Small oddities

[Heldenkaiser]

1. Why does a fort with two regular regiments and a commander surrender without a fight (!) before two Indian warbands and a commander?

2. Can there be two forts in a region? Or how come that on the same turn I occupy a region with a fort in it I get the message that the enemy destroyed a fort (by another name) in the same region?

3. Can there be two depots in a region? Or how come that I can still build a depot although one's already there?

This is a French and Indian War campaign on WIA 1.6.

Any comments appreciated!

[arsan]

1. Why does a fort with two regular regiments and a commander surrender without a fight (!) before two Indian warbands and a commander?

The short answer is because you were unlucky and they failed their siege roll
The "flavor" answers can be many: hunger, treason, that they desperate of any help coming their way, that the besieger offered them great terms or threated to scalp them alive if they didn't surrender, or tricked them into believing they were much more powerful than they really were... history is full of this kind of things.
How many turns were tehy under siege??
Why don't you sallied and smashed the besiegers if you had such and advantage?

2. Can there be two forts in a region? Or how come that on the same turn I occupy a region with a fort in it I get the message that the enemy destroyed a fort (by another name) in the same region?

No there can't. Have you just taken the fort?? in this case it can be case or the "Scorched earth" rule. The enemy blows or burn their own fort during the assault so it did not fall on enemy hands. It depends of a roll.

3. Can there be two depots in a region? Or how come that I can still build a depot although one's already there?

Because you can imporve a depot to level 2 depot. I think you couldn't do this in older versions (even if a level 2 or 3 depot were used in the game setup). But now you can, and you will get more supply than with a level 1.
Don't know if this is a intended or unintended new feature.
Cheers

PD: have you installed the interim update??
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=16062
You should!

[Heldenkaiser]

Thanks for the replies, Arsan.

The short answer is because you were unlucky and they failed their siege roll
The "flavor" answers can be many: hunger, treason, that they desperate of any help coming their way, that the besieger offered them great terms or threated to scalp them alive if they didn't surrender, or tricked them into believing they were much more powerful than they really were... history is full of this kind of things.

Sure, I can rationalize this easily, thanks.

How many turns were tehy under siege??
Why don't you sallied and smashed the besiegers if you had such and advantage?

I am not sure I ever noticed their being besieged. I think it might have been the first turn. I never cared much because I thought this fort to be safe from such a tiny band.

No there can't. Have you just taken the fort?? in this case it can be case or the "Scorched earth" rule. The enemy blows or burn their own fort during the assault so it did not fall on enemy hands. It depends of a roll.

Yes, but why do I still get the fort? The region IIRC is Winooski, the fort they destroyed was Ft. Frédéric, and the one I got was named after a French commander, so it was built during the game.

Roger about the supply / depot levels. Makes sense.

[arsan]

Yes, but why do I still get the fort? The region IIRC is Winooski, the fort they destroyed was Ft. Frédéric, and the one I got was named after a French commander, so it was built during the game.

Mmm...not sure, maybe its one of the forts you get by event. Didn't you see any line on the message log explaining something like that you were given a new fort there or anything??
Lodilefty may know better


Regarding sieges, with the latest patches they are resolved faster than before (more historical) but usually they need 2-4 turns or more if we are taking about fortresses with guns, ports and the like.
But there is a luck factor involved so its can happen sooner or later

Certainly indians without guns are not very dangerous in sieges, but you can never bee sure...
If you can, send some relief force as soon as possible or make a sally. Better not to risk an unlucky siege ending
And if you have a big stack, better camp outside, as in AACW.
Cheers

[squarian]

1. Why does a fort with two regular regiments and a commander surrender without a fight (!) before two Indian warbands and a commander?

This sounds familiar - see this thread for my examples:

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=16053

I'm thinking that garrisons surrendering when the odds say they shouldn't is something which should be watched. If there's a pattern beyond occasional extreme luck, maybe something's wrong under the hood.

[lodilefty]

Originally Posted by Heldenkaiser
2. Can there be two forts in a region? Or how come that on the same turn I occupy a region with a fort in it I get the message that the enemy destroyed a fort (by another name) in the same region?

