Ripping up the rails...

[ajarnlance]

Quick questions on destroying railway tracks
1) Do I have to be static in the region?
2) Can I do it in passive posture?

Also I notice that the 'destroy depot' button tells me it takes 5 days. If I give this order to a unit while also ordering them away from the region, does that mean that they will wait 5 days, destroy the depot, and then start to leave the region?

[ohms_law]

As far as I can tell, you do have to be static for a full turn. I'm nearly positive that you can be passive, though.
I think that the destroy depot, fort, and rail orders are supposed to keep the unit from moving until after the order is carried out (pretty sure it says something about that in the tooltip), but I've never been able to get that to work right it seems.

[Captain_Orso]

Quick questions on destroying railway tracks
1) Do I have to be static in the region?

You may give a stack the Destroy Rail SO in the same turn as you give it moving orders, but if they leave the region in under 5 day, I believe the damage may not take place, at least it was like that at one time.

2) Can I do it in passive posture?

Well, the game allows you to select it while you are in PP and since it's not actually combat, I kind of think you can.

Also I notice that the 'destroy depot' button tells me it takes 5 days. If I give this order to a unit while also ordering them away from the region, does that mean that they will wait 5 days, destroy the depot, and then start to leave the region?

It should work the same as with the Destroy Rail SO, if you leave too quickly you'll not succeed, but again, I can't actually confirm that 100%.

[ajarnlance]

Thanks guys!! I agree that it seems like they need time to do the damage. If an enemy unit shows up in the first 5 days then it doesn't work... I think.... This question has been overshadowed by my whole force just surrendering in Williamsburg in my first PBEM... why?? Feels like a sick joke....

[Captain_Orso]

I think it probably has a lot to do with the size of the force trying to destroy the rails. I tried with a corps with 2 divisions, which I both set to destroy the rails and use rail movement at the same time. Theoretically they should have been in the next region on day 2, which rather precludes them destroying the rails, but the corps still arrived at it's destination right on time, plus the rails were destroyed, so go fig.

Oops, surrendered in Wiliamsburg Sounds like you were gunned down by superior artillery. That's the only thing that can affect you during siege, other than just running out of supply.

[ajarnlance]

I think it probably has a lot to do with the size of the force trying to destroy the rails. I tried with a corps with 2 divisions, which I both set to destroy the rails and use rail movement at the same time. Theoretically they should have been in the next region on day 2, which rather precludes them destroying the rails, but the corps still arrived at it's destination right on time, plus the rails were destroyed, so go fig.

Oops, surrendered in Wiliamsburg Sounds like you were gunned down by superior artillery. That's the only thing that can affect you during siege, other than just running out of supply.

Gunned down by superior artillery after only 2 turns?? My 500 combat power force is entrenched to the max inside a redoubt with no breaches, facing a 830 Union force under the command of that offensive genius Butler (sarcasm intended). I am at FULL SUPPLY with Magruder, a level 3 defensive general, who has orders to 'hold at all costs' and he simply gives up after 30 days of siege... you must be joking!!! This is the most ridiculous result I have yet encountered.... slowly becoming disillusioned with ageod...

[Captain_Orso]

It does sound pretty unlikely that your force would surrender, especially if you hadn't even taken a breach yet. Aside from artillery difference, the defender's average Discipline is what surrender is measured on. Everything else is modifiers to the Siege Values of both sides. Then the d6 Siege dr determines the outcome. Have a look at this: Manual: Siege combat and this: AGEWiki: Sieges and breaches. I don't know how large the force inside Williamsburg was, but they might has suffered from overcrowding: AGEWiki: Overcrowding Rule, and I'm not even sure if the Overcrowding Rule applies to Siege Combat.

That's about all I can offer. You'll have to check what could have caused the surrender from the specifics of the siege. Sorry about that.

[Merlin]

The larger the force, the more successful you'll be at breaking the railway. And you don't have to sit the whole turn. You have to start in the region to issue the order, but issuing a move order will simply cause a few day's delay while your boys tear up the track. If you don't succeed you weren't going to anyway, regardless of whether or not you sat in the region the entire turn.

[ajarnlance]

The larger the force, the more successful you'll be at breaking the railway. And you don't have to sit the whole turn. You have to start in the region to issue the order, but issuing a move order will simply cause a few day's delay while your boys tear up the track. If you don't succeed you weren't going to anyway, regardless of whether or not you sat in the region the entire turn.

Thanks Merlin. So force size is key. Passive posture doesn't affect the chance of success?

[Merlin]

I've never really paid attention to the effect posture had on the order, but I'd say it doesn't matter.

[ajarnlance]

I've never really paid attention to the effect posture had on the order, but I'd say it doesn't matter.

Thanks Merlin. Now I can destroy railway tracks at will... I used to like trains ... but not if they are Union he, he....

[Merlin]

It's really annoying to try to chase down a large raiding force, say a cavalry division or larger, since they can break the railroads almost every single time and just jump to another section four or five regions over in the same turn. I rarely see Confederate players take advantage of this, or large scale raids in general. I'm guessing that's why Union players don't really garrison that much, or at least until I send Forrest in with two cavalry divisions and sack Cincinnati, sending the twelve shiny new brigades building there since the previous turn up in just so much expensive smoke.

I normally prefer trying to efficiently organize the large, plodding Union war machine, but when playing as the Confederacy, I do so almost exclusively for the cavalry and people like Mosby, Shelby, and Forrest. I'm not certain why, but I take a perverse delight in wrecking everything I can get my hands on and burning down entire states.

[ajarnlance]

It's really annoying to try to chase down a large raiding force, say a cavalry division or larger, since they can break the railroads almost every single time and just jump to another section four or five regions over in the same turn. I rarely see Confederate players take advantage of this, or large scale raids in general. I'm guessing that's why Union players don't really garrison that much, or at least until I send Forrest in with two cavalry divisions and sack Cincinnati, sending the twelve shiny new brigades building there since the previous turn up in just so much expensive smoke.

I normally prefer trying to efficiently organize the large, plodding Union war machine, but when playing as the Confederacy, I do so almost exclusively for the cavalry and people like Mosby, Shelby, and Forrest. I'm not certain why, but I take a perverse delight in wrecking everything I can get my hands on and burning down entire states.

Yes, raiding is a lot of fun.. maybe it's a Viking thing... although I lost Shelby once on a raid... sometimes you get unluicky and get stomped on...