"Pay for Supply" Button

[Mardonius]

It would be a good idea, I believe, to add a button to allow players to pay for a single Corps supply during the move phase. As it is now, we pay for supply at the end and then only for all Corps that have not foraged.

If there were a button for single corps supply then one could optimize how much one pays for unit maintenance.
For example:

4 Prussian Infantry corps sitting in a home nation "3" forage areas with a depot area away. As things are now one can either forage them one at a time and need a 5 or less (3 -3 for forage movement -1 home nation, +2 Multi corps) to not lose a factor. Or you can pay $4. But if you had a pay for supply one corps at a time button, one could pay for supply for 2 corps and then forage for the remaining two corps for not risk of loss and for only $2. I believe that this was the system in the board game, or at least how we played it.

Thoughts? I will post to Mantis.

best
Mardonius

[Jimmer]

I like it. A lot! It partly answers the dilemma posed by Neverman several weeks ago. And, I'll bet it's easy to code, too.

[DCWhitworth]

IIRC the modifier for other corps being in the area does not state that they have to be foraging.

However such a button would be useful for planning purposes. One issue I have with the game is that there is too much counting on your fingers, e.g. foraging - when a unit can successfully forage it simply says "auto !" with no indication of how much the roll would be made by, so you either have to count up manually or repeatedly undo.

[MarshallEllis]

I will look at this later (Sounds easy). I've got a lot in front of this for now!

[Mardonius]

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

IIRC the modifier for other corps being in the area does not state that they have to be foraging.

However such a button would be useful for planning purposes. One issue I have with the game is that there is too much counting on your fingers, e.g. foraging - when a unit can successfully forage it simply says "auto !" with no indication of how much the roll would be made by, so you either have to count up manually or repeatedly undo.

That is true DC and something that I did not catch. I was going for the intent of the rule though and still think the concept has validity as if two of the corps in the above example are feeding from supply they would not impact the forage result of the remaining two corps.

[Skanvak]

I have to test it.

But it can prevent "auto" foraging unit to forage if they need to assault. So I am for it.

[MarshallEllis]

I do think this is a decent idea!

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

IIRC the modifier for other corps being in the area does not state that they have to be foraging.

However such a button would be useful for planning purposes. One issue I have with the game is that there is too much counting on your fingers, e.g. foraging - when a unit can successfully forage it simply says "auto !" with no indication of how much the roll would be made by, so you either have to count up manually or repeatedly undo.

That is true DC and something that I did not catch. I was going for the intent of the rule though and still think the concept has validity as if two of the corps in the above example are feeding from supply they would not impact the forage result of the remaining two corps.

Sorry to say but if you want to follow EIA.rules even corps who pay supply do affect forage results..........

Regards
Bresh

[MarshallEllis]

I think historically you could say that it was impossible to keep individual corps from foraging/pillaging while allowing others to do so. This could be the reason for any corps to affect foraging chances.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: bresh
Sorry to say but if you want to follow EIA.rules even corps who pay supply do affect forage results..........

Regards
Bresh

This is true. The way the guys at Avalon Hill explained it to me went something like this: While it's true that those extra, paid-for corps don't EAT, they still stomp down the wheatfields pretty well, making it harder for the other corps to "live off the land".

That was a paraphrase from a 20+ year old reply from AH when I asked them this question.

[Mardonius]

Respectfully Gents, any army that is disciplined enough to have soldiers fed in the field is disciplined enough to keep those men from interfering with forage type operations. Trust me on this from 18 years of both training and combat experience.

Avalon Hill was making a justification for a badly worded rule. Think about it this way: If you are an officer whose troops are not being fed, are you going to let officers who troops are being fed interfere with your troops welfare? Will your soldiers abide this? If they did get in the way, there would be violence.

I implore you to consider common sense on this one. Harry Rowland himself has often commented that some of the rules were not well written so please consider the intent, which is the more forager the less available food per foragers. NOn foragers should not effect this.

