Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

How does cavalry raid Ft. Monroe?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States >> How does cavalry raid Ft. Monroe? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
How does cavalry raid Ft. Monroe? - 6/27/2008 4:24:42 PM   
Berkut

 

Posts: 757
Joined: 5/16/2002
Status: offline 		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.
Post #: 1
RE: How does cavalry raid Ft. Monroe? - 6/27/2008 6:07:14 PM   
WarHunter


Posts: 1207
Joined: 3/21/2004
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________


“We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.”
Marcus Luttrell

(in reply to Berkut)
Post #: 2
RE: How does cavalry raid Ft. Monroe? - 6/27/2008 6:15:27 PM   
tedhealy


Posts: 138
Joined: 1/28/2005
From: St. Louis, MO, USA
Status: offline 		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.




< Message edited by tedhealy -- 6/27/2008 6:18:06 PM >

(in reply to Berkut)
Post #: 3
RE: How does cavalry raid Ft. Monroe? - 6/27/2008 6:21:58 PM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline
quote:

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.

(in reply to WarHunter)
Post #: 4
RE: How does cavalry raid Ft. Monroe? - 6/27/2008 7:58:03 PM   
Berkut

 

Posts: 757
Joined: 5/16/2002
Status: offline 		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?

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 5
RE: How does cavalry raid Ft. Monroe? - 6/27/2008 8:09:56 PM   
GShock


Posts: 1245
Joined: 12/9/2007
From: San Francisco, CA - USA
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Berkut)
Post #: 6
RE: How does cavalry raid Ft. Monroe? - 6/27/2008 8:15:02 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Berkut)
Post #: 7
RE: How does cavalry raid Ft. Monroe? - 6/27/2008 8:17:44 PM   
Pford

 

Posts: 235
Joined: 11/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

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.

(in reply to Berkut)
Post #: 8
RE: How does cavalry raid Ft. Monroe? - 6/27/2008 8:46:44 PM   
Berkut

 

Posts: 757
Joined: 5/16/2002
Status: offline 		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  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...

(in reply to Pford)
Post #: 9
RE: How does cavalry raid Ft. Monroe? - 6/27/2008 9:13:37 PM   
PyleDriver


Posts: 6152
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Occupied Mexico aka Rio Grand Valley, S.Texas
Status: offline 		Wow Berkut, you may think armor is over-emphasized in WW2 games also. Sorry I don't agree.


Jon

(in reply to Berkut)
Post #: 10
RE: How does cavalry raid Ft. Monroe? - 6/27/2008 9:28:27 PM   
tran505

 

Posts: 133
Joined: 11/11/2007
Status: offline
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

(in reply to PyleDriver)
Post #: 11
RE: How does cavalry raid Ft. Monroe? - 6/27/2008 9:29:52 PM   
Berkut

 

Posts: 757
Joined: 5/16/2002
Status: offline 		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?

< Message edited by Berkut -- 6/27/2008 9:44:52 PM >

(in reply to PyleDriver)
Post #: 12
RE: How does cavalry raid Ft. Monroe? - 6/27/2008 10:16:04 PM   
WarHunter


Posts: 1207
Joined: 3/21/2004
Status: offline 		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.


_____________________________


“We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.”
Marcus Luttrell

(in reply to Berkut)
Post #: 13
RE: How does cavalry raid Ft. Monroe? - 6/27/2008 10:17:50 PM   
PyleDriver


Posts: 6152
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Occupied Mexico aka Rio Grand Valley, S.Texas
Status: offline 		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...


Jon

(in reply to Berkut)
Post #: 14
RE: How does cavalry raid Ft. Monroe? - 6/27/2008 10:32:23 PM   
Berkut

 

Posts: 757
Joined: 5/16/2002
Status: offline 		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 -  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.

(in reply to PyleDriver)
Post #: 15
RE: How does cavalry raid Ft. Monroe? - 6/27/2008 10:39:04 PM   
PDiFolco

 

Posts: 1200
Joined: 10/11/2004
Status: offline 		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 ? Yikes !




(in reply to PyleDriver)
Post #: 16
RE: How does cavalry raid Ft. Monroe? - 6/27/2008 10:40:52 PM   
Berkut

 

Posts: 757
Joined: 5/16/2002
Status: offline 		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.




< Message edited by Berkut -- 6/27/2008 10:42:53 PM >

(in reply to Berkut)
Post #: 17
RE: How does cavalry raid Ft. Monroe? - 6/27/2008 10:45:35 PM   
PDiFolco

 

Posts: 1200
Joined: 10/11/2004
Status: offline 		Maybe South cav had seahorses ? 

(in reply to Berkut)
Post #: 18
RE: How does cavalry raid Ft. Monroe? - 6/27/2008 10:48:34 PM   
PyleDriver


Posts: 6152
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Occupied Mexico aka Rio Grand Valley, S.Texas
Status: offline 		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...


Jon

(in reply to Berkut)
Post #: 19
RE: How does cavalry raid Ft. Monroe? - 6/27/2008 10:53:46 PM   
Berkut

 

Posts: 757
Joined: 5/16/2002
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to PyleDriver)
Post #: 20
RE: How does cavalry raid Ft. Monroe? - 6/27/2008 10:53:51 PM   
GShock


Posts: 1245
Joined: 12/9/2007
From: San Francisco, CA - USA
Status: offline 		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.


(in reply to Berkut)
Post #: 21
RE: How does cavalry raid Ft. Monroe? - 6/27/2008 11:00:45 PM   
Berkut

 

Posts: 757
Joined: 5/16/2002
Status: offline 		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".


< Message edited by Berkut -- 6/27/2008 11:10:06 PM >

(in reply to GShock)
Post #: 22
RE: How does cavalry raid Ft. Monroe? - 6/27/2008 11:28:21 PM   
lparkh


Posts: 426
Joined: 7/25/2004
Status: offline 		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...

(in reply to Berkut)
Post #: 23
RE: How does cavalry raid Ft. Monroe? - 6/28/2008 1:26:34 AM   
WarHunter


Posts: 1207
Joined: 3/21/2004
Status: offline 		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.

quote:

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


_____________________________


“We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.”
Marcus Luttrell

(in reply to lparkh)
Post #: 24
RE: How does cavalry raid Ft. Monroe? - 6/28/2008 1:33:20 AM   
Berkut

 

Posts: 757
Joined: 5/16/2002
Status: offline 		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???

(in reply to WarHunter)
Post #: 25
RE: How does cavalry raid Ft. Monroe? - 6/28/2008 3:10:00 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Berkut)
Post #: 26
RE: How does cavalry raid Ft. Monroe? - 6/28/2008 3:31:11 AM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline
quote:

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...

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.

(in reply to Berkut)
Post #: 27
RE: How does cavalry raid Ft. Monroe? - 6/28/2008 4:31:06 AM   
CommC

 

Posts: 467
Joined: 8/3/2002
From: Michigan, USA
Status: offline 		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.



_____________________________


(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 28
RE: How does cavalry raid Ft. Monroe? - 6/28/2008 5:16:46 AM   
Berkut

 

Posts: 757
Joined: 5/16/2002
Status: offline
quote:

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. :P

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

(in reply to CommC)
Post #: 29
RE: How does cavalry raid Ft. Monroe? - 6/28/2008 5:43:52 AM   
Berkut

 

Posts: 757
Joined: 5/16/2002
Status: offline
quote:

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.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States >> How does cavalry raid Ft. Monroe? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.469