The Cavalry Swarm

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[runyan99]

Cohesion loss and patrol values are seperate issues. I currently believe the interception chances are ridiculously low. For example, my testing shows one cavalry unit chasing another that is evading only has a (approximately) 10% chance of initiating a battle. This is based on Patrol values and Evade values, which have nothing to do with cohesion. If you think 10% is reasonable, keep the default values. I however do not believe that the current values do a good job of modeling cavalry pursuit. In real life, I feel that when one cavalry unit sets out to follow and engage another cavalry unit, their chances of doing so were generally not bad. Once pursued, rest became impossible for raiders, and difficulties tended to mount as time went on. Eventually, the probability of being cornered or overtaken was high.

The modded values double the chances. That might still be too low.

[Generalisimo]

Cohesion loss and patrol values are seperate issues. I currently believe the interception chances are ridiculously low. For example, my testing shows one cavalry unit chasing another that is evading only has a (approximately) 10% chance of initiating a battle. This is based on Patrol values and Evade values, which have nothing to do with cohesion. If you think 10% is reasonable, keep the default values. I however do not believe that the current values do a good job of modeling cavalry pursuit. In real life, I feel that when one cavalry unit sets out to follow and engage another cavalry unit, their chances of doing so were generally not bad. Once pursued, rest became impossible for raiders, and difficulties tended to mount as time went on. Eventually, the probability of being cornered or overtaken was high.

The modded values double the chances. That might still be too low.

I must say that I really like this change... in my short stay on AACW I always found amazing how hard it was to chase a cavalry raider and actually take him out...

[W.Barksdale]

Gray:

I have to say, stopping movement for an entire turn just because cavalry cut some rails will be seriously detrimental to the game.

These raids are not overly effective! It seems to me that people who are having problems with raids are just not putting adequate resources into countering this menace!

I have played many many PBEM games and I see players make this mistake constantly.

Keeping garrison and reaction units at your backdoor is not only a sound tactical decision, but also very historically accurate. As are quick cavalry raids to cut rails and burn depots (although now we are unable to do this until 1863 when it is not nearly as effective).

So, please, please, please, please, pretty please, with a cherry on top, think very carefully about this potential change. Reducing cavalry cohesion and evasion will do more than enough to curb their effectiveness.

And to PBEM players:

Protect your depots and key rails adequately! Set aside some resources for this VERY important task! Play properly and we will not need detrimental changes to units and rules that really takes away from the historical accuracy and realism of this wonderful game.

[Generalisimo]

Gray:

I have to say, stopping movement for an entire turn just because cavalry cut some rails will be seriously detrimental to the game.

These raids are not overly effective! It seems to me that people who are having problems with raids are just not putting adequate resources into countering this menace!

I have played many many PBEM games and I see players make this mistake constantly.

Keeping garrison and reaction units at your backdoor is not only a sound tactical decision, but also very historically accurate. As are quick cavalry raids to cut rails and burn depots (although now we are unable to do this until 1863 when it is not nearly as effective).

So, please, please, please, please, pretty please, with a cherry on top, think very carefully about this potential change. Reducing cavalry cohesion and evasion will do more than enough to curb their effectiveness.

And to PBEM players:

Protect your depots and key rails adequately! Set aside some resources for this VERY important task! Play properly and we will not need detrimental changes to units and rules that really takes away from the historical accuracy and realism of this wonderful game.

If I am not mistaken, this has been extensively dicussed in the forum... I am sure Gray can point you into the right thread later.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[W.Barksdale]

For one thing, historically (factually), it never took a month to rip up rail lines either.

Sorry but if I see enemy cavalry in my backcountry I don't assume that he's NOT going to cut the rails...a repair team is on the way immediately if he cuts the rails or not. If he's in the FOW then good move on his part!

And yes, it is my opinion, but only after dozens of pbem of AACW. How many pbem's have you played?

EDIT: I'd also like to say thanks to all of you who are testing runyan's changes to cavalry cohesion and evasion levels. IMO this a much more realistic solution.

[johnnycai]

Gray:

I have to say, stopping movement for an entire turn just because cavalry cut some rails will be seriously detrimental to the game.

These raids are not overly effective! It seems to me that people who are having problems with raids are just not putting adequate resources into countering this menace!

I have played many many PBEM games and I see players make this mistake constantly.

Keeping garrison and reaction units at your backdoor is not only a sound tactical decision, but also very historically accurate. As are quick cavalry raids to cut rails and burn depots (although now we are unable to do this until 1863 when it is not nearly as effective).

