Depots will be depots

Depots follow a fairly banal process for finding a supply origin. It starts by checking if the armybase they have been assigned to is serving; if not, then they try rest of the CP’s armybases. But they only check remote links in when it is an offensive depot (depot.side() != cp.side()).

This means that you can’t spawn the Antwerp-Schilde Depot if Antwerp belongs to your country and you pull your brigades out of Antwerp to Schilde.

If you take a few minutes to think about it, the reasons why it works this way ought to be fairly obvious, but I’m not so convinced they still outweigh the reasons for depots always falling back to their link when a local AB can’t be found.

Changing this rule would primarily affect No-Mans-Land towns and thus softcaps, one of the beauties of the No-Mans-Land scenarios is that both teams fight from outside of town. So maybe the addition needs to include a contention check?

Great in theory but our players seem to be seriously disinclined towards forms of defense that involve travel time. No-mans-land fights can be great fun, but there’s no certainty that the fight will last, for either side, so they struggle to reach that critical “fun” mass, and the flurry of people passing thru doubles the sensation of it not being a real fight.

Plus the enemy will just rush your spawnables first, meaning the players who might have been teased in will be bumped back to a firebase or all the way back to their adjacent town, and they won’t like that. Never mind that by going for your spawnable instead of their own, the enemy has retained the same handicap.

Perhaps we could make it so that in a softcap you can only open up the contention with linked depots? That adds lots of complexity (“why can’t I bump this table?”, “why isn’t this table up?”) it also makes what is supposedly an unoccupied/undefended enemy town rather difficult to capture as the enemy probably only has to guard a single building. Pro: ups the likely investment required in softcapping, con: ups the amount of troops people will find themselves investing in uncontested softcaps.


This means that you can’t spawn the Antwerp-Schilde Depot if Antwerp belongs to your country.

I’m a bit puzzled here… why wouldn’t you be able to? Or are you saying Antwerp belongs to the Axis but the connected AB’s in Antwerp are Allied, so you can’t draw off Schilde’s supply because both CP’s are Axis-owned?

Edited the original post – does that clarify it?

This means that you can’t spawn the Antwerp-Schilde Depot if Antwerp belongs to your country and you pull your brigades out of Antwerp to Schilde.

Yep, makes perfect sense now. :)


They should be FUN battles. One side can take the town, but *unless* they move a brigade in, the other side has it just as easy. Capping/Spawning/Fighting as *infantry* should be all this is about.

HOW: Make it so that if you own your FB, and both sides get their FB’s automatically, but if you own the FB you can spawn ANYWHERE in town that you own (pulling from FB–>town link). But you can only spawn infantry. Heck – give in to the “garrison troops” crowd and only spawn RIFLES.

Don’t need an MSP, don’t need anything except your FB and a capped depot.

Con: confusing rule compared to brigade occupied towns.

Pro: Zero spawn to battle. Any side can cap an entire town quickly. It has the effect of extending brigades (so you can cover more front).

More Pro: If you have armor, you can bring it from FB. But other side can simply run around you as rifles.

It would be the equivalent of a double HAAC. Maybe that code can do double duty at any “No Man’s Land” town.

Sounds fun anyway. Especially for 2 minutes thought.

Please dont remove the fun battles that can be had in no mans land towns!

You dont have to cater to those instant action boys all the time do you?

I’m surprised we haven’t seen HCs on either side fallback these empty towns in order to give defensive spawnables in town.

It’s certainly a doable process.

I’m all for letting the defenders spawn from their spawnable depot if it’s linked with a brigade.

Leave a Reply

Name and email address are required. Your email address will not be published.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <pre> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong> 

%d bloggers like this: