Bad staff work deserves punishment. It would be reflected not only in unfed troops but the non-replacement of equipment, disruptions in the personnel pipeline, the non-presence of craftsmen and essential specialists. transport SNFUS, etc. The game designer chose to handle this as you know. It is these kinds of simplifications that make a non-playable game a playable one.
If we were forced to become logistical wizards few would play the game.
If an army with 98% food supplies is treated the same as one with 0% yet a
huge army can be tricked into sharing a single sandwich... This all proves
that the food algorithm is beyond stupid. Yet another item that needs
fixing.
>
> One can always also have 100 cav loaded with food rush out to meet that huge
> HI army that's still a couple of fed turns from Mordor and 780 when they meet
> in order to feed the larger force for it's final push.
>
> Or, one can send a smaller army, say 400 men, with enough food, in conjunction
> with a larger main army with none. Between the 2 armies is a third character.
>
> Small army splits to character, new army will have food at the 765. Character
> transfers command to large army, which is considered fed at 780, thus also fed
> for 85/60 and they all move together. Repeat following turn. Seems
> laborious, but it will work at less cost (in food) then Arthedain trying to
> send 5000 HC to the back door of Mordor...
>
> Mind you, if these guys rotate their 780's, there's a good chance they'll be
> able to shake any ScoArmies trying to hunt them down also, so there might be
> various benefits to pushing the boundaries of the Rules vs Common Sense
> file...
>
> Regards,
>
> Brad
>
>>
>> From: Rodrigo Manhaes <rsmanhaes@br.inter.net>
>> Date: 2003/07/23 Wed PM 02:17:09 EDT
>> To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Digest Number 1391
>>
>> Well, live and learn then, seems the rule of thumb I followed was wrong,
>> and it's been some 3 years already! Curse my "tutors"... :\
>>
>> Sorry for the misinformation, guys!
>>
>> Regards,
>> Rodrigo Manh�es
>>
>> Mike Barber wrote:
>>
>>> Hey Jeff
>>>
>>> Army 1 will definitely be fed in your scenario below.
>>>
>>> An old trick: for same scenario as before but Army #1
>>> only has 150 food, commander 1 xfers 400HI to
>>> commander 2 (order 355 i think) and commander 2 then
>>> xfers army to commander 1 (780). Outcome will be a
>>> fed army of 1000 troops with 50 food left.
>>>
>>> The important thing is, can an army feed its troops
>>> when consumption happens (around order 400)
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> From: "Jeff Wygal" <morgai@hotmail.com>
>>> Subject: Question about feeding armies
>>>
>>> Army #1 has 500 HI, and 600 food.
>>> Army #2 has 500 HI, and no food.
>>>
>>> Consumption of food happens after transfers, and
>>> before command
>>> orders (around order 400), so army #1 is fed, and army
>>> #2 is not fed.
>>>
>>> Army #2 transfers command (order 785) to the commander
>>> of army #1,
>>> combining the two armies.
>>>
>>> Is the new, combined army considered fed, or not fed,
>>> for the sake
>>> of movement?
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>
>>> Jeff Wygal
>>
>> --
>> "Mortis In Anima
>> Curam Gero Cutis"
>> Carl Orff - "Carmina Burana"
>>
>> 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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>
>
> 1
>
> 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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
Middle Earth armies are Dark Age armies at best. They did not have staffs.
They have leaders and that's it.
I'm not arguing for a logistical game, I'm arguing for a better system, and
one which has better internal consistency to boot. (See another post to Brad
for the details.)
Don't attribute arguments to me that I haven't proposed.
Gavin
Ovatha Easterling wrote:
···
Bad staff work deserves punishment. It would be reflected not only in unfed
troops but the non-replacement of equipment, disruptions in the personnel
pipeline, the non-presence of craftsmen and essential specialists. transport
SNFUS, etc. The game designer chose to handle this as you know. It is
these kinds of simplifications that make a non-playable game a playable one.
If we were forced to become logistical wizards few would play the game.
If an army with 98% food supplies is treated the same as one with 0% yet a
huge army can be tricked into sharing a single sandwich... This all proves
that the food algorithm is beyond stupid. Yet another item that needs
fixing.
Well, live and learn then, seems the rule of thumb I followed was
wrong,
and it's been some 3 years already! Curse my "tutors"... :\
Sorry for the misinformation, guys!
Regards,
Rodrigo Manhães
Mike Barber wrote:
Hey Jeff
Army 1 will definitely be fed in your scenario below.
An old trick: for same scenario as before but Army #1
only has 150 food, commander 1 xfers 400HI to
commander 2 (order 355 i think) and commander 2 then
xfers army to commander 1 (780). Outcome will be a
fed army of 1000 troops with 50 food left.
The important thing is, can an army feed its troops
when consumption happens (around order 400)
Cheers
Mike
From: "Jeff Wygal" <morgai@hotmail.com>
Subject: Question about feeding armies
Army #1 has 500 HI, and 600 food.
Army #2 has 500 HI, and no food.
Consumption of food happens after transfers, and
before command
orders (around order 400), so army #1 is fed, and army #2 is not fed.
Army #2 transfers command (order 785) to the commander
of army #1,
combining the two armies.
Is the new, combined army considered fed, or not fed,
for the sake
of movement?
