Ambushes, posture, and something about supply

[Gresbeck]

Hi! This is my first post. I've just started playing the demo, the game looks great, but there's something I miss. Hope these have not been questioned before.

1. Do units set to ambush get a penalty during combat, when they don't succeed in ambushing? More generally, are there any reasons not to set to ambush units that are ambush capable?

2. Do ambush chances depend on posture or entrenchment?

3. AFAIK, supply is differently rated for food and ammo. Is the difference based only on consumption (i.e., I imagine units involved in combat consume more ammo, but not more food than units that didnt't fight during a turn) or also on the kind of supply source (i.e., do supply depots provide indifferently food and ammo, or maybe they provide essentially ammo and less food)?

4. To get supply from a supply depot, should the unit be / go to the depot or can it get supply through a "supply chain" (if so, how do supply chains work)?

Thanks in advance and good job.

[Pocus]

Hi,

1. If you ambush,you won't move, and if you succeed, then you will revert to the offensive posture... so it is up to you to decide if the ambush is worth trying. On the other hand, no penalty if you decide to ambush and fail.

2. no. Stay in defensive, and if you succeed the engine will put you in offensive.

3. there is 2 kinds of supplies, food and ammo. Some structures provide both (depots, cities of level 2+, forts, harbors), some sources only provide food (countryside, town & indian villages). Each unit has a dual storage capacity in both, and each use food each turn, and ammo for each battle. Supply units are not a source, just a unit with a big stock.

4. there is no concept of supply chain in BoA, just supply sources. So to have depleted units resplenish their stock (supply train included), you can have these units in the region, or adjacent to it.

[Gresbeck]

Thanks. It's really a pleasure to get such a quick response from a developer.

[Pocus]

this is because you have a squirrel as your avatar. This means you will always get the best of me (you'll get the worst if we PBEM against each other!)

[Hobbes]

This is still unclear to me. If you wish to be in an offensive posture is there any reason not to also be in ambush? If so why isn't this automatic?

And do ambushing units get any terrain benefits? I assume they would be
coming out of higher ground/wooden terrain etc

[Pocus]

You mean automatic if you are an ambush capable army, in offensive and not moving? If you particularly fail an ambush, and if you are in offensive, then you can be engaged with a penalty in fact. So it is better in my opinion to not have the order set on automatic for you.

Ambushing armies are in offensive, and thus have the offensive terrain column in the terrain matrix. This doesn't mean they are penalized, as irregulars for example have a bonus in bad terrain, in offensive or in defensive.

If you really want to compare things, an irregular in wilderness and in offensive has a +20% fire bonus, and the same in defensive has a +30% bonus.

A regular in the same case has a -25% penalty on offensive, and a -15% in defensive.

So overall, even in offensive, an irregular performs far better in wild terrain compared to a regular.

Add on top of that the terrains contingencies (see the FAQ) and the bonus given by ambush (you fire first and retreat when you want to summarize)

the XLS files will be posted soon, along with some modding support.

[Hobbes]

Thanks Pocus

[Gresbeck]

this is because you have a squirrel as your avatar. This means you will always get the best of me (you'll get the worst if we PBEM against each other!)

Nice picture eh? It was taken by a friend of mine living in the mountains.

As far as it concerns ambushes, you mean that a unit has no chance to ambush during the turn it moves, even if the movement requires only few days?

[MarkShot]

You mean automatic if you are an ambush capable army, in offensive and not moving? If you particularly fail an ambush, and if you are in offensive, then you can be engaged with a penalty in fact. So it is better in my opinion to not have the order set on automatic for you.

I understand the reasons why you don't want to make ambush an automatic order.

However, I don't understand why you need to request an ambush turn after turn after the first time you request it. To me it seems that like entrenching and postures, once the player issue this order for a stationary stack that the order should persist (even if it is not carried out during the turn processing).

Comments?

[Pocus]

this was done initially so that you have to reroll your ambush percentage each month. The ambush percentage can be negative (you fail and can be penalized) or positive. The more positive, the best you are set for ambush... the exploit would be to be "super-prepared" for an ambush, ambush a force, and still have this super bonus for new battles, perhaps against the same troop... Not very realistic, so we prefer to have you reroll it each month.

[Gresbeck]

this was done initially so that you have to reroll your ambush percentage each month. The ambush percentage can be negative (you fail and can be penalized) or positive. The more positive, the best you are set for ambush... the exploit would be to be "super-prepared" for an ambush, ambush a force, and still have this super bonus for new battles, perhaps against the same troop... Not very realistic, so we prefer to have you reroll it each month.

You mean a new ambush order is essential to program a reroll? Couldn't you program a reroll (without any bonus) turn after turn for units set to ambush in previous turns?

[MarkShot]

Yes, it is not the reroll each turn that is an inconvenience, it's the clicking on the strategic order.

[Gresbeck]

Yes, it is not the reroll each turn that is an inconvenience, it's the clicking on the strategic order.

