How does cavalry raid Ft. Monroe?

[GShock]

You see, the problem is that you overlooked the fact that when a raid is past the bordering region the offensive raiding factors involved drop accordingly. To the union converting mil to mtd and countering raids is much easier than to the csa doing them because CSA has good leaders but fewer supplies and those MIL->MTD conversions have their cost.

Stuart is good, but once you find where he is, you can put some pepper onto him by sending cavs where he is supposed to go to raid and bringing more in the back so not only he's chased but also re-screened. Then remember...if he raids, he burns MP and this means he can't scout and that's where you can hit CSA in return because unscouted units fight with good bonus. Take note of where Stuart withdraws for the moment he withdraws to a different starting region he's got no more MP to spare. This leaves his original region without CAV support if you attack it. Don't look just at the raid, look at the whole picture. [;)]

You are wrong on the loyalty issue we are all players, none of us paid and all look for the same things you look for: bettering the game. You can ask the others about my bibles on suggestions...i have my personal thread and whatever we discuss, will always be re-discussed with the pros-cons in private. We struggle to please you all, there's no point in flaming.

CAVs stealing supplies are a countermove against the total inability of CSA to prevent blockades. That a CSA raid may take more supplies than you can accept without getting pissed is something that happens but it also happens, as noted elsewhere, that Scott dies at the first turn...it's the fortunes of war. Luckily in 4 years of combat there's plenty of time to make up. It's not a singular raid that should impress you but the overall situation. Raids don't win the war, combat does. You can certainly devise a strategy to counter raids, it's a matter of choices.

What about: CSA got the CAV but we got the Spencer and better Arty later on. [:'(]

[Berkut]

Any cost of mil->mtd is greatly offset by the ability of the south to get supplies via raiding. It is easily a net plus for them, since they are going to have to do the conversions anyway. A single raid can easily pay for the cost of converting a unit, and destroy several units worth of supply for the Union in the process. In any case, both sides will convert as many as they can, because Cav is needed, and the supply cost is not the limiting factor.

The blockade is what it is - there is solid historical support for it, and yeah, the South could not do much about it, other than what they did. I don't think anyone has questioned it though. I am questioning raiding because it has not such historical support (not realistic) nor is there a good way for it to be countered (not playable).

And really, I am a long way away from "pissed". I just think the game needs a little work in this area. Shrug. I don't even understand why the motivations or whatever of posters is brought up in threads like this. If my suggestions are invalid, they are (or should be) easily countered with reason and facts.

I am not saying that the game is broken, or that the Union (or the South) cannot win because of raiding. I am just saying that there is no historical basis for this level of effectiveness, and, IMO, no discernible gameplay reason for it.

And again, I don't see what "choices" this gives the Union player. He get to build his 1.5 cav per turn, and place it all over trying to stop the raids, and it won't work because the raiders get to pick the raiding point, and the defenders cannot defend everything. I am imagine the tables turn later, but that doesn't make it more palatable, even if it is "balanced".

[lparkh]

As a 3rd party in this debate I do not hear any extremish in Berkut. I think he is moderately questioning the overall extent of the influence of cavalry in the game relative to history. Not any single instance. My minor commentary would be that the Fort Monroe issue is a less interesting one then then the general "strategic degree of importance" of cavalry raiding in the game.
I don't recall reading that raiding was so extensive myself either but am not sure...

[WarHunter]

Berkut,
 
How about you and i engage in a friendly PBEM exercise allowing you to be the Confederate, choose all the options you desire.
I will struggle as the Union. This is an open invitation to you. Accept at your pleasure.
 
In this way you can gauge from both Upwind and Downwind, if the smoke you are smelling is a real fire.
 
Be the raider to know the raider.
 
Either way, no offense was meant in any way to you as a person. The point of Realism and Playablity, clouds the minds of all who play these types of wargames. me included.
 

History as written and read does not divulge the source of leadership. Hence its study often induces us to forget its potency. As a mirror shows us not ourselves but our reflection, so it is with the soul and with leadership;we know them but by the acts they inspire or the results they achieve. Like begets like; in the armies of the great we seek the reflection of themselves and we find Self-confidence, Enthusiasm, Abnegation of Self, Loyalty, and Courage.
Major George S. Patton, 1931, article for the Infantry Journal, Success in War

[Berkut]

I just got my latest PBEM turn from my esteemed opponent.

IN one turn, Confederate Cavalray raids tore up 6 rail.
Captured 29 supplies
Destroyed 153 supplies

That is in ONE TURN.

During that turn, the Confederate troops consumed 250 supplies - so over 10% of the total Confederate army supply for an entire month was supplied by raiding.

With one exception, in the far west, every single one of these raids was "screened" by Union troops.

I am starting to wonder if this isn't a design flaw as much as it may simply be some kind of bug. Surely it was not intended that the South could destroy half of the Union supply generation per turn???

