Burn, Atlanta, burn!

[hiram ulysses]

Okay, I see the "Destroy Depot" and "Destroy Rail" orders.

But how do I burn Atlanta? (or any city)

I realize the value of taking and holding strategic/objective cities (for Victory points), but what if I want to burn/pillage cities and then keep moving - as Sherman did to Jackson, Mississippi (during the Vicksburg campaign) and then to Atlanta.

Thanks all.

[Durk]

Good question. In some other American Civil War games, this is actually an option, to utterly destroy a city.
You will find destroy depot and destroy rail the equivalent of burning a city. It will render the city useless for several turns. Because of the manner in which supply works in this game, destroying the depot and supply, while cutting the railroad, renders the city of no use.

[Jim-NC]

Burning a city is not an option for AACW. You can only burn depots and destroy railroads.

[Longshanks]

Burning a city is not an option for AACW. You can only burn depots and destroy railroads.

and destroy forts (if there's one in the city). Ha! Jim-NC, gotcha!

[MarkCSA]

I often wondered what exactly was stopping me from burning Cincinatti, Cairo and Chicago to the ground, just to show the Yankees I meant business..........

A 'destroy war industries' button would be cool though (WS, Ammo and General Supply go to 0)

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

I guess Sherman had no need to leave a garrison in Atlanta if there was nothing left there to garrison!

Feel free to burn Cincinatti, just please don't burn Cincinnati. I live there!

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

I guess Sherman had no need to leave a garrison in Atlanta if there was nothing left there to garrison!

Feel free to burn Cincinatti, just please don't burn Cincinnati. I live there!

You're on the wrong side of the river. Now the fine southern gentleman of Covington are fine by me.

I do think it's funny how you can get grits and sweet tea in Covington, but damn hard to find as soon as you cross the bridge.

[Longshanks]

When I lived in fair Lexington, we always called Cincinnati, "Cincinnati, Kentucky" but Louisville was "Louisville, Indiana." That probably sums up the general feelings about the two places. Graeter's cream cheese muffins... heaven on earth.

[W.Barksdale]

Good question. In some other American Civil War games, this is actually an option, to utterly destroy a city.
You will find destroy depot and destroy rail the equivalent of burning a city. It will render the city useless for several turns. Because of the manner in which supply works in this game, destroying the depot and supply, while cutting the railroad, renders the city of no use.

This is just not true. Supply can still move easily. It just will not be able to move as far. Even with no depot a city can still be a thoroughfare for supplies. Especially so if it has a harbour.

and destroy forts (if there's one in the city). Ha! Jim-NC, gotcha!

This is also false. Level two forts cannot be destroyed once built.

[Jim-NC]

and destroy forts (if there's one in the city). Ha! Jim-NC, gotcha!

Ha yourself. True, I did not mention that, but I never said I knew everything.

You should have seen some of my early posts (I got confused a bit).

[Citizen X]

This is just not true. Supply can still move easily. It just will not be able to move as far. Even with no depot a city can still be a thoroughfare for supplies. Especially so if it has a harbour.

Also it should not be forgotten that cities produce supply.


Moreover I am of the opinion that not everything that has happened as historical event should be considered as well representable in a game, scourching of cities being among them.

[Stauffenberg]

Moreover I am of the opinion that not everything that has happened as historical event should be considered as well representable in a game, scourching of cities being among them.

Agreed! And the burning of Atlanta as a shock event for the South is well represented by the sum total of other effects, including NM adjustments (and opponent morale).

[Longshanks]

Ha yourself. True, I did not mention that, but I never said I knew everything.

You should have seen some of my early posts (I got confused a bit).

You misunderstand! My observation is that you always get it right, at least compared to my posts which are as likely to be wrong as right. As for earlier posts, I'd like to drop a couple of mine too!