Matrix Games Forums

We are wrapping up a second PBEM and trying to find some more Houserule suggestions on raiding.

Basically you can flood certain areas with Partizans and Carpetbaggers/Unionists. Then you send those units scurrying all around and it takes the other side a far disproportionate share of units to pin them down, etc. In our last game the CSA swarmed Colorado with Raiders.

We've used the "have to have a leader for raiding" Houserule proposed in certain AARs, but that does not seem to be enough.

Seems like the only true partizans in the ACW were those like Mosby, Morgan and Quantril, very limited.

Perhaps not only having to have a leader, but also a Leader with a Special Ability tied to raiding?

Maybe you can build partizans, but you cannot move them (have to use Partizan ambush and raiding Decisions to impact the area outside their area)?

Any other thoughts?

I think this rule my opponent and I used:

All units within a single region, raiders or not, in regions north and west of the Iowa/Missouri/Arkansas/Texas line are limited to a max size of 3 elements.

If a region north and west of the Iowa/Missouri/Arkansas/Texas line contains a supply depot, or both a leader and a supply wagon are present, no stacking limits apply. A supply wagon or leader alone is not enough to exempt units from the stacking rule, they must both be present.

Should probably be modified to read max size of 1 element west of the Iowa/Missouri/Arkansas/Texas line unless both a leader and supply wagon are present, or there is a depot in the region.

There just isn’t a large enough force pool of units you can build for the states in these regions to deal with large brigade+ sized stacks for the most part, so limiting each region to just 1 element most of the time will at least tone down the ability to sweep the western map in most games.

A better fix would be if every stockade had a permanent 30 man garrison unit in them instead of the random roll for a spawned unit. It’s silly to have a unit spawn one turn and stop the capture just to vanish the next and allow the same enemy unit to return and take the stockade for free two turns later. If stockades didn’t flip so easily supplying your units out west would become a lot harder for the attacking side.

Jim

[:-]That is pretty chicken *. Grant had garrisons above 20,000 men to stop Mosby. Stopping raiders is a pain but it is not without precedent.

It has resulted in them being far underpowered in the game.[:'(]

Arkansas, Missouri, & Kentucky should be hell. East Tennessee should also be a big problem and West Virginia too. There is nothing in the game that can do what Mosbey and McNeill did and not much as damaging as the raids by Shelby or Morgan.

Maintaining garrisons to protect depots and rails should be more of a standard. Instead you can mostly ignore it.

Colorado was worried about Rebel raiders in 64 striking forts in addition to Indian raids, which so far are no problem at all. Raiders and Indians likely tied down 100,000 Union troops that year.

Do you want a requirement for 40,000 troops in the far west and 60,000 in Missouri? 100 regiments in the west on garrison duty? 30+ regiment in Virginia, West Virginia and Maryland? 20 to 30 in Ohio and Indiana? Union and Confederate Partisans in Kentucky and Tennessee practically had their own war within a war.

Tinker Dave Beaty was a pain for the CSA in East Tennessee but to a strong degree was tied up fighting with Champ Ferguson.

You guys are just trying to ignore one of the major headaches in the actual war and reduce it to nothing at all.[8|]

west of the Iowa/Missouri/Arkansas/Texas line

Nothing about any of the states you mention in the rule. It just limits the size of stacks in the far west where it was not easy to feed large military organizations unless they carried their food in with them.

ORIGINAL: Ol Choctaw

[:-]That is pretty chicken *. Grant had garrisons above 20,000 men to stop Mosby. Stopping raiders is a pain but it is not without precedent.

It has resulted in them being far underpowered in the game.[:'(]

Arkansas, Missouri, & Kentucky should be hell. East Tennessee should also be a big problem and West Virginia too. There is nothing in the game that can do what Mosbey and McNeill did and not much as damaging as the raids by Shelby or Morgan.

Maintaining garrisons to protect depots and rails should be more of a standard. Instead you can mostly ignore it.

Colorado was worried about Rebel raiders in 64 striking forts in addition to Indian raids, which so far are no problem at all. Raiders and Indians likely tied down 100,000 Union troops that year.

Do you want a requirement for 40,000 troops in the far west and 60,000 in Missouri? 100 regiments in the west on garrison duty? 30+ regiment in Virginia, West Virginia and Maryland? 20 to 30 in Ohio and Indiana? Union and Confederate Partisans in Kentucky and Tennessee practically had their own war within a war.

Tinker Dave Beaty was a pain for the CSA in East Tennessee but to a strong degree was tied up fighting with Champ Ferguson.

