A Survay on the Life Cycle of Depots

[Captain_Orso]

I'd like to hear what others thing about how depots are handled in the game.

A depot is simply a collection of buildings and personal for storing and managing supplies and their distribution. Depots--as far an my information tells me--were not only constructed completely by the military, but often integrated local real-estate for this purpose.

Currently in the game building a depot can be very costly--Supply Train/Pack Train units are among the most expensive land units of the game. But in reality the cost of building a depot should be minimal. The value of the goods and materials housed by a depot would far outweigh the structures themselves. Towns and cities with harbors can at least use riverine or oceanic transports and even flatboats--by far the most economic--to build depots. But this begs the question of why there should be such great cost differences in building depots.

Also currently in the game any depot greater than level 1 cannot be destroyed. This is far from historical nor realistic and reduces the ability of the Confederacy to attack Union communications, which historically were a huge part of the Confederate regional strategies.

My suggestion to bring the rules in-line with history and reality has 3 points:

1. Depots are built using RGD's only, which have a fixed cost in money and perhaps 1 CC. These RGD's should be plentiful and regenerate each turn. The player should never be caught in a situation of needing to build a depot and not being able to because of a lack of an RGD. The Build Depot RGD should either create a new depot or increase the level of a depot present in the location where the RGD was played.

2. Depots of all sizes should be susceptible to destruction through the use of the Raiding Party RGD. Yes, even big fat level 5 depots--especially big fat depots--lookup the November 4th '64 attack on the Johnsonville, TN depot.

3. The owning player should be able to voluntarily reduce the level of a depot up to and including its complete removal. This would allow the player to control where his supplies are going much more readily. An historic example is when Sherman abandoned Atlanta to begin his march to to Savannah. The depots between Atlanta and Chattanooga were taken down after he left Atlanta. Currently you could only do this if their level is not 2 or greater, and AFAIK all the supplies contained within would be destroyed. If the level of a depot is reduced or it is simply removed the supplies would simply dissipate through normal supply distribution until it only held what its current status should be able to hold. This should also be done per RGD.

--

So, those are my thoughts. What are yours?

[donagel]

Captain;
I always took the conceptual view of building depots. The cost is based on the ease of supply. Rivers are a cheap means of moving supply, therefore flatboats are a cheaper means of building a depot. Overland is the most expensive(and most exposed) and therefore cost the most. So your not paying for the depot itself, but rather the cost of building the vehicle of supply and maintaining them.

Along that line of thinking, I would like depots to be automatically destroyed when taken by the enemy. You should receive some, maybe a lot, of GS for your efforts, but you need to rebuild the supply lines. They don't just magically appear 15 days later. This would make the Union really work to build a network as they advance and force the confederates to either spend big or live off the land. As it is now, I seldom have to build depots as the enemy just gives me his.

[Gray Fox]

1. This sounds interesting, as long as we don't get to 1864 and have depots in every single region. What if each side got to distribute a finite total number of X depot points in April 1861 and could thus build a network with that many levels of depots? The depots could be rearranged as needed. Each year, a few more depot points become available.

2. I thought that a raiding party already could destroy level 1 depots and reduce larger depots one level at a time with RGD's?

3. I have always advocated this.

[W.Barksdale]

I don't really see a reason for a change at this point, and certainly not to make depots more abstract and complicated. Personally I think they are modelled very well. You shouldn't just be able to build unlimited depots at will. They should require some forethought, and if you've forgotten to include an extra supply unit to construct one?... Better get on that quickly. Supply units take all of one turn to be ready anyway.

[Rod Smart]

I'd like to hear what others thing about how depots are handled in the game.

A depot is simply a collection of buildings and personal for storing and managing supplies and their distribution. Depots--as far an my information tells me--were not only constructed completely by the military, but often integrated local real-estate for this purpose.

Spending resources to construct something that should be free is an accurate representation of war profiteering.

[James D Burns]

I've always viewed depots as the government organizing regional small business' towards war production (blacksmiths, bakers, tailors, etc.) in addition to their marshaling yard functions. After all they produce war supplies and ammo, so their cost is more than justified.

Jim

[John S. Mosby]

I don't really see a reason for a change at this point, and certainly not to make depots more abstract and complicated. Personally I think they are modelled very well. You shouldn't just be able to build unlimited depots at will. They should require some forethought, and if you've forgotten to include an extra supply unit to construct one?... Better get on that quickly. Supply units take all of one turn to be ready anyway.

