Depots Madness?

[Jabba]

Sorry, maybe I misunderstood the direction those depots were going to be built. You did specify from paris to bavaria and my understanding would be that it would go through the protectorates to get to bavaria.

He said from Paris to RUSSIA!

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: Jabba

Sorry, maybe I misunderstood the direction those depots were going to be built. You did specify from paris to bavaria and my understanding would be that it would go through the protectorates to get to bavaria.

He said from Paris to RUSSIA!

Yes and I addressed the areas along the line of the march that were in french territory or in their protectorates because that is germain to my point.

He said from paris to bavaria then neutral prussia etc....

[Malagant]

I'm not "raising the bar". I'm not trying to be confrontational (as you seem to be). I'm simply pointing out the extremes that can be accomplished with the current system. Perhaps you'd like me to use another example of Sweden building a supply chain all the way to Egypt in a month without ever having troops leave Scandinavia?

Yes, supplies could be accumulated in advance of the armies march. That is why Carnifex said:

"I think the ideal depot placement rule for land based depots would be that you can only build a depot in a province you control, or in a province where you have any land units at the start of the turn, or any non-neutral province adjacent to one of the above

This would allow you (the modern-day armchair Napoleon [;)]) to place a depot in the territory adjacent to your territory, march through it to the territory on the other side, repeat next month and maintain a nice stately pace while maintaining your supply line intact...

...but you wouldn't be able to blitzkrieg half-way across Europe going from one pre-prepared supply cache to another...said supply caches having been prepared the same instant the troops started marching! [:-]

[bluemonday]

One thing that happens to me is that my depots in enemy territory tend to "disappear" in the movement phase (i.e. before my units get to take advantage of them) if there are no friendly units present in their province. I think that is mentioned in the manual, too. I think that's a good idea - if you build a huge supply chain with no military protection, you're probably going to lose some of it. The only thing I don't understand is why the AI doesn't lose its depots when I occupy their entire supply chain. That's the part of the system I don't like: occupying an enemy's depots in force doesn't disrupt them. But them doing the same to me (if it's the AI) disrupts mine.

[Reiryc]

I'm not "raising the bar"

Sure you are....

You added information such as now, a 200k army, a year of 1792 in which those protectorates did not exist and adding it to the argument. Those conditions were not put forth in your original comment I responded to and thus change the argument....which I call raising the bar.

I'm simply pointing out the extremes that can be accomplished with the current system. Perhaps you'd like me to use another example of Sweden building a supply chain all the way to Egypt in a month without ever having troops leave Scandinavia?

You're addressing points to me as if they are my argument. You are attributing to me a false argument and then proceding to knock that argument down.

My belief is that in a month, using normal marching procedures, the distance the game allows an army to travel within that month it is reasonable for that army to have built depots.

Where I think it unreasonable is for the depots to be built is along a route that would be covered using forced march.

I don't think depots should be able to be placed farther than an army can march. Thus that is my argued point of view. So we agree on not being able to put depots all across the map. In fact, I can't recall anywhere that I've said we should be able to do that. This brings then the question of what depot placement is in game. I think it represents either prior gathering of supplies/equipment orthe creation of supplies/equipment depots as the army marches. So I do think it possible within a month for a depot to be setup at the end of a regular army marching distance in enemy territory.

Right now, depot placement is a bit of an odd duck for a couple reasons. You can place it anywhere you want, even in enemy territory 500 milies away. This shouldn't happen. However, what should happen, as per my point of view, is that you can place it anywhere in your territory or anywhere you army can march within a month, including enemy territory. What's odd about the placement rules is that depots automatically appear during the turn as opposed to them being created over the course of the month. This is unfortunately a game mechanic problem.

So where I disagree with carnifex is the 2 territory limit, not the ability to string depots across the map. I think it should be tied to the army's regular marching distance and anywhere inside of home territory or protectorates.

[carnifex]

So where I disagree with carnifex is the 2 territory limit, not the ability to string depots across the map. I think it should be tied to the army's regular marching distance and anywhere inside of home territory or protectorates.

My 2 province limit suggestion is an arbitrary number. It could be 1 or 3 for all I care - I don't have enough experience with the game system yet to determine how many provinces into enemy territory my armies are expected to move, all other factors being equal.

If you want to know the exact number then the calculations could get troublesome as each unit does not have a predetermined move distance but depends upon initiative to enter each new province, which is modified by a dozen other factors. So in places where you had Nappy with his wonder stack the game could determine 4 province depot chains, but the slow militia army could only place a depot 1 province in advance. Or something.

I think there should be some kind of limit for two reasons: (1) the AI telegraphs its moves, and (2) it's currently impossible to outrun your supply train which means all foraging is voluntary, which just doesn't sound right.

[Malagant]

Well said, Carnifex.

