Mardonius
Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007 From: East Coast Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jimmer quote:
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
_____________________________
"Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant" -- James Madison "Yes, you will win most battles, but if you loose to me you will loose oh so badly that it causes me pain (chortle) just to think of it" - P. Khan
|