Advanced strategy questions

[rasnell]

Let me apologize first for the length of these questions and if they're in other threads (I've studied the manual thoroughly and followed the forums faithfully, if that will serve as a good excuse for any redundant question):

1. I know that passive posture gives you first priority for reinforcements, but I would like to understand better how reinforcements are awarded. Is it based on events, what key cities you hold, the leader or is your posture critical?

2. Is there a PDF version of the game map that we can print in chunks, like poster size, where it's possible to see the province names and the city names?

3. Has patch 1.06 changed the rules for loading on ships? I get the message that it requires one turn per army to load a ship.

4. In the French and Indian War (FIW) Campaign, Louisbourg has received numerous reinforcements but no ships to transport them. Will ships eventually arrive or must I move the bateaux (spelling?) in summer when the rivers aren't frozen to get over there?

5. What makes the difference and is the best way to break a siege: clicking the sortie arrow or choosing offense or assault?

6. I don't quite understand what the map is showing me when the revolt icon shows up. Is this control or loyalty and what exactly is the difference?

7. The manual says loyalty only concerns the American Revolution Campaign and not FIW. Is the manual correct or has that changed in the patches because I see the icons and shifts in FIW, but I'm probably confusing loyalty and control. I just don't understand these concepts or importance yet.

8. How different will a campaign play each time, based on scripted events, troop movements, victory points, etc.? For example, I see how important it is to capture Albany by 1757 so that Iroquois will ally with French in FIW. I don't want to know all the other hidden scripts, but I'm assuming there are so many and so random other events that it will make future campaigns very replayable?

9. To increase my difficulty in subsequent games, which has the greatest impact on the toughness of the AI: the difficulty setting, giving the AI detection bonuses, or the AI aggression setting? (I'm now playing the FIW campaign after winning the American Revolutionary campaign and I've moved difficulty to normal, AI detect to low bonus and aggression to normal and have a strong lead -- but know that British reinforcements will make life very difficult after my current date of May 1757.

Editorial comment: I'm really hoping that Pocus and friends tackle the American Civil War with this battle engine and game interface. You've already got the maps and would just have to modify the cities and strategic points; you've got similar weapons; all new leaders; etc. What I really like about BOA is how much more I"m learning and appreciate the history of the FIW and American Revolution. No matter how much you read, there's nothing like being in the shoes of a general who is surprised by the other side's massive reinforcements and hitting points where your personal decisions are the turning point in the outcome of the entire campaign. That's what is so addictive about this game. Many thanks.

[Myros]

Im no expert but have a couple of answers for you:

3. The ship loading problem is a bug (see armory forum) Pocus posted he should have a fix later tonight for us.

5. Clicking the sortie icon for a besieged army does nothing by itself, using that you will still need an external army to first attack the besieging army. The sortie icon just tells the army in the city/fort to come out and join the attack when the other army arrives.
To get them to come out and attack on their own you have to drag-drop them outside the city walls, then their posture affects combat just like it would at any other time 2 armies meet.

Myros

[dinsdale]

Im no expert but have a couple of answers for you:

3. The ship loading problem is a bug (see armory forum) Pocus posted he should have a fix later tonight for us.

I found that if you drag the ships over the troops (as opposed to loading the troops into ships) then it loads them.

---------
I don't know the answer to all of them, but as I understand it:

4. In the French and Indian War (FIW) Campaign, Louisbourg has received numerous reinforcements but no ships to transport them. Will ships eventually arrive or must I move the bateaux (spelling?) in summer when the rivers aren't frozen to get over there?

There should be some French ships showing up eventually. Not many though, so you may need luck to get them ashore if the Brit fleet is already established.

5. What makes the difference and is the best way to break a siege: clicking the sortie arrow or choosing offense or assault?

From what I understand, the sortie button makes the garrison advance when reinfocements come to break the siege, so your forces combine. Otherwise, if you don't have a relief force, you can simply move them out of the city to break the siege. IIRC, you can keep them on defensive posture and force the siege force to attack (giving you defensive benefits.)

6. I don't quite understand what the map is showing me when the revolt icon shows up. Is this control or loyalty and what exactly is the difference?

Control and loyalty are two different concepts. Control is akin to "ownership" of the province, while loyalty is who the population is aligned to. Typically, control belongs to the side which last moved through the province and owns the town, but it's not a binary situation as control has a % for each side which changes at a variable. Thus, if you pass through a non-town area, you may not affect the control of it at all, but if you march through a town you get >50% control, which rises if you leave a unit there.

Loyalty changes over time, and it can affect control if you don't have a force currently in the province. So a province you control may flip to the other side if not garrisoned, if it's extremely loyal to the other side.

