Anthropoid
Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline
|
My jnits seem to have moved a bit toward Russia b/w 185 and 186 so I don't thin they are "trapped" per se. They at least made it to about Carpathia from Vienna. Also my supply lines were still in place at the start of T186. So I retract my statement of "bug." It seems to be more or less WAD. Except for the fact that my supply lines disappeared between 184 and 185. The fact that they didn't move between 184 and 185 could've just been bad luck on the strategic initiative factor.
I agree that having to march them home is more realistic than teleportation. I suppose even having to supply them in order to prevent foraging losses is not unreasonable; the locals might not be that cooperative with helping to supply them, and since a surrender was agreed to, it might be quite awkward for commanders who did not enforce a strict code of not harassing locals and their larders.
I don't like the march attrition "difficulty" setting in general. I think it should just be _attrition_ that impacts units at all times, although worse when marching, out of garrison, when in enemy territory, etc., the idea that suddenly suffering attrition as a result of a unit moving is a reflection of "difficulty" in a game versus the computer much less against other humans I think is silly; increased attrition in general, yes, that seems reasonable to model increased difficulty. But attrition specific to marching, no, not realistic, it creates a NEW dynamic that is not present in the lower difficulty settings. A march attrition difficult setting doesn't make it more difficult, it makes it more difficult to be active with your units.
However, if a redeployment system is going to require the human to march his forces home, then there should AUTOMATICALLY be a free passage that allows him to supply them until such time as his final unit crosses the border. I guess, given that my supply depots persisted in place betwen 185 and 186 that that is in fact how it works? I don't know if I'm violating neutrality right now or not?
Also, I think that perhaps movement rates should be upped just slightly (for units exiting a defeated enemy): Moving back through a defeated enemy territory would not involve a need to maintain tactical-ready order, nor the need to post sentries, encamp in defensive posture, etc., etc., this would reduce traffic jams, and so in general, I think it would make sense if units exiting a surrendered enemy territory actually moved a little bit faster than when they were moving through hostile territory. Maybe even a bit faster than when they move through home territory ("lets get home fever").
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
RE: PBEM 109 - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread