Sick & Tired of War!

[Temster]

I'm really fed up. Playing CSA in the 1861 scenario, I manage to beat the Yanks alright, due to the event that comes up once you occupy certain provinces I gain Kentucky and New Mexico. Throughout the 60s I concentrate on economic matters and disband most of my army.

Then in 1870, the US thinks it's time to invade again. Great, although I'm not prepared, I manage to draft a considerbable amount of divisions within the first half year of the conflict. Going into offense following this, I conquer New England, all of the Midwest and Arizona. The Union army's beaten, no doubt, and yet, they always keep planting divisions, REG + IRR in deep behind my lines and I have to send troops to purge them.

This is fine, but here we are talking about 10 armies of up to 40k soldiers each popping up all over the place in 1873!!! This is crazy and really annoying cuz there's no way on earth to sweep those up.

Furthermore, I tried and it's absolutely impossible to make peace with my mortal foe. Occupying all the aforementioned provinces, I offer them half my territory and they don't give a damn. It's driving me nuts!

 

[unmerged(13292)]

well duh you're playing a country that historically isn't suppost to exist past 1865. If you're sick and tired of war i suggest you try a different nation.

 

[Temster]

The problem is, really, being able to place troops in all kinds of places, even in besieged territory. How often have I escaped from a fateful situation by unleashing my newly built troops upon the unsuspecting enemy. Not sure if this is how it's supposed to work.

Also I'm looking for an explanation for the AI's absolute unwillingness to negotiate (maybe they know they can always drop some armies in my territory if they get into dire straits )

 

[Nabatam]

Originally posted by Knight_Kin
well duh you're playing a country that historically isn't suppost to exist past 1865. If you're sick and tired of war i suggest you try a different nation.

It may not have happened historically, but it could have easily had. And this game is supposed to be about historical "what ifs", which means that a hypotetical CSA should be a viable option.

The problem is with the AI peace negotiations which I understand are being revised for the next patch.

Also, it is important to notice that unlike EU2 in Victoria the AI pays a lot of attention to overall power not only to war score or exhaustion.

 

[unmerged(22951)]

Originally posted by Knight_Kin
well duh you're playing a country that historically isn't suppost to exist past 1865. If you're sick and tired of war i suggest you try a different nation.

This is just ignorant. The situation as described is totally unrealistic. The CSA is a perfectly legitimate country to play, one of the favorite "what-if" positions for American players along with Texas. It is, of course, a bug - one of the five thousand bugs all straining against each other in Vicky giving the *illusion* of stability.

Temster, if you get to this point and it's ruining your game, I'd consider it appropriate to edit the save file in order to bring about a peace treaty. (Especially if it's after a couple days of playing.) Question then becomes, what can we edit, get a treaty, and edit back w/o wrecking havoc?

ps - see the Neville thread, sounds like a good solution.

 

[unmerged(23000)]

Beyond irritating

What truly drives me crazy when playing the CSA is that after occupying huge swaths of US territory they continuously build 10,000 men divs. in "OCCUPIED" provinces. While it might be reasonable to epxect some guerrilla warfare to go on, it is not reasonable to expect them to be able to continouosly mobilize that many troops. Even after you occupy every single province they still produce these units like rabbits. It's also hard to think that when the US (for example) raises a "small" irregular unit that it could capture a province with only 100 men. There has got to be a way to secure your line of operations without having to detach a whole division. I mean, considering that an army might station small garrisons in occupied lands to secure their LOS is reasonable.

Now, I understand that an occupying force would need to station troops in an area to secure it, you can't do that when your units are 10,000 plus and take horrid attrition UNLESS you edit leader files to lessen the effects. There has got to be a better way to simulate partisan units, etc.

Lastly, if you realistically occupied every single province a country owned, you'd get better rewards than three provinces. It really makes wars completely unprofitable. (And since we're war mongering that would defeat the purpose.

Other than that (and even considering that) I still love the game!

(P.S. Sorry for the rambling, I've got war drums playing in the background and must return to the field!)

 

[TheFlemishDuck]

Well i agree irregular's and partisans sprung up often.Though you must also considder that much of those irregular's are troops beaten in a previous battle that are routed and left behind youre lines.

They come often ,especially hen you campaign over big territory's.
It would be dumb to engage these small troops withmain army infantry ,you shouldn't get diverted from the front due to these.
When i campaign over a big territory ill make sure that i have the troops to easily solve this problem ,i tend to build a small amount of cavalery (mostly with cuirrasier attach.) to operate in 1 division corps to defeat those army's.Their shock is most of the time effective enough to defeat it and since those troops are usually out of supply it kills them to ,and they are fast enough to get on time to a spot that is under siege.

One thing though that i will complain over: Those partisans seem to be way to fast in taking control over a province.Ive seen 1 devision irregulars taking control of a province faster than 5 regular devisions ,though it was sieging a home province.They are way to fast.

 

[Temster]

I understand this is a problem being addressed.

On another note, war exhaustion calculation should be edited, so that in a country with, say, 70% of its territory occupied the affected population should have a rising urge for peace, especially if their armies keep losing battles. Yes, in my game the CSA had to mobilize a larger proportion of the population than the north, but does it necessarily translate into their exhaustion rate being about 3 times higher?

Then again, I'm probably repeating things that have been mentioned before, but hey, maybe some things can be clearified through further discussion.

 

[Juba]

Originally posted by Knight_Kin
well duh you're playing a country that historically isn't suppost to exist past 1865. If you're sick and tired of war i suggest you try a different nation.

If you would have read the manual you would have noted that the developers placed playability and fun before historical accuracy.

 

[Dinsdale]

Originally posted by TheFlemishDuck
Well i agree irregular's and partisans sprung up often.Though you must also considder that much of those irregular's are troops beaten in a previous battle that are routed and left behind youre lines.

That's not true, armies are usually quite tidy with their personnel, they don't often lose 50k-60k who wandered the wrong way after losing a battle


Read the bit about the Opium war a couple of posts down in the second page of this thread The Chinese Hordes


Irregulars retreating become magic divisions and ridiculously reward nations for losing wars

 

[Darkrenown]

Originally posted by rlturner
This is just ignorant. The situation as described is totally unrealistic. The CSA is a perfectly legitimate country to play, one of the favorite "what-if" positions for American players along with Texas. It is, of course, a bug - one of the five thousand bugs all straining against each other in Vicky giving the *illusion* of stability.

Sure you can play as the CSA, but don't expect the north to like you, if they see a chance they're going to jump on you and rightly so.

However, after the ACW the north/south peace AI should return to normal rather than staying in ACW mode where it only wants to make peace via events.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Originally posted by Dinsdale
That's not true, armies are usually quite tidy with their personnel, they don't often lose 50k-60k who wandered the wrong way after losing a battle


Read the bit about the Opium war a couple of posts down in the second page of this thread The Chinese Hordes


Irregulars retreating become magic divisions and ridiculously reward nations for losing wars

Sometimes its ok - I would defend the USA partisans turning into divisions. Even if the numbers are overdone the impact is not. You should garrison captured provinces. One division in each province will prevent popular revolts. Those 10,000 divsions started as 100-500 partisans which the Union reinforced with men and material.

Where the system is fubared is when the partisans are springing up in Russian Africa when fighting the UK divisions occupying the provinces after the Russian fleet has been demolished in the Crimean War. That is totally silly. Where did all the Russian emigres come from when the British fleet was cruising off the coasy of Sebastapol and St Petersburg

 

[Dinsdale]

Originally posted by Derek Pullem
Sometimes its ok - I would defend the USA partisans turning into divisions. Even if the numbers are overdone the impact is not. You should garrison captured provinces. One division in each province will prevent popular revolts. Those 10,000 divsions started as 100-500 partisans which the Union reinforced with men and material.

I routinely drop off a unit in every captured province, it makes little difference: You cannot always cut off their retreat. I learnt that the hard way in China as Britain. Prior to the description in the other thread I was speculating how China ramped up so quickly.

This is directly rewarding failure, and that should not be present anywhere.

There is no precedent for even Regimental sized groups of irregulars springing up all over the CSA and liberating provinces, worse than that though, these units don't stay as partisans; they rise up and retreat from front line provinces then become front line divisions.

Read that China description carefully; I was able to get more out a war through not fighting it; by not advancing- less partisans, thus less divisions, thus China more willing to talk peace. This is working backwards.

 

[TheFlemishDuck]

Nah ,it's just a mather of killing more troops than new partisan devision forms to join youre enemy.

 

[unmerged(23000)]

Originally posted by Derek Pullem
Sometimes its ok - I would defend the USA partisans turning into divisions. Even if the numbers are overdone the impact is not. You should garrison captured provinces. One division in each province will prevent popular revolts. Those 10,000 divsions started as 100-500 partisans which the Union reinforced with men and material.

Where the system is fubared is when the partisans are springing up in Russian Africa when fighting the UK divisions occupying the provinces after the Russian fleet has been demolished in the Crimean War. That is totally silly. Where did all the Russian emigres come from when the British fleet was cruising off the coasy of Sebastapol and St Petersburg

I would agree that you should garrison "occupied" territory but that is nearly impossible when it is difficult to get leaders that don't take off the attrition hits that you will inevitably face, that you didn't always need to station a whole division to maintain a LOS and that the irregulars shouldn't be able to spring up 10,000 man divisions within days or weeks after a province is occupied. Heck, even cheating and adding a dozen or so leaders that would "- attrition" I still couldn't spare enough divisions to put 1 in each province I occupied. And even if I did, the attrition they would take would decimate their ranks. Doesn't make sense if you control a LOS (through occupied provinces) that you would take any serious attrition if you had the suppiles to provide an army unless maybe you were in jungle, desert or some other truly inhospitable terrain. I don't think the plains of the Midwest (US) would qualify. Besides, using the War Between the States ,(ACW) to everyone outside the Southern United States as an example..... hmmmmmmm... I'm digressing. Anyway, something needs to be tweaked.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Read what I say - they don't spring up as 10,000 man partisan divisions. Follow them closely some time . They start as a few hundred normally and then get reinforced. Thats my even weak garrisons are good enough.

