Questions Questions Questions

[Cromagnonman]

Occasionally it can be rather counterproductive. For instance, you may get a boost in GS production in a level 1 city, which is not a valid supply source. Those extra supplies won't go anywhere, and are basically wasted except for local forces. New York is almost entirely level 3 and above cities, so you're a lot more likely to be able to use it, even if it is months away from the front.

[Ol' Choctaw]

I like to use the Industrialization on poorer States where the investment is low. These should be maxed for the few areas you use it.

Arkansas and Texas, and perhaps Mississippi, are the best investments for the South, and West Virginia and Kansas for the North.

Smaller investments can actually have some fantastic results. After about a year of investment in my last game, Arkansas was out producing Virginia in all areas except cash, which was still nil.

In captured areas lower investment usually is enough. There you just need GS and maybe some Ammo to support your local troops.

It seems a little counter intuitive so far as return for investment is concerned. It seems poor or below average potential gives better bang for the buck than excellent or good potentials.

[GraniteStater]

Occasionally it can be rather counterproductive. For instance, you may get a boost in GS production in a level 1 city, which is not a valid supply source. Those extra supplies won't go anywhere, and are basically wasted except for local forces. New York is almost entirely level 3 and above cities, so you're a lot more likely to be able to use it, even if it is months away from the front.

* Level 1 and 2 towns are Supply sources, I believe; they never request Supplies.

* I think the Supplies from 1-2 Towns are distributed, either along RRs, rivers, or roads - don't forget roads. Think about it for a second - ever notice that you'll be next to, or in, a Town about ten Turns or so in a scenario, and the Supply is something like 15/30? Well, even a small Supply source would be stockpiling values higher than that, if it never went anywhere - I would hazard that the small amount of Supplies prouced by 1-2 Towns does get distributed, but the flood of Supplies from the much larger sources tends to dominate the system's conduits.

I could, of course, be wrong on the second one.

[Cromagnonman]

* Level 1 and 2 towns are Supply sources, I believe; they never request Supplies.

* I think the Supplies from 1-2 Towns are distributed, either along RRs, rivers, or roads - don't forget roads. Think about it for a second - ever notice that you'll be next to, or in, a Town about ten Turns or so in a scenario, and the Supply is something like 15/30? Well, even a small Supply source would be stockpiling values higher than that, if it never went anywhere - I would hazard that the small amount of Supplies prouced by 1-2 Towns does get distributed, but the flood of Supplies from the much larger sources tends to dominate the system's conduits.

I could, of course, be wrong on the second one.

Cities produce supplies until they are stocked up to a certain amount, dependent on their level. Also, units can draw supply from one region away. But I never considered small towns shipping their excess to depots etc.

[GraniteStater]

Well, my first point is more concrete - they are Supply sources, just not targets.

The second, as you can tell, is more speculative, but I have a feeling I'm essentially correct - small Towns can 'emit' Supply, but of a very low order shall we say. The connection to the system is important, I would say; I would rank it as RR- river-road. Most of the system's flow is conducted along RRs from large sources; these heavy flows are then directed along rivers, and then roads.

Think of the system as a plumbing network - the big sources have a lot of pressure, the RRs are the biggest pipes, etc.

And you need targets - level 3+ Cities, Forts, Depots. Wagons and Transports are not targets for the system - they are magnets, to use the term, they draw from 'adjacent' stockpiles, i. e., targets; they do not stockpile themselves.

That's my conceptualization - I think I have it essentially correct.

[Cromagnonman]

I think the system treats rivers and rail equally, but there are more opportunities for supply to get where it's going by rail. Also, noting that supply can travel no more than 5 regions in a supply phase, within that limit it can travel as far as a supply unit could travel in forty days, so rails and rivers are not a sine non qua to your supply network.

My perception has been that supply targets have a certain pull during the distribution phase. Wagons are a vaild target, and indeed are the most attractive. However, wagons have a much more limited capacity than depots etc. Like I said before, each city pulls supply to reach a particular goal, which goal is related to the level of the city; having a depot present increases this upper limit many-fold.

