player with an active western style, someone like Cardinal Ape. And then you too can learn the futility of throwing low NM armies against your foe.

[Rod Smart]

2nd:
I find the open-ness of Missouri/Kansas/Oklahoma, and managing the supply situation of the Far West much more fun than the Eastern massive wall of strength, and the slow methodical march through Kentucky/Tenn

[DrPostman]

Against Athena I always go for the gold field near Denver. The CSA needs that
gold!

[Cardinal Ape]

Maneuvering out west can be great fun. It is one of the only places you can get a chance to use the 'ambush' special order to good effect.

As the CSA if you send Stand Watie those two cavalry brigades of four elements from Virginia as soon as possible you can get a full cavalry division ready for October of '61. Once Forrest gets his own cavalry division and starts to work in tandem with Watie is when the real pain is unleashed.

In general cavalry divisions can have a hard time fighting against infantry divisions, but that is not so much the case out west as the union rarely sends their high quality forces out there. Watie and Forrest can put up a good fight against those sub-par western divisions. The hits inflicted on the combat report will often seem even - its when the enemy retreats that Forrest and Watie inflict a serious amount of extra hits in pursuit. Even if your attack fails it is highly unlikely that your cavalry will get encircled and destroyed. If Forrest can't get away than no one can.

I just wish that I had enough resources and that my opponents gave me the time to properly outfit all of those good CSA cavalry commanders with their own cavalry divisions. Some of them always get left out, I feel bad for the poor guys.

[BattleVonWar]

I love the Far West, it's maneuver warfare ... BlitzKrieg City

[Gray Fox]

As an advocate of the Eastern strategy, here is what the plan is about...and not about.

1st - Fortify one entrenched mostly militia Division in St. Louis, Cairo, Evansville, Louisville, Cincinnati, Ashland, Parkersburg, Wheeling and Pittsburgh. Use a flatboat to contruct a depot in any of these cities that lacks one. Destroy all other depots west of Pittsburgh and east of the Dakotas. This should be completed in 1861 and would secure those Union states. A reserve stack of Union Divisions would be a reaction force to any Southern army trying to march through the midwest during the winter of '61/'62. The Union should still aim for VP parity, but the real fight is in the east.

2nd - With historical attrition on, small pointless battles all over the map add up to a large hole in your replacement bucket.

3rd - Vacuuming up garrisons seems like an exploit to me. I'd rather aim for the 50 NM value of the CSA capital.

I have an Army ready in the east that can get near Richmond in time, so I don't lose 10 NM for that. By summer 1862, my NM is 100. Also, 2 points of NM over 100 equals one point of increased production, cohesion etc. So 125 NM for the South would be 12.5%, not 25%. The South won't have that lead for long, since Richmond is worth more NM than all the western objectives combined. The eastern strategy concentrates on what is most important to the exclusion of what is not.

Guderian said, "Don't poke it with your finger, smash it with your fist!"

[veji1]

As an advocate of the Eastern strategy, here is what the plan is about...and not about.

1st - Fortify one entrenched mostly militia Division in St. Louis, Cairo, Evansville, Louisville, Cincinnati, Ashland, Parkersburg, Wheeling and Pittsburgh. Use a flatboat to contruct a depot in any of these cities that lacks one. Destroy all other depots west of Pittsburgh and east of the Dakotas. This should be completed in 1861 and would secure those Union states. A reserve stack of Union Divisions would be a reaction force to any Southern army trying to march through the midwest during the winter of '61/'62. The Union should still aim for VP parity, but the real fight is in the east.

2nd - With historical attrition on, small pointless battles all over the map add up to a large hole in your replacement bucket.

3rd - Vacuuming up garrisons seems like an exploit to me. I'd rather aim for the 50 NM value of the CSA capital.

I have an Army ready in the east that can get near Richmond in time, so I don't lose 10 NM for that. By summer 1862, my NM is 100. Also, 2 points of NM over 100 equals one point of increased production, cohesion etc. So 125 NM for the South would be 12.5%, not 25%. The South won't have that lead for long, since Richmond is worth more NM than all the western objectives combined. The eastern strategy concentrates on what is most important to the exclusion of what is not.