I completely agree with your thoughts on construction.

However I do believe that the Captain has a very good observation in his #2 point which is "Depots of all sizes should be susceptible to destruction through the use of the Raiding Party RGD."

The Captain's #3 point of the owner controlling the size of the depot is also a valid point in my opinion and also worth considering.

[Mickey3D]

[...]Depots are built using RGD's only, which have a fixed cost in money and perhaps 1 CC. These RGD's should be plentiful and regenerate each turn[...]

I'm afraid you would end up with too many depots on the map and this would make very difficult to cut supply path of your opponent.

[W.Barksdale]

I completely agree with your thoughts on construction.

However I do believe that the Captain has a very good observation in his #2 point which is "Depots of all sizes should be susceptible to destruction through the use of the Raiding Party RGD."

The Captain's #3 point of the owner controlling the size of the depot is also a valid point in my opinion and also worth considering.

Recently Pocus has confirmed that the Partisan Raid card will already cause a drop in the depot size, with a level two falling to a level one, for example, after a successful Partisan Raid card is used.

[minipol]

I like options 2 & 3. 1st option, not sure, the total number might be capped for better game play.

[Captain_Orso]

Captain;
I always took the conceptual view of building depots. The cost is based on the ease of supply. Rivers are a cheap means of moving supply, therefore flatboats are a cheaper means of building a depot. Overland is the most expensive(and most exposed) and therefore cost the most. So your not paying for the depot itself, but rather the cost of building the vehicle of supply and maintaining them.

I've heard this argument before. But a depot on a river with a harbor is useless without points in the riverine transport pool which can reach the depot. That determines how affective a river depot is. For example, if the Union captures Memphis without first taking Island Number Ten no supplies will be able to move down the Mississippi to Memphis regardless of the size of the RivTP.

Transportation on rivers is cheap compared to moving by rail. I recently read a comparison. One middle to large sized river boat could move as much cargo--I believe the example was from Louisville, KY--to Saint Louis, MO in one trip which took about 3 or 4 days as several dozen trains could move in 10 days. The trains need railroads, which cost a lot to build and maintain, and the trains themselves are also much more expensive to procure the same transport capacity as a river boat, plus you need a far, far greater number of personal to manage the trains compared to one river boat.

But none of this explains the cost of the depot itself, whether you build the same sized depot in Memphis or Humboldt, the material to build the depot is the same. The personal needed to manage the depot is the same. Only the transportation to and from the depot is different, and that is covered in other rules of the game.

Along that line of thinking, I would like depots to be automatically destroyed when taken by the enemy. You should receive some, maybe a lot, of GS for your efforts, but you need to rebuild the supply lines. They don't just magically appear 15 days later. This would make the Union really work to build a network as they advance and force the confederates to either spend big or live off the land. As it is now, I seldom have to build depots as the enemy just gives me his.

I don't think that is a given. If the enemy should capture a depot, they should be able to do with it as they wish; destroy it, keep it, their choice. They should be able to move as much of its content off as they can before burning it to the ground though.

I don't think it take very long to build some storage house. You can look in YT today for time-laps films of barn-raisings with about 50 men putting up a barn--a very big one--in one day. Take a couple hundred directed by officers and a couple of weeks and you could put up a depot.

[Captain_Orso]

1. This sounds interesting, as long as we don't get to 1864 and have depots in every single region. What if each side got to distribute a finite total number of X depot points in April 1861 and could thus build a network with that many levels of depots? The depots could be rearranged as needed. Each year, a few more depot points become available.

2. I thought that a raiding party already could destroy level 1 depots and reduce larger depots one level at a time with RGD's?

3. I have always advocated this.

Remember, every depot you build, you have to defend. Build so many depots you cannot defend them and the enemy will take them and their content and then burn them down. You will lose the cost of building it, and all the supplies, much of which will go to the enemy. In affect, if you spam the countryside with depots, you will simply be feeding the enemy. Your choice.

[Smitzer52]

Wow, had no idea that cheap flatboats= depot in every harbor. Sudenly I have a feeling I played western campaings all wrong. So what does exactly impedes supply movement by river? Just forts(island 10,dover) or cities like Cairo if that can open fire on supply via artillery, or even any artillery element near river(entrenched).

