army feeding

[D_N]

The trick is to devise a system that provides
satisfying realism without excessive headaches. This

Take the % of food supplies and provide that % of the

12
(14) days

movement as "fed", rounding Down

and its variations seem unduly complex compared to the
limited pleasure they provide.

I have another proposal for a good system: the current
one. The current system suits the game well.

In most cases, if armies have food, they move as fed.
If lacking food, they can get more -- but not an
endless supply -- from their own pop centers or those
of friendly nations. Or they can buy some, or transfer
some from another army or pc. If they don't, their
movement rate is slowed and some hexes (mountains)
become inaccessible.

That's appropriately complex for this game. It's a
good cut above Risk yet mercifully simpler than, say,
Fire in the East. (Anyone know this leviathan game?
WWII at the squad level: the Russians have NKVD troops
to fire at retreating soldiers, and the map for Poland
is bigger than many living rooms. Readying the Russian
front takes roughly 30 hours -- and then the Germans
can set up.) Accurate, yes, but more of an endurance
trial than a barrel o'fun.

The debate here over the trick of merging a large
unfed army into a small fed one for full movement
occurs a minority of the time. I've done it, and maybe
you've done it, but it's still a small fraction of all
army moves.

And there will always be such tactics in a game of any
complexity -- in fact, the possibility for such
mechanical manipulation increases as it becomes more
elaborate. You can avoid it by playing Risk.

It isn't necessarily better to make a game more
complex or even more logical if that means more
complex. The army movement rules are sufficiently
intricate now, and it's actually a pretty good system.

Dan

···

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

[Richard_DEVEREUX1]

The trick is to devise a system that provides
  satisfying realism without excessive headaches. This

  >Take the % of food supplies and provide that % of the
  12
  (14) days
  > movement as "fed", rounding Down

  and its variations seem unduly complex compared to the
  limited pleasure they provide.

  I have another proposal for a good system: the current
  one. The current system suits the game well.

  In most cases, if armies have food, they move as fed.
  If lacking food, they can get more -- but not an
  endless supply -- from their own pop centers or those
  of friendly nations. Or they can buy some, or transfer
  some from another army or pc. If they don't, their
  movement rate is slowed and some hexes (mountains)
  become inaccessible.

  That's appropriately complex for this game. It's a
  good cut above Risk yet mercifully simpler than, say,
  Fire in the East. (Anyone know this leviathan game?
  WWII at the squad level: the Russians have NKVD troops
  to fire at retreating soldiers, and the map for Poland
  is bigger than many living rooms. Readying the Russian
  front takes roughly 30 hours -- and then the Germans
  can set up.) Accurate, yes, but more of an endurance
  trial than a barrel o'fun.

  The debate here over the trick of merging a large
  unfed army into a small fed one for full movement
  occurs a minority of the time. I've done it, and maybe
  you've done it, but it's still a small fraction of all
  army moves.

  And there will always be such tactics in a game of any
  complexity -- in fact, the possibility for such
  mechanical manipulation increases as it becomes more
  elaborate. You can avoid it by playing Risk.

  It isn't necessarily better to make a game more
  complex or even more logical if that means more
  complex. The army movement rules are sufficiently
  intricate now, and it's actually a pretty good system.

  Dan

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: D N
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 6:38 PM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] army feeding

  __________________________________
  Do you Yahoo!?
  Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
  http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
  Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
  To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
  Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Richard_DEVEREUX1]

The trick is to devise a system that provides
  satisfying realism without excessive headaches. This

  >Take the % of food supplies and provide that % of the
  12
  (14) days
  > movement as "fed", rounding Down

  and its variations seem unduly complex compared to the
  limited pleasure they provide.
  RD: If you like logistics, try playing Serim Ral (run by Harle and others). You have so many different creatures with different movement rates and different carrying capacities (let alone different fighting abilities) and they can carry stuff like stone, wood, weapons, war machines, gold etc., all of different weight/volume, that if you like being a quartermaster, you should try it.

  In Serim Ral, if your troops run out of food, they stop. Just like that. No messing about moving at half speed. If you fouled up the amount of food they needed by even one grain of rice, they go nowhere, tough luck.

  My reading of yer average wargamer is that he wants to get stuck into the strategy, bloodshed and glory of fighting, and he would prefer to leave the logistics to a minion - or a computer program. Maybe that's why ME is more poular than SR?

  An almost painless read about logistics is: "Logistics of the Macedonian army" by Engels. It contains LOADS of fascinating stats. The speeds of movement for force-marching light troops are especially interesting, but it also gives you the mundane stuff like how much a man/horse/mule/camel/elephant/ox can carry at what speed in different terrain, how much each eats and drinks, how much rest they need, etc etc. There's also a section on the "funnel effect" of a large army crossing a single bridge, mountain pass etc., which could add days to the army's journey. Recommended!

  Richard.

  I have another proposal for a good system: the current
  one. The current system suits the game well.

  In most cases, if armies have food, they move as fed.
  If lacking food, they can get more -- but not an
  endless supply -- from their own pop centers or those
  of friendly nations. Or they can buy some, or transfer
  some from another army or pc. If they don't, their
  movement rate is slowed and some hexes (mountains)
  become inaccessible.

  That's appropriately complex for this game. It's a
  good cut above Risk yet mercifully simpler than, say,
  Fire in the East. (Anyone know this leviathan game?
  WWII at the squad level: the Russians have NKVD troops
  to fire at retreating soldiers, and the map for Poland
  is bigger than many living rooms. Readying the Russian
  front takes roughly 30 hours -- and then the Germans
  can set up.) Accurate, yes, but more of an endurance
  trial than a barrel o'fun.

  The debate here over the trick of merging a large
  unfed army into a small fed one for full movement
  occurs a minority of the time. I've done it, and maybe
  you've done it, but it's still a small fraction of all
  army moves.

  And there will always be such tactics in a game of any
  complexity -- in fact, the possibility for such
  mechanical manipulation increases as it becomes more
  elaborate. You can avoid it by playing Risk.

  It isn't necessarily better to make a game more
  complex or even more logical if that means more
  complex. The army movement rules are sufficiently
  intricate now, and it's actually a pretty good system.

  Dan

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: D N
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 6:38 PM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] army feeding

  __________________________________
  Do you Yahoo!?
  Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
  http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
  Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
  To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
  Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Harlequin_Games1]

  RD: If you like logistics, try playing Serim Ral (run by Harle and others). You have so many different creatures with different movement rates and different carrying capacities (let alone different fighting abilities) and they can carry stuff like stone, wood, weapons, war machines, gold etc., all of different weight/volume, that if you like being a quartermaster, you should try it.
  In Serim Ral, if your troops run out of food, they stop. Just like that. No messing about moving at half speed. If you fouled up the amount of food they needed by even one grain of rice, they go nowhere, tough luck.

*** For accuracy if you run out of food you actually start to eat your own troops for food... You do keep moving. I think you are confusing being over-encumbered with running out of food (if over-encumbered you will drop items until you are able to move in SR).

  My reading of yer average wargamer is that he wants to get stuck into the strategy, bloodshed and glory of fighting, and he would prefer to leave the logistics to a minion - or a computer program. Maybe that's why ME is more poular than SR?

*** Who knows why - generally I would double the number of players that would play a "Named game". Both games have lots of play in them (I've played SR for over 6 years and enjoy the growth that you can achieve in the game - but am presently enjoying ME more - generally for the team-play and strategy - SR has more "cheese" than ME).