Totally agree. I have the whole game now. I've been just been playing a French-Indian scenario, I wanted my Indian units to ambush, and it was really a pain to set them every turn. BTW, I find this is a great game (also) because you can manage your units intuitively and easily. Ambushes are the only feature that requires micromanagement.

[MarkShot]

Micro-management: At the moment, entrenching does too. Since there is no penalty, so it is always better to be entrenched when not moving. But still doesn't require clicking every turn.

[Pocus]

ok, we will look at this. Ambush will be changed, and for entranch who will think if we add fatigue in 1.06.

[Sol Invictus]

That is a good idea; there should be some need to consider whether entrenching is worth the effort. As it is now, there is no downside. It could maybe cost a few supplies as well.

[Gresbeck]

[quote="Sol Invictus"]That is a good idea]

Is it really so? I thought there was a penalty in combat or moving. If there's no penalty, I agree entrenchment should be automatic. But probably the best solution in terms of realism would be a penalization in subsequent movement or in combat (more likelihood to be surprised?).

[Cantata]

I don't mind seeing these functions being automatic, but I would prefer an on/off toggle for each one in Options, so that I can choose what is automatic and what is not. There may be times when I want to micro-manage my units, and times when I don't, so I would like to have the option to choose.

[BobB]

Good discussion.

It seems to me that the act of entrenching be tied to the presence of "supply" units. I cannot see a standalone regiment(s), out in the boondocks, going through the motions of erecting formal redoubts without the presence of "supply". I mean, is every other trooper - in addition to his standard gear -carrying: an axe, a shovel, or a pick? Entrenching should cost something. Throw in a big effect on fatigue as well. Any of you who ever served in the infantry know about that.

Great game!

[Pocus]

sweat spare blood...

[PDF]

I wouldn't mind having automatic or "carry-over" postures for Ambush and Entrench.
As for entrenchments maybe it could be a two-level system :
- Any stationary unit can make hasty entrenchments at the cost of some sweat/fatigue, but they should not be very powerful
- OTOH, real prepared positions giving a better bonus would require "some" manpower (maybe 1 regt ?) and supply.

[MarkShot]

I am curious ... for this historical period what type of defensive improvements did armies make at that time over a 10-20 day period that the game models for such activities?

I had the impression that for around that time period, for example the ACW, that even just a few hours permitted some measurable improvements to be made (like breastworks made by piling up fence rails and tree limbs). I assume that such basic and quick improvements are already "automatically" covered in the defensive bonus a unit can receive if it fights with a defensive posture.

[Sol Invictus]

Yeah, I'm a little uneasy with the way that Entrenchments are done. If you are in a Fort, why bulid Entrenchments that are less effective than the Fort defenses. If you want to construct Entrenchments and not get bottled up in the Fort, you should have to leave the Fort defenses and construct Entrenchments, al Montcalm before Carrillon. It jusy seems strange to be in a solidly built Fort and at the same time build Entrenchments. I look at it as the Fort defenders improving the delapidated Fort, ala Ticonderoga.

[BobB]

Markshot:

My memory is not what it used to be; but I think I recall in David McCullough's (sp) 1776, that the Colonial troops on the hills around Boston filled barrels with dirt. The purpose twofold: 1) to protect from hostile fire (although I'm not too sure how effective the barrels would have been against direct artillery) and 2) to roll down the hill to break up the British in the event of a formal assault.

My idea of entrenching though, is just that - trenches - that afford the defender an advantage in having to only expose the head and/or upper body.

The resulting dirt pile helps that effect as well.

I also envision the felling of trees and the erection of log walls or piling loose rocks/boulders etc. Also maybe the emplacement of pointed stakes and so on.

As I stated earlier, this is a considerable task and I think would only be undertaken for the perceived long term defense of an important location. That's why I favor the inclusion of some sort of supply usage consideration.

Just my .02.

[Gresbeck]

I wouldn't mind having automatic or "carry-over" postures for Ambush and Entrench.

But the point is that if entrenching units get no penalty, it doesn't make sense to have them not entrenched: and I don't see any reason to give manually such an order.

As for entrenchments maybe it could be a two-level system :
- Any stationary unit can make hasty entrenchments at the cost of some sweat/fatigue, but they should not be very powerful
- OTOH, real prepared positions giving a better bonus would require "some" manpower (maybe 1 regt ?) and supply.

Interesting, but the problem is the level of abstraction. Consider that an entrenching unit is steady, while a unit set to attack probably needs supply to move, search for the enemy, guard from ambusches, etc. Are we sure that the amount of manpower and supply needed to move and attack is higher than that needed to entrench? If not, the idea to let units entrench without additional supply can be accepted as an abstraction for the idea that the amount of supply needed to entrench and to search for the enemy are similar. It would be less acceptable that a unit set in offensive posture could in the same time entrench and benefit from the entrenchment, but I don't know if the game engine allows that.