A Survay on the Life Cycle of Depots

[Rod Smart]

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?

I think you are confusing "destroying a depot" with "destroying the stuff stored at the depot"

[John S. Mosby]

There's nothing a raider can do which does more than illicit a shooing-off like a pesky fly landing on your sandwich.

There's nothing I hate more than a pesky fly landing on my sandwich!

[Prussia]

A few thoughts as CSA in early January '63: I control Dayton and Cincinnati with their size 2 and size 1 depots respectively, and have clear rail links to Louisville or Lexington and so forth to the heart of the Confederacy.

In the short term I can hold these locales but do not really have the force to link up with my forces in West Virginia; and in the near long term these positions are untenable, but would like to avail myself of the ammo and supplies in these locations. Dayton has 2768 supplies and 702 ammo, while Cincinnati is down to 365/114 (obviously the significantly larger stockpiles that were there when I captured this city have been sent/moved to other locales)- and as Longstreet did in real life, I would like to/should be able to remove everything from Dayton, raze everything to the ground and prudently get these forces to safer areas.

I have taken Pittsburgh and the tasty size 4 depot and other facilities, but I can't hold it, and I'm about to get my head handed to me and am trying to get my forces out of there- one division is out, but one more needs to sneak out as well. There is a militia unit and a fort battery remaining- but I am unable to destroy the depot, nor any of the other structures (the Union was able to destroy a Powder Mill and the Ranches in the Dallas area) with either of the units. Just noticed that my Military control of that area has been significantly reduced to 31 percent, so possibly that is what is preventing me from doing that.

At this point with my limited knowledge of the game (i.e. I learned about being able to create depots from flatboats from this thread- thanks all) my only quibble with the depots is the inability to be able to 'choose' to get everything out of there if need be, and as was done several times in real life.

[Captain_Orso]

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

Firstly, remember, when talking about cavalry divisions we're talking about 4-6 regiments of cavalry and not a formation the size of a line infantry division.

The issue with small raider forces using the Raiding RGD does pose an issue, because the event only considers the size of the defending force and not the raiding force and in no way considers the quality of the forces involved. But those are the limitations of the event.

[Captain_Orso]

I think you are confusing "destroying a depot" with "destroying the stuff stored at the depot"

Can you explain what you mean, please?

[Captain_Orso]

There's nothing I hate more than a pesky fly landing on my sandwich!

Wait a minute. You're supposed to BE the fly

[Captain_Orso]

A few thoughts as CSA in early January '63: I control Dayton and Cincinnati with their size 2 and size 1 depots respectively, and have clear rail links to Louisville or Lexington and so forth to the heart of the Confederacy.

In the short term I can hold these locales but do not really have the force to link up with my forces in West Virginia; and in the near long term these positions are untenable, but would like to avail myself of the ammo and supplies in these locations. Dayton has 2768 supplies and 702 ammo, while Cincinnati is down to 365/114 (obviously the significantly larger stockpiles that were there when I captured this city have been sent/moved to other locales)- and as Longstreet did in real life, I would like to/should be able to remove everything from Dayton, raze everything to the ground and prudently get these forces to safer areas.

I have taken Pittsburgh and the tasty size 4 depot and other facilities, but I can't hold it, and I'm about to get my head handed to me and am trying to get my forces out of there- one division is out, but one more needs to sneak out as well. There is a militia unit and a fort battery remaining- but I am unable to destroy the depot, nor any of the other structures (the Union was able to destroy a Powder Mill and the Ranches in the Dallas area) with either of the units. Just noticed that my Military control of that area has been significantly reduced to 31 percent, so possibly that is what is preventing me from doing that.

At this point with my limited knowledge of the game (i.e. I learned about being able to create depots from flatboats from this thread- thanks all) my only quibble with the depots is the inability to be able to 'choose' to get everything out of there if need be, and as was done several times in real life.

Currently you cannot destroy a depot level 2 or larger. The Partisan Raid RGD is being changed to reduce the level by 1 if it is successful, but that doesn't change the ability--or lack thereof--of a force controlling a depot, from destroying it.

Ideally--and this was one of the points I originally made--you would have to voluntarily reduce the depot level down to 0, so that no supplies will be pulled to that location, without destroying the supplies. Then in your case they should get pulled off by a depot in Louisville, or at least a large amount of them. You would still need RailTP or RivTP capacity to do this, or a bunch of empty supply units, but the game does its best to not have those standing about.

[John S. Mosby]

There's nothing a raider can do which does more than illicit a shooing-off like a pesky fly landing on your sandwich.

There's nothing I hate more than a pesky fly landing on my sandwich!

Wait a minute. You're supposed to BE the fly

Exactly my point!

[Merlin]

I know I've said part of this before and some has been covered already in this thread, but here are my thoughts on the subject.

Partisans:

They have a pretty poor record of effectiveness in the ACW, so I'm fine with them having a 50% RGD chance to rip rail and the auto-pillage. Partisans rarely challenged a garrison of any size, much less effectively, so I'd rather keep them as they are and remove their drive-by burning attribute.

