Garrisoned Depots

[Michael T]

This is not a bug as such but a discrepancy between the AH EIA boardgame rules and the PC version. In the AH EIA game a garrisoned depot did not force a halt a corps movement. In the PC version it does. It also states this in the manual. I think this is a problem. A garrisoned depot should not stop a corp. This will lead to gamey tactics of using garrisoned corps as a method to delay an attackers advance. The accepted way to do this was to use 'phoney' one factor corps. But of course the loss of PP's was a deterent to such play. With this rule as it stands the defender can delay an attacker by simply laying out rows of garrisoned depots with no real penalty.

[Murat]

Each player has a limited supply of depots. This can be countered with proper play.

[Michael T]

France has 8 depots. If I am France and in need of a turn or two to delay an invader while my main Army redeploys I can use my excess depots to create an impenetrable front. If depots can be used this way then a PP should be lost for each one lost to an attack. I can visualise a desperate France creating depots with garrisons all over France just to hinder an invader. How annoying would that be?

[Murat]

ORIGINAL: krak

France has 8 depots. If I am France and in need of a turn or two to delay an invader while my main Army redeploys I can use my excess depots to create an impenetrable front. If depots can be used this way then a PP should be lost for each one lost to an attack. I can visualise a desperate France creating depots with garrisons all over France just to hinder an invader. How annoying would that be?

[:-] It would not be impenatrable and you would be making sacrifices that balance out the the benefit. You can work out your own counter strategy but this one is fairly obvious.

[Jimmer]

Krak has a valid point, Murat: There is no political cost to doing this, whereas in the original game, there WAS a POLITICAL cost to doing this (because you had to use corps).
 
However, Monadman mentioned in the other thread that this was a game design choice they made, due to programming limitations. So, Krak, whether you like it or not, this IS the way it is.

[MarshallEllis]

Hey guys:
 
I can see the difference BUT does any MP really have enough depots to do this effectively?
 
 

[Jimmer]

Marshall,
 
Only in end-case situations. The much larger limitation would be the number of cities that one owns that all border each other. One can't build depots just anywhere. They either have to be in a controlled city or where there was a corps counter.
 
So, my answer is, no, it really isn't a viable solution. Yes, there are some end-case situations where it might work, but then that would just be something we have to deal with. I know that whenever I am in a war, my depots come at a high premium. I'm almost always out of them. So, using them as a delaying tactic really isn't a good idea.

[Grognot]

In areas of narrow fronts where naval mobility isn't going to help, it might be usable.

Ex. French-Russian conflict through Finland during winter, or Russia delaying invaders near the Pripyet marshes (nasty natural barrier, due to forage value of 0 and extra movement point cost). 

Or a coalition retreat into Italy with France in pursuit -- fairly narrow.

[Michael T]

Well if it is an intentional deviation from the original so be it. I am just flaging that garrisoned depots can be used in a way that they were not (and probably not intended by the original boardgame designer) meant to be. I am also speaking for a group of players who do not frequent this site. So I am not alone in this regard. We will just adopt a house rule that such play is 'gamey' and ban it.