Long Distance Raiding into Enemy Territory

[Stauffenberg]

I may have missed some posts on this but this issue came up on my other recent thread re Texas Rangers.

The present house rule we are using:
Any raiding outside border states must be with a leader or within 2 regions of a leader (this is needed for Union invasions of CSA coastal areas, where sometimes the stack with the leader must split out from under the original leader).

I am thinking of further refinements with respect to Texas rangers:

--Texas rangers can only be used as raiders with no leader in SW states (Texas, Indian and Kansas territories, and off map Arizona box): outside of these areas they must have a leader, as well as other regular cavalry.
--Regular cavalry without leaders can only raid in border states if it is into states they originated in; e.g. only CSA cavalry raised in Kentucky can raid in Kentucky without a leader.
--Cavalry with a leader can raid anywhere.

Perhaps that sounds overly fussy, but cavalry ants running amok behind the lines blowing up everything they can find can have a huge effect on offensives. There were only a few Forrests and Morgan types actually able to do this. Re Texas rangers, historically, most of these ranger units were “mounted volunteers” used in Sibley’s brigade which set off for Arizona.

Actually I think there should be a "deep raider" icon to designate certain cavalry leaders on both sides as capable of going two states beyond the nearest controlled state, or something like that. Off the top of my head--CSA: Stuart, Forrest, Price, Morgan, Hampton, and U.S.: Grierson, Wilson.

[Citizen X]

I think the best rules are simple rules. Have some states be with no limits at all and all other states be restricted by the stacks' command point usage is most effective, imho. That way you nedn't ask your lawyer every turn.

Allthough raids can be a pain they are in no way decisive for the game's outcome and beyond a certain quantity I would advise the Confederate player to direct resources to effectives.

[Longshanks]

I like the idea of the "deep raider" icon in principle.

If raiders didn't have an impact, we wouldn't devote so much time to them on the forums!

Yes, they can't take cities anymore, but enough raiders (and let's face it, the CSA gets them cheap, cheap cheap) can completely isolate an area, leaving it vulnerable to conquest.

It's like the Vietnam era "dominoes" strategy (which was wrong of course): First Kansas, then Missouri, then Iowa, then Illinois ... then Washington DC!

[Stauffenberg]

I have to agree--that's exactly why these ranger units are such an issue--I believe the CSA gets around 7 to 10 of them and you can get them all without spending a single war supply. They will be a factor in every game.

[W.Barksdale]

I may have missed some posts on this but this issue came up on my other recent thread re Texas Rangers.

The present house rule we are using:
Any raiding outside border states must be with a leader or within 2 regions of a leader (this is needed for Union invasions of CSA coastal areas, where sometimes the stack with the leader must split out from under the original leader).

I am thinking of further refinements with respect to Texas rangers:

--Texas rangers can only be used as raiders with no leader in SW states (Texas, Indian and Kansas territories, and off map Arizona box): outside of these areas they must have a leader, as well as other regular cavalry.
--Regular cavalry without leaders can only raid in border states if it is into states they originated in; e.g. only CSA cavalry raised in Kentucky can raid in Kentucky without a leader.
--Cavalry with a leader can raid anywhere.
.

Yeah in my current pbem we are playing with house rules similar to these but with no unit restrictions such as your texas ranger limits. Standard rules for raiding in border states, however, to raid in 'home' states, CSA and USA need leader + 3 elements. It seems to be working out quite well.

Perhaps that sounds overly fussy, but cavalry ants running amok behind the lines blowing up everything they can find can have a huge effect on offensives. There were only a few Forrests and Morgan types actually able to do this. Re Texas rangers, historically, most of these ranger units were “mounted volunteers” used in Sibley’s brigade which set off for Arizona.

Actually I think there should be a "deep raider" icon to designate certain cavalry leaders on both sides as capable of going two states beyond the nearest controlled state, or something like that. Off the top of my head--CSA: Stuart, Forrest, Price, Morgan, Hampton, and U.S.: Grierson, Wilson.

I actually tried to have this implemented some years back when they decided to take away the ability of early cavalry to take enemy cities. There is already a trait called 'adept raider' which I thought would be perfect for it and would require much less work. No one really took my idea serious, however.

[Stauffenberg]

I actually tried to have this implemented some years back when they decided to take away the ability of early cavalry to take enemy cities. There is already a trait called 'adept raider' which I thought would be perfect for it and would require much less work. No one really took my idea serious, however.

Implementing a few house rules, negotiated between players, is no biggie really. As for that being a pain and too complex--many if not most of us I think come from an extensive board game background. Those games with 30-page rule books were virtually all honour rules between players inasmuch as you had no "computer referee" watching your moves but had to honour them as written.

Another issue related to cavalry raids is union coastal incursions. I had a pbem where a union army landed east of New Orleans, using Mississippi City (harbour 1) as a base. This force then morphed into about 4 attack groups threatening NO, Mobile, and even within 1 region of Vicksburg: how likely was this in 1862? With such a minor port a very large union army would realistically not be darting around in multiple directions, but would have a very ponderous logistical tail. In my view, any penetration from a coastal region inland should require exceptional leaders and initiative and a solid supply tail. There must be all sorts of forum posts on this, I just haven't had the time to dig around for them yet.

[Longshanks]

[quote="Stauffenberg"]
With such a minor port a very large union army would realistically not be darting around in multiple directions, but would have a very ponderous logistical tail. [quote]

Yup, it would, but the current game rules cover that, imo. Just taking a port doesn't give the Union supply. He'll have to have ships in the shipping box as well. He'll probably have to build a Depot there too. As the troops move out, they'll need Supply Units, and probably spares, as they get depleted quickly. So, I think the logistics are in there, except there doesn't currently seem to be a "destroy port" option, possibly because such efforts weren't very successful during the Civil War..?

[As a full disclosure, I'm currently invading Stauffenberg in NC, FL, AL, and next turn another state in a PBEM! ]

[Stauffenberg]

[As a full disclosure, I'm currently invading Stauffenberg in NC, FL, AL, and next turn another state in a PBEM! ]

Yep, and now they all know why I am whinging on about this.