How does cavalry raid Ft. Monroe?

[Berkut]

Every turn, the South raids Ft. Monroe, destroying vast amounts of supply and stealing plenty as well.

How is that happening? It's a Fort - wouldn't they notice a bunch of guys on horses strolling in and having a snack?

Cavalry raiding in general is grossly over-stated - it simply was not that effective.

The game needs to cut way back on the ability to raid across rivers, the inability for the North to screen effectively (screening does not stop raids), and in general, cavalry in the ACW is simply not nearly as decisive a strategic arm that the game is portraying it as right now.

Laslty, it is a zero risk activity for the South - they have almost nothing to lose for a huge gain, amd there is no real reason for them to not do it every single turn.

[WarHunter]

Unless you plan on placing your Army Commander in Ft. Monroe, it is unwise to build them.
If you insist on building depots in Ft. Monroe, make sure you have union Cavalry to screen the rebels off.
You make your choices in a game, you pay a price for all choices.

[tedhealy]

They are raiding the region, not the fort alone. 

Any small screening force reduces the effectiveness of cav raids, or at least that has been my experience as USA.  Large screening forces can kill cav raiders too.

Screening is hard for the north early as it should be.  I don't see it in game as this devastating force for the CSA.  It does what it did historically destroying supply and getting into a commander's head as something additional to worry about, it can be countered.  Build 3 depots in Ft. Monroe and keep cav there to screen and you'll keep the effects to a minimum...that is if you plan using Ft. Monroe as a jumping off point for attacks with an AC there.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: WarHunter

Unless you plan on placing your Army Commander in Ft. Monroe, it is unwise to build them.
If you insist on building depots in Ft. Monroe, make sure you have union Cavalry to screen the rebels off.
You make your choices in a game, you pay a price for all choices.

That's good advice. As long as you have some transports out in Ac7, Ft Monroe will always be supplied. By building depots here, when they are not needed, you are just giving the Confederates a big, fat, juicy target for raiding. If you decide to strike out from Ft. Monroe, then move in a couple of good Adm leaders to build two depots on the same turn you move in your AC. I've hardly ever seen depots get destroyed, and never two in the same turn.

In general, you shouldn't bother with depots unless they are in the areas that you intend on attacking from, or expect to have to react back into. As soon as you're beyond a point where the depots are not going to be needed to grant your leaders initiative, then you should disband them to free up supplies. If you've been using 6 Adm leaders to build them, then you're only "losing" the 2 supply point construction cost, but you're dumping back into your available pool, the twenty that are tied up in the depot.

The above advice is predicated, of course, on the assumption that you have a reasonably secure supply path back to your home regions.

[Berkut]

That isn't really the point.

The point is that there is no way cav could get into Ft. Monroe to raid, whether or not the supply should be there or not. Some supplies sitting inside a large, well defended fort are not a "big, fat, juicy target".

For that matter, neither are supplies sitting in a depot defended by the DC forts, which were extensive and never saw any sizeable confederate "raiding" in the manner portrayed in the game.

More importantly, it is an illustration of how the game over-emphasizes the roll and ability of cavalry to engage in persistent large scale raids that destroy and steal vast quantities of supplies. That simply did not happen during the Civil War - the few cavalry raids that were much publicized were largely ineffective beyond a very minor annoyance.

Think about how much "stuff" a single supply point represents - how would a raiding force even get the amount of freight a few supply points represents back to their own lines from dozens of miles behind the enemies lines?

[GShock]

The fort is a combat support building, not all supplies are stored there, u should look at it as a whole region not just as "fort" in its entity but as a whole fortified region where combat would take place by fortifications because that's where the defender would stand in case of invasion, to repel the assaulting forces. It doesn't hold all troops and doesn't hold all supplies within.

