Matrix Games Forums

Was checking this forum for other similar bugs but couldn't find any. Playing the Standard Campaign i was advancing South capturing Richmond. After that i moved south, sieged and conquered Norfolk. However the next turn i went to grab my army from Norfolk and noticed there was no city there? In addition once i clicked on the province the game froze and had to be restarted. I reloaded from an auto-save, waited two turns to grab my troops from Norfolk then continued on without a problem. This occured once more after conquering the city beside Vicksburg (sorry can't remember name off hand). But at no point did the cities return and when i went and clicked my city-list advisor screen they weren't listed.

Also are forts being sieged and destroyed a new function of the patch? I wanted to keep Vicksburg but apparently my soldiers destroyed it?

Thanks, hope this helps?

Regarding the destroyed forts, it depends on how you capture them. If you do it by destroying all the defending troops, the fort remains. If you take the fort by reducing the fort strength to 0, then the fort is destroyed.

I like this, as it creates a nice choice for the attacker--it generally will cost you more troops to destroy the garrison than to destroy the fort. So, if you think you will need the fort you are besieging, then it will cost you more troops to take out the garrison. If you dont need the fort, just blow it away quickly.

Regarding the destroyed forts, it depends on how you capture them. If you do it by destroying all the defending troops, the fort remains. If you take the fort by reducing the fort strength to 0, then the fort is destroyed.

I like this, as it creates a nice choice for the attacker--it generally will cost you more troops to destroy the garrison than to destroy the fort. So, if you think you will need the fort you are besieging, then it will cost you more troops to take out the garrison. If you dont need the fort, just blow it away quickly.

When besieging a fort, how do you differentiate whether to destroy the Fort or the Garrison?? I use Encircle a lot as the Siege Option, and the Fort in Pensacola is now always destroyed by my CSA troops.

Thanx, Chris

Aggressive sieges will tend to do more damage to the garrison than the fort

Normal sieges cause similar damage to both

Encircle sieges _should_ cause more damage to the fort than the garrison (although this seems not to be the case--and as mentioned in another thread, Eric has said he will look into this)

Of course, if you have an army full of art/siege art, you will do more damage to the fort regardless.

This is all based on my experience, of course, but I spent a while playing with adjusting sieges a couple of days ago.

Aggressive sieges will tend to do more damage to the garrison than the fort

Normal sieges cause similar damage to both

Encircle sieges _should_ cause more damage to the fort than the garrison (although this seems not to be the case--and as mentioned in another thread, Eric has said he will look into this)

Of course, if you have an army full of art/siege art, you will do more damage to the fort regardless.

This is all based on my experience, of course, but I spent a while playing with adjusting sieges a couple of days ago

Thanx. I have played a good number of sieges, and noticed that in the pre-new-patch 1.94, that is patch 1.23 and before, that Encircle did not ever destroy a Fort even if you had Siege Arty. in your besieging force, but it encircle now destroys Forts even if you don't have Siege Arty. in your besieging force. A bit odd.

Chris

I agree entirely. See the topic on "questions on sieges" or something like that. I complied some statistics and it definitely seems off.

Alex

OK. Thanx, Chris

encircle now destroys Forts even if you don't have Siege Arty. in your besieging force. A bit odd.

Chris

I've noticed that as well, it seems like Encircle actually does more damage to the forts/cities than normal siege. I took Memphis with no siege artillery in an encircle faster than I took Louisville with gunboat support.