AGEOD Forums

Does it matter if my unit is in passive mode for the purposes of blocking supply through a region??

its keyed off Military Control not presence of troops. So if you have MC then the stance of any forces there doesn't matter. But if you need to take MC then passive will not help and defensive will slow the process down

loki100 wrote:its keyed off Military Control not presence of troops. So if you have MC then the stance of any forces there doesn't matter. But if you need to take MC then passive will not help and defensive will slow the process down

Thanks Loki. I know that minimum 25% military control is needed for supplies to pass through BUT what if I place a unit in a region that I don't control... I thought that i read somewhere that an unopposed enemy unit can block supply.. regardless of MC. Just wondering if stance makes any difference??? Does anyone know>??

ajarnlance wrote:Does it matter if my unit is in passive mode for the purposes of blocking supply through a region??

I honestly don't know, but I would assume that being in PP assigns the unit in question zero influence in the game's workings.

You would really have to try it to see what happens. Find an enemy depot somewhere that should be getting supplies. Surround it with for example a cav. per neighboring region in PP and then check the debug-log if supply gets to the depot.

To get the supply messages into the log file, you must add this file to ..\CW2\Settings

SupplyVerbosityOption.opt
-------------------------
// Supply Verbosity
// Run the turn and open the !HostLog.txt file,
// you should get a plentiful of information.
Verbosity_Supp = 1
-------------------------

You have to do this before starting the game.

Once you're done testing, with the game stopped, either set Verbosity_Supp to 0, or delete the file altogether.

Looking forward to what you find

loki100 wrote:its keyed off Military Control not presence of troops. So if you have MC then the stance of any forces there doesn't matter. But if you need to take MC then passive will not help and defensive will slow the process down

That's not true. For friendly supply to enter a region, your faction must have at least 25% MC in the region.

But you can have 100% MC in a region and if 1 single unopposed enemy combat unit is in the region NOT in PP, no friendly supply may enter that region.

Captain_Orso wrote:That's not true. For friendly supply to enter a region, your faction must have at least 25% MC in the region.

But you can have 100% MC in a region and if 1 single unopposed enemy combat unit is in the region NOT in PP, no friendly supply may enter that region.

Thanks for answering my question... so my unit must not be in passive mode and must not be opposed... then I can block supply.... even if my military control is below 25%. Is that correct?

Generally speaking, enemy passive units are ignored when considering enemy presence.

ajarnlance wrote:Thanks for answering my question 8<

You betcha

ajarnlance wrote:even if my military control is below 25%. Is that correct?

Captain_Orso wrote:8<
But you can have 100% MC in a region and if 1 single unopposed enemy combat unit is in the region NOT in PP, no friendly supply may enter that region.

Pocus wrote:Generally speaking, enemy passive units are ignored when considering enemy presence.

Thanks Phil

Pocus wrote:Generally speaking, enemy passive units are ignored when considering enemy presence.

Thanks Pocus!!

Captain_Orso wrote:But you can have 100% MC in a region and if 1 single unopposed enemy combat unit is in the region NOT in PP, no friendly supply may enter that region.

Sorry, I have not read all this thread and I'm just seeing the above sentence : that seems really weird to me as it would mean you would not receive supply for your stack holding at 100% the region. Moreover that seems to contradict my own game experience.

Captain_Orso wrote:That's not true. For friendly supply to enter a region, your faction must have at least 25% MC in the region.

But you can have 100% MC in a region and if 1 single unopposed enemy combat unit is in the region NOT in PP, no friendly supply may enter that region.

So 30 rebel cavalry sitting on a hill in Valley Forge can block supply to Philadelphia?

That hardly seems realistic.

Rod Smart wrote:So 30 rebel cavalry sitting on a hill in Valley Forge can block supply to Philadelphia?

That hardly seems realistic.

After Pinkerton writes up the report, there are 3,000 of them.

Mickey3D wrote:Sorry, I have not read all this thread and I'm just seeing the above sentence : that seems really weird to me as it would mean you would not receive supply for your stack holding at 100% the region. Moreover that seems to contradict my own game experience.

Well, for one thing exactly that will never happen. First off, supply is moved at the start of the turn, before anybody can do anything. So if you move, for example, a single cavalry into a region where the enemy has 100% MC, as soon as you enter the region, you start gaining MC.

And remember, this is only for unopposed units. If there is a single opposing unit, then only MC is taken into account.

Rod Smart wrote:So 30 rebel cavalry sitting on a hill in Valley Forge can block supply to Philadelphia?