Guderian said, "Don't poke it with your finger, smash it with your fist!"

yuck ! To each his own but I would hate to play you, to me 80% of the fun is steeped into history and if not roleplaying, feeling inmersed in the game as an open ended reenactment of the civil war !

[dinsdale]

As an advocate of the Eastern strategy, here is what the plan is about...and not about....

Guderian said, "Don't poke it with your finger, smash it with your fist!"

Thats a really interesting strategy. How do you prevent the Confederates from amassing 100k troops in Richmond and turning it into Verdun? I haven't played many games, but the only way I have been able to make headway in the east is when the Confederacy is chasing me around in TN, LA and GA.

I've also found it's really nice when McCullogh heads into Kansas with 40k troops. He can be bottled up there with a relatively small force, while I get to Vicksburg in 1862. It's a bit of work, but it splits the enemy in the Northwest zone.

[Stauffenberg]

Maneuvering out west can be great fun. It is one of the only places you can get a chance to use the 'ambush' special order to good effect.

As the CSA if you send Stand Watie those two cavalry brigades of four elements from Virginia as soon as possible you can get a full cavalry division ready for October of '61. Once Forrest gets his own cavalry division and starts to work in tandem with Watie is when the real pain is unleashed.

Playing CSA if the US Houston variant trigger happens in Texas--I take this as the starting gun for an enhanced West campaign--at least I did in the original ACW: I have not tried it yet in ACW2, but the vastly extended map out west is begging for action.

I would try to get a CSA Army command out west under Sydney Johnston asap with a couple of stellar divisional commanders like Forrest and Shelby with a two-element supply train for each, plus a 4-element in the main army stack with whatever other divisions you can put together--be sure to get one 20 lber or even a columbiad in there somehow.

This would also tie in well with a "Mississippi First" CSA strategy I played a number of times in pbem. Basically you are attempting to retain control of the Mississippi far into the late game as much as possible with enhanced riverine units, beefed up forts with coastal arty builds. This will stand on its head the Union assumption that the CSA will always defend Virginia to the death. You do put in a very strong defensive effort in VA of course, but the main idea is to delay the Union awareness that you intend to fall back on the Mississippi line, including moving your capital west as well.

I'm looking forward to trying this.

[Gray Fox]

Mickey3D allowed me to demonstrate the eastern strategy in an AAR last year. It was my first PBEM and about my 4th game ever. We had a lot of fun, but college pre-empted my effort.

[charlesonmission]

In my PBEM AAR on YouTube against Ironclad, I was the CSA and spent a lot of time out west. Taking and holding Tuscon, Denver and the gold mines at Pike Peek. There is a lot there for the CSA just as there was historically. I think the CSA gives it up at their peril.

[Straight Arrow]

So 125 NM for the South would be 12.5%, not 25%.

Gray Fox's math is correct.

The correct numbers are a negative 12.5 % NM effect for the Federals at the mid 70 NM range and a positive 12.5% effect for the South in the mid 120 NM range.

The end result of combining these two in combat is a 25% difference in combat power.

[Gray Fox]

That would be true, except that I would have 100 NM by summer 1862 as the Union.

[BattleVonWar]

Charles, I will not knock your opponent as I'm a fast learning Newbie. Though he let you do all this... My current Union opponent has 10k in combat power in Tennessee and I do not mean backwater Divisions. The West is a sideshow without any value to it when you need to block this force with about as much as any CSA can build 4-5k in power(lower quality units and artillery)

Weaker players will allow a person to storm the West at their leisure but stronger players can defend that too, same opponent has 2k out west and no CSA player can attack against those odds. It's a sideshow yet it is about half the map and the gateway through Texas/Missouri and Arkansas. There simply is not enough troop builds for the CSA to compete there...

Meanwhile this is with 2 to 1 parity the Eastern Theater and I am very very clever at building fast.. I mean I'm a industrious little CSA Player. 2 to 1 vs the Union by '62 is a requirement in the East to to prevent a collapse.

The West would be lovely but it does not get used.

In my PBEM AAR on YouTube against Ironclad, I was the CSA and spent a lot of time out west. Taking and holding Tuscon, Denver and the gold mines at Pike Peek. There is a lot there for the CSA just as there was historically. I think the CSA gives it up at their peril.

[FightingBuckeye]

I'm sure you meant 1-2 in the East as I would be facing quite a few headaches if you outnumbered me 2-1 in VA.

And yes the Union player did not play a great game. But both players were completely new to the CW2 map and both made some mistakes. I've played the map quite a bit vs Athena and some human opponents and I still make quite a few mistakes.

That would be true, except that I would have 100 NM by summer 1862 as the Union.

And see this is a problem in my opinion. I don't fault the strategy as within the current game engine this is a valid and potentially very deadly strategy. However, I think this is an unintended consequence to the what the developers probably wanted. There is not enough out West to really entice a Union player in that direction short of wanting to stay true(r) to history or because they feel like it's an enjoyable experience to wage multi-faceted campaigns in NM, MO, TN, KY, etc.

The Union can be absolutely passive for the first 1-2 years of war and still see their NM get up to 100 without a sweat. It just doesn't feel right IMO and it's completely against history. Sure, we get those events in VA to try and push the Union's plodding armies forward. But other than that why does the Union have to do anything but sit back and build up while waiting for their good generals?

There's no real downside to adopting an all or even just heavily Eastern campaign for the Union. In the real world, the Union generals and politicians would be absolutely crucified and war support would quickly fall to nil if they chose to abandon swaths of Kentucky, Ohio, Kansas, West Virginia, etc to CSA raiders or allowed armies to march where they pleased in the western theater. I don't think that farm boys from Ohio would feel like soldiering in Virginia when their families' farms were being put to the torch. Do you think that citizens in say Dayton would understand and think, well we're not really an important and vital city so there's no point in Federal troops defending our city, livelihood, or life. Representatives from those states would've cried bloody murder screaming for Federal troops to defend their states. Virginia rightfully is a big fat juicy target for any Union invasion(s). But should this come at the cost of the rest of the CSA or to leaving the western states undefended except in key cities?

You can't really greatly change the VPs for the cities out in the western states too much. As it stands, the VP balance is pretty realistic. I think it accurately captures which cities were important and also how important they were to both sides. You can't add extra industry out west or remove industry from the east in an attempt to entice greater Union attention out West without running into the same problem of it's not realistic to do so.

As a possible fix, NM for both sides should be tied with how many states are occupied or free. For each CSA state that is free of Union troops,the CSA NM normalization point should increase by a corresponding amount. There would have to be minimum amount of troops, say 5K, and at least one settlement or city would have to be occupied. Another point would be added to the NM normalization point for each Northern state(s) that the CSA maintains a presence in with the same minimum limits as above. The Union NM normalization point would also lose one NM point for each Union state that the CSA maintains a presence in. And finally, it would lose a point to the normalization point for each CSA state it doesn't have it's own presence in.

For example, if the North met the conditions in occupying parts of Virginia, Louisiana, and Tennessee but didn't have a strong enough presence elsewhere then the CSA NM normalization point would be 100+8 while the Union's would be 100-8 (For N. & S. Carolina, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Georgia, Arkansas, & Texas). Additionally, the CSA has at least 5,000 troops in both Kentucky and Missouri while occupying at least one city in each for an additional two points to the NM normalization point for the CSA and another two points subtracted from the Union's point. The total change for the above example would leave the CSA's NM normalization point at 110 while the Union's has dropped down to 90.

This would make it harder to the North to just sit back and let their NM creep up while building for major offenses in 1863. A Union player could still wait for '63, but they'll face a steeper hill if they want to go that route. It should encourage greater Union aggression despite shortcomings in its leadership earlier. And it should better reflect the actual impetus that the North faced in dealing with the Southern states.

[Cardinal Ape]

Gray Fox is the general the northern press wanted. Onto Richmond with a laser-guided sledgehammer. I enjoyed the All Eastern AAR. To me it proved that such a strategy is rather weak. It may work, but allowing the CSA to focus on one front is too big a boon to them. I prefer many little hammers all across the board - stretch them until they break.

Obviously one does not want to neglect the east in favor of the west. I'm not advocating an all western strategy by either side. As a matter of personal connection and preference, I know I invest more in the west than others might. I can not idly sit by while Stand Watie is in my arsenal...

