Possible siege bug

[moose1999]

Playing the Union, standard campaign, with the new patch.
The CSA was besieging Topeka and I sent a relief force.
When asked whether to activate the garrison in Topeka when starting the detailed battle I chose YES.
I won the battle and the CSA retreated to Westport, but in the Events Report, in the Late Siege Section, I afterwards read that the CSA had taken Topeka and my National Will took a -4 hit.
Later in the events report it was stated that the siege of Topeka had been cancelled because there were no enemy troops in the province (which was true - they had just fled to Westport).
I am absolutely positive that Topeka did not fall in the first siege turn - and it would probably had taken another 5-10 turns before the city would have been seriously threatened.

Could there be a glitch here with the new two-siege-turn structure?
It seems the game saw Topeka as abandoned going into siege turn two because I had activated the garrison in the detailed battle and therefore gave the city to the CSA before being told that the CSA had fled and the siege was to be cancelled.

[Gil R.]

Thanks for the report.

Speaking of sieges, one of the most important problems this patch is supposed to fix is that when cities were taken National Will wasn't changing properly. Is everyone satisfied now that it's working properly?

[Joram]

I'm not sure how I feel about the rule on re-capturing cities but other than the interesting bug Briny has discovered, it seems ok.

[Alex Gilbert]

Yes, the national will seems to be changing as designed. Against the AI, this has led to both CSA and USA having max neagitve national wll, as the AI loves to send divisions of about 12000 men to seize union cities. Because the defense value of cities was reduced, and sieges in general were sped up, it means that the CSA can capture 2-4 cities. They can not be held though, so they are re-captured, resulting in both sides going into negative national will (since a side only gains 1 NW for capture but loses 2+ NW for the loss). This is then repeated. I have played 4 games as USA and in every one of them, I am at -12 NW by 1863 (although the CSA is not far behind me).

[Joram]

Because the defense value of cities was reduced, and sieges in general were sped up, it means that the CSA can capture 2-4 cities. They can not be held though, so they are re-captured, resulting in both sides going into negative national will (since a side only gains 1 NW for capture but loses 2+ NW for the loss).

 
To the best of my knowledge, that shouldn't be happening.  It certainly wasn't happening with me so it's either inconsistently bugged or perhaps one of us is misreading the situations!

[hgilmer]

ORIGINAL: briny_norman

Playing the Union, standard campaign, with the new patch.
The CSA was besieging Topeka and I sent a relief force.
When asked whether to activate the garrison in Topeka when starting the detailed battle I chose YES.
I won the battle and the CSA retreated to Westport, but in the Events Report, in the Late Siege Section, I afterwards read that the CSA had taken Topeka and my National Will took a -4 hit.
Later in the events report it was stated that the siege of Topeka had been cancelled because there were no enemy troops in the province (which was true - they had just fled to Westport).
I am absolutely positive that Topeka did not fall in the first siege turn - and it would probably had taken another 5-10 turns before the city would have been seriously threatened.

Could there be a glitch here with the new two-siege-turn structure?
It seems the game saw Topeka as abandoned going into siege turn two because I had activated the garrison in the detailed battle and therefore gave the city to the CSA before being told that the CSA had fled and the siege was to be cancelled.

This was what was happening to me on 1.9.23. I have yet for it to happen to me on the new Beta patch but I've only played one game under that new Beta patch.

This was happening with forts and cities for me.

[ericbabe]

To try to simulate war-weariness, it is easier to lose NW in the game than it is to gain it.

[Alex Gilbert]

Well, I managed to win a game as the union--I took the strategy of essentially ignoring the governors requests after about June of 1863, because the NW had bottomed out. By 1864, they were all rebellious, and my economy suffered, but I guess you could simply describe this as an appropriate effect of war weariness on the economy.