[Captain_Orso]

I don't really see a reason for a change at this point, and certainly not to make depots more abstract and complicated. Personally I think they are modelled very well. You shouldn't just be able to build unlimited depots at will. They should require some forethought, and if you've forgotten to include an extra supply unit to construct one?... Better get on that quickly. Supply units take all of one turn to be ready anyway.

Because historically to destroy a depot, you need a bit a fire and that's it. It doesn't make much difference how large the depot is.

Pocus is afraid that allowing depots to be destroyed outright regardless of the size will make it too easy for the South to cut Union communications after having advanced into the Southern Heartland. But this WAS a major issue with Sherman in Atlanta. This is the reason Sherman opted to take down his depots in Atlanta and Rome and only defend Chattanooga, cut lose from his supplies from the North and march across Georgia, while living off the land.

Grant spoke often of this in his memoirs. Every time a campaign was ended and his army went into camp he had to spread his army out to defend his lines of communications and thus give up his offensive capabilities. He never had issues with putting a depot where he needed one, only with defending it and keeping it working.

So why should we, as the player, be more concerned with jumping through hoops to build a depot, and less with keeping it working?

[Captain_Orso]

Spending resources to construct something that should be free is an accurate representation of war profiteering.

I didn't say "free" anywhere. I stated that the construction should be in line with the actual cost of building a depot, which I do not think is correctly represented.

[Captain_Orso]

I've always viewed depots as the government organizing regional small business' towards war production (blacksmiths, bakers, tailors, etc.) in addition to their marshaling yard functions. After all they produce war supplies and ammo, so their cost is more than justified.

Jim

The amount of supply actually produced in-game by a depot is minimal compared to supplies moved into it from elsewhere.

That in reality much of what the military procured came from far closer to the location of the troops cannot be reflected in the game without making a very major overhaul of the supply system entirely.

Sherman marched 60,000 men across Georgia and fed them practically only from that which they could 'procure' from the land; in game terms Foraging. I don't think we could do this in the game. Sherman's army would be out of supplies by the time it reached Savannah.

On top of that, there is absolutely nothing in the game dealing with planting and maintaining fields and harvesting and distribution. Planting happens without regard to manpower available to do so. Remember Longstreet's corps was in North Carolina in the Spring of '63 so that his men could sow the fields, besides that the cavalry with him could rest their horses and forage (feed and collect food for the horses and mules) from a land which hadn't been stripped by two years of war as Virginia was.

Supply in reality is a much more complex issue than can be reflected in the game, without it becoming a game of its own, and a very complex game at that. But we can bring it more in line with they way things worked for the armies, which starts with being able to build depots where you need them and the enemy being able to destroy them if they can, without artificial rules which only lead to the players being protected from their own poor management.

[Captain_Orso]

I'm afraid you would end up with too many depots on the map and this would make very difficult to cut supply path of your opponent.

You can only "cut" supply now, by blocking it. In other words, by putting your force--even a small one--unopposed in the path the supply needs to travel.

As I've stated before, building depots, which you cannot defend, only presents them to the enemy to rob and destroy. The player must make wise decisions, and not be hobbled by excessive game-costs into not making them.

[Captain_Orso]

Recently Pocus has confirmed that the Partisan Raid card will already cause a drop in the depot size, with a level two falling to a level one, for example, after a successful Partisan Raid card is used.

But why should the level be reduced by only 1? Just to protect the player from not protecting his depot and leaving him with a huge gap in his supply line which, by the current rules, would take too long to repair.

I can assure you that Forrest would not have left two twigs standing if which might be of use by the Union if he had a choice.

[Captain_Orso]

I like options 2 & 3. 1st option, not sure, the total number might be capped for better game play.

But is it "better play" if the player is restricted? Isn't it "better play" if the player is forced by his opponent to handle wisely, and not a restriction of the game itself?

[Captain_Orso]

Wow, had no idea that cheap flatboats= depot in every harbor. Sudenly I have a feeling I played western campaings all wrong. So what does exactly impedes supply movement by river? Just forts(island 10,dover) or cities like Cairo if that can open fire on supply via artillery, or even any artillery element near river(entrenched).