[Joel Billings]

I just want to suggest everyone lighten up a little. I think Berkut has brought up a valid point to be discussed over time and might eventually lead to a change depending on what comes with lots of play. Doesn't mean the game is bugged at the moment, just may not play as some would want or expect in all ways. Now my understanding is that the south found many ways to use Union equipement and supplies given that they were so desperate for it. We have a few ways in the game where this can happen (captured artillery and supplies from combat, commerce raiders, and cav raids). We may have overdone it in the cav raids, but I'm not convinced that the game taken at a whole is greatly flawed by the ability of the cav raids. Usually they can only take large quantities from depots, so the opportunities are limited, and we did want the ability of cav raids to simulate problems that the armies had if they were moving in enemy territory. Grant was turned back in Mississippi when he tried to advance overland to Jackson due to the issues of supply lines in enemy territory. We also like the fact that the Confederates have a way to disrupt Union initiative by destroying depots, and that Union armies without good cav support are potentially at a big disadvantage and are probably less likely to move. I think historically the Confederates did get a lot of their equipment from the North. Some of these cav rules and equations may be a little gamey, but we think overall it does the right things. This doesn't mean that Berkut doesn't have a point and that some adjustments may be desirable down the road.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Berkut
IN one turn, Confederate Cavalray raids tore up 6 rail.
Captured 29 supplies
Destroyed 153 supplies

Obviously, they are using their Cavalray Guns, provided by the evil genius, Dr. Arliss Loveless. Be thankful they're not using giant mechanical spiders, or something equally sinister...[:D]

But seriously, if you want to reduce your losses to cavalry raids, then your best defense is not having an OVERabundance of front-line depots. Cavalry will only destroy or capture supply if there is any to be had in the areas raided. If you have a depot that is not being immediately used for an AC, or to supply an otherwise cut-off force, then disband it. This will reduce your exposure to loss, as well as your opponent's gain.

In my opinion, the suggestion that an abundance of depots be built is misguided, given how the game actually ends up playing out. All you need is a single depot in the region that your AC is in, or anticipates moving into, during a reaction move. Doubling and tripling up on depots all along the front is wasteful, and offers too many targets of opportunity for raiding cavalry.

If you take steps to not overexpose your supplies to marauding cavalry, then your losses should be in line with a generalized and realistic attritional loss as you move deeper into enemy territory, with a moderate loss of supply to direct raiding actions, as well as the additional supply cost spent in repairing rails, and building depots on an "as needed" basis. I see these losses that are expected under good gameplay as a reasonable abstraction of the historical supply situation facing the Union as it drove deep into the Confederacy.

That said, I do think that perhaps some tweaking might be in order for general terrain conditions affecting cavalry missions, where forts and rivers reduce the effect of raiding somewhat. Rivers more than level one forts, as they are a dime a dozen. However, level two forts should probably get a bit more protection, given the widespread fortification level over the region that they are presumed to represent.

[CommC]

There is plenty of historical basis for effective cavalry raiding by the south. Most of Lee's advance up the Shenandoah valley and incursions into Maryland were largly supplied by "raiding" the surrounding countryside for supplies.

In fact at Gettysburg, while the cav was off raiding, Lee suffered from poor recon and it may have contributed to the outcome of the battle.

Whenever the southern armies didn't have this "raiding" of supply capability, i.e. some fertile ground to raid, their mobility was limited and they were forced to hunker down in part due to limited supply.

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: CommC

There is plenty of historical basis for effective cavalry raiding by the south. Most of Lee's advance up the Shenandoah valley and incursions into Maryland were largly supplied by "raiding" the surrounding countryside for supplies.

In fact at Gettysburg, while the cav was off raiding, Lee suffered from poor recon and it may have contributed to the outcome of the battle.

Whenever the southern armies didn't have this "raiding" of supply capability, i.e. some fertile ground to raid, their mobility was limited and they were forced to hunker down in part due to limited supply.

You are confusing an army on the move and foraging, which happened a lot, with raiding. Notie that when Stuart finally showed back up at Gettysburg, he wasn't trailing a few thousand head of cattle and a munitions train.

Armies foraging for supplies along their route of march was not at all uncommon.

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

I just want to suggest everyone lighten up a little. I think Berkut has brought up a valid point to be discussed over time and might eventually lead to a change depending on what comes with lots of play.

Thanks Joel, that is an excellent point. I know that nothing is going to change just because I say so - my play is limited, and I am hardly the final authority on the ACW by any means. But if, over time, there is some kind of consistent story told, and that sparks the devs to go play around with it a bit, and they find out that maybe things aren't working quite the way they hoped, then feedback like this is a great catalyst for careful change.

This game is a blast, but we would be kidding ourselves if we thought any game of this scope is going to be "just right" in all the details on release. I've never seen one that was yet. There are simply too many permutations.

Anyway, I think the subject has kind of been done to death, and while I can (obviously) talk this kind of stuff all day and all night, I don't want it to be a distraction from what a fine game you guys have made.

[hgilmer]

    What about regular troops?  Seems to me, if you have all these dudes hanging around just itching to shoot at anything, a raid would be kind of hard to pull off.

