What Does It Mean To Destroy A Depot?

[Southerner]

I order a unit to destroy a depot. I leave the unit in place for the required time. I get the depot destoyed message.

Yet, if I move another unit into the depot, it and it's supplies are still there. The new arrival unit can resupply from it, so I have to assume that the enemy's unit can do so too.

So what is the point in destroying one?

[Jabberwock]

Is the depot still there, or just the supplies?

[Coregonas]

As the depot is a supply source, if you destroy it your enemy will need to reconstruct it to go on advancing.

[johnnycai]

I order a unit to destroy a depot. I leave the unit in place for the required time. I get the depot destoyed message.

Yet, if I move another unit into the depot, it and it's supplies are still there. The new arrival unit can resupply from it, so I have to assume that the enemy's unit can do so too.

So what is the point in destroying one?

Destroying the depot does not destroy the inventory of supply/ammo but it will prevent the enemy from using that depot in attracting and forwarding suppy/ammo to that region.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Brochgale]

As CSA I always destroy depots in the face of larger advancing Tankee forces, I destroy them to deny them the depots and thus stretch thier supply lines in Missoui and Kentucky especially. If you leave units in place in city where you have destoyed depot sooner or later your own unit will end up unsupplied and you will get a message in the log to that effect.

[Pocus]

Seems that at least some of the supplies should also be destroyed, expecially that amount in excess of the total amount the occupying force would need to fully stock up. Have to have Pocus look into this.

Indeed, an overlook that I forgot to fix, even if the subject was already brought on the table. This is added now on our list of things.

[Southerner]

Indeed, an overlook that I forgot to fix, even if the subject was already brought on the table. This is added now on our list of things.

Cool!!!... ....or do people still say cool?...I'm rather 1950ish you see.

But at any rate I thought something was amiss. Destroyed ought to mean destroyed and or at least carried off it seems to my way of thinking.

I seem to recall Forrest's men working feverishly to remove all they could from Nashville before the doodllers arrived. Then opening the warehouse doors to the people to take what the army couldn't transport out of the city.
Or in raids like on Holly Springs where entire stockpikes were torched by "hit and run" raiding calvary forces.

[Hobbes]

You didn't find 15 seconds Philippe?

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=5312&highlight=depot

[Hobbes]

Looking again at the old post above jimwinsor has a good point about supply in towns that don't have a depot. Some of the level 3 towns without depots can have huge supply stockpiles. Maybe they should automatically lose a % of supply if captured? Not sure if that's a good idea or not. Any thoughts?

Cheers, Chris

[GShock]

The essence of a depot/fort is to store supplies while the essence of a settlement is to produce them. Both should forward but only towards forts/depots (and wagons).

I think when a depot is destroyed, all supplies should be destroyed, those in excess to refilling all present units at least. You don't move supplies out of a depot and then burn it, you burn it with whatever it contains after you've refilled your troops.

Settlement which stores supplies is a strange thing in this game. If settlement can store supplies who needs depots then? I'd say in a settlement troops should be autosupplied...it's evident, they live off the town just like they forage when out of town.

Personally, i think the settlement supplies that couldn't reach a depot/fort/wagon during the supply phase should be removed from the game as troops in a settlement should always be autosupplied according to the settlement size.