 

[Dinsdale]

Originally posted by Derek Pullem
Read what I say - they don't spring up as 10,000 man partisan divisions. Follow them closely some time . They start as a few hundred normally and then get reinforced. Thats my even weak garrisons are good enough.

Derek

Read what I wrote.

They spring up and retreat. Then they are filled to divisions, so effectively the loss of a province gives a % chance of a free (minus manpower) division.

I've played very slowly against China and Russia, including reloads as them and watched it happen. I suggest that someone from the betas does the same.

 

[unmerged(5875)]

Originally posted by Derek Pullem
Sometimes its ok - I would defend the USA partisans turning into divisions. Even if the numbers are overdone the impact is not. You should garrison captured provinces. One division in each province will prevent popular revolts. Those 10,000 divsions started as 100-500 partisans which the Union reinforced with men and material.

No, this isnt really defendable. even in 1860s, you needed an industrial base to support troops. So while the small numbers of insurgence is realistic (the little 100-1000 units) as shards of a shattered army, or raiders or whatever. But these 10000 man units, hundreds of miles behind the front line are rather unrealistic. How would you, a country getting whooped, get supplies hundreds of miles behind the front lines (past the armies whoopin you)? While arms were widespread in the US even in 1860s (like now), ammunition is another story entirely.


Plus, I agree with what someone said earlier in this thread, that these 100 man insurgent units taking control of a province is totally BS. Even if u just secured that province 3 months ago, and your armies moved on, you would have left more than 100 police officers and security personnel in the province to maintain order and secure your supply lines. so saying 100 insurgence could take a province is unrealistic, the security and police you left behind would clean their clock. Its too bad that the designers took the old EU/EU II rebel/province control system and put it into Victoria. That system worked ok for 14th-18th centuries, but considering the huge population increases by the 19th century, and the large increase in things like police, military police, and security units, this system isnt realistic any longer. heck, in EU, at least the rebels had to have enough #s to seige the fortress to take a province, otherwise they couldnt take it.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Originally posted by Dinsdale
Derek

Read what I wrote.

They spring up and retreat. Then they are filled to divisions, so effectively the loss of a province gives a % chance of a free (minus manpower) division.

I've played very slowly against China and Russia, including reloads as them and watched it happen. I suggest that someone from the betas does the same.

I agree with you in general - I have logged a bug in Paradox database a couple of days ago based on my experiences in Africa with Russia!

My preference would be to tag partisans as unreinforcable units - with possibly an exception if they make it back to home provinces. The manpower issue is not so important IMHO as the units will drain the manpower pool (BTW its hard to remember 1.01 manpower rules in beta )

The time taken for those 100 man units to convert a province means that with a single cavalry divsion behind the lines you should be able to mop them up (so long as they don't turn into 10,000 regulars )

You are supposed to think about LoC in Victoria even if there is no supply

 

[Dinsdale]

Originally posted by Derek Pullem
My preference would be to tag partisans as unreinforcable units - with possibly an exception if they make it back to home

But they can't be reinforced until they make it home, so this in effect would not prevent the problem at hand: 200 partisans becomming 10,000 irregulars, or cavalry (as they are partisan units too when you're unlucky)

The manpower issue is not so important IMHO as the units will drain the manpower pool (BTW its hard to remember 1.01 manpower rules in beta )

Well manpower is a never ending stream in 1.01 so that's not a problem.

If manpower is more scarce in the next version then the AI needs to be changed as it it primed to instantly reinforce as soon as partisans make it to a controlled province.

The time taken for those 100 man units to convert a province means that with a single cavalry divsion behind the lines you should be able to mop them up (so long as they don't turn into 10,000 regulars )

Those units are just pests, more a danger of carpal tunnel than anything else. It's partisans retreating from the frontline (which can be extensive, especially with salients and amphibious pockets) make it home and instantly retreat.

Even garrisoning every province doesn't stop the problem, as they insta-retreat through spawing into a battle.

You are supposed to think about LoC in Victoria even if there is no supply

Again, this doesn't address the problem. highlighted above.

IMHO partisans should be have no movement and be unreinforcable. That at least would prevent the free armies cheat.