The AI 'telegraphing' it's moves is a relatively minor point for me, with regard to the AI I'm more worried about it spending more than it can afford by placing supply lines all over creation that it doesn't need yet.

The kicker for me is that an army can't outrun it's supply lines. I have to PURPOSELY make my men starve. Of course, this assumes I'm able to afford the supply depots, which could be questionable...


Reiryc, I'm sorry if there was misunderstanding. I felt as though you were defending the system as-is, and I was merely making examples of real game situations I've found myself in where I've either abused, or seen the AI abuse, the depot system.

Maybe we could only place depots within a 'green line' march of an army?

[Malagant]

Sure you are....

You added information such as now, a 200k army, a year of 1792 in which those protectorates did not exist and adding it to the argument. Those conditions were not put forth in your original comment I responded to and thus change the argument....which I call raising the bar.

Are you trying to be adversarial and confrontational on purpose? [&:]

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: carnifex

So where I disagree with carnifex is the 2 territory limit, not the ability to string depots across the map. I think it should be tied to the army's regular marching distance and anywhere inside of home territory or protectorates.

My 2 province limit suggestion is an arbitrary number. It could be 1 or 3 for all I care - I don't have enough experience with the game system yet to determine how many provinces into enemy territory my armies are expected to move, all other factors being equal.

If you want to know the exact number then the calculations could get troublesome as each unit does not have a predetermined move distance but depends upon initiative to enter each new province, which is modified by a dozen other factors. So in places where you had Nappy with his wonder stack the game could determine 4 province depot chains, but the slow militia army could only place a depot 1 province in advance. Or something.

I think there should be some kind of limit for two reasons: (1) the AI telegraphs its moves, and (2) it's currently impossible to outrun your supply train which means all foraging is voluntary, which just doesn't sound right.

I hear you on the arbitrary number...

I think the regular march distance should be the determiner of where depots can be placed.

I don't think the AI should visibly place it's depots but to be honest, I wouldn't mind if they were there but not visible to the players. I don't want to see where the AI is going even though I know it's pretty much straight for the capital.

As for outrunning supply, I think this should only happen using forced marches.

If you want to know the exact number then the calculations could get troublesome as each unit does not have a predetermined move distance but depends upon initiative to enter each new province, which is modified by a dozen other factors. So in places where you had Nappy with his wonder stack the game could determine 4 province depot chains, but the slow militia army could only place a depot 1 province in advance. Or something.

What I would envision as possible is that the program calculates out the radius of any army for possible placement of depots. You the player can then see some kind of highlighted area in which depot placement is conceivably possible and place them where you will.

Then upon turn commencement the program analyzes which armies were selected to move and where. Any depots that can not be reached by this army using regular march (with all the intendant variables such as weather terrain etc) would be eliminated if they were not in home or protectorate territory. So what we would see is that the depots should be conceptually based upon what the army establishes as it marches.

I think the game has depot placement in a bit screwy place in the game turn so this is the best work-around that I can see. I should think that depots should show up at the end of the turn along the preplanned placement route of depots as opposed to prior.

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: Malagant

Sure you are....

You added information such as now, a 200k army, a year of 1792 in which those protectorates did not exist and adding it to the argument. Those conditions were not put forth in your original comment I responded to and thus change the argument....which I call raising the bar.

Are you trying to be adversarial and confrontational on purpose? [&:]

Odd. I felt that way about your post which has generated my responses.

However, I don't see how explaining why I felt your comment 'raises the bar' is confrontational that you quoted and responded to just now.

[malcolm_mccallum]

Why not something as simple as requiring that depots be placed in a province with friendly troops and that it requires garrisons outside friendly territory or is is removed (carried off by the locals?).

Since depots supply adjacent areas (as I understand it) then an army that felt it was dependent on depots to move would move one area per month, and always have its depot in place behind it.

More likely though they would have things like forward elements and advance guards moving ahead of the main army and establishing depots. The main army, following one province behind, could then spring forward as required.

This would reflect the standard method of fighting for continental armies. If you want to maneuver you will be forced to forage.

Also, there is no reason why you should not be able to take advantage of captured enemy depots at least to some degree.

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: Malagant
Reiryc, I'm sorry if there was misunderstanding. I felt as though you were defending the system as-is, and I was merely making examples of real game situations I've found myself in where I've either abused, or seen the AI abuse, the depot system.

Maybe we could only place depots within a 'green line' march of an army?

A green line or some kind of highlighted radius sounds good to me.

I'm curious, what did I write that indicates a defense of the depot system as is? Serious question here and not one intended to be adversarial or confrontational. Could you quote to me what I wrote that gave the impression? I may want to edit a past post for greater clarity.

[carnifex]

Maybe we could only place depots within a 'green line' march of an army?

What I would envision as possible is that the program calculates out the radius of any army for possible placement of depots. You the player can then see some kind of highlighted area in which depot placement is conceivably possible and place them where you will.