Cavalry:

Now we have a case for doing damage. Some of the most destructive escapades of the war were cavalry raids, and I would love to see the Plunder RGD destroy depots and reduce everything else in the region by 1 level. Read that again, and if you fancy yourself a student of the war and disagree with me, I'd like to know why; especially since the Plunder RGD isn't cav-exclusive. Additionally, cavalry tended to win against garrisons, either through actual combat or subterfuge, but could take a couple of game regiments. That's currently simulated; their actual destructiveness after victory is not. This is what needs to change.

That said, I fully agree with points 1 and 3 in the OP. Those would be great changes.

[Captain_Orso]

8<
Dayton has 2768 supplies and 702 ammo, while Cincinnati is down to 365/114 (obviously the significantly larger stockpiles that were there when I captured this city have been sent/moved to other locales)- and as Longstreet did in real life, I would like to/should be able to remove everything from Dayton, raze everything to the ground and prudently get these forces to safer areas.
8<

I tested this configuration yesterday.
- All of KY in CS hands, for symplicity's sake.
- The CS has full RivTP and RailTP, for symplicity's sake.
- Cincinnati and Dayton in CS hands.
- Louisville and Dayton have level 3 depots, Cincinnati has level 4.
- Cincinnati and Dayton have about 3000 GS and Ammo each, Louisville much less.

Through custom events I first reduced the Dayton Depot to level 0 (it was removed), which left the supplies in place. The next turn much of those supplies had be moved to Cincinnati.

The next turn I also reduced the Cinci Depot to L0. Afterward it too started moving supplies off to Louisville and elsewhere.

No supplies were lost to the removal of the depots.

The biggest issue I noticed, was that the depots in Louisville and Bowling Green were not large enough to take up the supplies being moved-off from Dayton and Louisville. I a real game I would expect Dayton and Cincinnati to not generally have necessarily so much supply, plus if I have taken them, I probably have a pretty large force standing in or near them, and consuming their supplies

But if the player could more freely control the size of his depots, which along with the size of the force being supplied from that depot controls how much pull his depot has, the player could increase the size of depots near the captured depots, to take up the captured supplies. Then when these supplies are bled-off to elsewhere or used by local forces, he could reduce the depots sizes again.

[Rod Smart]

Can you explain what you mean, please?

Its easy to light stuff on fire. Ammunition goes boom and food is stored in wooden containers


Its a hell of a lot harder to destroy concrete wharfs and brick warehouses.

[Captain_Orso]

Relatively speaking, yes. But with a little effort, and sometimes a bit of black powder, anything is destructible. It's mostly a question of time and manpower.

[minipol]

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?

Good question. If mostly play against Athena so in that case "better gameplay" means, whatever Athena can handle, and doesn't give the humand player an edge over Athena.
In PBEM I can see the value of not having any restrictions, although some resources should be use to construct depots.

[Captain_Orso]

Ah, Athena... I hate throwing things at Pocus, especially when I know he's weathering a storm.

I think Athena could take some liberties without hurting play--in other words, doing things which no human player would or could, which make the human player react in ways he never would have to versus a human opponent.

For example, if I knew I was going to start an offensive in Eastern Kentucky, I might turn a depot or two up a notch while starting to moving larger forces into the area.

Athena might first look at the supply situation and then, before the start of supply distribution, turn some depots up a notch. The only difference would be when Athena actually looks at the situation and decides to adjust accordingly. This difference would be indistinguishable for Athena's human opponent, but be easier to be programmed, because Pocus would not have to look at the forces present and then extrapolate the addition of forces moving into an area.

Of course, this is all speculation and conjecture, and Pocus has in no way agreed to any such steps as I have suggested nor voiced any opinion on the subject other than those I may have made note of in my posts. But I believe it is of good policy to first sound out what the community feels about a suggested change and hear their opinions and suggestions, before accosting Pocus with it.

[ArmChairGeneral]

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.

Of course, this is an argument for some depots NOT being able to be destroyed easily. Some depots like Harper's Ferry represent strictly military structures, while others represent the native economic capacity of the region. In order to "burn the depot" at Atlanta, Sherman had to basically destroy the whole city. I could certainly see the ability to destroy the strictly military structures easily, but the ones like New Orleans, Memphis, Cincinnati or Baltimore probably shouldn't (IMO, of course) be able to be destroyed entirely without some sort of cost in resources or time.

Could the South have just razed New Orleans or Memphis as they retreated? Probably, but the fact that historically they didn't indicates that there were social/political reasons not to (not only would you alienate the civilian populations, you would be stuck with a ton of refugees that you would have to decide whether to feed or let starve). The game currently models this political reality by not allowing cities to be destroyed, and if the depot in that location represents the native capacity of the city for transport and supply, then it is reasonable to think those depots couldn't be selectively destroyed without taking the city with it.

All that said, I am not opposed to the overall idea of reforming depot construction/destruction. As long as you didn't end up with depot-spamming or hobbling the AI, there is definitely room for improvements.