AGEOD Forums

Hi folks, it seems that regular fixed units are unable to use the destroy depot command. In discussion with Pocus he thinks that local militia that is not on alert should not be able to take the initiative of destroying a depot.

I argued that I thought it should as it seems odd to me to have a unit in a depot which sees a large army on the horizon but is unable to take any action to destroy the depot it is guarding.

Pocus says he is happy to add this ability to fixed units if that is what the majority want. So I will attempt to set up a poll to vote for or against this ability.

Cheers, Chris

Based on history, local militia could not be relied upon to be efficient and effective in following the grand picture of military warfare. In reality, if they were up against substantial odds, they would have disbanded well before fighting, and very few would waste time to destroy a depot.

Reading up on the War of 1812, as well as the American Civil War, local militia were rarely effective in performing duties such as depot burning. Adding this option will just give players heavy freedoms to have their militia act 'perfectly' whenever they want it to.

If our historic counterparts could not rely on militia to destroy depots, etc., then why should we be given this ability?

If I order the militia to destroy the depot because of that army, I would also order it to leave, as I wouldn't destroy it if I think I can hold it.

Aurelin wrote:If I order the militia to destroy the depot because of that army, I would also order it to leave, as I wouldn't destroy it if I think I can hold it.

That's a point...Locked units not only should be able to destroy depots but also, contextually, auto-abandon the structure in the resolution phase following the withdrawal logic. We can't move them (locked) but they should be able to follow this logic *and* perform this special order.

and why not a possibility to destroy but with a risk to fail?

Clovis wrote:and why not a possibility to destroy but with a risk to fail?

Would be nice if this could be tagged on to depot destruction, similar to railroad repair. The larger the force, the better chance that it gets destroyed.

However, having a choice between an absolute YES or abolute NO, I still say that NO is the more historic and game friendly option, otherwize you will too easily destroy depots, making raids that J.E.B. Stuart managed to accomplish totally impossible due to the perfection of lone militia regiment.

I'll agree with that, and support it. I feel like there needs to be a greater distinction between militia and regular army units other than just some hit points and attack factors. And to me, this is one of those issues - command coordination and unit discipline.

I mean, I know rednecks are good at blowing stuff up and ruining it, but...

Having the ability to quickly react with isolated, untrained and ill disciplined seems a bit of a stretch, particularly in the early part of the war.

As the war progressed and the training and experience of the units and overall command structure improved, it would be more likely.

I would submit it would be more of a function of the training level of the garrison rather than size, and also potentially allow it if a leader is present.

Why don't give this ability only to militia who became conscrit with a chance to burn the depot ?

In accord with the last two posts, I was thinking a specific upgrade level should probably allow depot destruction ability.

Probably the easiest things are the ones who work best.

I was thinking about :
At the enemy assault on the town guarded by locked units if the militia is defeated and the town captured a die is cast.

The % coming on the die will tell depot destroyed by militia Y/N
(% = A/D numbers. If A overwhelms D by a lot, D has no time to burn down the depot, they must fight or run for their lives)

If % shows Y -> depot destroyed supplies are removed.
If % shows N -> depot not destroyed, supplies captured.

I think it's a good solution but it could be made easier still: compare the losses between assault and locked defense.
According to these you may decide the % of supplies and war supplies lost during the assault (i.e. burned down by fleeing defenders).

Algorithms

GShock wrote:Probably the easiest things are the ones who work best.

I was thinking about :
At the enemy assault on the town guarded by locked units if the militia is defeated and the town captured a die is cast.

The % coming on the die will tell depot destroyed by militia Y/N
(% = A/D numbers. If A overwhelms D by a lot, D has no time to burn down the depot, they must fight or run for their lives)

If % shows Y -> depot destroyed supplies are removed.
If % shows N -> depot not destroyed, supplies captured.

I think it's a good solution but it could be made easier still: compare the losses between assault and locked defense.
According to these you may decide the % of supplies and war supplies lost during the assault (i.e. burned down by fleeing defenders).

Algorithms

True, a good solution, but do you think that AGEOD has the time and resources to devote to this relatively limited situation?

Would any militia unit destroy millions of dollars of badly needed military goods without direct orders? I don't think so unless the commander panics.

Once a militia unit is under siege, I would assume communications are lost and the militia cannot receive orders to destroy the depot. The sieged militia unit would not know if they are about to be relieved or not. All they know is their unit has responsibility to depend the town and the depot until relieved. The instinct is to hold out and protect the depot until relieved.

In most situations, I could see a militia unit destroying the depot only if they were starved out and must surrender now. Or had direct orders to destroy the depot...orders which they must receive before a siege cuts communication. They won't receive those orders once under siege.

Relatively low level military commanders are very reluctant to destroy large amounts of vital military goods without orders from a very senior source accepting responsibility for any consequences. I just have doubts that the town mayor/part-time militia colonel would take that extreme action until all other options are exhausted or direct orders received.

So I am against allowing militias to destroy a depot while under siege because in the majority of situations, I seriously doubt that they would.

I could see giving sieged militia the ability to destroy a depot if a commander were present with the militia. A division level commander could and would make a decision of that consequence.

Although if we allow destruction of depots by sieged units, the Union will have to create substantially more, very expensive and time consuming supply depots than currently. This change will have a negative impact on existing scenario balance which would need to be addressed.

"Would any militia unit destroy millions of dollars of badly needed military goods without direct orders? I don't think so unless the commander panics."

Would they not have standing orders of what action to take should the situation arise? Anyone have any examples of depot destruction by guarding militia?

It seems from the posts that probably the best change would be to make depot destruction random with a much higher chance of success for higher quality troops.


"Although if we allow destruction of depots by sieged units, the Union will have to create substantially more, very expensive and time consuming supply depots than currently. This change will have a negative impact on existing scenario balance which would need to be addressed."

I don’t see that it would have much of an impact. Now I am aware of this limitation I will just send out a handful of 1 or 2 element units to guard the forward depots as I obviously can’t trust the militia to do the job.

Cheers, Chris

When Jackson seized Manassas in 1862, depots weren't burned and the garnison was quite high.

This sort of rule is the recurring God player scheme: I want to have the possibility to do anything it's good for me, whatever the real possibility was.

I put myself in the shoes of the militia. If there's too many of them, and it's evident we must make it to the woods and disperse before being killed or captured i would never leave resources to the enemy. It's a choice i could take by just judging their numbers and before a single bullet is fired.

I'm sure the militia commanders would be given such order in advance from the hq anyway.

This concept is expressed nicely with indians and partisans destroying depots by default.
In any case, i don't think the modification i posted is a big problem to implement.

Even if it had to be easier: locked stack defeated = autodepot destroy would be better than leave depot in the hands of the enemy...but yes, i think too there's higher priorities than this.

GShock wrote:I put myself in the shoes of the militia. If there's too many of them, and it's evident we must make it to the woods and disperse before being killed or captured i would never leave resources to the enemy. It's a choice i could take by just judging their numbers and before a single bullet is fired.

You would, but I think the average rural local militiaman did not possess Your clear military mind.

I'm sure the militia commanders would be given such order in advance from the hq anyway.

Yes, but then again, we're a not talking about professionals here and not necessarily about highly motivated or well informed amateurs either. Besides, one of the main points of a raid is to take the defenders by surprise anyways (which is modeled quite well in the game, I usually can't even spot the buggers before they strike). If You only know that raiders are "somewhere" in the state, with conflicting reports coming in from everywhere, would You as a regional commander really issue orders to all Your subordinate farmboys-turned-soldiers to prepare to burn their stores when threatened, risking to have them doing so at the first sight of a cloud of dust on the horizon, propably caused by a peaceful herd of cattle? And, even if You did, would that not mean that You are basically doing the raiders job for them by destroying Your stores yourself?

This concept is expressed nicely with indians and partisans destroying depots by default.
In any case, i don't think the modification i posted is a big problem to implement.

Yes, well, but they only destroy depots they have newly conquered, not those they are ordered to defend, do they? (Serious question, never checked this out, yet )

Even if it had to be easier: locked stack defeated = autodepot destroy would be better than leave depot in the hands of the enemy...