Loyalty also affects which garrison unit you need to have the control count to your victory conditions: If the province is loyal to your side, irregulars and militia can occupy, otherwise you have to use regulars. If you press F3, you see the victory locations. The ones with a red flag and crossed swords means one side controls it, but it is disloyal and requires a regular garrison.

8. How different will a campaign play each time, based on scripted events, troop movements, victory points, etc.? For example, I see how important it is to capture Albany by 1757 so that Iroquois will ally with French in FIW. I don't want to know all the other hidden scripts, but I'm assuming there are so many and so random other events that it will make future campaigns very replayable?

I don't know how many events are random or scripted, but the campaigns seem to play differently each time as the game is so fluid. The '55 game seems less variable as the threatre is much smaller, but the landing of Cornwallis, destination of the Hessian and other British reinforcements, and the yearly disbanding/recruitment can make each fighting season different from the previous, and thus changes the complexion of the game.

IMHO, playing the British in either is more ordered and logical, while the Americans, and to a lesser extent the French in '55 are more games of opportunism and reaction.

9. To increase my difficulty in subsequent games, which has the greatest impact on the toughness of the AI: the difficulty setting, giving the AI detection bonuses, or the AI aggression setting? (I'm now playing the FIW campaign after winning the American Revolutionary campaign and I've moved difficulty to normal, AI detect to low bonus and aggression to normal and have a strong lead -- but know that British reinforcements will make life very difficult after my current date of May 1757.

Changing the detection rating for the British in the '75 campaign seems to make a big difference. The Americans don't need it as they have a big advantage in the number of provinces controlled and loyal (thus giving big detection bonuses of their own.) I haven't changed the '55 bonus, as everyone seems to have a good idea where everyone else is.

Easy/Normal/Hard/V Hard seem to be aptly described in how they change the game. On Normal it's possible to make some mistakes and be competative, on Hard if you screw up you get punished for it.

I've noticed a real change in 1.06, and the AI is much, much tougher in it's maneuver/decisions, so I may be going back to normal for a while.

I haven't tried changing aggresion, I would be concerned that it will make the AI attack at unfavourable odds, where the default setting doesn't seem to make it take silly risks. It might be worth experimenting with, the French in '55 may play better on more aggresive, as early risks are well rewarded in that campaign.

[Sol Invictus]

I started a 1775 Campaign last night as the British and the AI will certainly assault Forts now, even when the Fort has a decent garrison. Hillsboro has changed hands several times and it is only 1778. I think I would have lost this game except I was able to bottle up the American Army in Newport in the first couple of months. Even after destroying it completely; which also greatly reduced my army; the Americans maintained a victory point advantage until late 1777. I can't believe the reinforcements that England gets in the spring of 1776; I was like a kid in a candy store. I just hope the French have had second thoughts about helping the Americans.

[rasnell]

Very helpful replies. Thanks to all. These two questions remain without answers. Anybody able to tackle these?

1. I know that passive posture gives you first priority for reinforcements, but I would like to understand better how reinforcements are awarded. Is it based on events, what key cities you hold, the leader or is your posture critical?

2. Is there a PDF version of the game map that we can print in chunks, like poster size, where it's possible to see the province names and the city names?

[Ardie]

Well, there are 1. reinforcements that are represented by new units ie. new militia called up, new regular regiments raised, foreign aid (French & Spain) and

2. replacements in form of companies/squadrons/batteries/ships to replenish your battered units in the field.

Which ones are you talking about?

[rasnell]

I'm trying to understand if these reinforcements are influenced by events, by what cities I hold or how important the passive setting is on units? Leader abilities like Charismatic apparently stop units from disbanding by 25 percent. I'm just wondering if I should be doing more to influence this as my advanced strategy when I tackle a campaign for the second time.

Kind of related, I'm wondering whether naval blockades or capturing port cities really affect the enemy to any extent or will they just send the same reinforcements to the next best available port?

[MarkShot]

A comment about coordinating action against a besieging army by using the strategic sortie order: There is an element of risk to this in the sense that you might easily forfeit the fort to the enemy. Why? Well, once the relief army and the besieged army are ready to fight, then they decide if they should retreat to an adjacent region. If they decide to retreat, then you lose the fort. So, I find myself often leaving the garrisson inside and letting the relief army do the fighting.

---

Now, I believe the potential for an army to leave a fort and retreat to an adjacent region may prove quite useful. As some have seen already in BoA 1.06.1, the AI is much more aggressive in assault forts when they are only lightly defended. Losing an assault of a fort, means that your garrisson gets completely wiped out. I have to test this, but I am thinking that if holding out looks hopeless, then it may pay to sortie and try for a retreat that would preserve a good part of your force intact.

Note to Pocus: We had discussed what is proper (historically accurate) retreat behavior in the past ... meaning retreat to an adjacent region or retreat to inside a structure. Along with that question, if my above technique works, one might ask should a trapped army (meaning already besieged) be able to retreat to an adjacent region.