You guys are just trying to ignore one of the major headaches in the actual war and reduce it to nothing at all.[8|]

I actually don't like HR on partisans either, and I do feel the Union should be forced to leave large garrisons in depots and spots you don't want to lose. That happened historically; at Stones River, Rosecrans had to leave a whole division behind at Nashville, and by 1864 the Union probably had upwards of 60,000+ in Tennessee alone protecting rail lines amd posts around Nashville and Memphis

However, that's also a reason that the Union player needs a bunch more guys than in version 1.01, because as you advance you are going to have to expend resources on troops and wagons to maintain a supply line

I'm totally clueless about the ACW west of New Mexico.

That said, I thought that the troops that were tying down USA troops in the East, West and Trans-Miss like those mentioned above were those dealing with Forrest, Morgan, Quantril, Mosby, etc (ie more organized raiders). Thus the idea of requiring some leadership for these forces before they are moving around freely behind enemy lines. And I would assume the Houserule exempting forces with Leaders would allow these situations. I could be wrong.

LOL well, I missed the far west aspect of your rules.

It may be true that there were few small raids and no large raids into CO. or NM later in the war as the Comanche and Kiowa sort of limited that. But it didn’t stop them from raiding or the Ute uprising or the Shoshone or the Cheyenne and Arapaho or the Sioux and most other tribes to boot. There is no need for the Union to rush all those men to the far west currently. No need to guard Missouri and Kansas with more troops or man all those forts.

Unfortunately, this is not an occurrence yet in game. The whole population of Colorado does not move to Denver for protection. Mining doesn’t stop and you can travel to Utah and on to California.

But if that is not happening, why should the CSA not take up the slack until the Indians do something?

Surely they present the smaller possible headache.


Also the leader requirement does not go to many unnamed raiders and partisan bands operating across the country. There is no McNeill for WV no Ferguson or Beaty or any of the others. Some were just brigands and outlaws. They still raided and made everyone miserable.

ORIGINAL: dukewacoan

I'm totally clueless about the ACW west of New Mexico.

That said, I thought that the troops that were tying down USA troops in the East, West and Trans-Miss like those mentioned above were those dealing with Forrest, Morgan, Quantril, Mosby, etc (ie more organized raiders). Thus the idea of requiring some leadership for these forces before they are moving around freely behind enemy lines. And I would assume the Houserule exempting forces with Leaders would allow these situations. I could be wrong.

I tend to agree with the "Partisans are too much" argument.

Not because I don't understand and appreciate just how many troops had to garrison areas to keep them secure-- I know it was plenty. But isn't that dynamic already represented in how the game models percentage control of regions?

Meaning, at the level of *actual, historical* average partisan unrest, the percentage control of areas, augmented by player card use (destroying depots, destroying rail, etc.), should be more than enough to reflect what historically occurred.

Make the percentage control requirements for the Union higher and more consequential, e.g. you have to keep forces garrisoned in regions for longer in order to ensure control, and you get penalties from uncontrolled regions (no supply movement through it, no rail movement through it, slower stack movement in the region, etc.). That will force players to garrison regions, especially rail and supply lines, yet still avoid the silly partisan/copperhead/unionist "roach stacks" that randomly and constantly pop up and are impossible to chase down and kill.

Save the on-map partisan units for actual raiders like Mosby, Quantrill, etc., i.e. the ones that had a real impact on the war, vice the average typical unrest in occupied regions.

My two cents.

I appreciate that raiders are a pain. It takes about 6 units to chase down one and catch it but if you look at the historical picture you find that an awful lot of troops were just controlling civilian populations in the loyal areas, not just contested southern areas.

Garrisons are not accounted for in the game. It is based on total numbers in uniform, at least for the Union.

At war’s end they claimed about a million men in the army. But only two thirds actually showed up and less than half of those were in the field armies.

The trouble is that numbers alone do not paint an accurate picture. While the Union may have boasted 2 to 1 odds in manpower it does not reflect garrisons and security forces.

Cataloging regiments does not reflect which were deployable resources or engaged in some other activities.

At First Bull Run the figures vary so widely that it is quite possible the Confederates had a numerical advantage.

After their defeat Lincoln rushed in all the additional forces he could muster. This was at the expense of the rest of the country.

Most early battles found the Confederates with equal or larger forces than the Union.

At Wilson’s Creek the CSA outnumbered Lyon’s force by more than 2 to 1.

At Pea Ridge the Confederates outnumbered the Union by about 3 to 2.

At Shiloh Johnston was almost as strong as Grant and tried to strike before he linked up with Buell who had an additional 20,000 men.

We don’t find battles where the south is facing significant disadvantages in numbers until late summer of 62.

