AGEOD Forums

The first turn, when I assault Harper's Ferry with Winchester mil. the turn after the depot in HF has been destroyed (by the US mil?) . This didn't happen in the previous versions, is it intentional?

This seems to be happening in all depots captured ... at least it did in my game in Norfolk and Cairo. Received some message along the lines of "depot razed because yours is better" ???????

It appears that capturing forces now automatically destroy depots. You receive a message like "You razed the depot in X, as yours was better."

This will put strategy through some major changes.

Didn't know this was going to be added to the code, but I like it. It works well in conjunction with the "new" additional pre-placed militia, (of which I forgot to place one for the CSA at Harper's Ferry for the 1861 , darn <next patch>). I'll touch up the message wording also. This code change is probably part of the VgN code upgrade gradually being ported into AACW.

The wording for this message is in the LocalStrings__AGE.csv file. It is somewhat ambiguous. Currently, it is a fill in the blank type of statement:

You razed a ¤ owned by ¤, in region ¤, as yours was better.

It could be improved for English to something like this:

You razed a ¤ owned by ¤, in region ¤.

The "as yours was better." part of the statement is strange and redundant (for an English translation). I'll see if I can modify it for the next patch.

Can Pocus tell us more about this new stuff ?

It is a bug sorry... the code believe you already owned a depot in the region and is then razing the newly acquired one.

If you want to have something similar to this, then you should script some Scorch Earth rule.

Gray_Lensman wrote:Didn't know this was going to be added to the code, but I like it. I]

Is there agreement that it is more realistic?

I like the idea of the depot being destroyed, yes, but the supplies are still captured, at least from what I could tell. The other side should have to res-setup the depot facilities. Even when Stonewall, captured the huge depot near Manassas, he took all the supplies he could carry and burned the rest.

On the other hand, automatic destruction of depots takes decisions away from both players. The defender should have to weigh the possibility of defending a depot, or destroying it to prevent it from falling into enemy hands. This was a very common problem faced by commanders in the civil war, and I think it is more historical to leave it as it was.

Hi
I think the reasons for burning/not burning of a depot recently captured depends too much of the strategic situation to be done in some automatic way.
I woudl let the player/AI decide if he is just raiding and want to burn the depot and retire next turn or has he conquered the depot to stay there so it very important for him to keep it.

On the other side, i remember having read somewhere on the forums that one of the scorched earth rule effects was that the defenders could try to burn their own depot before withdrawing/surrendering/dying so it did not fall on enemy hands.
Not sure how its exactly implemented on game (depnds of region loyalty? just of % chance?
But certainly I would like this second "defender might burn" idea more than the "conqueror will burn" one.
Just my two cents

In addition, from a game-play point of view, I think automatic destruction of depots unbalances the game in favor of the Union. It makes an aggressive CSA strategy - like an invasion of Pennsylvania, for example - much harder.

Cdr. McBragg wrote:In addition, from a game-play point of view, I think automatic destruction of depots unbalances the game in favor of the Union. It makes an aggressive CSA strategy - like an invasion of Pennsylvania, for example - much harder.

+1....automatic destruction takes away the need to strongly defend positions on the basis that they might provide 'comfort' for the aggressor. Most certainly unbalances the game further towards the Union. Unless of course (on the basis of Grays assertion that you only carry what supplies you can carry) you only get resupplied if you have a supply wagon present or very much like it.

My main concern is the AI... All the opinions above are absolutely valid, but the AI does not properly value depots in the first place, let alone defend them (in a timely manner) where necessary, especially captured ones. Since 90%+ of the gamers play against the AI, I particularly liked the auto-destruction idea. The market for the game is primarily for the AI players... A good human player will defend his depots as appropriate to prevent this from occuring.

Pocus will probably fix this back to the way it was since he stated it was a bug, but this still gives me room for thought concerning his comment on scripting "Scorched Earth" rules. In that case, I may be able to distinguish between whether the occupying force is AI or human player controlled and program appropriate actions accordingly.

edit> Where absolutely necessary I will always favor the AI over PBEM play when I have to make a choice. This is where the revenue for the game comes from.