I guess it is just annoying that everything good that you do for a governor doesn't actually raise their opinion of you, it just seems to prevent a decrease in their opinion of you. It just gets me frustrated at that bunch of whining, self-centered, self-important, short-sighted, pandering, what-have-you-done-for-me-lately politicians. DON'T THEY REALIZE I AM TRYING TO PRESERVE THE UNION HERE?!?!

So I guess it is actually modelling history really well. [:'(]

For the next patch we need a "Suspend Habeas Corpus" button so I can really stick it to them.[:'(]

[Walloc]

Every building u build in a state gives +3 to governour support.
Just as if u dont fulfill their requests they might end up giving up negative economy / diplomacy / muster effects. They if u fulfull their requests while they have posetive attitudes u might actually gain stuff.
My personal opinion is going a long way to give them what they want. This means not only wont u "gain" the negative effects, but u will gain the posetive effects for doing so.
The difference between a governour opposing 15 money and giving 15 money is huge. Especially if u have 4 5 of them doing so. IMO this pays of in the long term, tho it might be annoying in short run to tutor to their whims. Its actually a mini game within the game.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Alex Gilbert]

ORIGINAL: Walloc

Every building u build in a state gives +3 to governour support.
Just as if u dont fulfill their requests they might end up giving up negative economy / diplomacy / muster effects. They if u fulfull their requests while they have posetive attitudes u might actually gain stuff.
My personal opinion is going a long way to give them what they want. This means not only wont u "gain" the negative effects, but u will gain the posetive effects for doing so.
The difference between a governour opposing 15 money and giving 15 money is huge. Especially if u have 4 5 of them doing so. IMO this pays of in the long term, tho it might be annoying in short run to tutor to their whims. Its actually a mini game within the game.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

I agree that poor governor attitudes make a significant impact on the economy, and I agree that until NW drops below -6 it is a critical part of the game of how to placate the governors. However, below -6, you are losing 3 support per turn for each governor (6 per turn for governors of opposing parties). At NW of -12, it is loss of 6 and 12 points per governor per turn. These levels have been reached fairly early in the games I have played, and there is no way to keep up with that through building improvements, and I am unaware of any other way to actually raise governor support. So once I get to a NW below -6, I no longer waste the money on the governors.

The union is faced with an unpalatable choice: use their forces to chase all of the CSA province raiders to prevent them taking cities and dropping NW (thereby losing the ability to launch a real offensive against the CSA) or ignore these raiders, suffer the hit to NW, and invade the CSA. I think it is an interesting strategic choice. After several games, my opinion is that ignoring the raiding divisions is the correct way to go.

Alex

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: Alex Gilbert



I agree that poor governor attitudes make a significant impact on the economy, and I agree that until NW drops below -6 it is a critical part of the game of how to placate the governors. However, below -6, you are losing 3 support per turn for each governor (6 per turn for governors of opposing parties). At NW of -12, it is loss of 6 and 12 points per governor per turn. These levels have been reached fairly early in the games I have played, and there is no way to keep up with that through building improvements, and I am unaware of any other way to actually raise governor support. So once I get to a NW below -6, I no longer waste the money on the governors..

We all have our playing styles and thx god for that. Mine is in the -6 NW situasion that i would be looking at the specific governors. Those who has 90+ attitude can take 3*30 so many turns before reaching 0 and possible negative modifers. In those states i wont build to keep up the attitude. Those hovering around 0 which is the benchmark in changing between good and bad effects. i would build in, at leased if possible. Depence ofc some what on state make up of cities and possible open building slots

The union is faced with an unpalatable choice: use their forces to chase all of the CSA province raiders to prevent them taking cities and dropping NW (thereby losing the ability to launch a real offensive against the CSA) or ignore these raiders, suffer the hit to NW, and invade the CSA. I think it is an interesting strategic choice. After several games, my opinion is that ignoring the raiding divisions is the correct way to go.

Alex

I usually hunt down and in HW capture those possible raiding divisions fairly fast when i play US. Espcially in the west. Opening up for attacking deeper into CSA territory. Any how as said each his own style.

Kind regards,

Rasmus