So, please, please, please, please, pretty please, with a cherry on top, think very carefully about this potential change. Reducing cavalry cohesion and evasion will do more than enough to curb their effectiveness.

And to PBEM players:

Protect your depots and key rails adequately! Set aside some resources for this VERY important task! Play properly and we will not need detrimental changes to units and rules that really takes away from the historical accuracy and realism of this wonderful game.

No amount of adequate PBEM defenses can counter bushwackers, skirmishers, partisans as well as cav units, as they all can routinely pass thru regions held by Corps with cav. in regions with 100% military control and their rate of interception is below 30% (in my limited manner of testing), and of course much lower if only defended by cav or militia in the rear areas (<10% to intercept).
Point is enemy raiders are passing thru regions without any MC, and often in loyal to enemy regions, and still not being detected and intercepted.
This is the problem, the fix should address this problem. Cohesion loss is expected to be greater in enemy controlled regions, but this alone does not address how to realistically counter raiders.
I can send countless regiments of cav along my rail lines on patrol missions but how often do I actually intercept and fight a battle with raider deep behind the actual lines....very seldom.

[W.Barksdale]

No amount of adequate PBEM defenses can counter bushwackers, skirmishers, partisans as well as cav units, as they all can routinely pass thru regions held by Corps with cav. in regions with 100% military control and their rate of interception is below 30% (in my limited manner of testing), and of course much lower if only defended by cav or militia in the rear areas (<10% to intercept).
Point is enemy raiders are passing thru regions without any MC, and often in loyal to enemy regions, and still not being detected and intercepted.
This is the problem, the fix should address this problem. Cohesion loss is expected to be greater in enemy controlled regions, but this alone does not address how to realistically counter raiders.
I can send countless regiments of cav along my rail lines on patrol missions but how often do I actually intercept and fight a battle with raider deep behind the actual lines....very seldom.

Agreed. Although, there are better ways of countering a player who raids alot than chasing after them constantly.

Anyway, I was referring to the unrealistic idea of a movement delay of one turn after cutting rails. This makes no sense. Tweaking cohesion and evasion values for them should fix the problem and is much more realistic.

[bigus]

Cohesion loss and patrol values are seperate issues. I currently believe the interception chances are ridiculously low. For example, my testing shows one cavalry unit chasing another that is evading only has a (approximately) 10% chance of initiating a battle. This is based on Patrol values and Evade values, which have nothing to do with cohesion. If you think 10% is reasonable, keep the default values. I however do not believe that the current values do a good job of modeling cavalry pursuit. In real life, I feel that when one cavalry unit sets out to follow and engage another cavalry unit, their chances of doing so were generally not bad. Once pursued, rest became impossible for raiders, and difficulties tended to mount as time went on. Eventually, the probability of being cornered or overtaken was high.

The modded values double the chances. That might still be too low.

Sorry for the delay but I was on a golf trip for the last week

IIRC... historically no cavalry force other than the "great locamative chase"
or "Morgans raid" was a cavalry force cornered or captured. The only factor was supplies or breakdown of the mounts which is I think should be modeled as cohesion or attrition loss.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[runyan99]

As far as I can tell, low cohesion cavalry is not slow. It just lowers their combat power. So, they will be as evasive as ever.

[bigus]

As far as I can tell, low cohesion cavalry is not slow. It just lowers their combat power. So, they will be as evasive as ever.

Exactly!

A double solution to the problem......

In 1.14... if they can't take cities and the cohesion/attrition problem is increased they will suffer for spending time in enemy territory and the cost for enagaging in combat will be high.

Then 10% chance of getting caught will mean their annihalation or capture or a severe beating.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[MrT]

Exactly!

A double solution to the problem......

In 1.14... if they can't take cities and the cohesion/attrition problem is increased they will suffer for spending time in enemy territory and the cost for enagaging in combat will be high.

Then 10% chance of getting caught will mean their annihalation or capture or a severe beating.

i think thats perfect then. When you raid u can still raid but you have to risk your unit being caught and terminated (which is what we want...? to stop 1 cav unit having a mini fight then going to the next depot with 10 men lost or so), after all if a raiding force lost horses and men in a fight it couldnt replace them in enemy land, and if there was say 50 left from a 550 i would imagine that they would run like hell home and not try and capture the next depot?