Anything which can bombard into a river region will prevent that river region from having supplies moved through it. A single unopposed gunboat will do the same.

How far supply can be moved along a river is regulated by the player's Riverine Transport Pool and the distance. For each full 1/3 of the full RivTP capacity a player has, that side can use rivers for moving supplies for one of the three supply distribution phases, which occur at the start of each turn before any troop or navel movement takes place. During each supply distribution phase supply can be moved as far as a supply wagon or river boat could move it in one turn. So by RivTP and RailTP, quite far, as long as you have capacity.

The only thing restricting this is the 'pull' distance. The 'want' for supplies--depots 'want' a lot of supplies--only reaches about 5 regions. The shorter the distance the supply has to move, the more which can be moved during each distribution phase.

[W.Barksdale]

I just don't see the point. Depot's work fine the way they are and have been like this for 7 years. With limited programming hours I'm sure the dev team has a long list of other issues to attend to. I suppose you could make a mod but I just believe it's more effort than it's worth.

[Cardinal Ape]

I think if the partisan raid card is able to destroy any level of depot that if would benefit the Union more than the CSA. The Union start with so many more depots, many of them redundant, while the CSA supply chain is much more precarious. Also, the cost to rebuild the depots is much harder to deal with as the CSA.

As you said it is not the depot themselves that really matter, it is the supplies inside them that matter. Therefore I would rather see a new RGD that could disrupt the actual flow of supplies through an area. Or maybe a more powerful version of the partisan raid card that could only be played in conjunction with a nearby leader with an appropriate trait like Deep Raider.

Actually, now that I think about it... Does the partisan raid card actually destroy any supplies or ammo? If the depot goes boom do the supplies stay in the region untouched? I would rather have a raid card that destroys one level of depot and all supplies in the region than one that destroys the depot entirely but leaves the supplies and ammo untouched. (After experimenting it appears that the raid card does toast the supplies and ammo.)

I do agree that having military ownership should allow you destroy a depot regardless of level.

[Cardinal Ape]

I have not been able to determine if lowering a depots level by one has any affect on the supplies inside it.

Anyhow... This is a bit off-topic but the thread got me thinking about it soo... I think it would be fun if the partisan raid card had an affect on victory points. Say, every 100 units of supply and/or ammo you destroyed with it netted you 1 victory point. And if the raid was particularly devastating in burning 3,000+ units then it could have an affect on national moral.

[donagel]

I don't think that is a given. If the enemy should capture a depot, they should be able to do with it as they wish; destroy it, keep it, their choice. They should be able to move as much of its content off as they can before burning it to the ground though.

I don't think it take very long to build some storage house. You can look in YT today for time-laps films of barn-raisings with about 50 men putting up a barn--a very big one--in one day. Take a couple hundred directed by officers and a couple of weeks and you could put up a depot.

Yes, I quite agree they should be able to seize all of the goods contained in a depot, or perhaps some % based on how they got it. However, that is all they have captured. Stuff. They did not instantaneously replace the giant beauracracy of logisitics it takes to get goods to the location.

Further, I think auto-destruction might force the game into more realism. Each side could decide to depend on seizing supplies as they move forward and hope that this will keep their forces fed and battle ready. But if they want to stay there and occupy the land , they need to build the logisitical infrastructure, which was an investment. If you did not do this, the captuured supplies run out and you are forced to live off the land. In game, if Sherman marches to the sea, he can depend on having Chatanooga. Atlanta and Augusta as his supply lines since he will likely capture the depots and be instantly in supply the whole route.

[Durk]

I have been following this thread with some interest and I am mixed about my response to the discussion for a number of reasons. The driving question for me, what do depots represent and how were the historical depots represented impacted by enemy attacks?
Depots in the game are not one thing. I think part of what confuses this discussion is the desire to make depots which were intentional government collections, sales by sutlers and bridges in the supply chain a single concept. Depots represent a lot of differing supply deployments.
The couple of historical CSA depot captures of massive Union depot supplies resulted more in USA military response rather than a irrevocable loss of supplies for the North or gain of supplies for the South. The Union did not raid Southern depots, they raided the supply network. So destruction of rails is much more critical and germane to the Union Idea.
I actually think the current rules represent the historical nature of supply chains. While depots do draw supply as mentioned above, they are merely transit and collection points.
Many of the ideas put forth have a measure of merit, but so far, none of the 'solutions' achieve a more historical distribution of supply than the current game rules.
Raids broke rails.
Invasions, such as Lee's couple of forays north, lived off the land, not captured depots. And, while Lee did gather some money, this money was used to pay for forage.

