The mystery of Lawrence...

[GShock]

This pix shows my stack in offensive posture in 2 consecutive turns camping by the ungarrisoned town of Lawrence which just doesn't fall...





I took these in offensive posture but it's the same with assault posture.

Question is simple: can indians capture towns or they only capture indian villages?

[Korrigan]

Indians can't capture towns alone.

Samething for irregulars and light infanteries, they can't get you a VP location. You'll need some regular units.

[GShock]

Indians can't capture towns alone.

Makes perfect sense. These troop-types are not suited for territory control.
Good to know...must have missed that part in the manual.

[Guru80]

I believe that Pocus mentioned this in the last post you (or someone else?) made about a similar topic. Not sure if it is in the manual.

[GShock]

I believe that Pocus mentioned this in the last post you (or someone else?) made about a similar topic. Not sure if it is in the manual.

Yes he did...but my question is not entirely answered...Indians/partisans when capturing depots destroy them at once. I've never really tried to build a depot in a region where there's no settlement (makes no sense and if possible imho this option should be removed...in the open, forts should be built, certainly not depots) but then the question is...if indians can't capture towns, how are they supposed to destroy depots?

[Guru80]

hmmmm....now that is a good question for which I have no answer. I will have to check into it. I BELIEVE (though I could be wrong) that you can build depots where there is no city or fort so they could destroy those. I believe I read a reply to someone's AAR where they were having a problem with supply issues and was told they can build a Depot anywhere, not only in cities thus allowing greater range.

I can see a depot being built in a region without a major city or fort though it don't make much sense since at the very least they would have to build some kind of shelter and mini-fortification for it. Maybe it would make more sense to only allow it in regions with Forts, major cities and the minor cities. Putting it out in the middle of the wilderness or prarie (if possible) doesn't seem like a good idea anyway.

[BreckInridge]

IN the war of 1812, the Indians captured Detroit, but gave it back- they really didn't know what to do with it.

They are probably not interested in more than they can carry. Setting stored ammunition on fire, however, anyone can do with little effort, and it probably discourages an immediate reprisal.

Raiders/partisans are small in number and temporary/informal in organisation.

As to why "light" troops wouldn't occupy I wouldn't know. However, they seem to be always matched with regulars as far the actual brigades go, making the point moot. I mean if militia can occupy, "light" troops are probably better trained and led.

I wonder what the distinction between light/medium/heavy means in infantry- since they all seem to carry the same equipment.

PS- you CAN build a depot anywhere in the game, but like you say, not very safe if there is nothing protecting it.

[GShock]

PS- you CAN build a depot anywhere in the game, but like you say, not very safe if there is nothing protecting it.

So indians and partisans can capture a depot (and autodestroy it) but only a depot in the open (because they can't occupy a city). I have yet to see a depot in the open (neither me or the AI have ever built one...and it's good bc it doesnt' make sense)
The game then correctly models partisans/indians (so called raiders). Partisans spawn and take city when it revolts (correct) but can't occupy cities (they aren't combat/occupation troops)....raiders can destroy RR, set ambushes and pillage regions they cross. (all correct)

This makes perfect sense.

I think the issue here is with forts and depots and not with raider ability.

Forts should be built in the open (and not depots) as we know forts also have a limited supply production (and correctly would produce less than depots who are only in cities)

An example: Alexandria for the CSA.
I can't build a fort in Alexandria bc i can't smash the depot lev2 in it (though i think 10.000 men would be able easily to burn down the whole city, depot inclusive).

I would love to build a fort between Harper's Ferry and Alexandria (and i don't know if this is possible at all) in the open.

If indians or partisans attack a fort, they should refill themselves then remove the supplies (not capture them for our side) and leave the fort intact...that's how it should work in my opinion....Coupled with the inability to build depots in the open.
This of "depots in the open" brings another issue, related to replacements. If you can build a depot in the open, it means you can also get replacements there...and i don't think this is appropriate.

Recap of my thoughts: Raiders=ok, Depots in the open=no, Forts in the open=yes, Destroy any depot level=yes.

[Joseignacio]

So indians and partisans can capture a depot (and autodestroy it) but only a depot in the open (because they can't occupy a city). I have yet to see a depot in the open (neither me or the AI have ever built one...and it's good bc it doesnt' make sense)
The game then correctly models partisans/indians (so called raiders). Partisans spawn and take city when it revolts (correct) but can't occupy cities (they aren't combat/occupation troops)....raiders can destroy RR, set ambushes and pillage regions they cross. (all correct)

This makes perfect sense.

I think the issue here is with forts and depots and not with raider ability.

Forts should be built in the open (and not depots) as we know forts also have a limited supply production (and correctly would produce less than depots who are only in cities)

An example: Alexandria for the CSA.
I can't build a fort in Alexandria bc i can't smash the depot lev2 in it (though i think 10.000 men would be able easily to burn down the whole city, depot inclusive).

I would love to build a fort between Harper's Ferry and Alexandria (and i don't know if this is possible at all) in the open.

If indians or partisans attack a fort, they should refill themselves then remove the supplies (not capture them for our side) and leave the fort intact...that's how it should work in my opinion....Coupled with the inability to build depots in the open.
This of "depots in the open" brings another issue, related to replacements. If you can build a depot in the open, it means you can also get replacements there...and i don't think this is appropriate.
Recap of my thoughts: Raiders=ok, Depots in the open=no, Forts in the open=yes, Destroy any depot level=yes.

I have built depots inthe open, in cases of extreme lack of food, and in bad terrain conditions, which would make my troops die before reaching towns. Usually, besides, I had more than enough extra carts captured to the enemy. I knew that, being in the front line, they would probably be destroyed or used by the enemy but like the americans like to say in the army slang "we had there a situation".

Plus, If I make a deposit, I think is totally correct that the reiplacements arrive there, just like the food and ammo and any other supply.

[DirkX]

I would love to build a fort between Harper's Ferry and Alexandria (and i don't know if this is possible at all) in the open.

:

no it isnt

[Guru80]

no it isnt

Nope, forts can only be built where cities are....which to me it seems like Forts should be able to be built in the open where they could be used as a front line and house Depots in. Of course I would think forts being built in the open would cost more, possibly considerably more.

[Mangudai]

In my game as Union the AI sent Stand Watie to the region of Lawrence. He didn't capture the city, but he did stand still in the region for many turns (almost a year). He never resumed offensive action and was ran out of supply.