Destroying captured stores...

[jjjanos]

Do the British lose the VP and morale points listed? If so, I see a problem. The Brits certainly would prefer to burn Rebel naval stores, the arsenal in the Heights, etc than to let them fall into rebel hands.

As it now stands, what good are these things?

[lodilefty]

They provide a small amount of supply to a defending force. Very important in siege.

[jjjanos]

They provide a small amount of supply to a defending force. Very important in siege.

But they are located in places I cannot see the Brits wanted to be beseiged. E.g.; Annapolis is not a critical city; Being beseiged in The Heights won't protect Boston from a force moving through the beseiged area, etc.

[jjjanos]

"Naval stores and sugar supplies are not mobile. They are there for you to protect and the enemy to take / destroy and gain victory points from them. Not very important, just a little flavor thing."

When the British capture rebel stores/naval supplies, the destroy this unit button says that it costs the Brits VP and NM to burn these things.

This seems counter-intuitive.. afterall, the two battles that started the whole war were a British attempt to destroy a rebel arms cache. As it now stands, if the Brits capture these things, it appears that they lose VPs by destroying them.

Is this the case?

[lodilefty]

Once captured there is no good reason to destroy them unless recapture is imminent.

VP losses are reduced if a unit is destroyed by the owner vs. in combat...

[jjjanos]

Once captured there is no good reason to destroy them unless recapture is imminent.

Once captured, there is no good reason NOT to destroy them is my point.

The British didn't intend to capture and retain Patriot stores at Concord. The British intended to DESTROY that cache.

The Brits conducted numerous operations aimed at destroying Patriot stores. In the game, capturing these stores is a liability, not a victory.

[AEWHistory]

Jjjanos,

I understand your POV, and even perhaps your frustration, but you are looking at this from the POV of an armchair wargamer and not taking a realistic position in regard to the diplomatic and military considerations of the time. For example, as wargamers it is great to simply destroy or deprive resources that our opponent need or want. The problem is that IRL the British wanted to win the colonies back and, even when that became less likely, they still needed local colonial support to wage war in the colonies. So consider this, if you are a supporter of the crown and a Philly merchant, would YOU still support the crown after they burned your business? Yesterday you were pro-British and wealthy, today you are penniless.... and the Brits tell you not to take it personally: "Hey buddy, we still like you, we just didn't want everything you own to possibly serve the rebels. So sorry to bankrupt you. So can we count on your continuing support? No?!!? But why?" See my point.

The other issue here is that some resources are too large to just burn. Case in point would be the Philadelphia shipping and merchant system. In gaming terms it should be possible to temporarily damage this, but there is too much wealth, too many merchants, etc. to simply set a few torches and walk away. As soon as you're gone the merchants will rebuild and the supply depot will begin functioning again simply thru market forces. Think of this as similar to that same rule that allows small Indian villages to be destroyed but not larger towns and cities. You can denude the local area of supplies and cause a temporary dip in supply, but if left alone the area will ultimately recover. OTOH, small, artificial military depots are generally not this resilient.

I know this thread is a little old, but hopefully the OP or anyone reading this find the answer useful. This is how I interpret the game's depiction of these items largely because this is how the history works.