[MarkShot]

I just tested the above technique and it works very well to save a fort's garrisson - probably too well.

I am no historian, but it would seem to me that once you have allowed yourself to be besieged in a fort you have forfeited your chance to withdraw without a fight. So, I would imagine that your only option should be to break the siege or retreat back to the fort.

[rasnell]

Right on target with the most recent post to this thread, this odd situation just happened. I'm entrenched on defense in Albany during a horrendous blizzard. I have a very large number of French forces and have already held against three previous major attacks.

The battle summary screen shows that I won, when the Brits are outside in a blizzard, but the messages and the screen show that I lost Albany, the units are wiped away, and Montcalm is injured and shoved all the way to the West to recover.

What happened? This is coming off a win. I'm using the latest patch, 1.06.01. What a horrible victory. Does this make sense. Both screen shots are attached below.

[MarkShot]

I am not sure. I have always felt that the battle summaries (one line text) are mis-leading many times. In my mind there is only one definition of victory that make sense:

Did someone vacate the field of battle? He who vacates is defeated and he who remains is victorious. Although one could discuss casualty ratios as being an indicator --- he who does the most damage is the victor and he who does the least is the loser. However, most of the game's command set and concepts seem to be focused around taking or defending terrain as opposed to seeking out the enemy and destroying him. (granted this is a very effective approach, but one achieves that through manipulating the enemy's desire to hold or take certain terrain)

Where casualty ratios and crushing engagements do enter into the core game concepts is in the game's victory determination as favorable casualty ratios are highly conducive to winning on points as opposed to objectives.

I've discussed the above with Pocus and I know that he has been trying to tweak the battle summaries to have them be more in line with intuitive perceptions.

[rasnell]

I understand, MarkShot. But here's what is really hard to figure, if you look at the screenshots. I would argue that I pounded them with losses, I'm entrenched, on defense and have been holding the city for a number of turns.

Plus, it's a blizzard and the Brits are on the outside. Compare their hits and losses to mine.

What's worse, total wipeout of the units. Why didn't they retreat to the bordering Dayton, adjacent to Albany and under my control? And why does the wounded leader move to recover nearly 9 squares to the West when I control a path to much closer areas?

I just don't understand this wipeout, with the precautions taken, but, perhaps, all my troops had been drinking heavily to warm themselves and this is a fluke.

[MarkShot]

Well, maybe Pocus will be able to make sense of it for you.

[dinsdale]

This happens if you "win" but don't have any combat (not-supply or artillery) units left after the battle. The other side captures or destroys your art/supply, and your leaders are scattered or killed. From your picture, all three infantry companies were wiped out, leaving only supply, leaders and art.

It is a bit misleading saying that you "won" I suspect a check is performed during the retreat phase, and that's when your force evaporated.

[rasnell]

Very good point, Dinsdale. I didn't notice those precise details and that makes sense. Sounds like Pocus needs to take a look at the formula that generates the battle summary so that non-combat units are eliminated from the calculation of a victory.

This answers my question -- but it sure is painful. I really thought I was holding on. And to have them completely eliminated, more than 20-some units. Wow! I assume with the newest patch, even with control of the bordering Fort Dayton, that a defeated city cannot escape in any way, even when on defense.

[Pocus]

ok, I will yet again see if I can add tests so that the summary line is more consistent with the results.

Rasnell, if you still have your report, then move the mouse of the "captured units" icon, it should indicates that the english took all the rest of your supports. They are not flagged as destroyed, but in effect all your units were either killed (the 3 lines companies) while the rest has been taken by the english. You should add more line units with supports ones by the way, its xmas for the english here

[Pocus]

I'm trying to understand if these reinforcements are influenced by events, by what cities I hold or how important the passive setting is on units? Leader abilities like Charismatic apparently stop units from disbanding by 25 percent. I'm just wondering if I should be doing more to influence this as my advanced strategy when I tackle a campaign for the second time.

Kind of related, I'm wondering whether naval blockades or capturing port cities really affect the enemy to any extent or will they just send the same reinforcements to the next best available port?

there is two kinds of reinforcements = new units added on the map:
a) regular reinforcements, for example english units coming in controled harbor. If you have the harbor, they will seek another place, if possible.
b) militias (rebels and loyalists): The more strategic cities you have in a big region (= New England for example), the more you will get. Charismatic leaders will augment this recruitment, and should also lower how many men return home in winter, for the region there are in.

replacements: replacements don't create units, but fill up a unit when it has losts elements (companies). You have a ledger page that show you how much replacements are in stock. When you get the message: "English receive 2 replacements", it means that 2 regular companies are added to your pool.
You resplenish units by being on a city level 2+, or a depot, unbesieged. And you have to have the right category (rangers need irregular, etc.). All units in passive are checked first, then all in defensive, etc.