AGEOD Forums

Is there any point to leaving garrisons in the harbor-only locations? When I'm playing as the Union, I make it a point to keep troop garrisons in most of the strategic value cities in Kansas, Missouri, and parts of Iowa and Illinois. But there are harbor only sites that the AI seems to zero in on for resupply. The harbor sites don't seem to offer any protection for land units, but they are supply sources.

Was curious to know how people treated them. Thanks.

beefcake wrote:Is there any point to leaving garrisons in the harbor-only locations? When I'm playing as the Union, I make it a point to keep troop garrisons in most of the strategic value cities in Kansas, Missouri, and parts of Iowa and Illinois. But there are harbor only sites that the AI seems to zero in on for resupply. The harbor sites don't seem to offer any protection for land units, but they are supply sources.

Was curious to know how people treated them. Thanks.

The only harbours that I tend to garrison are the two north of St Louis. CSA raiders and cavalry tend to use them for resupply in preparation for tearing up Illinois.

Meant to respond to this much sooner, but thank you for your suggestion. I'm garrisoning my harbors where I think raiders will attack. I find that they tend to keep a wide berth. Units in the harbors also don't seem to take damage from the winter elements, which makes the strategy more attractive.

beefcake wrote:Meant to respond to this much sooner, but thank you for your suggestion. I'm garrisoning my harbors where I think raiders will attack. I find that they tend to keep a wide berth. Units in the harbors also don't seem to take damage from the winter elements, which makes the strategy more attractive.

If you use gunboats to block the Mississippi river from Cairo up to St Louis and garrison the two hrbours north of St Louis, the Confederate raiders and cavalry will stay away from Illinois. This will allow you to concentrate your cavalry killer stacks in Missouri and Iowa.