This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Xconq project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Supply

At 01:05 PM 8/24/98 +0300, you wrote:
>Supply Rules Draft #2

  Seems pretty well thought out; however, one thing that strikes
me is that it assumes supply is voluntary.  While this generally 
works for more modern settings, it is not a good assumption for 
earlier ones, where "supply" may involve ransacking local villages.
(And even some relatively modern settings have this as an issue;
German WWII campaign into Russia comes to mind, and many of the
current "low-intensity conflicts" around the globe.)

  Perhaps units should have an indication (hopefuly player-
adjustable) of how willing they are to provide supply.  Units
which "freely hand out" will provide supplies as requested; 
units which "reluctantly hand out" will provide supplies as needed
to raise units above some percentage, without reducing their supply
level below some percentage; units which "miserly hand out" will
provide only the minimum needed to avoid attrition as long as they 
don't reduce themselves below some percentage; units which "don't
hand out" will not provide supply unless a unit makes a forage/pillage
check against them; and units which "strongly resist" loose some
movement or strength but have their resistance to a forage/pillage
check doubled.  

  There would be a table for forage/pillage, with all the unit types
along each axis, listing the chance that a unit of type A can 
successfully forage from a unit of type B.  Units could "forage" for
a small move cost, getting the chances on the table, or "pillage" for
a larger move cost and a temporary reduction in combat strength, 
getting a scenario-dependant multiplier of the chance on the table 
(Default probably 1.5x or 2x).  

  Defensive terrain modifiers should probably reduce the forage/pillage

  Each unit would rate its willingness to supply own-side, allied, 
neutral, and enemy units, probably divided into combat and noncombat
types for each.  

  For instance, a "neutral" town might rate itself as freely supply
own-side combat & noncombat, reluctantly supply allied & neutral
non-combat, miserly supply allied & neutral combat, don't supply
enemy non-combat, strongly resist enemy combat.  

  A UN aid convoy could rate itself as freely supply neutral non-
combat, reluctantly supply own-side & allied non-combat, miserly
suplly own-side & allied combat, and enemy non-combat, and don't
supply neutral & enemy combat.  

  There should also be a table of unit types vs. terrain types, 
listing the amount(s) of supply available from the terrain itself
if a unit spends the time/effort to forage or pillage.  This may need
to cross-reference weather and seasonal effects for scenarios that
use such.  

  Some sort of "scorch earth" action should probably also be added, 
although I've not got the time to think that through at the moment, 
and repeated forage/pillage should have reduced effect.  

  These are admittedly vague suggestions, and I have to get on into
work soon, but hopefully the intent should come through.  This is
a level of detail that is not needed at all for some settings, but
in many early settings is a primary constraint on military action.

** James **
James R Dunson, Multimedia Programmer
Dept. of Biomedical Sciences and Pathobiology
Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine, Virginia Tech

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]