Short summary – no historically significant examples of depot captures warrant a change in game rules and procedures. In a few cases depots were burned, but really, deports are a means, not an end.

[Captain_Orso]

I just don't see the point. Depot's work fine the way they are and have been like this for 7 years. With limited programming hours I'm sure the dev team has a long list of other issues to attend to. I suppose you could make a mod but I just believe it's more effort than it's worth.

Currently the plan is that the Raid RGD will lower the level of a depot by 1 regardless of it's present level. This is a castration of the Raiders, because in reality they had a good chance of destroying a depot they attacked completely. This has been documented many times from Manassas to Johnsonville.

It has also been documented that raiders aren't always successful at destroying a depot; see the Memphis and Paducah raids.

What is not documented is that the full success of a raid is the reduction in size of a depot.

So, why does it work the way it does now, the way it will when the Raid RGD is "fixed"? Because the consequences of being realistic would be too harsh; the sudden and complete loss of a depot.

And why would it be too harsh? Because if the Union lost a depot under the current rules, it would take too long for the Union player to rebuild and resupply it; his forces depending on it could be gravely affected by the loss of just one depot.

So, why does it take so long and is it so costly to replace a depot? Because, it should impress upon the player how dear and expensive his depots are. Make them costly and rare and he will have to appreciate them, but not because of what they historically meant to the armies in the field.

So the Union player is castrated by rules which inflate beyond realistic the importance of depot in their conceptualization (very expensive to build, time consuming to replace if lost)--and I assure you I understand the importance of supplies and depots in reality.

The Raiding player is also castrated because the importance of the depot is already inflated so that if a depot were outright destroyed the affects of it's loss would be exaggerated beyond realistic.

Both sides of the equation have been so softened that the entire thing is just pablum, it's bland and boring. There's nothing a raider can do which does more than illicit a shooing-off like a pesky fly landing on your sandwich.

Give the fly a sting by turning him into a wasp and the man will find a fly-swatter and things will be far more interesting; but you have to let him get a new sandwich from the kitchen and not have to drive all the way to the store.

Is this any clearer now, as to why?

[Captain_Orso]

I think if the partisan raid card is able to destroy any level of depot that if would benefit the Union more than the CSA. The Union start with so many more depots, many of them redundant, while the CSA supply chain is much more precarious. Also, the cost to rebuild the depots is much harder to deal with as the CSA.

As you said it is not the depot themselves that really matter, it is the supplies inside them that matter. Therefore I would rather see a new RGD that could disrupt the actual flow of supplies through an area. Or maybe a more powerful version of the partisan raid card that could only be played in conjunction with a nearby leader with an appropriate trait like Deep Raider.

Actually, now that I think about it... Does the partisan raid card actually destroy any supplies or ammo? If the depot goes boom do the supplies stay in the region untouched? I would rather have a raid card that destroys one level of depot and all supplies in the region than one that destroys the depot entirely but leaves the supplies and ammo untouched. (After experimenting it appears that the raid card does toast the supplies and ammo.)

I do agree that having military ownership should allow you destroy a depot regardless of level.

You don't need and RGD to block supplies, just put your raiders in the path of the supplies and they will be blocked.

I have not been able to determine if lowering a depots level by one has any affect on the supplies inside it.

Anyhow... This is a bit off-topic but the thread got me thinking about it soo... I think it would be fun if the partisan raid card had an affect on victory points. Say, every 100 units of supply and/or ammo you destroyed with it netted you 1 victory point. And if the raid was particularly devastating in burning 3,000+ units then it could have an affect on national moral.

I haven't actually tried it out, but I would take it at face value; reducing the depot level would do just that, reduce the level. The consequences would be that the depot has less 'want', will pull fewer supplies to itself and thus have less to pass on.

But I don't expect any supply present in the depot to actually be destroyed.

[Captain_Orso]

Yes, I quite agree they should be able to seize all of the goods contained in a depot, or perhaps some % based on how they got it. However, that is all they have captured. Stuff. They did not instantaneously replace the giant beauracracy of logisitics it takes to get goods to the location.