I respectfully disagree. There are numerous instances where depots were taken by surprise even when guarded by more experienced troops (Jackson was infamous for doing that, Manassas depot in the 2nd Bull Run campaign, Harpers Ferry with a huge regular garrison guarding it prior to Antitam, &c.). I don't see why green local militias should be more efficient at destroying stores than regular troops, just because the former are prevented to leave their barracks by the game engine...

Regards, Henry

McNaughton wrote:Based on history, local militia could not be relied upon to be efficient and effective in following the grand picture of military warfare. In reality, if they were up against substantial odds, they would have disbanded well before fighting, and very few would waste time to destroy a depot.

Reading up on the War of 1812, as well as the American Civil War, local militia were rarely effective in performing duties such as depot burning. Adding this option will just give players heavy freedoms to have their militia act 'perfectly' whenever they want it to.

If our historic counterparts could not rely on militia to destroy depots, etc., then why should we be given this ability?

I voted yes but perhaps there could be a roll based on some formula on if the act of destroying the depot was successful or not. I mean this for game play purposes.

Considering an extra die roll is not too hard to implement, this feature could very well be rendered optional in the game preferences.

Me insist: I know i must run for it when they take my town but if i burn down the depot before running, while i'm in the bushes hiding i know they won't look for me too soon if *their* supply trains must catch up with them.

If they aren't even hungry why should they stop pursuit?

GShock wrote:Considering an extra die roll is not too hard to implement, this feature could very well be rendered optional in the game preferences.

Me insist: I know i must run for it when they take my town but if i burn down the depot before running, while i'm in the bushes hiding i know they won't look for me too soon if *their* supply trains must catch up with them.

If they aren't even hungry why should they stop pursuit?

So you're saying that you and the boys (Local militia) are going to run the risk of getting shot, leaving your wife and kids without any income, losing the farm, etc, just so you can take the time to perform the necessary procedures to destroy a bunch of supplies that don't even really concern you that much? (After all, you're not the one those supplies are meant for)

I get the feeling that a lot of people think that destroying supplies was simply a matter of tossing a torch or two in a big pile and jogging the other way. It's not that easy. Unless you're guarding the local kindling supply depot, it takes a lot of time to gather together, position, and actually destroy this stuff. You generally won't even have it all gathered in one building that you can torch. If you do it improperly, you run the risk of setting fire to, or blowing up, what is probably, if not your hometown, somewhere quite similar.

The chances of a local militia actually succeeding in destroying a depot of any significant size would be small for a couple of reasons. First, they most likely wouldn't have time. Militia scouts, if there are any, aren't going to be ranging very far afield. Second, they simply don't have a clue how. They might set some fires, which will most likely be easily put out by the raiders coming in, or they try the more dramatic way with explosives, and some damnfool idiot ends up losing a hand or his head. Of course, the lesson to be learned here is that you should be garrisoning depots with regular troops. If it's that close to the lines, it's pretty ahistorical not to.

The easiest things are the ones who work best

I think we have just about reached the timeout on this poll. I must admit my opinion has been somewhat swayed towards the opposing view of militia not having this ability. I personally would prefer a random chance with milita having around 20% other troops around 80% each turn?

I'll leave it for Pocus to decide what if anything to change.
Thanks, Chris

I'd say that I voted for the first option (militia can destroy a depot) but this is a player point of view.

As far as historical / simulation purpose is concerned, I admit that I'm not the right person to answer the question.
So, to conclude, I say : Beware of polls because they aren't given to the more competent persons.

I juste read some posts before mine and they generally have good arguments. But I finally prefer the answer that fits best for the game, even if it is not very historically accurate.

Hobbes wrote:I think we have just about reached the timeout on this poll. I must admit my opinion has been somewhat swayed towards the opposing view of militia not having this ability. I personally would prefer a random chance with milita having around 20% other troops around 80% each turn?

I'll leave it for Pocus to decide what if anything to change.
Thanks, Chris

Yes hobbes, out of the many ways it could be done, yours is probably the easiest method. Up to pocus now.

So any conclusion on keeping things the same or making a change?

for now no changes then, we have some priorities right now