Yeah, both of the above are nearly the same thing and would serve as a useful limit. Although as an aside, I frequently select my army to move and it's green-->dark green-->red-->red-->back to green. I would figure the colors would never get any brighter.

[Jabba]

I would think that this should only be true if the army is using forced march would they outrun their supply waggons. Otherwise, the waggons should move at about the same march rate as the troops.

According to this interesting article

http://www.napoleon-series.org/faq/c_russia.html

Average Napoleonic march speeds are

Infantry: 15-20 miles a day
Supply wagons: 10-12 miles a day

So the wagons are significantly slower and will not keep up if an army is marching at normal speed. In any case, depots require time to establish and stock. They include fixed facilities such as bakeries, not just piles of supplies dropped off the backs of wagons. Local supplies for the depots also have to be requisitioned.

Here is an interesting description of the 1805 campaign:

In 1805 Napoleon's arrangements for his campaign on the Danube involved the
movement of 150 wagons from his camps at Boulogne, these would supplement 1000
wagons provided under contract by the Compangnie Breidt however the bulk of
supplies would be carried by 3500 wagons requisitioned from the areas he was to
campaign through.

These best laid plans went awry, the wagons from Boulogne ended
up in the wrong place, the Compangnie Breidt only had a fifth of the wagons needed
and locals proved unwilling to part with theirs for any length of time.
In spite of this the Napoleon opened the campaign which was to climax on 2
December 1805 with the victory at Austerlitz a mere 67 days after crossing the Rhine.
Lacking effective logistical support from the supply train he drove ahead anyway,
living off the land and stores captured from intact Austrian arsenals.

From

http://66.102.9.104/search q=cache:gjzq29zQJZ0J:www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dheb/2300/Hi ... ru&start=1

Clearly, if they are to be realistic, the supply rules should be very restrictive. In practice, whatever speed an army moved, supplying it was a gigantic headache. Napoleonic armies either moved at a crawl, to keep in range of their depots, or else they were forced to forage.

[Reiryc]

When I read the link about the 1812 campaign, what I saw was the following:

"While a soldier could march 15 - 20 miles a day, a supply wagon was generally limited to about 10 - 12 miles a day. To avoid being slowed down by the trains, Napoleon insisted that his troops live as much as possible off the land."

I would say that moving at regular army speeds would include being 'slowed down by the trains' while forced march would put them faster. Ymmv....

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: carnifex

Maybe we could only place depots within a 'green line' march of an army?

What I would envision as possible is that the program calculates out the radius of any army for possible placement of depots. You the player can then see some kind of highlighted area in which depot placement is conceivably possible and place them where you will.

Yeah, both of the above are nearly the same thing and would serve as a useful limit. Although as an aside, I frequently select my army to move and it's green-->dark green-->red-->red-->back to green. I would figure the colors would never get any brighter.

Yeah I never quite understood the back to green arrow either. While I understand that moving through a particular province would slow the army down, wouldn't it affect the whole movement process to the end? [&:]

[malcolm_mccallum]

That factoring of army 'averages' isn't indicative of much, really at this scale.

Instead we should look at examples of long term marches. Napoleon's forces did an amazing depot supplied force march to get from Bolougne to Baden in a month. THis was with supplies in place and Davout's corps, for example, remarkably only lost 10 men.

Kutusov's supplied march, on the other hand, averaged 6 miles a day even while in his own borders. Seeing the need for speed, he shifted to a forced march and reduced his logistics trail but they simply could not keep up 16 miles a day pace for their draught horses even taking one day in five to rest. He finally reached the theater after two months of travelling with 30% loss in manpower.

Meanwhile, it likewise took the Austrians an entire month to advance into the single province of Bavaria. That was a normal and acceptable rate of advance for continental armies. 1 or 2 CoG-scale provinces per month would be a reasonable speed of campaign.

[bluemonday]

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

never quite understood the back to green arrow either. While I understand that moving through a particular province would slow the army down, wouldn't it affect the whole movement process to the end? [&:]

I believe the color of each arrow only reflects the "speed" of the movement in that segment. So movement in the mountains is slow, as is movement in a province with bad weather. Movement may be fast over clear terrain - that doesn't speak to the length of time the whole move takes from first province to last province.

[Reiryc]

aha... then that makes more sense. thanks

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: jchastain

ORIGINAL: carnifex

I think the ideal depot placement rule for land based depots would be that you can only build a depot in a province you control, or in a province where you have any land units at the start of the turn, or any non-neutral province adjacent to one of the above.

This would have the effect on invading armies that any land unit that moved one or two provinces into an enemy country would be able to draw supply from a depot, but moving three provinces in would force those units to forage.

Excellent suggestion. An army charging ahead at full speed certainly would outrun its supply lines and be forced to forage. This would model that nicely. Great Idea!

yes i like this idea. i get tired of enemy depots poppin up all over the place for no reason!