AndrewKurtz
Posts: 1167
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:49 am
Location: Greenville, SC

Blockade units losing Cohesion

Mon Aug 13, 2007 3:15 pm

I notice that my naval units in the blockade boxes are losing cohesion, thus reducing their "power" to zero. Is this supposed to happen even if the optional rules for handling blockade (i.e. 66% and 50%) are enabled?

It would seem that, if these optionals are enabled, given that they are designed to simulate returning to port, the units should not lost cohesion either.

AndrewKurtz
Posts: 1167
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:49 am
Location: Greenville, SC

Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:07 pm

Anyone else seeing the cohesion drop or is no one else using the optional blockade rule and just micromanaging the blockade?

User avatar
Rafiki
Posts: 5811
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Oslo, Norway

Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:16 pm

I've seen cohesion drop while using the optional rules, but figured it to be because of engagements wih raiders and blocakde runners.
[CENTER]Latest patches: AACW :: NCP :: WIA :: ROP :: RUS :: PON :: AJE
Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
[/CENTER]

AndrewKurtz
Posts: 1167
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:49 am
Location: Greenville, SC

Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:20 pm

Rafiki wrote:I've seen cohesion drop while using the optional rules, but figured it to be because of engagements wih raiders and blocakde runners.


My question is, as I believe it is with ammo supply and general supply, when using the optionals, should recovery of cohesion be automatic as well?

Or maybe I mis-understand the optional. If engaged in a battle between raiders/runners, is ammo/supply recovered when using the optionals? Or is it simply not consumed when sitting idle?

PBBoeye
General
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 12:59 am
Location: Richmond, VA

Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:52 pm

Do ships lose supply when in blockade? If not, then I think cohesion loss would be justifiable. If so, then I don't really understand it, other than you can't leave a ship at sea for 4 years.... :siffle:

AndrewKurtz
Posts: 1167
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:49 am
Location: Greenville, SC

Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:48 pm

PBBoeye wrote:Do ships lose supply when in blockade? If not, then I think cohesion loss would be justifiable. If not, then I don't really understand it, other than you can't leave a ship at sea for 4 years.... :siffle:


I thought the idea behind the options was to reduce the effectiveness of the naval units to 66% or 50% to "simulate" them going to/from port. If that is the case, they are not "at sea for 4 years", even though it may look that way.

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Tue Aug 14, 2007 2:24 pm

deleted

User avatar
Hobbes
Posts: 4438
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 12:18 am
Location: UK

Tue Aug 14, 2007 2:36 pm

Gray_Lensman wrote:I've been cycling my ships back to port when the cohesion factor was below half of the original, is this even necessary?


I also. We wait for the great oracle to speak!

AndrewKurtz
Posts: 1167
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:49 am
Location: Greenville, SC

Tue Aug 14, 2007 3:04 pm

Gray_Lensman wrote:I've been cycling my ships back to port when the cohesion factor was below half of the original, is this even necessary?


If you have to do this, why use the option? Instead, get 100% value from the forces and cycle them.

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Tue Aug 14, 2007 3:23 pm

deleted

PBBoeye
General
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 12:59 am
Location: Richmond, VA

Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:31 pm

Yes, I've been using standard and I also forgot there were percentage options. Will be interesting to find out what is going on.

User avatar
marecone
Posts: 1530
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:44 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:09 pm

PBBoeye wrote:Yes, I've been using standard and I also forgot there were percentage options. Will be interesting to find out what is going on.


Me too
Forrest said something about killing a Yankee for each of his horses that they shot. In the last days of the war, Forrest had killed 30 of the enemy and had 30 horses shot from under him. In a brief but savage conflict, a Yankee soldier "saw glory for himself" with an opportunity to kill the famous Confederate General... Forrest killed the fellow. Making 31 Yankees personally killed, and 30 horses lost...

He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 25673
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:52 am

Rafiki wrote:I've seen cohesion drop while using the optional rules, but figured it to be because of engagements wih raiders and blocakde runners.


Yes, the optional rule only prevents drop from bad weather and lack of supply, but in case of fight, ships won't be repaired automatically in the box (both in hits and cohesion).
Image


Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

AndrewKurtz
Posts: 1167
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:49 am
Location: Greenville, SC

Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:28 am

Pocus wrote:Yes, the optional rule only prevents drop from bad weather and lack of supply, but in case of fight, ships won't be repaired automatically in the box (both in hits and cohesion).


Ahh. I thought the idea behind the percentage reduction was to simulate them going to port.

Probably not much reason to use the optionals then since you have to worry about getting them to port anyway. May as well get 100% of their value while they are blockading.

User avatar
Rafiki
Posts: 5811
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Oslo, Norway

Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:58 pm

You get less cycling of units, without having "invincible" fleets patrolling your sees.

I very much like the way it works with the options of less efficiency, but no non-combat reductions. It has been the most significant step in reducing tedious micromangement for me since the game came out, and I *hate* tedious micromanagement :)
[CENTER]Latest patches: AACW :: NCP :: WIA :: ROP :: RUS :: PON :: AJE

Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

[/CENTER]

AndrewKurtz
Posts: 1167
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:49 am
Location: Greenville, SC

Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:45 pm

Rafiki wrote:You get less cycling of units, without having "invincible" fleets patrolling your sees.

I very much like the way it works with the options of less efficiency, but no non-combat reductions. It has been the most significant step in reducing tedious micromangement for me since the game came out, and I *hate* tedious micromanagement :)



Is cohesion only lost in combat or do the fleets lose cohesion simply by being at sea. If the former, I agree. If the latter, I don't think it makes sense.

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 25673
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Thu Aug 16, 2007 2:20 pm

with the optionnal rule, you only lose cohesion during combat.
Image


Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

AndrewKurtz
Posts: 1167
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:49 am
Location: Greenville, SC

Thu Aug 16, 2007 2:52 pm

Pocus wrote:with the optionnal rule, you only lose cohesion during combat.


Then all is good. There must just be a lot more combat taking place in those boxes than I ever realized.

ABridgeTooFar
Conscript
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 1:30 pm

Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:21 pm

Yeah, I just read last night about DuPont's attack on the Charlestown harbor ('62?). DuPont had a fleet of about 9 Monitors and attacked Ft. Sumter and Ft. Moultrie. Well, the attack did not do too much damage to the forts. The monitors got chewed up. No immediate sinkings however one of them did sink the following day. The evening after the attack DuPont gathered his monitor captains together and asked if they should renew the attack on the morrow. Everyone one of the them voted "no".

Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests