Matrix Games Forums

I understand why you create depots for certain things like increasing your chance of an army leader getting initiative and also to increase the effect of an island blockade, but I'm not clear on when or why you get rid of depots?

For example: If I had a Union Army in say Humbolt Tennessee, I might want to create one to increase the chance of getting initiative. But let's say my Union army moves on, presumable further south. Should I then destroy the depot or keep it there?

Just not clear on why you would ever get rid of a depot and I do understand that when it is destroyed the supplies go again into the general supply.

Like you said, I get rid of depots in rear areas as the front line advances.  They don't seem to serve any purpose anymore, so you might as well free up the supplies.

when you disband the depot the supplies there go back into your supply pool. all you lose are the supply points it took to create it and whatever supplies were actually used (typically none unless you were cut off from your supply grid).

You also want to disband them because any Confederate cavalry raid working deep into your backfield is eating on your dime if they come across any rich abandoned depots.

I'd appreciate an official verdict on this thread.

What official verdict do you need?

Depots serve a particular purpose, at a particular (and ongoing) cost. If you don't need them, take them down, get the supplies back.

ORIGINAL: davekinva

I'd appreciate an official verdict on this thread.

My verdict on this thread is that it should be closed as the answer has been given.

[8D]

Supply depots also affect your retreat paths after combat, so in certain circumstances you can influence this by leaving depots behind the front lines.

Regards

ORIGINAL: Chris Trog

ORIGINAL: davekinva

I'd appreciate an official verdict on this thread.

My verdict on this thread is that it should be closed as the answer has been given.

[8D]

Thanks, sarcasm is ALWAYS welcome on the intertubes!

I was just saying, hey, several posts here from other players that say things that are all over the map. I'd just like to know that there isn't any hidden benefit to keeping depots that the rulemasters aren't telling us (given how every other post in this forum appears to deal with rules poorly explained in the rulebook, or contradicted later in the rulebook, or completely absent from the rulebook-- you catch my drift).

Theres a few simple rules about depots:

1) Depots are not needed in friendly regions to help initiative.
2) Depots in unfriendly regions are needed to help gain initiative, and need to have 20+ supply at the begining of your turn. So sometimes you need to build 2, if a good Cav leader is raiding, then 3.
3) If you want to control a retreat path, then build a depot.
4) Disband old depots behind the lines, their not needed (except the islands).

[8D]
Jon

One caveat to Jons points, which are all accurate:

Remember, Washington DC is NOT a friendly territory! You certainly do need depots there (and the cav to protect them).

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

Theres a few simple rules about depots:

1) Depots are not needed in friendly regions to help initiative.
2) Depots in unfriendly regions are needed to help gain initiative, and need to have 20+ supply at the begining of your turn. So sometimes you need to build 2, if a good Cav leader is raiding, then 3.
3) If you want to control a retreat path, then build a depot.
4) Disband old depots behind the lines, their not needed (except the islands).

[8D]
Jon

Thanks!