By that time the north was fielding about 20% more troops in battle than the south could manage to muster.

They may have had twice the number in uniform but they were not present on the battlefield.



While the south should by no means have an easy shot at victory it should remain a serious threat and strong opponent at least until mid 1863.

The figures for forces that were actually in active units is smaller by a great deal than the overall figures.

July 61 183,588 vs. something over 120,000 about 1.5 to 1 when the number for navies are deducted it brings it much closer to 1 to 1.

Jan 62 527,204 vs. 258,680 roughly 2 to 1 or a little less.

Jan 63 698,802 vs. 304,015 the peak of both armies deployments and a little greater than 2 to 1

Jan 64 611,250 vs. 277,970 attrition has effected both armies but it is still a rough 2 to 1.

Jan 65 620,924 vs. 196,016 Large areas of the south are overrun. The blockade is having its intended effect. The Union had a bit over 3 to 1 odds in the field. The Confederate army collapsed shortly there after.

But even that does not show garrisons. The Union had a bit more than half its forces on garrison or some rear area duty. The CSA had somewhat more than a third.

In the very last days of the war the south was fielding about 120,000 men in the field armies. The Union had a little over 300,000 to include those fighting Indians out west.


When Price went on his 64 raid he took 12,000 mounted regular troops. When he reached Missouri he picked up at least 6,000 irregulars. That was half his starting number. Those were the ones willing to fight with him and answer the call. That is a lot of partisans and that is only southern Missouri.

The huge number of garrison troops are not in the game, so having robust raiders is more than just a pain in the arse, it actually affects the strength available to face down the CSA’s main army. If you give the union its historical garrison troops then I’d be all for robust raiders. But without those troops it is nothing like an historical representation of what actually occurred.

Jim

The thing is that those units are in the Union army. There may actually be a few more. They just get moved to the front. The resources are there. It is just if people are not forced to garrison they will not. You also have the auto garrisons that cut down on the effect of raiders, at least the small groups.

And they will all complain about raiders!

So did every Union Commander.

Every town a fort and ever creek crossing an ambush, bushwhackers on every trail and track.
That is how Union soldiers saw moving into the south and I think that was written about Tennessee. The Upper Trans-Mississippi was much worse.

I would agree that building them all over Colorado and New Mexico is a stretch. But like I said, we don’t have the Indians or Indian raids to deal with. If that happens it will change a lot of things.

The main issue for me is that the relationship between loyalty/MC doesn't work as intended, particularly when you factor in partisans, irregulars, and roaming cavalry. Partisans, irregulars and cavalry should be particularly efficient in high loyalty provinces, but really only a marginal nuisance in other regions. Cavalry forces in hostile provinces (say a CSA regiment raiding Illinois or even Kentucky) should lose cohesion very very quickly and really only be able to do a very quick raid, except if it is really big enough, ie almost division size. Same for partisans, they should just whittle down to uselessness in hostile conditions.

BUT in high loyalty areas they should be very efficient at flipping MC back to their side. The way I see it these units emulate a more widespread resistance. They are able to gather men and ressources in high loyalty areas and ambush convoys etc... the higher the loyalty of a region + the harsher the terrain and the more efficient should partisans and roaming cav be to flip MC back all the way up. This would force the Union to keep lots more forces in rear areas once it is in CSA land, because otherwise it loses MC of said provinces way too quickly.

When one sees all the raids and such carried by the CSA deep into 64 quick deep in Union occupied southern states, clearly there is something to be done there. BUT again I reiterate that those raiding type units should see their efficiency linked to loyalty, so that CSA raiding in the north proves an expensive and practically useless purpose.

I've always thought that Military Control for a region should, if there is no garrison in the region, shift over time to the side with the most loyalty. This would force the Union to garrison an entire rail line they wanted to use, for example, and leave a garrison in every major town.

I agree completely on Loyalty and Raiders. CSA raiders were aided by local friendly populations. Morgan's raid into Ohio is an example of what happens when the local citizens are against you. It's probably also why the Union had so few deep raids. Grierson's raid into Mississippi is one of the few successful examples for them.

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I've always thought that Military Control for a region should, if there is no garrison in the region, shift over time to the side with the most loyalty. This would force the Union to garrison an entire rail line they wanted to use, for example, and leave a garrison in every major town.

I agree completely on Loyalty and Raiders. CSA raiders were aided by local friendly populations. Morgan's raid into Ohio is an example of what happens when the local citizens are against you. It's probably also why the Union had so few deep raids. Grierson's raid into Mississippi is one of the few successful examples for them.