Thanks
Mardonius

[MarshallEllis]

Mardonius:

I will defer to your training/experience for the most part but in my studies of the 19th century military history it seemed to me that discipline was often good early in Nap's career but was not so when the masses were hungry. The victorius French (AND others) tended to loot/forage where they could. This was often overlooked by leadership. This maybe could be a constant for all wars since examples for looting/foraging could probably be found in every war.

You are correct that some rules may have been a little vague and maybe this is one BUT if it could go either way then I'm inclined to leave as is for now BUT open to listening more points...

JMO of course..

[Mardonius]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
Mardonius:
I will defer to your training/experience for the most part but in my studies of the 19th century military history it seemed to me that discipline was often good early in Nap's career but was not so when the masses were hungry. The victorius French (AND others) tended to loot/forage where they could. This was often overlooked by leadership. This maybe could be a constant for all wars since examples for looting/foraging could probably be found in every war.

You are correct that some rules may have been a little vague and maybe this is one BUT if it could go either way then I'm inclined to leave as is for now BUT open to listening more points...

JMO of course..

What you say Marshall is true, no doubt, where you have the French (and others) Foraging for subsistence. Where the difference here is in this case is that we have estalished supply lines and money to pay for supply. For established supply lines, there must be order and discipline or the whole thing breaks down (witness Retreat from Russia). As there is established disicipline, the controlled and limited foraging can be maintained with the application of discipline (everything from issuing receipts to hangining malefactors).

This precept is not solely modern but goes back to early history (think of Xerxes advance across Cilicia (Anatolia) into Thrace and Greece... I can bore you with details of his logistics if you want... that is my main area of historical interest ).

As you know, professional discipline with logisitics did not arrive with Napoleon (or better said, Bertier). Recommend we ask Harry what he meant...
best
Mardonius

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

I must say I like the idea of the pay for supply button,if it can be implemented as a game option aid so much the better.[;)]

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Respectfully Gents, any army that is disciplined enough to have soldiers fed in the field is disciplined enough to keep those men from interfering with forage type operations. Trust me on this from 18 years of both training and combat experience.

Avalon Hill was making a justification for a badly worded rule. Think about it this way: If you are an officer whose troops are not being fed, are you going to let officers who troops are being fed interfere with your troops welfare? Will your soldiers abide this? If they did get in the way, there would be violence.

I implore you to consider common sense on this one. Harry Rowland himself has often commented that some of the rules were not well written so please consider the intent, which is the more forager the less available food per foragers. NOn foragers should not effect this.

Thanks
Mardonius

While you have a historical point, you're still wrong. If this were true, then the game should have no cap on the number of corps that count. The cap is a game construction to limit the effect and so is the modifier for extra corps. They just limit things on opposite ends. In the name of realism, are you willing to remove the cap along with the rules for extra corps?

[Mardonius]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Respectfully Gents, any army that is disciplined enough to have soldiers fed in the field is disciplined enough to keep those men from interfering with forage type operations. Trust me on this from 18 years of both training and combat experience.

Avalon Hill was making a justification for a badly worded rule. Think about it this way: If you are an officer whose troops are not being fed, are you going to let officers who troops are being fed interfere with your troops welfare? Will your soldiers abide this? If they did get in the way, there would be violence.
I implore you to consider common sense on this one. Harry Rowland himself has often commented that some of the rules were not well written so please consider the intent, which is the more forager the less available food per foragers. NOn foo ragers should not effect this.
Thanks
Mardonius

While you have a historical point, you're still wrong. If this were true, then the game should have no cap on the number of corps that count. The cap is a game construction to limit the effect and so is the modifier for extra corps. They just limit things on opposite ends. In the name of realism, are you willing to remove the cap along with the rules for extra corps?

Jimmer:
I would ask you to expound how I might be wrong or where I might be wrong.

As to your point about the artificiality of the +2 limit, I'd say that yes, it is indeed artificial. But we see this artificiality in other areas as well (+1 or (+2 at sea) max combat modifiers, pursuit etc) so it is consistent with the game in other areas.

Thanks
Mardonius