AGEOD Forums

Hi folks, are there any penalties for being in a passive stance rather than a defensive one while in a fort? It seems there shouldn't be. The only reason to be passive is to increase the chance of reinforcement?

It seems that that to go into a vulnerable stance to maximise the chance of reinforcement would be wrong - especially in a fort. I Hope this is not the case.

What would be the outcome of going into an aggressive stance in a fort? A sortie?

Chris

passive: get combat penalty, prioritized remplacements, can retreat more easily (would not apply in a fort)
defensive: no cbt penalty, standard RPL priority.

Your choice, depends if the fort is threathened or not I suppose.

Now I'm trying to remember the reinforcement rule - you have to be in a level 2 town? I use search but come up with too many threads!

Surley you should be able to be reinforced in a fort if the fort is not cut off from supply? I would like to be able to reinforce a unit by flagging it for reinforcement rather than going into a particular stance and hoping they may appear.

I'm a bit worried about this rule - but not sure I understand it fully.

Chris

Thanks Pocus, our threads crossed then.

Seems strange that a unit suffers defensively in a fort if the only reason they are in a passive stance is to improve the chance of reinforcements. Why would the units in a fort be less prepared for an attack because they want reinforcements?

If that's the case, I don't like the rule as it doesn't reflect a real situation.

Chris

to get reinforcements you must either be in a level 2+ town, a fort, or a depot, and be in supply.

As for the passive posture and being in a structure, I think its more a loophole than anything else. I too agree that in this case no penalties should be given... But lets not be hasty, I will wait for PhilThib and the betas to check if nothing bad would stem from the fix.

Thanks Pocus. I think the current rules work OK but it would be nice to have a chance to override them with some sort of flagged for reinforcement button.

I suppose militia reinforcements could spring up anywhere but the commander (the player) should have some say as to where regular troops head too. (Maybe some militia as well) Especially without having to put troops into a unrealistically vulnerable state.

Chris

There also seems to be a strange effect. When passive in a fort and winning a battle I find my units outside the fort at the start of the next turn.

The fort is empty but it has become enemy controlled.

Chris

I will check that, thanks.

Pocus, this is Washington on turn 1 of the Montcalm scenario. If you put his group on passive he seems to vacate the fort before battle - maybe there is a good reason for this. He then wins all battles but loses the fort.

Cheers, Chris

Pocus wrote:As for the passive posture and being in a structure, I think its more a loophole than anything else. I too agree that in this case no penalties should be given... But lets not be hasty, I will wait for PhilThib and the betas to check if nothing bad would stem from the fix.

Is it the same in 1.08? The idea not to penalize units in passive stance in a fort deserves attention.

I just uploaded again the patch with this correction (forgot about it to say the truth)