Re: Is acp-min useful?

[Stan Shebs <shebs at shebs dot cnchost dot com>]

Keir Novik wrote:

> I do think acp-min is useful, and I prefer it the way it was implemented.
> Let me describe three situations; as long as these can be handled, I'm not
> picky as to the implementation in the GDL.
> 
> (i) Infantry land on beach, but need to spend a few turns regrouping
> before they can advance.

acp-min would be necessary here I think.  You could have a material that
was necessary to movement, but that units on the beach would produce more
slowly - but that's pretty contrived, acp-min is simpler.

(Incidentally, in my game designs featuring landings, I didn't impose any
movement penalty, because historically there seems not to have been.  In
the Normandy landings for instance, the Allies were able to put multiple
divisions on the beach in one day, and would have been well inland on the
following day if there had been no nobody in the way...)

> (ii) A unit is attacked by several enemy units, but can only defend
> against a limited number of attacks in a given turn.

That's what happens now by default, right?  Or are you saying that you'd
like the opposite - units can defend against all attacks, but that if there
too many, acp will go negative and require the unit to rest on the spot.

> (iii) Aircraft landing on a carrier must spend a few turns refueling
> before they can take off again.

Yeah, I guess you can't use a fuel material to limit, because the
transport->occupant transfer is instantaneous.  It would be useful to
have a table for this, but it would have to be a "3-d" table - which
is going to take a fair amount of work one of these days...

> I don't see how free-acp alone can handle these.

OK, that's all the convincing I needed.  Let's revert acp-min to the
previous behavior - and change the manual to match. :-)

Stan