Pocus please fix this...

[ajarnlance]

High level depots e.g. level four depots, are completely destroyed by just ONE successful partisan raid card. I have heard from other gamers that one attack should reduce the depot by one level each time. Captain Orso checked the logs and this isn't happening. This unbalances the game and makes the raid card way too powerful. Can you check into this please? Thanks!

[Merlin]

I don't have a save for it, but I've seen the card succeed with an entire army sitting on the region. I'm not at all sure why. As for what ajarnlance is reporting, I've never had an entire large depot go poof, just individual levels.

While we're at it, I think it's kind of odd that multi-level depots can't be destroyed by the player. Johnston did it when he withdrew from Manassas in 1862, Jackson did it again just before Second Manassas, and quite a few of the cavalry raids destroyed enormous amounts of equipment and supplies.

[ajarnlance]

I don't have a save for it, but I've seen the card succeed with an entire army sitting on the region. I'm not at all sure why. As for what ajarnlance is reporting, I've never had an entire large depot go poof, just individual levels.

While we're at it, I think it's kind of odd that multi-level depots can't be destroyed by the player. Johnston did it when he withdrew from Manassas in 1862, Jackson did it again just before Second Manassas, and quite a few of the cavalry raids destroyed enormous amounts of equipment and supplies.

Actually I'd be happy with the historical raiders (Forrest, Morgan etc..) having more power to destroy depots. My main beef is with a cheap little partisan unit being able to destroy a level four depot from an adjacent region...

[ohms_law]

I hope that he doesn't "fix" it. He may as well just remove the card altogether, at that point (which seems to be the point, to be honest).

[ajarnlance]

I hope that he doesn't "fix" it. He may as well just remove the card altogether, at that point (which seems to be the point, to be honest).

I think the issue is more about improving the balance between the classic raiders from the war and their abilities to destroy only level ONE depots (by first assaulting and holding the city for 5 days first) and a crappy little partisan unit who costs only 10K and can take out any size depot from an adjacent region (with a card). Seems to me like the partisan is over powered by comparison with NB Forrest for example.

[Ace]

The partisan card was envisioned as a way to force the Union player to guard its supply routes. But what really unbalances it, is the high ratio of succcess. If dice played can roll between 1 and 100, and the enemy has 1 division guarding a depot (that's a solid guard), partisan will have 0.82*0.82*0.82*0.5=28% chance for success. The chances for blowing a depot guarded by division should be near 0%.
Depots guarded by division are a tough nut for raiders like Forrest. They should be only destroyed by a sizeable raider force, not by partisans.

Having to throw dice under current loyalty would help the card behave more logically as well.

So, instead 3 number of elements check I would make 10 checks, and I would make 1 dice check for loyalty. It would help a card noone seems to like a lot!

[pgr]

What strikes me as odd is that a force in a region can only destroy depots up to level 1 (think you have to evacuate a place and you want to burn it all down), but partisans and the raid depot card have the magic ability to destroy level 4 depots in a single poof.

I would argue that the raid depot card destroy 1 level of depot (heck it is a raid after all), that partisan units retain the ability to destroy enemy depots completely when capturing them, and that the destroy depot ability not be capped at 1.

As it stands, there have been moments where I have wanted to abandon big depots in front of a enemy just to be able to hit em with a raid depot card because my forces couldn't destroy the depot during the evacuation.

(and +1 to Ace's post as well)

[Pocus]

That's probably safe to say that the decision was originally intended to remove one depot level, not more...

[ohms_law]

I like the idea of incorporating loyalty. That makes a lot of sense.

Anyway, I don't get where you guys are getting the idea that the card is magical, somehow. There's still a good chance that it doesn't work. I don't know what the percentage is, but I've had the card fail to do anything much more often than not. Any troops garrisoning the place seem to lower the odds significantly, as well, in my (admittedly limited) experience.

That's probably safe to say that the decision was originally intended to remove one depot level, not more...

You should just remove it, then.
Really, since there's a special order anyway, and it seems to be getting under people's skin, I'd say it may be a good idea to remove it anyway.

[pgr]

You should just remove it, then.
Really, since there's a special order anyway, and it seems to be getting under people's skin, I'd say it may be a good idea to remove it anyway.

Well that might be a bit much... I mean there are a lot of level 1 depots floating around, so the card would still have utility.

[ajarnlance]

Well that might be a bit much... I mean there are a lot of level 1 depots floating around, so the card would still have utility.

I think both Ace and pgr have nailed the key issues here and made some excellent suggestions. Don't remove the card just limit it to removing one level each use e.g. remove a level one depot completely or take a level four down to a level three. This, along with Ace's loyalty roll, should restore the balance to the force! Can this be added to the next patch Pocus... please?

When I say restore the balance I am thinking of two aspects in particular:
1) Making partisan units (that cost only 10K) so powerful reduces the value of the historically deadly raiders. Forrest/Morgan etc..
2) A level four depot will cost 4x supply wagons and several turns to rebuild. This represents a huge investment of resources.

[ohms_law]

I think that this whole thing is a huge overreaction.
Play a better game (you just said that playing against another person was a "rude awakening". Your words, not mine).

But, that's me. What do I know?

[FelixZ]

I think that this whole thing is a huge overreaction.
Play a better game (you just said that playing against another person was a "rude awakening". Your words, not mine).

But, that's me. What do I know?

+1 . There seems to have been a lot of overreaction lately by new players who have received an unfavorable result before they learned the rules of the game.

Every change/modification has a ripple effect - which will probably affect another player(s).

[minipol]

Some changes could have a ripple effect. Thats why I would like some opions to be set in the gui or even an inifile would do.
Not difficult to implement and no work to the gui.

[ajarnlance]

Some changes could have a ripple effect. Thats why I would like some opions to be set in the gui or even an inifile would do.
Not difficult to implement and no work to the gui.

+1. more options would be cool.