Ex. If I have 20 units (and I'm not saying this has happened, I forgot what has happened, but for the sake of the example, indulge me) of any kind, but more likely let's just say they are infantry/militia because I haven't had time to convert them to cavalry.  These guys would slice up a raid pretty good, iyam, if they saw guys riding about.

Am I wrong in that, and just am drunk again?

[CommC]

Yes, but I think the designers have incorporated or abstracted this foraging activity into the "raiding" action of the cavalry. And certainly, the cavalry had a major role in the foraging activities historically.

Granted, raiding is not the same as foraging, but it can be thought of as a simplification to keep the level of micromanaging down in the game. I agree somewhat that the destruction of enemy supplies may be overdone.

[sadja]

Forrest delayed Grant's move to Vicksburg 1 yar by the cavalry raid on Union City depot. They destroyed I don't how many 1,000,000's of dollar of supplies. This didn't happen all the time, but many times they had huge gains for such small forces employed. If gettysburg had turned out different, stuarts raid would have been a huge gain for all the supplies he gathered. Over 2,000 full wagons of supplies.

[Erik Rutins]

I have to say I always assumed that building up a "depot" meant a lot more than just filling up the fort with supplies. It would involve a much more expanded set of logistics facilities in the general area, so not precisely protected 100% by the fort.

I also seem to recall quite a few instances where cavalry raids went through well-garrisoned areas with fortified "depots" and still achieved remarkable results, since garrison troops were rarely mobile enough or had high enough morale to contest a well lead cavalry force for long.

In game terms, if you have depots on the front lines, you'll want to protect them with your own cavalry forces. Garrisoned infantry just won't do the job.

Regards,

- Erik

[Toby42]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I also seem to recall quite a few instances where cavalry raids went through well-garrisoned areas with fortified "depots" and still achieved remarkable results, since garrison troops were rarely mobile enough or had high enough morale to contest a well lead cavalry force for long.

Regards,

- Erik

You were their? Just kidding[:D] Seriously, a great effort by 2X3. And I think that raids need to be toned down a bit...

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

In game terms, if you have depots on the front lines, you'll want to protect them with your own cavalry forces. Garrisoned infantry just won't do the job.

Regards,

- Erik

I do think that whatever raids do, it should need a variety of things to counter. One of those things, even the most important thing, would be cavalry.

But it should all play a part - raiding areas without troops should be easier than raiding areas with them. Raiding areas that are fortified should be harder than raiding areas that are not fortified.

There is no question that under the right circumstances, raids did in fact have great effect. Right now, they have great effect in almost all circumstances. Forts don't stop them, troops don't stop them, even opposing cavalry doesn't seem to stop them, and they can do it turn after turn after turn after turn.

I would love to see it more as a crap shoot - with the player having to make a hard choice about pushing his luck when he starts raiding into fortified areas, areas with enemy cav, areas with large concentrations of troops, or poor terrain.

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: sadja

Forrest delayed Grant's move to Vicksburg 1 yar by the cavalry raid on Union City depot. They destroyed I don't how many 1,000,000's of dollar of supplies. This didn't happen all the time, but many times they had huge gains for such small forces employed. If gettysburg had turned out different, stuarts raid would have been a huge gain for all the supplies he gathered. Over 2,000 full wagons of supplies.

The problem is not that this is possible, the problem is that right now the Southern player can have that result just about every single month.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: tedhealy

They are raiding the region, not the fort alone. 

But the depots would be in Fortress Monroe, not scattered around the outlying counties. So the raiding results ARE silly (and over-rated).

[PyleDriver]

Ok guys, a few points IMHO. If you dont build a depot it cant be raided there. If you do you plan an offence and if 100,000 men are there how (god only knows) many wagons and suppies are there. There not in the fort, there on the mainland. Now each turn is a month. Now picture 10,000 CSA Cav during this time roaming about, which night of the month do they hit...hum...

[8D]
Jon

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

Ok guys, a few points IMHO. If you dont build a depot it cant be raided there. If you do you plan an offence and if 100,000 men are there how (god only knows) many wagons and suppies are there. There not in the fort, there on the mainland. Now each turn is a month. Now picture 10,000 CSA Cav during this time roaming about, which night of the month do they hit...hum...

[8D]
Jon

1. You don't to have a depot in the area to raid the area and destroy/capture supplies.

2. 10,000 Cav do not stroll about the countryside without anyone noticing, and siezing supplies held by the military in forts and supply dumps is not done without a fight - especially when they know you are coming - for the most part. The supplies are not just scattered about the ground, waiting for passing horse dudes to snap it up. Sure, in some cases you could hit the jackpot and find a poorly defended supply dump, but that should be the exception, not the rule.

Just go check some history - the South did NOT sustain themselves month in and month out on captured supplies, and they did not routinely go raiding into Union lines as a matter of routine. You know about the "big" raids precisely because they were exceptional, and rare. They were the result of surprise, and/or poor operational security.