An illustration of why wagons seem to be supply targets. I almost always end up beseiging Fort Smith, AR, during the winter. Supply must travel over snowy/frozen/blizzardy mountains and river from Fayetteville. Meanwhile, the supplies that get thru are not only eaten, but also absorb hits from the weather. If wagons were merely drawing supply from adjacent regions as do other units, then the force beseiging Ft Smith should quickly evaporate. However, despite being 2 regions (typixally a 2+ turn march) from Fayeteville, the wagons never run dry. This could only happen if supplies were being targeted to the wagons during the supply distribution phase.

[dolphin]

Well, my first point is more concrete - they are Supply sources, just not targets.

.

Based on all my reading up on the subject and my current understanding you are in fact very correct that level 1 and 2 cities pass their supplies along.

Just as important is understanding that just because a level 1, or 2 city does not produce anything it is still very important in your supply network in terms of routing. Supplies and ammo pass through them even though you never actually see it going through on the map. That is my further understanding on this issue. Correct me if I am wrong. The more cities you have the better things flow.

I remember reading a post by an experienced player advising to take every single little tiny town you come across during your advance into enemy territory specifically to alleviate supply concerns.

[GraniteStater]

I think the system treats rivers and rail equally, but there are more opportunities for supply to get where it's going by rail. Also, noting that supply can travel no more than 5 regions in a supply phase, within that limit it can travel as far as a supply unit could travel in forty days, so rails and rivers are not a sine non qua to your supply network.

My perception has been that supply targets have a certain pull during the distribution phase. Wagons are a vaild target, and indeed are the most attractive. However, wagons have a much more limited capacity than depots etc. Like I said before, each city pulls supply to reach a particular goal, which goal is related to the level of the city; having a depot present increases this upper limit many-fold.

An illustration of why wagons seem to be supply targets. I almost always end up beseiging Fort Smith, AR, during the winter. Supply must travel over snowy/frozen/blizzardy mountains and river from Fayetteville. Meanwhile, the supplies that get thru are not only eaten, but also absorb hits from the weather. If wagons were merely drawing supply from adjacent regions as do other units, then the force beseiging Ft Smith should quickly evaporate. However, despite being 2 regions (typixally a 2+ turn march) from Fayeteville, the wagons never run dry. This could only happen if supplies were being targeted to the wagons during the supply distribution phase.

Not the way I'm using the term - from the Supply tips displayed during Turn processing: "Wagons do not stockpile Supplies."

Wagons and TPs can draw Supplies & Ammo from Supply sources or stockpiles. They are then drawn upon, draw down and then need to be replenished - to a fixed amount. They need to be within a range of a stockpile, also.

Forts, Depots, and 3+ Cities do have limits to replenishment, but these are not fixed, the limits depend on other factors and are so much higher than the W&TP fixed limits as to be a difference in kind, not just degree.

Which is why I think of and express it as "W&TP are not targets for the system." They are, if you will, 'local targets' (magnets) for stockpiles; stockpiles that are nearby.

[dolphin]

Easy Question....


When you do your Financial and Draft Options and choose ones that cause an NM penalty does your oppoant gain NM equal to what you lose, or is it just a one way thing and only your NM takes a hit?

Battles go both ways, so I thought to ask about this issue.

I would presume only the person doing the options takes a hit and his opponant gets nothing.

[Cromagnonman]

Easy Question....


When you do your Financial and Draft Options and choose ones that cause an NM penalty does your oppoant gain NM equal to what you lose, or is it just a one way thing and only your NM takes a hit?

Battles go both ways, so I thought to ask about this issue.

I would presume only the person doing the options takes a hit and his opponant gets nothing.

Your presumption is correct

[dolphin]

Your presumption is correct

Thanks.

Here is another nagging question.

When promoting Lee to an Army Commander he actually outranks J Johnston.

The tool tip that explains the circumstances surrounding the penalty for demoting and promoting seems to contradict itself.

On one hand it says that if you promote a more senior leader to the Army command you won't take an NM/VP penalty and then under that it says you will anyway if the Commander being replaced is not given a new army command.

