Do I want to conquer regions with nothing in them?

[Heldenkaiser]

Having conquered all cities in Missouri, there are still about 20 regions left that are controlled by the CSA, but have no structures in them. Do I still want to conquer them? Why? And what does it need? I mean, do I have to send a unit in each of them, or can one army just march through and take possession of all that it passes through on the fly? Thanks!

[Hobbes]

Having conquered all cities in Missouri, there are still about 20 regions left that are controlled by the CSA, but have no structures in them. Do I still want to conquer them? Why? And what does it need? I mean, do I have to send a unit in each of them, or can one army just march through and take possession of all that it passes through on the fly? Thanks!

You can take control pretty quickly with a large force but it will take a long time to affect loyalty. I can't see much point really; hold the railways and main towns and you control the region.

Cheers, Chris

[Jabberwock]

Having conquered all cities in Missouri, there are still about 20 regions left that are controlled by the CSA, but have no structures in them. Do I still want to conquer them? Why? And what does it need? I mean, do I have to send a unit in each of them, or can one army just march through and take possession of all that it passes through on the fly? Thanks!

You definitely want to control the regions that you will use for a supply line to Arkansas. Your depots won't push supplies forward through inadequately controlled regions. The army will take control, and then single or double militias can maintain control. Small units can take control, but it is slooow. I generally post militia along the rail lines and at harbors, in case there is an emergency need to manuever. If you don't garrison the regions your army has passed through, you will eventually lose control due to low loyalty.

Controlling the rails and harbors can be a deterrent to raiders, and lets you respond more easily to unexpected developments. If you decide to control the rail north of the Missouri river, you should have two more militia garrisons than the number of regions you're trying to occupy, because rail garrisons there will need to return to a depot for food every three turns or so. In southern Missouri, there are enough depots that most places you might consider garrisoning are within one region, so you can keep a garrison in any of those regions indefinitely.

Paranoia - If you don't control northern Missouri, an aggresive reb could sneak a texan cav brigade up through the Indian Territory (picking up Stand Watie's outfit along the way), take a train across MO, sail up the Illinois river, and burn Chicago before you can say "Boo!" Then they could split up ... some sailing across the Great Lakes to raise havoc in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Indiana; while others try to destroy every ungarrisoned inch of Illinois and Iowa. There are one or two crazy clown rebs who think like that around here. (Jab and his imaginary friend)

It has been my experience that you will get better scouting information in regions with high MC and/or high loyalty.

[Mosby]

If you don't control northern Missouri, an aggresive reb could sneak a texan cav brigade up through the Indian Territory...take a train across MO, sail up the Illinois river, and burn Chicago before you can say "Boo!" There are one or two crazy clown rebs who think like that around here

What a grand idea!

[Rafiki]

One problem you'll face in any area where regions are more than 50% by the enemy and/or more than 50% loyal to the enemy, is that the enemy gets good intelligence on your movements, since they get "free" detection ratings.

[Heldenkaiser]

You definitely want to control the regions that you will use for a supply line to Arkansas. Your depots won't push supplies forward through inadequately controlled regions. The army will take control, and then single or double militias can maintain control. Small units can take control, but it is slooow. I generally post militia along the rail lines and at harbors, in case there is an emergency need to manuever. If you don't garrison the regions your army has passed through, you will eventually lose control due to low loyalty.

Thank you! So, are you saying when you advance into enemy territory, you go out of your way to control every single region on your path of advance (sideways as well?), and keep them garrisoned with militias afterwards, even those without a structure?

[Heldenkaiser]

If you don't control northern Missouri, an aggresive reb could sneak a texan cav brigade up through the Indian Territory...take a train across MO, sail up the Illinois river, and burn Chicago before you can say "Boo!" There are one or two crazy clown rebs who think like that around here

What a grand idea!

Of course, I do have militia in Chicago.

Just for the sake of it, I tried a few cavalry raids into Reb territory out west ... invariably, my horse unit was down to basically zero cohesion after a fortnight. No great threat. Can the Rebs do better without capturing structures on their way?

[Brochgale]

Of course, I do have militia in Chicago.

Just for the sake of it, I tried a few cavalry raids into Reb territory out west ... invariably, my horse unit was down to basically zero cohesion after a fortnight. No great threat. Can the Rebs do better without capturing structures on their way?

Cohesive Reb Units out west - does not happen. Ionly put any there for nuisance value - and bushwhakers dont last very long and setting ambushes seems like a total waste of time - only good for destroying Yank RR or forcing them to garrison Missouri - that is troops they cant use to invade Ark?

[Jabberwock]

Thank you! So, are you saying when you advance into enemy territory, you go out of your way to control every single region on your path of advance (sideways as well?), and keep them garrisoned with militias afterwards, even those without a structure?

It depends where I am and what I am doing. River vs. land supply lines make the difference. If I have my supply line along a river, I usually won't bother with taking control of a region along the banks (unless it has a city), I just post boats and break rail. If my main supply line is overland, then I occupy. If I'm worried about overland raids, I occupy or break rail. (I can afford to rebuild later if I need it.)

With all those poor leaders, but lots of manpower; I've found it is more effective (as Union in PBEM) with my large forces to occupy territory and probe for weak points, cutting off and surrounding where I can, and forcing the rebels to attack, rather than using direct attacks. That emphasis makes small forces more valuable as occupiers than as part of the front line.

Occupying territory has the added advantage of ready-made entrenchments if I need to retreat or want to shorten my front line to free up troops for a flank march. Sometimes I will go sideways if I am up against a defensive opponent who I think knows how (and will take the time) to make troop strength estimates from changes in MC. If a region out of his scouting range is 100% MC and stays that way, he will not know if I am moving additional troops on a flank march, until they appear someplace to make him unhappy.

In Virginia I try to occupy everything. In Kentucky and Tennessee just the rails, towns, and harbors; unless I get stalled, then I go sideways. What I do in Missouri depends on my overall strategy, how the rest of the war is going, and what emphasis the rebels put on the T-M.

[Hobbes]

Thank you! So, are you saying when you advance into enemy territory, you go out of your way to control every single region on your path of advance (sideways as well?), and keep them garrisoned with militias afterwards, even those without a structure?

It seems to me that even if you take a state such as Kentucky - as long as you can control all the regions with rail (and that means at least a cav unit after gaining control with a larger unit) you have little to worry about.

Slight problems keeping control in the winter and PBEM players can use partisans here with good effect by exhausting supply just before winter - but nothing major if you keep plenty of cavalry and small entrenched units on the regions with railroads.

Cheers, Chris

[Jabberwock]

Of course, I do have militia in Chicago.

Just for the sake of it, I tried a few cavalry raids into Reb territory out west ... invariably, my horse unit was down to basically zero cohesion after a fortnight. No great threat. Can the Rebs do better without capturing structures on their way?

I suppose that I was imagining they had some other raiding going on simultaneously, that might happen to capture a structure like Bloomington just before they got there.

[Heldenkaiser]

Thanks for all the input, Gentlemen ... lots to think about and consider!

[chainsaw]

Thanks for all the input, Gentlemen ... lots to think about and consider!

Also, as you take important objectives a "loyalty check" ripples across the board and can affect some of those marginal regions.

I have noticed that encircling a group of empty regions (making a controlled cordon around an empty center like a doughnut) seems to cause them to slowly change as well (anyone else notice this?).