I consider this bug to be detrimental. The AI does not value deports enough as it is, and does not construct new depots as it should, so adding a code that makes it harder for the AI is not a good idea. In my latest game, the US (AI) was defeated by my southern forces in summer of 1863. I destroyed the depots at Cairo, Wheeling, Grafton, Quincy, Springfield, Vincennes (sp?), Harper's Ferry, Lexington (Missouri and Kentucky) + a few more, at the start of the war (april and may 1861). The union launced one offensive against me the entire war (april 1861 til summer 1863) in the Shendandoah Valley, loosing the entire Army of North Eastern VA, and one offensive in Missouri against Rolla and then Fayetteville, AR, loosing Lyon's entire command. The rest of the war was just a naval show... In which the CS gained naval superiority... at least in the shipping box...

By summer of 1863 I was bored waiting for the union to take the initiative, so I just assaulted Washington (which was no longer the capital) and took it. Then a couple of turns later, I had liberated Maryland and the war was over...

This was with HARD settings and FOW and activation bonuses to high/hard...

The AI never rebuilt ANY of the depots razed... And by the end of the war, I had lost 100 000 men, the us some 150 000 men.... The rest of the US army, I suppose was defending the capital of New York...

TeMagic wrote:I consider this bug to be detrimental. The AI does not value deports enough as it is, and does not construct new depots as it should, so adding a code that makes it harder for the AI is not a good idea. In my latest game, the US (AI) was defeated by my southern forces in summer of 1863. I destroyed the depots at Cairo, Wheeling, Grafton, Quincy, Springfield, Vincennes (sp?), Harper's Ferry, Lexington (Missouri and Kentucky) + a few more, at the start of the war (april and may 1861). The union launced one offensive against me the entire war (april 1861 til summer 1863) in the Shendandoah Valley, loosing the entire Army of North Eastern VA, and one offensive in Missouri against Rolla and then Fayetteville, AR, loosing Lyon's entire command. The rest of the war was just a naval show... In which the CS gained naval superiority... at least in the shipping box...

By summer of 1863 I was bored waiting for the union to take the initiative, so I just assaulted Washington (which was no longer the capital) and took it. Then a couple of turns later, I had liberated Maryland and the war was over...

This was with HARD settings and FOW and activation bonuses to high/hard...

The AI never rebuilt ANY of the depots razed... And by the end of the war, I had lost 100 000 men, the us some 150 000 men.... The rest of the US army, I suppose was defending the capital of New York...

For the sake of argument, in what way does this bug make it harder for the AI?

You stated yourself that the AI does not value depots enough as it is, and obviously does not protect them well enough. The auto-destruction of captured enemy depots, removes an easily recaptured depot from the enemy forces that the AI hardly cares about anyway. For this reason, it is actually beneficial to the AI to at least destroy the depot, instead of leaving it as is for the human player to easily reacquire at some later point in time. I do think the AI should "capture" and make use of as much of the supply content as possible, just destroy the depot itself, so that when the human player moves back in, he has to rebuild it. This makes the human player properly protect his depots as well he should.

In my opinion making this bug a game feature would not be a good thing because it would remove an important strategic aspect of the game. Maybe it would be better to invest future developments toward the improvement of depot management by the IA.

It's OK, I suppose, if the AI destroys depots in enemy territory, but I do not think it wise for my own men to destroy enemy depots in our own territory. As a human - sort of - player, I prefer to make my own decision on that.

Gray_Lensman wrote:For the sake of argument, in what way does this bug make it harder for the AI?

You stated yourself that the AI does not value depots enough as it is, and obviously does not protect them well enough. The auto-destruction of captured enemy depots, removes an easily recaptured depot from the enemy forces that the AI hardly cares about anyway. For this reason, it is actually beneficial to the AI to at least destroy the depot, instead of leaving it as is for the human player to easily reacquire at some later point in time. I do think the AI should "capture" and make use of as much of the supply content as possible, just destroy the depot itself, so that when the human player moves back in, he has to rebuild it. This makes the human player properly protect his depots as well he should.

The thing is this, it shouldn't really be possible for the CS player to easily reacquire the depots from the US AI. Cities such as St. Louis, Wheeling, Grafton, Cairo, Lexington, Quincy, Springfield etc. should from the get-go be so much garrisoned that a single raid should not result in the collapse of the entire US supply-network, as is the case ATM. The destruction of the depots and the AI inability to rebuild the depots is a real gamebraker ATM, yet, I do not consider it gamey to raid into enemy territory. The whole deal here is this; the human player already properly protects his depots, as he should, however, the AI does not... And the AI doesn't rebuild lost depots either, at least not as it should...

The "bug" being discussed here would be just fine and should be regarded as a "feature" if the game was only PBEM, but it isn't, it's also single player... and the AI fells short in using the advantage of this bug, thus the bug should be removed, or better yet, the AI should be improved...