Edit: Also i am quite leaning towards the turn destruction for rr as suggested by grey, that gives a really good chance to catch the sod thats currently running wild with 500000 cav units in your rear.


n.b. Is this compatible with the latest beta release?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[MrT]

Grey i was refering to the cav mod runyan did, dont know alot about the inner workings of patches and things like that, so am not sure if you have to redesign the mod over and over when the patch is changed.
Dont want be testing a mod that isnt working lol.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[MrT]

well from my experiance with this patch i can always(ish) catch the enemy now.. but not destroy him, which means i have to chase him with cav but its productive chasing... rail lines protected and not destroyed but still having to divert units away to chase raiders. best of both worlds?

[berto]

IIRC... historically no cavalry force other than the "great locamative chase"
or "Morgans raid" was a cavalry force cornered or captured.

Another: Streight's Raid, April-May 1863.

The capturer? None other than Nathan Bedford Forrest.

[runyan99]

well from my experiance with this patch i can always(ish) catch the enemy now.. but not destroy him, which means i have to chase him with cav but its productive chasing... rail lines protected and not destroyed but still having to divert units away to chase raiders. best of both worlds?

I'll take that as an endorsement.

[Jarkko]

The best strategy still seem to be to not care about protecting your own backyard, but to send your cavalry to destroy the opponents railroads. "The side that burns more pponent lands wins" is still the motto in this game.

Sorry to say this, but chasing evading cavalry is still is ridiculous as has been ever since I started playing this game. No sane player will divert cavalry for a task that has only 10% of success (or 20% as per runyans suggestion) when the success rate is 100% if you send the cavalry to destroy opponents railroads. If a player thinks otherwise for roleplaying or whatever reasons, fine, but it is still not the sane choice.

Should I take a one in ten shot at preventing an opponent from possibly hampering me, or take the option which and will hamper my opponent guaranteed?


EDIT: To be actually a bit constructive, I would very much like to see the option to destroy railroads available only when the unit is in Offensive posture. At least it would require some thoght processing then instead of being the obvious and only sensible thing to do Freezing a cavalry in place for two weeks to break a railroad does not sound right to me, but at least the risk to get into combat should be highly increased with potential patrollers in the area.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[MrT]

I will clarify what i said a little bit more after further testing (n.b. the 1.14 feature of allowing side switching in game is heavenly, or if that was an earlier feature i just found it lol).
They will kill 2rr elements 90% OF the time, however after the first two, they move at nearly half speed compared to regular cav(test was made with a union based cav unit with 100% cohession and a rebel unit with mininium cohession - i only state that because i dont know if they have faster or slower movment speed) when they have just 1 cohession left, and ive found this greatly increased my chance to catch them,, as long as u don't stop to repair the damaged railroad first!!

However having been doing this testing ive got 1 major gripe, why can unit destroy a rr in 1 day but it takes longer to repair it, nearly 10 days it seems, when surely repairing is the quicker of the two in real life? For the purposes of transporting supplys a slapdash repair would do and the next train can send an engineer with it too check the repair over and improve it, after all he can work in safety in your land, but destroying railroads good and proper should take 4-5 days mini distance in my view.

edit: after 2 turns moving in the enemy controlled land, the cav has suffered total cohession loss.
When in your land they suffer a 20% cohession loss for the same movement (ie the full 30days) That seems quite reasonable too me personally.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[MrT]

Then i would be tempted to suggest just the simple increasing of time to destroy railroads, in reference to your earlier post about asking pocus regarding the workload etc - did you get around too it or didnt you trouble him with the question, would be a useful addition to the crippling cohession loss for longer raids the reasons been the following:-
In the beginning you can move all the way to the SC/Georgia boarder from Washington in 30 days with cav as they stand in the moment, now with 5 or 6 cav units you can do some serious damage to the rebel railroad lines, were as increasing the time required for destruction would limit the range to say SC/NC boarder zone.
Secondly it would complement runyans modification nicely, by making the enemy stay still longer thus increasing further the chance of the cav been caught, the main reason for this when your burning up rail tracks, that means fire and fire means smoke, which normally can been seen from miles away espcially in the open country that america is, that in turn lets you know were the enemy is ripping railroads open, allowing you to home in on him more effectivly.
Thirdly it would balance the injust rr destruction repair ratio, and still leave the player the choice stop him ruining my railroads then come back and repair or repair now and hope to catch him still anyway because his cohession is so low.

Regards MrT

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[MrT]

Maybe its best to consult pocus if its:-

a)possible for him to do it
b)does he have the time

before i create a poll that pushes everyone's blood pressure throu the roof?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[MrT]

lol yes now uve said it point a) is a tiny bit silly lol
Okay will make a footstep into hell later then