jamo262 -> RE: Forced Marching (12/12/2007 8:23:19 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lavisj quote:
ORIGINAL: AusGamer I don't like not being able to use depot supply after force marching. It does'nt make any sense to me. Especially when invasion supply can be used. Well, actually it makes perfect sens. Force marching on the strategic sens, means that you are marching faster than your supply can follow. Armies of the time (and still now) have to bring supplies from their depots. Depots are nothing more than large stockpile of supplies, but they still have to be delivered to the troops by cartsm wagons, boats.... whatever. If your armie outmarches those, the troops have to rely on the land... foraging. The EiA system tries to provide a static mechanics for the dynaic process of supply. I hope it makes more sens now. I have considered the issue of supply/foraging and losses in this game. The basic system is fine but perhaps in a few instances some chrome could be added. What Ausgamer is perhaps referring to in his post above is forced marching within ones own territory like the first phase of the 1805 Ulm maneuver. This is a legitimate call and a piece of chrome could be added (many years down the track for this game will surely never die)that a corps forced marching within its territory that starts and ends its move on a friendly depot may pay for supply (extra costs) Another supply problem that has been raised is that cavalry get off too lightly for foraging losses, especially in winter and in Spain. A suggestion was made to me that perhaps for foraging losses above one (or two?) factors- one factor should be cavalry. Related to this is the report that the invasion of Russia goes to easy. If the French sit on Moscow and don't move they average only two factor losses per corp per Winter turn. Not decisive. Perhaps this is remedied with winter movement restrictions.
|
|
|
|