Does this mean you cannot assign Lee to command J. Johnstons Army of the Potomac without taking the penalty unless you are able to give J. Johnston command of another army without taking the penalty? In which case the only way to give LEE an Army command without a penalty would be to buy a new HQ. Then if that is the case why does the tool tip even both to indicate that as long as you promote someone of higher seniority you won't take the penalty? It is a complete and total contradiction.


Can you Give Lee command of the Army and then just subordinate J. Johnston to one of his Corp without the penalty, or must J. Johnston who is of lower seniority be given a new Army to avoid the penalty?


If I was playing against the AI I would just test it, but it is a PBM game.

[Cromagnonman]

I think it means not that the general must receive a new hq this turn, but rather that the hq must receive a new general.

[dolphin]

I think it means not that the general must receive a new hq this turn, but rather that the hq must receive a new general.

I need to know for sure.

Can you Give Lee command of Johnston's Army and then just subordinate J. Johnston to command a Corp without taking the penalty, or must J. Johnston who is of lower seniority than Lee who just took command of the army now be given a new Army command in order to avoid the penalty?

If it is what your saying that is very easy to solve as you simply teleport Johnstons HQ to Lee.

I am not sure when I will make Lee an Army Commander yet as right now he is a Corp Commander in Johnstons Army and holding the line superbly, but I need to know this for certain for consideration this turn in my current PBM.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[dolphin]

It's clear enough. I don't see a problem.

[ATTACH]14686[/ATTACH]

It specifically states:

The cost won't be paid IF a commander with a better seniority is appointed to the NEWLY freed Army HQ (thus recreating an Army this very turn).

The cost will be paid if the commander remains without an Army command or a new commander with lower seniority has been appointed in his place.

The question is, in your game, does Lee have more seniority than Johnson? He does not outrank him unless you have some oddball set of circumstances taking place, they are both 3-stars. Historically, Johnson was the senior commander and was replaced by Lee only because he was injured. Johnson became very upset over time because of this and it caused a lot of animosity between Johnson and Davis. It is possible for Lee to be promoted to 4-star. If this has taken place he will have the higher seniority over Johnson.

So then your answer is yes I can take away Johnsons HQ and give it to LEE without any penalty since Lee's seniority is a 4 and Johnsons is a 5.

Further clarification then would make it such that I could not give Lee an as yet unused 4th HQ and then demote Johnson to use him as a Corp Commander leaving his existing previously used HQ unit vacant without incuring a penalty, but what would happen if I took away Johnsons command and then teleported a 4th HQ to Lee and then promoted him with an as yet unused HQ leaving Johnston without his army command, but still keeping his original HQ unit with him to use to promote him back when it is convenient.

Am I to understand that the game engine will recognize each HQ units history?

In other words to avoid the penalty I must give Lee the exact same HQ unit that Johnson is now using to avoid the penalty, or does it even make a difference which vacant HQ I give Lee?


Since in this case I do in fact have a 4th unused HQ available. I could simply make Lee an Army commander and Keep Johnson as an Army commander, but in certain circumstances one might wish to use Johnson as a Corp Commander for awhile if in fact the penalty can be avoided.


Would I have to teleport Johnstons HQ unit to Lee to avoid the penalty, or could I teleport the unused one to Lee; demote Johnston; then promote Lee and turn Johnston into a Corp Commander, but keeping his unused HQ unit with him to use later?

Depending on which way it works determines if I have to use x2 teleports over two turns, or just one teleport on one turn since in our current PBM we only get one per turn.

[dolphin]

It's clear enough. I don't see a problem.

[ATTACH]14686[/ATTACH]

It specifically states:

The cost won't be paid IF a commander with a better seniority is appointed to the NEWLY freed Army HQ (thus recreating an Army this very turn).

The cost will be paid if the commander remains without an Army command or a new commander with lower seniority has been appointed in his place.

The question is, in your game, does Lee have more seniority than Johnson? He does not outrank him unless you have some oddball set of circumstances taking place, they are both 3-stars. Historically, Johnson was the senior commander and was replaced by Lee only because he was injured. Johnson became very upset over time because of this and it caused a lot of animosity between Johnson and Davis. It is possible for Lee to be promoted to 4-star. If this has taken place he will have the higher seniority over Johnson.