Hope I got my point across. If not, for the sake of argument, I'll stick around..

EDIT: Re-read your post, and saw you stated it was advantageous for the AI to destroy captured depots, which I think it probably is... (as long as it doesn't impair the AIs ability to perform offensive action)... the thing is, it is not advantageous for the AI to have the human player auto-destroy depots... If it was a "bug" or "feature" that only applied to the AI, I would have no issue with it, 'cept that the AI is cheating

richfed wrote:It's OK, I suppose, if the AI destroys depots in enemy territory, but I do not think it wise for my own men to destroy enemy depots in our own territory. As a human - sort of - player, I prefer to make my own decision on that.

+1 !

This IS a bug and should be corrected in the final release of 1.12a

If all of you will reread what I posted. I stated that I'm interested in this on behalf of the AI. For clarity sake, I'll rephrase this to make it more understandable. I am only interested in this as an action the AI would "auto" take, not that a human player controlled unit would take. It is quite possible to design events to distinguish between whether it is an AI unit or a human player moving into the depot region. All my following posts were made with that particular point of view in mind.

Pocus has already stated above and confirmed 3 days ago (in post #6) that this is a bug and would be corrected, since it occured with a human player unit taking a depot.

I like what Gray is suggesting (if I understand it correctly) Let the AI autoburn depots, but leave the player to have the choice (by actually giving the order to destroy the depot).

Jarkko wrote:I like what Gray is suggesting (if I understand it correctly) Let the AI autoburn depots, but leave the player to have the choice (by actually giving the order to destroy the depot).

Sorry to disagree, but I think that while it may be beneficial to USA AI (pending extensive testing...), I am pretty sure that it would not be at all beneficial to CSA AI. I think that a possible alternative would be a +/- random chance of the depot being destroyed, maybe related to region and adjacent % of control.

Franciscus, how exactly is it not beneficial for the CSA AI to not burn any and all depots it captures? I mean, you hardly are steamrolled by the massive CSA attack orchestrated by the AI, are you? I would imagine you are quite capable of being on the offense vs the CSA AI, thus if the AI *ever* succeeds to capture a depot you are holding, it should torch it immediatly because you'll take it back a turn later anyway, right?

I maybe wrong, of course, more so as I only play as CSA... But I would think that as CSA tends to fight in southern territory, the negatives of burning every southern depot would tend to be worse for the CSA - think for instance the shenandoah. Although burnt several times during the war, I think that southern forces did not burn Winchester the several times that they recaptured it. More so as depots in my mind also represent the region resources; instead, as USA tends to fight ofensively and in southern territory, burning southern "depots" makes perfect sense (think Sherman).

Interesting discussion. But is there any real need to change something that worked pretty well ?=

Franciscus wrote:But is there any real need to change something that worked pretty well ?

The AI really isn't too smart, especially when on a strategic defense. Yes, it does occasionally take offensive operations (which is good), but does not capitalise on those. Ie the AI is not, IMO, working pretty well Just making it able to auto-torch depots it captures would make the player side much harder.

In case you didn't understand Grays suggestion (or in case I understood it right :wacko , the AI would *not* torch depots it *holds*, only depots it *takes*. Thus the only depots AI CSA can take are depots you as a player have already taken, but left un-guarded because you know you can take the depot back any time you want. Now, if you knew the AI is going to torch the depot if it takes it, you as a player might actually be a bit more interested in defending them properly

As I understand it, a depot represents not only the hex it occupies, but it's relationship to the owning side's supply line and capability. Thus Jackson's corps gorged on what they could and burned the rest, when they captured the Union depot at Manassas in 1862. It was impracticable to form a Confederate depot at that location, at that time.
It seems to me that destruction of enemy depots with supply capture is accurate. If you want a friendly depot in a captured hex, build it, if you can.

So far in my new rc4 v.12a pbm game I am seeing 100% of depots captured being burnt - with the message "because yours is better". The rc3 changelog mentions that this should not happen everytime a depot is taken yet so far I see no evidence of this.

Can ageod please tell us what is % chance of a depot being auto burnt on capture ? I have to say I disagree with this new feature and wish it had been made optional. Depots are expensive to create esp using up precious manpower. This new feature will automatically benefit the defending side usually csa and I don't believe the csa needs any more help in this game.

If it has become a new feature, I disagree too.

I'm investigating that and I confirm, this is a bug.