That hardly seems realistic.

If you are letting a platoon of cavalry sit on your supply line unopposed, then you get what you deserve. Besides, only that one region will be blocked. The supply will move around that region if at all possible.

Merlin wrote:After Pinkerton writes up the report, there are 3,000 of them.

And they were probably Comanche on top of that , but only because McClellan wouldn't be happy otherwise .

Merlin wrote:After Pinkerton writes up the report, there are 3,000 of them.

Hehe nice one !

The comment on Pinkerton makes me wonder if this could be modelled better in the game. His erroneous reports on southern troop dispositions froze whatever initiative McClellan may have had... I suppose this is reflected in Mac's strat. rating of 1 but Pinkerton might as well have been in the employment of Jeff Davis he did so much harm to the early Union war effort

He could get the Poor Spy Network ability instead of the positive one, but then nobody would use him at all, which is as it should be. I'd just remove him from the game and let him be reflected by McClellan's Poor Spy Network ability. Anyway, the McClellan vs. Beauregard or Prince John setup often does lead to shockingly bad intel on Confederate units.

Merlin wrote:He could get the Poor Spy Network ability instead of the positive one, but then nobody would use him at all, which is as it should be. I'd just remove him from the game and let him be reflected by McClellan's Poor Spy Network ability. Anyway, the McClellan vs. Beauregard or Prince John setup often does lead to shockingly bad intel on Confederate units.

Yes, the problem with hindsight... now everyone knows Pinkerton was out of his depth... amazing his business went on to be successful after the war. I guess it is easier to spy on a cheating wife than estimate troop compositions..

Hehe nice one. The person his wife was cheating with, it's also easier to count. Only 1 as for counting troops, he probably went: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.. too many and stopped counting

minipol wrote:Hehe nice one. The person his wife was cheating with, it's also easier to count. Only 1 as for counting troops, he probably went: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.. too many and stopped counting

His network was ridden with double agents, grifters, bald-faced liars, and other opportunists. He also took the reports of Confederate deserters at face value, despite Union officers having quickly learned their information was not to be trusted. After the war, Pinkerton's business was a model of corporate incompetence, and under today's laws would've been sued out of existence. He was basically the Erik Prince of his day.

I find it interesting that Burnside, Hooker, and Meade all managed very close estimates of the size of Lee's army, and none of them had any real interaction with Pinkerton's people. As for McClellan, Sharpsburg should've been the real eye-opener that Pinkerton's services were worthless.

Merlin wrote:His network was ridden with double agents, grifters, bald-faced liars, and other opportunists. He also took the reports of Confederate deserters at face value, despite Union officers having quickly learned their information was not to be trusted. After the war, Pinkerton's business was a model of corporate incompetence, and under today's laws would've been sued out of existence. He was basically the Erik Prince of his day.

I find it interesting that Burnside, Hooker, and Meade all managed very close estimates of the size of Lee's army, and none of them had any real interaction with Pinkerton's people. As for McClellan, Sharpsburg should've been the real eye-opener that Pinkerton's services were worthless.

I think with McClellan it was a case of Pinkerton providing him with an excuse not to act... look Mr. President, I'm outnumbered 3 to 1 by those damn rebels... send reinforcements quick! One of my favourite quotes from Lincoln is when he told McClellan "If the general doesn't want to use the army, I would like to borrow it for a while"

ajarnlance wrote:I think with McClellan it was a case of Pinkerton providing him with an excuse not to act... look Mr. President, I'm outnumbered 3 to 1 by those damn rebels... send reinforcements quick! One of my favourite quotes from Lincoln is when he told McClellan "If the general doesn't want to use the army, I would like to borrow it for a while"

McClellan was sincere, with maybe a little help from his dislike of war.

That reminds me of what Lee said, "It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it", which also reminds me of something which Grant said, though I cannot remember the exact quote. Somebody had asked him how he felt about having to send men into battle, when he knew many would find their death through his orders. He said something along the lines of -that fighting now as hard and as well as he could would cause many deaths, but doing otherwise would prolong the war, causing even more deaths, when the nation might already be healing-.

McClellan made for a great leader in peace times. He could inspire men to do great things. But he didn't understand his enemy. He thought of the war as an honorable contest in which if he outmaneuvered his enemy's forces his enemy would conceded and surrender. His enemy, however, saw no honor in surrendering; quite the opposite. At the cusp of bloody conflict his view narrowed to the battle at hand while he lost the overall view that fighting hard now would save many lives later.

In the world today, Lee's quote is something I feel we forget all too often.