Pow and Priority in foraging

[Darksky]

A tough battle in Tyrolia, my french arm was overlhelmed 3:1. All went ok, glory to Ney !
About 40000 enemy death, and 140000 prisoners ( Ferdinand too ! ).
I should be happy but a strange thing happened.
66000 pow died in that provice for failed foraging. Not a problem for me.
But also about 17000 of my heroes died/disert for failed foraging in Tyrolia...my imperial guard was erased by failed foraging ! [X(]....and still damned 75000 pow live!

Hey, it's not time for red cross, we need at least other 60 years [:D]
Why i should forage my pow and look my soldier die/disert ? [:-]
I think the right priority should be: 1) My own troops 2) This fuffed pow.
Or at least give us chance to continue the battle pursuing and slaining and killing and butching my enemy, so at the end i will not have this bunch of pow to forage [8|]

Jokes (?) apart, do i miss something in the game rules ? Taking care of pow instead of my troops first, is not so realistic ( expecially in 1806 )

[carnifex]

I think PoWs are being changed in the next patch somewhow. What you describe is correct behavior currently. The key is to have enough cash to set up plenty of depots and avoid forage during pitched battles. Alternatively you can set your troops to plunder, which can have mixed results sometimes.

[ericbabe]

Some POW behavior will change. There were no plans to eliminate POW foraging, and I wouldn't want to eliminate it completely, I reckon. How about a compromise? Make it so that POW's only require 1/2 or 1/3rd of their normal forage value?

By the way, some players were complaining that it was *too easy* to forage in Tyrolia, and some thought we should simply make it and Switzerland impassable terrain altogether.

[siRkid]

I don't like the idea of making the POWs needing less to forage. I for one try and starve them to death so when they are liberated they are not so strong. I like the idea of putting them at the bottom of the food chain. Of course I don't know how the program works so it may not be possible.

[Darksky]

Humm....the big starvation death happened at the start of the turn, immediately after i finish the resolution of the previous turn.
Next time i will consider to starttup a depot if i feel i will have a lot of pow.
Anyway i don't think in 1805 french troops will have share their supply with pow. Avoiding totally the pow foraging when my troops are short in forage is a good compromize. You can figure that pow losses due to failed foraging doesn't mean only death but also that you have released a bunch of them because you cannot food them.

[ian77]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

Some POW behavior will change. There were no plans to eliminate POW foraging, and I wouldn't want to eliminate it completely, I reckon. How about a compromise? Make it so that POW's only require 1/2 or 1/3rd of their normal forage value?

By the way, some players were complaining that it was *too easy* to forage in Tyrolia, and some thought we should simply make it and Switzerland impassable terrain altogether.

Personaly I would leave POW foraging alone, at 100%, if it were possible I would opt for priority in foraging putting POWs last, but the single biggest pow issue for me is their release by roving cossacks and instant return to armed operational infantry and even cavalry and artillery divisions. When I first started playing COG I used to put POWs in my cities with the garrison to "guard" them[8|]... one wandering cossack and hey presto released POWs and a siege in the making. Once captured that should be it until peace breaks out IMHO.

Or, let them be added to a city, increase the out put of the province by their presence, and if the province is captured then they are freed... but that might not be worth the effort needed to programme it!

Or, perhaps upon release they should only be added to the draft pool as trained men available for deployment as reinforcements/new units...


Ian

[Darksky]

ORIGINAL: ian77

Or, perhaps upon release they should only be added to the draft pool as trained men available for deployment as reinforcements/new units...


Ian

Edit: i suggested a feature already developed

[ericbabe]

If you keep your POW's guarded then lone cossacks should not be able to liberate them. All it should take is a single ungarrisoned militia to guard your POW's (though if the cossack fights the militia and wins then admittedly you'll get the liberation).

We are, however, planning to change the rules so that POW's cannot be liberated when they are located in controlled territory. We are also strongly considering awarding substantial victory points for POW strength returned at the end of a war to discourage starving your POW's. I'm also thinking of making units take a fairly large (1.0 or 2.0) morale loss when they are captured. I think converting their strength factors to reinforcement pool strength would be a bit too severe and wouldn't provide the incentive to surrender that the current POW system has (that is, you get your army back....)

[gdpsnake]

Another problem with POWs ..... They are being liberated when located inside a city even with friendly units!

I put several POW's into a city with a militia. No other units in the area. Then those damn cossaks/irregulars waltz through the area and the POW's get liberated?!

I agree. Let's assign negative glory for letting POW's die - you should keep them as you would want your own troops cared for. However, we need to stop the liberation of POW's thing. Real POW's would be simply manpower anyway - stripped of all but their clothes so they should just go back into the manpower pool when:
1). The countries return to peace status
2). Trade for gold?! Can we add this feature?
3). The city of the area is taken. (I believe all POW's should go into cities anyway as work force labor. No stacking issues just turn them into "pow manpower in the area)
4). Leaders should go into the capitol cities to await their fate. Can we add a feature to trade for gold? Execute them at a loss of glory? Exchange?

Snake

[ian77]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

If you keep your POW's guarded then lone cossacks should not be able to liberate them. All it should take is a single ungarrisoned militia to guard your POW's (though if the cossack fights the militia and wins then admittedly you'll get the liberation).

As far as I can tell, the mere presence of any enemy unit in the province automatically liberates the POWs whether stacked within an army, inside a garrisoned city, or on their own... no battle, never, just instant liberation and hello enemy force armed and ready to go.

I like the idea of knocking the experience/morale back a couple of points... perhaps it needs to be a percentage to ensure returning militia keep above zero? 50% sounds about right, poor troops remain poor, elite should loose the most.

I do not think many players voluntarily surrender troops to the AI at the moment, I suspect most of us win most of our detailed battles, surrender doesnt effect PBEM battles, and LAN/Net games dont work right now...


Ian

[Hard Sarge]

but this morale loss, would only effect POW units that were at full strength

a 5000 man unit, when it went back to it's homeland, would just fill back up with men, regaining it's morale (with in reason)

HARD_Sarge

[ian77]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

but this morale loss, would only effect POW units that were at full strength

a 5000 man unit, when it went back to it's homeland, would just fill back up with men, regaining it's morale (with in reason)

HARD_Sarge

Yes, but instead of say 5000 @ 5.2 morale having 5000 drafted in @ 4.8 morale, making a division @ 5, it would be 5000 @ 2.6, making the reformed division 3.7 (I think?).

Ian

[Hard Sarge]

Do you ?

I don't really think it is that bad, or a 1 to 1 change, try it with Muli, and a Inf unit

not sure, but I think Muli is set to a firm morale base when it is reinforced, so is inf and what not, but you can take inf and but into Muli and the morale of the inf takes over

LOL

I not sure even I follow what I am thinking

[ian77]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge


LOL

I not sure even I follow what I am thinking

You are not alone!![:D]

[carburo]

I think what H_S means is that when you reinforce an inf unit with militia or draft guys the infantry morale stays as it was before getting the reinforcements. I haven't seen any drop in morale due to reinforcements, except, oddly, when I transferred guys from a guard unit to another, and the reinforced unit got downgraded to infantry.

But this in fact support the idea of making POWS losing morale. Even if reinforced, this units will keep the poor morale they "earned" by surrendering to the enemy. Sort of a bad reputation I guess.

[ian77]

I am with H-S, I do not really understand what is going on with reinforcing etc, why does mil become inf when you reinforce one mil div with men from another div of mil? I just dont get it...

Ian

[carburo]

Well, I'm in the same page. All I know is that odd things happen and that I don't understand why.

I know militia gets promoted to infantry when reinforced with quality recruits, but other units don’t seem to lose morale when reinforced. I think morale is an attribute of the unit, and not affected by the new recruits.

What happened to my guard unit remains a mystery.

[ian77]

ORIGINAL: carburo

I know militia gets promoted to infantry when reinforced with quality recruits, but other units don’t seem to lose morale when reinforced. I think morale is an attribute of the unit, and not affected by the new recruits.

It also gets promoted to infantry when one militia reinforces another militia..... no quality recruits are involved just similar 1.7 morale militia[&:]
Ian

[carburo]

Didn't know about that. Have never reinforced militia with another militia; didn't see the point, until now.

It looks like we need a higher authority here.

[ian77]

I had the colonial regiments upgrade and discovered it when I had too many militia divs and started amalgamating them to get some below 2000 men and disbanded... they went from militia to inf next turn!

Ian