As the CSA, finding some early game success with minimal resource investment is critical. Thankfully, as the CSA, one can pose a fair threat in the west without much investment. The CSA receives a decent amount of free cavalry and horse artillery. Rangers don't cost WS. You don't need to build much to get three highly mobile divisions out west. They have the prefect generals for them too. For me its really not about taking land, its more about making the Union bleed unwanted resources.

I feel a successful Western strategy for the CSA centers around stalling the theater with a minimal amount of resources. Defending the area with entrenched infantry and artillery is not practical. You can turn the area into a long slog for the Union by using well-led mobile forces to strike at back line supplies and to pick off any small forces. Forrest with experienced cavalry can win against an equal force of poorly led conscripts. On occasion I have used the all out attack ROE with Forrest in an attempt to achieve a rout. When it works the fleeing force will get massacred. If it fails, good luck trying to catch him with his 85% evasion chance while on the move back to safety.

As a side note, I think constant early game fighting favors the CSA. The reinforcement bleed slows the Union war machine while taking advantage of Confederate ability to regain hits in the field twice as fast as the Federals.

Also, I don't recall getting any morale from defeating auto-garrisons.

[1stvermont]

Noob far west question.


playing as CSA do you guys see it as a good idea to give a "fast" mobile supply wagon with a division of Calvary under a forrest or watie?

thanks.

[Cardinal Ape]

Putting a supply wagon with a cavalry division will slow it down. Forrest should be living off of captured Union supplies if possible.

[BattleVonWar]

Amen Brother,

if my ancestors in Ohio would have had Confederate Raiders running through Toledo and others in Buffalo there would have been hell to pay. I remember when I was a boy watching a historical fictional cartoon movie about how a housewife in Pennsylvania felt when Lee's Army came on through. The feeling of lonely loss and sorrow.

It is difficult for people to fathom today the totality of War in that era. NM% may have a random up and down factor depending on the situation as things evolved. Whilst hinging everything primarily on several very large Virginia or programmed events now is nice. They force a trench grudge match for '61 and '62 that really doesn't go anywhere for two equal opponents. We have lost 20k each in Virginia and gained what? 2 provinces, swapped on and off?

Indeed you do not have a 2vs1 advantage locally but regionally you have a nearing advantage if I count the Carolinas... Certainly you make up for that with your new Kentucky and Western Outfits :P Not just, but your troops are quality. Your leaders are = and mine? Well, dead Jackson and lots of volunteers!

[1stvermont]

thanks as always, but it unit description it says supply wagon "fast", if i am correct that was same as forrest units i had with him.

[BattleVonWar]

Put Forest on his own with Cavalry or any Fast Moving/Cavalry Commander. Then attach a Supply Wagon..and direct it, see the time frame required to get there. Then remove it... The Wagon is not mounted horsemen, they maybe have what? 100 lbs of gear if that on their horses. Perhaps several days food/ammo. Perhaps horses with more in tow. Now a wagon train of food and ammo plus support equipment... That is not going to go move very fast. Faster than men on foot? I would say but mounted men will move and even hunting for a wild hog or game takes time...slowing the Cavalry element. That or stealing food..

thanks as always, but it unit description it says supply wagon "fast", if i am correct that was same as forrest units i had with him.

[FightingBuckeye]

1stvermont,

It's never a bad idea to have a source of supply nearby. But those cavalry forces the CSA can use and abuse depend on speed. Speed to strike deep before the North can effectively defend and then speed to get out before a counterstroke comes in. And those wagons will slow you down. However, ammo can be a huge problem in the Far West as the only source are those stockades that produce 1 ammo a turn.

Your troops really only carry enough ammo for two battles. If you're aiming for say the Colorado gold fields, your force could be turned back simply because they ran out of bullets before they ran out of targets. And it's too easy to capture a stockade and end up with having spent more ammo taking the damn thing then you get for capturing it. You could send your cavalry out and maybe send a wagon with a small escort to meet up later at a halfway home point. Better than running out of ammo or having to run all the way home to stock up on ammo.

Gray Fox is the general the northern press wanted. Onto Richmond with a laser-guided sledgehammer. I enjoyed the All Eastern AAR. To me it proved that such a strategy is rather weak. It may work, but allowing the CSA to focus on one front is too big a boon to them. I prefer many little hammers all across the board - stretch them until they break.

It's not just Gray Fox. I know that there are several Union players that will wait until '63 before really budging much, even if they do a balanced attack once the juggernaught starts. I know I'm tempted to just sit back and wait for my NM to reach 100 without me lifting so much as a finger. It's tempting to wait for Grant, Meade, Reynolds, Sherman, Thomas, & Co to show up. It's tempting to wait until your economy really kicks in as your NM improves and you get more transports to the shipping box. But the press would be howling if the US generals just sat back and waited and waited and waited.

Shoot, we all know generals got sacked because they sat back and waited instead of moving forward. And as things stand, there's not much reason for the North to really start fighting until later. There's nothing to punish a late and crushing campaign. And in real life either the CSA could've gotten foreign recognition and intervention or maybe the peace movement in the North could've really taken off.

The only other thing I could think of would be for multiple events that really ding the Union if they don't meet the criteria. Except instead of a specific target, give a selection of targets. It could be something like control 3 out of these 7 regions by such and such date. So the South can't just defend one location knowing the Union can't take Manassas and will lose 10 NM. Or maybe it could go off of casualties; you must have inflicted so many casualties by this date. I know I'm getting a little off topic though. I just figured my suggestion could help solve both the problems of the US just sitting back and the lack of focus in the western states some players have.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Great comments all, nice to see fresh thinking applied to this subject.

The CSA must at least make some progress in NM and VPs to give itself some extra oomph against the eventual Blue Wave heading to Richmond, and forcing the Union to spend resources on replacements and troops to "hold down the fort" in the West is all to the good. On the Union side, a successful invasion of Tennessee (for example) at the right moment can deal a serious logistical, NM and resource blow to the CSA that can help snowball the eastern offensive to final victory. It can be very difficult to actually finish off an opponent in this game. After the automatic victory threshold changes, capturing the capital is not necessarily enough to put you over the top, so the extra NM has to come from somewhere.

It is well known that while the Union has almost every advantage, it can be difficult to bring to them bear until later in the game, especially in the East. Assuming equal play, the Union SHOULD win by turtling for the first half of the war. However, while the Union can do anything it wants, it can't do everything it wants. Although it is far from being the only path to victory, Fox's laser focus on Richmond is sound advice for most of us: it is all too easy to get distracted as the Union, committing too many resources to putting out fires and not enough on the main goal.

For my part, I like to put a lot of focus on the West because it is just so darn fun. The East, though it is the decisive theater, can be pretty boring and static in a lot of games compared to the Wild Wild West.

[ArmChairGeneral]

FightingBuckeye,
Another approach to accomplishing the same goal could be to reduce the rate of NM smoothing for the Union to reflect domestic unhappiness if progress is not made. I played a couple of games once with Ace's mod, (which turns off the effect entirely for both sides) and liked the feel of the games, but found that no NM recovery at all was too much of advantage as the CSA against the Union AI. Can PBEM games use a mod? Playing without autobalancing might make for an interesting game if the Union player were willing to give up that advantage.

[DrPostman]

I like using RgDs for Partisans and Copperheads to take forts and cities that
have no defenders in them up to and close to Denver. They at least keep
Athena distracted from my slow moving steam roller. You can also use Rangers
to gain most of the same before the Union forces are unlocked. That gold near
Denver comes in handy.

[Gray Fox]

Once again, this is what the eastern strategy is and what it is not.

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?35519-Full-Campaign-Mickey3D-(CSA)-vs-Gray-Fox-(Union)

I don't know who these Union players are that don't attack until 1863, but I certainly am not one of them. I attacked with Grant toward the CSA depot in Strasburg in December 1861. I continued to attack from that point on...in the east.

I mentioned destroying all the depots in the midwest that I didn't have garrisoned by an entrenched Division. So Forrest and his raider friends can eat dirt. I also know why a reserve exists. A Union Corps on rails moves faster than a CSA force moving through low MC regions in harsh weather. I am sure that the inhabitants of Dayton watching the slaughter of graycoats in search of wintercoats would have felt like the freed slave in Gettysburg who watched Pickett charge across his farm field.

The actual two strategic plans to conduct the war developed by Lincoln's political cabinet were the Anaconda Plan...and the "fortify the border and attack in the east" plan. The press didn't like either. Fortunately, Lincoln was President and not the press. So it is possible for the player to choose a strategy that RP's an actual historical choice and not pretend that Memphis is more important than Richmond.