Here is the problem I am having and why it is not clear in this situation.

No matter which HQ I give LEE. The unused one, or the one Johnson is currently using to command the Army of the Potomac when I promote Lee with either one he gets the Army of Northern Virginia which means the Army of the Potomac no longer exists. Maybe now you understand my confusion.

Does it matter that the Army of the Potomac gets lost in the change of command?

P.S. It will allow Lee to take command of the Army of the Potomac from Johnston only if both are in the same region together. Perhaps that is the only way to do as I am suggesting without incurring a penalty? Then again maybe not. I simply do not know the answer. I could telport Lee to Johnston, and make the switch giving Lee the Army of the Potomac, or I could teleport the Johnstons HQ to Lee, but if I do that and give it to Lee the Army of the Potomac is removed from existence in favor of the Army of Northern Virginia because in this case I have a 4th unused HQ.

Is the penalty based on the use of the specific HQ unit, the actual name of the Army Command, or perhaps merely the actual number of Army's in existence at the time since up to this point in the game I have never created a 4th Army?

[Cromagnonman]

The cost will be paid if the commander remains without an Army command

This phrase appears to be the bone of contention. Will the NM/VP cost truly be paid if the general loses his army? The tooltip should probably say something like "the cost will be paid if the Army HQ is not attached to a new general this turn or is attached to a general of lower seniority."

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Cromagnonman]

Here is the problem I am having and why it is not clear in this situation.

No matter which HQ I give LEE. The unused one, or the one Johnson is currently using to command the Army of the Potomac when I promote Lee with either one he gets the Army of Northern Virginia which means the Army of the Potomac no longer exists. Maybe now you understand my confusion.

Does it matter that the Army of the Potomac gets lost in the change of command?

P.S. It will allow Lee to take command of the Army of the Potomac from Johnston only if both are in the same region together. Perhaps that is the only way to do as I am suggesting without incurring a penalty? Then again maybe not. I simply do not know the answer.

Is the penalty based on the use of the specific HQ unit, the actual name of the Army Command, or perhaps merely the actual number of Army's in existence at the time?

The wording seems most consistent with a penalty for detaching the HQ from Johnston and not attaching it to someone of equal or higher seniority. Thus, your safest bet is to take it from JJ and teleport it directly to Marse Robert, attaching it to him to form a new army.

[dolphin]

The wording seems most consistent with a penalty for detaching the HQ from Johnston and not attaching it to someone of equal or higher seniority. Thus, your safest bet is to take it from JJ and teleport it directly to Marse Robert, attaching it to him to form a new army.

I agree in theory, but if I do that the Army of the Potomac no longer exists.

Lee forms the Army of Northern Virginia even if I teleport Johnstons Potomac HQ to him.

[dolphin]

Lee (a commander of a highter seniority) has to take command of the NEWLY freed HQ if Johnson is demoted. If you make Lee the commander of a different HQ and then demote Johnson, you will incur the penalty.

I agree in theory, but if I do that the Army of the Potomac no longer exists.

Lee forms the Army of Northern Virginia even if I teleport Johnstons Potomac HQ to him.

The only way to give Lee the Army of the Potomac is to teleport Lee himself to the same Region as Johnston and give it to him there.

Is the penalty based on the use of the specific HQ unit irregardless of what name it might use, or is it the actual name of the Army Command, or perhaps merely the actual number of Army's in existence at the time a commander is demoted?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

It doesn't matter what it's called. You can't dismiss Johnston without appointing someone with a better seniority (ie Lee). I would use the same HQ. This is why I never give Johnston an army. Bory and ASJ are enough until Lee unlocks.

[dolphin]

It doesn't matter what it's called. You can't dismiss Johnston without appointing someone with a better seniority (ie Lee). I would use the same HQ. This is why I never give Johnston an army. Bory and ASJ are enough until Lee unlocks.

Well with the PBM opponant I have to deal with I have war in Kentucky/Tenessee and the West thrust on me right from the beginning. I would be stuck in the East without an Army Commander if I had to wait on Lee.

[dolphin]

Question regarding Assaults in combat and the relationship to the actual posture option. (red button).