It's not true you can't stop the raids, you need cavalry, good cavalry leaders and you will screen raids successfully perhaps even causing damage. Remember that to build the screening factors you also need NUMBERS so you need LOTS of cavalrymen. Finally, if the CSA raids in Ft. Monroe you have enemy mtd-cav in New Kent but this means some other CSA force is not being screened by your scouts because cavalry can't be bought, only converted and conversions are numbered.
Attack the CSA weak spots and the ring will close slowly on them until the few CAV they have are needed elsewhere. It's normal at the beginning that raids work but their persistence and damage is very limited in time if you know how to protect depots.

I have had plenty of problems to adapt to this logic of region being HUGE as it is in WBTS compared to other games and the fact the turn is 30 days long not just 15 or 7. Your points are good points but this game is more abstract than that and you should look at it with a bit more elasticity.

To answer your final question, once a supply wagon is stolen it's got wheels. [:)]

[Joel Billings]

Yes, it's an abstraction, that I think works ok for the Washington situation (where you are disrupting lines into Washington used to build and resupply the depots), but less so for a situation like Fort Monroe. Of course, if Fort Monroe is being used as a jumping off point for offensive operations of a large force, this wouldn't all fit inside Fort Monroe. Cav raids were much more powerful and able to disrupt supply lines in inland areas (like Mississippi), and that's true in the game as well where you can knock out rail lines to whole armies causing a huge supply drain (in addition to any supplies destroyed or captured). In Fort Monroe all you can do is disrupt the depots, not knock out the supply grid via the transport fleets.

[Pford]

ORIGINAL: Berkut
For that matter, neither are supplies sitting in a depot defended by the DC forts, which were extensive and never saw any sizeable confederate "raiding" in the manner portrayed in the game.

Good point. You'd expect that raids into fortified regions would prove a LOT less productive.

[Berkut]

GShock, you cannot really compare the Southern ability to raid with the northern ability to counter them (or the reverse later in the war), since the game does not allow the north to react to southern raids - the south can raid where they like, and the north cannot possibly cover every area, and if they do, they aren't really covering anything (He who defends everything defends nothing).

IMO, the role of cavalry raiding is seriuosly over-emphasized. Yeah, you can come up with singular examples of successful raids in the ACW, but we are not talking about singular examples, we are talking about persistent, consistent, and predictable turn after turn after turn raiding across the fronts resulting in strategic implications for both sides - the South can and will generate a significant portion of their monthly supply requirements via raiding, and destroy vast amounts of Union supply every single turn.

Right now in a PBEM game, I have cav covering the favortite Southern raiding spots, and I always get the "Stuarts cav is screen by <Nameless crappy Union Cav leader>" he then goes on to sieze 5 supply, destroy 25, tear up rail in two&nbsp; areas, and generally have a good old time.

Could this happen now and again, realistically? I suppose. But not consistently. For the most part, opposed cavalry raiding should be a push. Any large scale cavalry raid should include significant risk as well - riading into fortified areas ought to be, IMO, pretty dangerous. Raiding into fortified areas, across rivers, where the other side has cavalry itself should be a VERY high risk activity. There is a reason this was not done as a amtter of course, especially in fortified areas.

Not something you do every single turn because there is really no reason not to...

[PyleDriver]

Wow Berkut, you may think armor is over-emphasized in WW2 games also. Sorry I don't agree.

[8D]
Jon

[tran505]

Let's not forget that Northern cavalry can raid, too. I was truly impressed when I sent out a fully-loaded Sheridan into eastern Tennessee. He tore up three zones in one raid, not stopping until he had hit northwest Georgia! Great fun to watch, too.

- P

[Berkut]

This isn't a WW2 game, and cavalry during the Civil War did not play the role of armor. Which is why the Civil War looked a lot more like WW1 than it did WW2.

Maybe you could provide some examples from the history of the ACW where cav did act in a fashion similar to armor in WW2, to support your position?

[WarHunter]

Berkut,

You are correct. The game is not realistic, in a historical sense, based on your interpetation of military history.