[Cardinal Ape]

I don't know who these Union players are that don't attack until 1863, but I certainly am not one of them. I attacked with Grant toward the CSA depot in Strasburg in December 1861. I continued to attack from that point on...in the east.

That is why I called you the general the Union papers wanted. I imagine you attack in the east earlier than most. I used your advice to capture my first capital - you know what you are doing.

By only focusing on one objective you are inadvertently increasing the defense of that objective. Don't you think in your all eastern strategy that threatening another objective like Mobile or Charleston would force the CSA to sacrifice Virginia defenses in order to not lose it?

Scorching everything west of Pittsburgh is doing Forrest's job for him - it is basically telegraphing your grand strategy. Also, Forrest wants you to chase him with a reserve force in harsh weather, he knows how to bust rails too.

I admire your skills Gray Fox, but I think your eastern strategy could be spiced up a bit with some deception and surprise. I think at this point with how much you have advocated such a strategy that if you pursued a strategy that had nothing to do with D.C. or Richmond you would catch your opponent completely off guard and roll right over him. Considering that foxes are known for their cunning I wouldn't be surprised if your AAR was a grand trick!

Thanks for talking strategy. Its fun.

[Gray Fox]

The eastern strategy would work really well against players who are expecting a repeat of history. When I posted it in the forum, the strategy was a controversial surprise. Actually, it still seems to be. Fortifying the new border with the CSA and attacking Richmond was a viable, historical strategy that just was not taken. It's not a perfect plan and reflects my biases. I believe that "Attrition Strategy" is an oxymoron. Butchering 600,000 people isn't the cost of war, it's the cost of stupidity. Go for the kill shot. In the military we have a thing called "mission creep". First you plan a diversion. Then this diversion becomes a bigger diversion. Then it becomes Plan B. The next thing you know, you have an army pinned down at Gallipoli and no one remembers what you were trying to do. If people are going to die, then die taking Richmond.

The problem with large cavalry raids is historical attrition. Move a lot of expensive cavalry around with no supply unit so that you can twist up my rail lines and I'll probably thank you. Especially if you want some of your best commanders to fight 1,000 miles from Richmond. Historically, the U.S. Military Railroad (USMRR) Department eventually became so good at replacing rails and RR bridges, that it was remarked they could fix them faster than the rebels could destroy them. Of course, players can do lots of things that may be lots of fun. I just think that you roll the dice every time you use a cavalry raid and eventually you'll lose more than you would ever accomplish. Also, the nine cities that I am garrisoning along the border have more than enough supplies for any operation that I might be forced to make. Each is a river port with a depot. I don't need a mountain of supplies sitting in a depot in Chicago and I don't defend what I don't need.

The great thing about a strategy is that someone else can tweak it and make an even better strategy. Good luck!

[Guardsman]

Playing as the Union against Athena, I have found a simple strategy that turns the far West into a sinkhole for the CSA. In the far West I adopt what is essentially an aggressive defense strategy. As early as possible, I build/move some brigades to defend the settlements I want to keep, while at the same time I use the existing forces in that theater to destroy every fort I can reach (yes, I destroy my own forts). Typically, the forts and settlements the CSA uses to build up are beyond the reach of the Union at this point. Athena continues to build or move forces to those areas, but since the 'Union free supply network' no longer exists, there is never any real threat. Every spring the CSA releases it's raiders to go roaming over barren worthless land. If they do get to a point where they can threaten a settlement, at that point they are so starved of supplies, and it's so late in the season, that they can fight and die, or retreat and die. Either one works for me.

I don't win big battles out west, not do I get NM points, but every CSA unit that gets sucked up this way is one less that can be used in the East or the trans-Mississippi theaters. The CSA, Athena at least, has neither the will nor the capacity to build an extensive supply network out west, but it still sends considerable forces to operate there.

One unintended consequence of this strategy is that otherwise mediocre Union leaders can be improved by the constant defeat of starving CSA units. I've even turned some poor quality Union generals into decent Division commanders.

[Cardinal Ape]

It takes two to tango. If there is not a Union force conducting offensive operations out west then there is no reason to go raiding. It would be a sad war for Forrest and Watie.