Thanks in advance.
Jeff Wygal
--
"Mortis In Anima
Curam Gero Cutis"
Carl Orff - "Carmina Burana"
Right. Your loyal trained staff takes care of those issues.
I, too, would generally be in favor of moving the "army fed" check to
849. You could still use a smaller army to feed a larger one, but
to do so it would have to bring enough food along. (Thus neatly
simulating the occasional "provision convoy" of which one hears so
much in the wars of Marlborough...)
Tony Z
···
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 04:21:58PM +0000, Ovatha Easterling wrote:
Bad staff work deserves punishment. It would be reflected not only in unfed
troops but the non-replacement of equipment, disruptions in the personnel
pipeline, the non-presence of craftsmen and essential specialists. transport
SNFUS, etc. The game designer chose to handle this as you know. It is
these kinds of simplifications that make a non-playable game a playable one.
If we were forced to become logistical wizards few would play the game.
--
Though no man can draw a stroke between the confines of day and night,
yet light and darkness are upon the whole tolerably distinguishable.
--Edmund Burke
Middle Earth armies are Dark Age armies at best. They did not have staffs.
That may be true of the Woodmen and some of the Orcs, but Gondor was an
empire (albeit in decay) and therefore must have had a highly trained
civil service. Theoden's muster took some time, and had some concern
for supplies (note the King's comment to the herald of Gondor "if we
ride now, we must ride light, with but meal and water enough to last
us into battle" and the reply "We have very great store long prepared")
Of course, our hobbit chroniclers didn't spend much time thinking
about that side of things, so we don't see much of it in the _Lord
of the Rings_.
As far as Sauron's empire goes, who do you think created bureaucracy?
They have leaders and that's it.
Well, um, no, they have a lot more: it's just abstracted away in the
interests of better gaming.
I'm not arguing for a logistical game, I'm arguing for a better system, and
one which has better internal consistency to boot. (See another post to Brad
for the details.)
One can have the computer take care of the logistical details. The
difficulty is that the players need to know how far their army can
march each turn, so any system in use has to be comprehensible to the
players _without_ making it into a logistical game.
Tony Z
···
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 06:53:27PM +0200, Gavinwj wrote:
--
Though no man can draw a stroke between the confines of day and night,
yet light and darkness are upon the whole tolerably distinguishable.
--Edmund Burke
Middle Earth armies are Dark Age armies at best. They did not have staffs.
That may be true of the Woodmen and some of the Orcs, but Gondor was an
empire (albeit in decay) and therefore must have had a highly trained
civil service. Theoden's muster took some time, and had some concern
for supplies (note the King's comment to the herald of Gondor "if we
ride now, we must ride light, with but meal and water enough to last
us into battle" and the reply "We have very great store long prepared")
Think late Roman then. (This is a good argument for Laurence's design to
differentiate more greatly between the various nations.) As for mustering,
that still allows for a Dark Ages army. After all, it takes time to round
everybody up from whatever else they might be doing.
As far as Sauron's empire goes, who do you think created bureaucracy?
They have leaders and that's it.
Well, um, no, they have a lot more: it's just abstracted away in the
interests of better gaming.
Er, I meant that Dark Age armies had leaders rather than staffs. The idea of
a staff didn't come into being until the age of the professional army.
Gavin
···
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 06:53:27PM +0200, Gavinwj wrote:
It also seems to make sense as this would allow you to 780 a well-supplied army into an unsupplied one and end up with the whole lot fed.
Richard
···
----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Zbaraschuk
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] fed armies
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 04:21:58PM +0000, Ovatha Easterling wrote:
> Bad staff work deserves punishment. It would be reflected not only in unfed
> troops but the non-replacement of equipment, disruptions in the personnel
> pipeline, the non-presence of craftsmen and essential specialists. transport
> SNFUS, etc. The game designer chose to handle this as you know. It is
> these kinds of simplifications that make a non-playable game a playable one.
>
> If we were forced to become logistical wizards few would play the game.
Right. Your loyal trained staff takes care of those issues.
I, too, would generally be in favor of moving the "army fed" check to
849. You could still use a smaller army to feed a larger one, but
to do so it would have to bring enough food along. (Thus neatly
simulating the occasional "provision convoy" of which one hears so
much in the wars of Marlborough...)
Tony Z
--
Though no man can draw a stroke between the confines of day and night,
yet light and darkness are upon the whole tolerably distinguishable.
--Edmund Burke
But one of the businesses of government from the beginning has
been insuring that military supplies are present and the army
is fed... they may not have full-time trained professional staffs,
but your characters in MEPBM do have assistants, scribes , couriers,
message-bearers, and other things that ensure that their orders
are carried out. They don't pack all 1000 units of food into the
army's baggage train by hand
Tony Z
···
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 07:47:38PM +0200, Gavinwj wrote:
Tony Zbaraschuk wrote:
>
> Well, um, no, they have a lot more: it's just abstracted away in the
> interests of better gaming.
Er, I meant that Dark Age armies had leaders rather than staffs. The idea of
a staff didn't come into being until the age of the professional army.
--
Though no man can draw a stroke between the confines of day and night,
yet light and darkness are upon the whole tolerably distinguishable.
--Edmund Burke
