Unrest suggestion...

[Gray_Lensman]

Currently the game penalizes the player in several respects regarding provinces with unrest, including no rail movement into a province that is undergoing unrest. Presumably, this is to simulate the distruptive state the province is in for normal activities. But, at the moment, units in provinces undergoing unrest, still are able to gather reinforcements from camps. I would think these reinforcements are coming in one way or another utilizing rail and other transport, and since unrest is supposed to be disruptive to transport into a province, it would make more sense not to allow Units to be able to get their reinforcements while the province they are in is suffering unrest.

Input welcome.

[Walloc]

Seems reasonble to me. Whether is codeable i have no idea. [X(]

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[spruce]

we should think beyond this - no reinforcments - means no supplies are getting trough.

[Twotribes]

Simply didn't happen in the Civil War. No unrest prevented the military from reinforcing units in the area nor prevented the units from receiving supplies.

[spruce]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Simply didn't happen in the Civil War. No unrest prevented the military from reinforcing units in the area nor prevented the units from receiving supplies.

I agree with you - but a "malus" could be programmed - altough I think it's a great idea other priorities are still ahead of us.

[ericbabe]

I think unrest already does this...

[Gray_Lensman]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

I think unrest already does this...

Ericbabe, I'm a little confused here. Already does what?

Is Unrest supposed to prevent replacements from arriving into an area undergoing unrest?

If so, then it's not functioning correctly. I recently had taken Fort Henry in the "Lower Tenn. Province" at which point it was declared in a state of unrest for "1" Turn. This was in the spring of 1862 after accumulating 10 camps. All my armies were completely reinforced, except for some battle casualties the Army of the West, (army in Cairo), had taken while assaulting Fort Henry. That same turn it received replacements, which I verified by checking the supply sheet, which I thought was questionable, hence the thread.

I couldn't find anything in the rules or updates that stated that unrest blocked replacements, so I assumed it wasn't supposed to.

Clarification would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

edit: BTW for the thread discussion, in the game there are two references to reinforcements.

1) reinforcements for an ongoing battle, which I am not referring to in this thread.

2) reinforcements/replacements from camps, which is what I am referring to in the thread.

[Twotribes]

"unrest" in the Civil War never prevented troops from passing through, neither in units nor as "replacements". Baltimore was shut down by Riots yet it did not heavily impact the war effort. Unrest can last for 4 months in this game ( 8 turns) and is totally random.The loss of production and the ability to produce there is more than enough to simulate the actions of the population. Cutting off supply and replacements is not realistic in my opinion.

Did Sherman or Grant lose supplies or the ability to replenish their armies as they advanced into the South ( along the Mississippi and in Georgia)?

[ericbabe]

I believe, just going from memory here, that Camps in an area that's in unrest don't produce reinforcements.  Reinforcements can help a unit that's in a province in unrest though.

[Gray_Lensman]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

"unrest" in the Civil War never prevented troops from passing through, neither in units nor as "replacements". Baltimore was shut down by Riots yet it did not heavily impact the war effort. Unrest can last for 4 months in this game ( 8 turns) and is totally random.The loss of production and the ability to produce there is more than enough to simulate the actions of the population. Cutting off supply and replacements is not realistic in my opinion.

Did Sherman or Grant lose supplies or the ability to replenish their armies as they advanced into the South ( along the Mississippi and in Georgia)?

Twotribes, your argument is convincing enough. I am just trying to get some clarity on unrest blocking rail movement, yet not preventing replacements which would be using the local transport in all likelihood. This question is posed to the designers of the game in an effort to clear up the ambiguity. Evidently, they wanted unrest to have some negative impact, game wise, so what's the reasoning for one and not the other?