At start:
There is a city there name Fort St Frederick
There is a Garnison de Fort St. Frederick
There is a Detachment de Fort St Frederick

There is no event that builds a fort there

The fort with a leaders name would have been built in-game, as all such forts get names like that.

After 'the great burning', was the city still there?
Are any of the messages you cite referring to the Garnison or Detachment troops?

Cities haven't been 'burnable' since several patches ago.

[lodilefty]

This sounds familiar - see this thread for my examples:

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=16053

I'm thinking that garrisons surrendering when the odds say they shouldn't is something which should be watched. If there's a pattern beyond occasional extreme luck, maybe something's wrong under the hood.

Agree.
Keep the data coming, as we may still need to adjust siege parameters.

[Heldenkaiser]

Here a the files for this turn if this helps any to figure it out? I am not quite sure about what's going on.

[lodilefty]

Here a the files for this turn if this helps any to figure it out? I am not quite sure about what's going on.

I'll need the two previous turns also.
Assuming these are the current turn, I'll need Subfolders Backup1 and Backup2
If you've processed further turns, then keep 'adding' Backup folders to get far enough into the past.

[lodilefty]

At start:
There is a city there name Fort St Frederick
There is a Garnison de Fort St. Frederick
There is a Detachment de Fort St Frederick

There is no event that builds a fort there

The fort with a leaders name would have been built in-game, as all such forts get names like that.

After 'the great burning', was the city still there?
Are any of the messages you cite referring to the Garnison or Detachment troops?

Cities haven't been 'burnable' since several patches ago.

Update!

While doing 'other things' for this Campaign, I came across an event that will build a Fort at Winooski if Fort Carillion is not built at Crown Point before October 1757.

So, there could be a Fort named Fort Frederick in the City named Fort Frederick......

[Heldenkaiser]

I will post the previous turns when I get home.

BTW another strange thing happened the next turn. I took Montreal and got a "French destroyed fort ...." message again. My opponent swears he gave no orders to burn a fort, either at Winooski or Montreal.

I'll probably best post all those turns.

[lodilefty]

I will post the previous turns when I get home.

BTW another strange thing happened the next turn. I took Montreal and got a "French destroyed fort ...." message again. My opponent swears he gave no orders to burn a fort, either at Winooski or Montreal.

I'll probably best post all those turns.

When you capture an enemy fort, there is a random chance that your enemt will destroy the fort. No order is given by your opponent, it's those pesky local commanders doing it on their own.

[Heldenkaiser]

This should be the relevant files ... current and three backup turns.

[Heldenkaiser]

Did you have a chance to look at the files? Any comments on this fort issue?

[lodilefty]

Did you have a chance to look at the files? Any comments on this fort issue?

Sorry! I've been 'otherwise occupied"

All seems WAD:

Montreal Fort was destroyed by scorched earth upon capture by GBR. This is perfectly normal when a garrison is wiped out as they were here.

Winooski has, as I suspected, a "fort reynaud" that had to have been built by the FRA player sometime previous to the turns you supplied. It is confusing, however, because the city there is named Fort St Frederick. [I suspect the "Ft St. Frederick" that exists at game start was also destoyed by a garrison during capture earlier in yor game] When GBR captured "Ft Reynaud" it either did not have a garrison trapped and destroyed OR it passed [failed?] a "Scorched Earth test" and did not get destroyed....


There is no command needed to burn the forts in these cases, nor is there any command to prevent them from being burned. Again, this is WAD.

[Heldenkaiser]

Well, this happened twice after. Both on taking Montreal and on taking Niagara I got a "fort destroyed" message, and both times I got the fort quite intact. This is WAD? At least it's somewhat confusing ...

[lodilefty]

Well, this happened twice after. Both on taking Montreal and on taking Niagara I got a "fort destroyed" message, and both times I got the fort quite intact. This is WAD? At least it's somewhat confusing ...

Are you sure the Fort is intact, and not just a city with same name? Post screen shot of Niagra if needed...

Montreal's fort was gone in the save you sent....

[Heldenkaiser]

Are you sure the Fort is intact, and not just a city with same name? Post screen shot of Niagra if needed...

If I hover the mouse over the structure and it says Fort in the list?

[Heldenkaiser]

Attached!

[lodilefty]

Attached!

Hmmm.

Need saved game as before [turn of capture plus Backup folder of turn before]