As a game it fails because the southern cavalry is overpowered. So overpowered that when Stuart is sent into raid mode, versus a no-name union cavalry leader, and all that is left is burned supplies, wrecked rails, and much booty, its time to cast blame.
The blame is the mechanic of cavalry. How dare a game allow scouting, screening and raiding within a 1861-8165 simulation. Scouting and screening is good, raiding is bad. Raiding should be such a highrisk affair that any no-name union cavalry leader should take the head of Stuart, and lay it down at the altar of good historical game interpetation.
Raiding should never be allowed in regions with a fort. Forts are the counter to all cavalry. They secure the land from pillage and fire. Its ok if the cavalry scouts to count heads, but if they raise that torch or finger that saber, POW, send it home with good spanking. Yep! Its all in history and how its interpeted.

Realism and Playablity, the opposing gods of we the generals of wargame simualtions.

Each person is blessed with a brain. We have been taught you have a left and right sides of the brain. Its not true. We have a Realism side and a Playablity side. They war with each other constantly. Read to much history, absorb to many facts, and the realism side starts to become dominate. Game to have fun, laugh at adversity, eat pezels, drink beer and roll dice, oops, Playablity is getting out of control here, must be a Risk player.

The point here is there are all kind of players each at war with Realism and Playablity. Scapegoats become easy to find when the expectations become scattered and the wails of lamentaion are on the virtual winds. Change this rule, add this, eliminate that. Nothing is perfect but by gosh darn if everyone just listens to the squeaky voice, it will get fixed. Not always to the satisfation of everyone, but who cares as long as it is more, Realistic or Playable.

[PyleDriver]

I didn't say they were similar, the word was over-emphasized which you used. Joel is the big wig on the Civil War and I'm sure he can set this straight. Be careful he's really smart...

[8D]
Jon

[Berkut]

Warhunter, there really isn't any point to discussing this if you are only interested in burning strawmen. I never said forts should be a perfect defense, or that Stuart should be killed by nameless generals. If you want to respond to what I did say in as careful and respectful a manner as I said it, that would really be great. I may very well be wrong, I would appreciate you telling me why. There is no conflict based on playability here -&nbsp; quite the opposite in fact. A game that does not include grossly over-powered cavalry that can be used with impunity is not less playable, but more playable. Personally, I would like to make this game better, so if you would like to talk about how to do that, let me know.

Pyle, I am not exactly sure what your point is - again, if you ever would like to talk about how to make this game better, let me know.

An over-developed sense of "loyalty" towards what exists is the bane of making things better. I would love it if someone would like to talk about how to improve the game. I think it is pretty awesome, and the best way to express that is by careful critique and discussion of how to improve it, rather than blind loyalty.

[PDiFolco]

I didn't have a prior opinion before reading this, and didn't play enough to detect this, but Berkut's example is pretty more convincing than the counters...
What he describes just makes no sense - a single raid destroying a supply quantity equivalent to 1 month production of a populated province, in a fort and with opposing cavalry ? [X(] Yikes !

[Berkut]

Here is a picture, taken from wiki, of modern Ft. Monroe. AFAIK, it hasn't changed much since the 19th century.

You can see why the Confederates never even bothered trying to take it back. Litterly impregnable, especially considering that the Union fleet would be pounding any force trying to attack it the entire time.

[PDiFolco]

Maybe South cav had seahorses ?&nbsp;[:D]

[PyleDriver]

Good picture, But Union troops were on the other side also when depots are built. these are large regions, which by surprise can hurt badly if you don't have screening forces...

[8D]
Jon

[Berkut]

But what about how it hurts badly even when you do have screening forces? And forts? And troops?

The regions are large, the supply dumps, however, are not - they would be under the protection of the forts and troops. I could see raiding netting some small amount of supplies, as the raiders sieze civlian resources- I could definitely see it netting some PPs. However, it should be counter able in some fashion, and right now it is not, and it should be a risk/reward choice. Right now the rewards are very great, and the risk is very minimal for the payoff.