Further, I think auto-destruction might force the game into more realism. Each side could decide to depend on seizing supplies as they move forward and hope that this will keep their forces fed and battle ready. But if they want to stay there and occupy the land , they need to build the logisitical infrastructure, which was an investment. If you did not do this, the captuured supplies run out and you are forced to live off the land. In game, if Sherman marches to the sea, he can depend on having Chatanooga. Atlanta and Augusta as his supply lines since he will likely capture the depots and be instantly in supply the whole route.

The subject was not actually about capturing depots, but okay, let's view that aspect too.

I had to think about this for a while, but I can only think of a couple of times that the Union captured a 'depot' intact; Memphis I believe was abandoned so quickly that the depot was captured. New Orleans possibly too, but NO was not really a base for militarily built-up and operations, and although I'm sure the garrison there had some sort of storage for their own equipment and supplies, but NO was not much else.

That being said, NO was by far the largest trade center in the Confederacy, which meant that civilian warehouses etc., could be viewed had having the same affect as if there were a government depot, although I'm fairly sure there really wasn't. Once the Union captured NO I'm sure they made liberal use of warehouses etc. to house their own supplies, both for the Army and Navy.

When Nashville was captured, beforehand Forrest had put everything of military use onto trains and wagons and removed it, so that when Grant and Buell arrived there was nothing there for them to capture other than the city and the population. But I don't remember hearing that Forrest actually destroyed any buildings or structures, but that doesn't mean he didn't.

Pretty much the same thing happened with Corinth, but Halleck with responsible this time. Beauregard removed everything of value, including his troops, while Halleck crawled at a snail's pace ... ever ... closer ... zzzzzzzz ....... but Beauregard didn't destroy anything in Corinth. That might have woken Halleck and would have informed the besieging armies of his intended withdraw.

It would be problematic currently in the game to remove supplies from a depot before 'destroying' it. As long as the depot is present, especially if its location is occupied by friendly troops, it will pull a lot of supply, which is the opposite of withdrawing supplies and troops to escape battle and capture. There's currently no way to do this.

[Captain_Orso]

I have been following this thread with some interest and I am mixed about my response to the discussion for a number of reasons. The driving question for me, what do depots represent and how were the historical depots represented impacted by enemy attacks?
Depots in the game are not one thing. I think part of what confuses this discussion is the desire to make depots which were intentional government collections, sales by sutlers and bridges in the supply chain a single concept. Depots represent a lot of differing supply deployments.

That's what I was saying already above. Depots insinuate an organization not just taking supplied from a depot up the road or river, but also procuring goods from local suppliers, be they indigenous or immigrants to the region.

I don't see an issue with this. The indigenous population is not going anywhere and the sutlers will follow the army and depots where ever they go without any government encouragement.

The couple of historical CSA depot captures of massive Union depot supplies resulted more in USA military response rather than a irrevocable loss of supplies for the North or gain of supplies for the South. The Union did not raid Southern depots, they raided the supply network. So destruction of rails is much more critical and germane to the Union Idea.

Actually, in the South capturing Harper's Ferry, capturing the depot and armory were part of the strategy, and the infrastructure was used by the South for as long as they were present.

I actually think the current rules represent the historical nature of supply chains. While depots do draw supply as mentioned above, they are merely transit and collection points.
Many of the ideas put forth have a measure of merit, but so far, none of the 'solutions' achieve a more historical distribution of supply than the current game rules.
Raids broke rails.
Invasions, such as Lee's couple of forays north, lived off the land, not captured depots. And, while Lee did gather some money, this money was used to pay for forage.

Short summary – no historically significant examples of depot captures warrant a change in game rules and procedures. In a few cases depots were burned, but really, deports are a means, not an end.

It's not a question of capturing depots, it's a question of the South raiding and destroying them, and of the Union protecting and maintaining them.

[Rod Smart]

But why should the level be reduced by only 1? Just to protect the player from not protecting his depot and leaving him with a huge gap in his supply line which, by the current rules, would take too long to repair.

I can assure you that Forrest would not have left two twigs standing if which might be of use by the Union if he had a choice.

Forrest and a division should be able to destroy a depot.


But a dozen guys under Mosby should not be able to completely destroy a level 4 City Point sized depot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Point,_Virginia