Exactly, when you are raiding lands where the population supports you, then 50 guys can do great damage. When you are raiding land where the population is hostile, than you would need a strong force (ie something like a cavalry division) to have an impact, be able to forage for supplies efficiently, etc...

For me it is an issue so far in the game. This should become a big problem for the Union the deeper it goes, and an integral part of the game for the CSA player : How do I efficiently use my smallish raiders/partisans, and how do I efficiently use bigger raids as well. For example in high loyalty land, partisan and bigger forces should be able to flip MC efficiently, allowing for faster movement, and also for better supply. in Loyal lands partisans should never have supplies issues, and raids like Price's or Forrest's in 64 should be made not only possible but worthwhile for the CSA if the Union hasn't properly garrissoned its rear.

Of course it requires play testing and fine tuning, but loyalty should (and it already does some of it) have an impact in the evading abilities of a force (Ie people warn you of where Union forces / sentries are, their whereabouts), on supply capture through forage, on speed of MC flipping (which in turn makes movement faster), etc... so that a partisan unit in a hostile terrain should be quite easily found and destroyed by enemy forces, but be a massive pain in the ass in highly loyal terrain. This could also help emulate some Virginia / Valley raiding that is just almost undoable in game.

Some players might consider that too much of a pain, but for me it should be an integral part of the game. More broadly loyalty should be almost as important as terrain type in its influence of military operations, MC, supply, etc... There is a big reason why the Union kept massive forces in central Tennessee IRL throughout the war, of why it hard a very hard time organising an efficient push from New Orleans during most of the war : bad terrain + highly loyal southerners makes for a painful combination.

On the other hand CSA failures in Kentucky or north/east Missouri, as well as Maryland, had lots to do with low loyalty there, depriving the CSA of useful info, supply, men, etc.

MC shifting back would ba a pain in the arse because every unit outside depot would have to have a supply wagon to guard the rail and raise MC. Imagine how would then some of us complain about raiders and captured supply wagons (expensive).
I say, keep the partisans - they are needed to represent difficulties when occupying the country, but let's raise the number of troops so Union has the means to guard its supply lines and CSA has the means to form Cav divisions led by Forrest or Shelby to attack them.
Simple as that.

ORIGINAL: Ace1
but let's raise the number of troops so Union has the means to guard its supply lines and CSA has the means to form Cav divisions led by Forrest or Shelby to attack them.
Simple as that.

A new brigade type with static troops would work well for this scenario. It would allow you to significantly increase the number of Union troops on the board without increasing their mobile force levels. I’m thinking of the fortress troop types used in a lot of the other AGEOD titles.

The problem is if you increase overall conscript production then players would build non-static troops instead. So how about having a 3 regiment static brigade appear automatically for each new depot level players build? So a max level 4 depot would have four 3 regiment brigades for a max garrison of 12 fortress type regiments fixed in the region the depot was built.

Jim

Edit: Actually thinking about it some more, it may just be better to have these brigades spawn automatically for any depot on the board, since once destroyed you run into the same problem of needing to use mobile troops to guard supply lines. If depot brigades spawned automatically when depots are built, if the brigade dies for some reason or when depots change hands, there is no need to try and simulate that part of the economy and the production system can focus on the mobile forces only. Since the CSA economy was weaker than the north, you could make their auto-spawning brigades 2 regiments instead of 3.

When I say spawn automatically I’m not talking about the stuff that spawns when a town/depot gets attacked. These troops should be on the board all the time and subject to attrition like normal troops. So as you armies grow and more and more static forces appear on the board the cost to maintain your armies takes these rear area troops into account as well.

You proposed rather complex solution where simple solution may be better. Union commanders had movable troops. It was theirs decision on the way how to use them. If the player chooses to throw them all to the frontline, he has no right to complain: partisans have torched my depots and are killing me. If he guards his depots with additional troops, partisans should not be able to inflict much damage. If a division guards a depot, I think partisans have close to 0 chance of damaging it. This was an asymetrical war, both sides fought with what they had.

ORIGINAL: Ace1

You proposed rather complex solution where simple solution may be better. Union commanders had movable troops. It was theirs decision on the way how to use them. If the player chooses to throw them all to the frontline, he has no right to complain: partisans have torched my depots and are killing me. If he guards his depots with additional troops, partisans should not be able to inflict much damage. If a division guards a depot, I think partisans have close to 0 chance of damaging it. This was an asymetrical war, both sides fought with what they had.

Is there a table or rule of thumb with regard to how much you need to prevent depot burns?

6 elements? 8? Does Cav make a difference?

Do they have to be inside the structure, or does outside also count?