Obviously if you want to attempt to take control of a city, or fort immediately you have to use the assault posture and beyond that I have read that it is no different in any way from the Offensive Posture. Verification on this as a fact would be reassuring.

That means if an opponant is inside his structure on Defensive, or even Offensive Posture and you enter a region on Offensive all you will do is begin a siege without any actual combat taking place.

Short of that is there any other use for the Assault Posture. Does it affect the normal battle sequence in any way?

As I am understanding how regular battles work there is an actual assault phase when opposing forces close range at which time the Assault combat Statistics of individual units come into play as opposed to using the Offensive and Defensive ratings of the individual elements.

Can I assume these are two seperate and completely unrelated uses of the term ASSAULT and the assault ratings of individual elements have absolutely no relation to the use of the Assault Posture itself?

If you are assaulting an enemy structure in assault posture does the combat sequence work the same as a regular battle in that your elements use their Offensive/Defensive ratings first until you close to a certain range, or is an actual assault of an enemy structure while in Assault Posture a totally different combat sequence that only uses the assault ratings of elements and totally ignores the Offensive/Defensive ratings of the participating attacking elements?

Do the defending elements in a structure ever have to use their own Assault Ratings, or do they only use there DEFENCE ratings.

I am asking this of course because Assault values on elements are all noticably lower than either Offensive, or Defensive ratings at least by a point and in addition they also have there rating with 2 numbers between a slash like 9/9. What is the second number in the assault rating of an element used for.

My current understanding that is the the Offensive and Defensive numbers are associated with their actual "To Hit" chances and I would presume the first number of the left of the slash is also used for that.



I also understand that further down the unit statistics where you have slashed numbers in the Ranged and Assault catagories it is refering to actual damage output expressed in numbers of "Hits / Cohesion" loss caused to its opposing unit.

That fact alone confuses me as to why the Assault rating uses two numbers divided by a slash.

[dolphin]

Then of course there is my biggest question of all regarding the Assault Posture.

Of what if any benifit is it in attacking entrenched enemies since level 3 and better entranchments are regarded as forts?

I actually read somewhere in another thread that it is a factor in capturing artillary. Can anyone shead some light on this issue?

[Mickey3D]

Then of course there is my biggest question of all regarding the Assault Posture.

As per manual, there is no difference between attack and assault posture except that you need assault posture to storm fort/city.

Of what if any benifit is it in attacking entrenched enemies since level 3 and better entranchments are regarded as forts?

No special benefit.

I actually read somewhere in another thread that it is a factor in capturing artillary. Can anyone shead some light on this issue?

Not aware of this
You will often capture artillery when all other infantry/cavalry troops are destroyed in the same region.

[sbr]

Couple more random questions, hope dolphin doesn't mind:

1. Late September 1863, in my Union PBEM game I gained ~170 extra CS for no apparent reason. No draft, no call for volunteers, no events listed in the history. It was an incredibly bloody turn, but there wasn't much change in territory.

Anyone have any idea where they could have come from, or how i could figure out where they came from?

2. I decisively kicked the rebels' arses twice in Hickmam, KY. One of my Corps Commanders and one of my division commanders have "been blamed for having suffered a defeat in the face of the enemy" and lost seniority. One small independent brigade was annihilated and the general was killed in the first battle, even though I won.

What defeat did they suffer?

[Jim-NC]

1. You gain some CS from battles. As your units take damage, some fraction of the damage is added to your CS pool. I believe this would be for the wounded, who go back into the army later. 170 seems to be a lot from this method however. I only remember seeing 10-20 points added (but it would depend on the damage inflicted on your troops). I don't know the formula for how this is calculated. You can sometimes see it during a turn with a lot of battles, the computer will show your current CS levels between the battles, and you will see a jump after a bloody engagement.

2. It is related to how that general performed in the battle. You can be congratulated for a defeat, and blamed for a win (real world - think Burnside at Antietam. The union won, but he could have been blamed for not crossing the bridge, the CSA commander (David R. Jones) at the bridge could have been praised for holding the bridge against supperior odds for hours and hours).

[moni kerr]

Generals can also get blamed for suffering heavy casualties, regardless of winning or losing a battle.