Action/movement Points and Supply

[Papafourtwo]

Quick Question:

If you had a cavalry unit in zero supply how many action/movements points would it have?

Sounds like a question a 7 year old would get for homework

Cheers

[Strategiclayabout]

Hello Papafourtwo ,

- All units with 0 supply have a 1 AP movement.

- However, If I remember well, they also have a 1 tile default movement if all adjacent tiles require 2 AP or more but the default tile(s) where the unit will be able to move are always the one(s) with the lowest AP requirement.

- Meaning if you have mountain tiles (4 AP) all around except for 1 hill tile, you can only move on the hill tile (2 AP).

Hope it was clear ^^ .

[Amadeus]

Really? The manual says:

The following table outlines the action point penalties whenever any unit (land, air, and naval) has its supply value reduced:

Units supply value >5 <=10 means Max Value

Units supply value >0 <=5 means Max Value -1

Units supply value =0 means Max Value / 2

Note: Optional weather effects may also reduce a unit's action points. Action point penalties due to reduced supply value and weather effects are cumulative, and may reduce a unit‟s action points to a minimum of 1, though a unit will always be able to move at least one tile, providing its route isn‟t blocked by enemy units (unless of course the unit type has been set to have no APs, though this doesn't apply in the default campaigns). Weather itself has no effect on the supply calculations.

To answer the question: When I am right Cavalry have Max Value of AP of 4, right? When 0 supply this unit may have 4/2=2 AP. Not 1.

[Strategiclayabout]

Hi Amadeus ,

It also say all land units are limited to 1 tile move at 0 supply but when you check ingame you have that:

Cavalry has 5 AP over 5 supply

Infantry has 4 AP over 5 supply

Cavalry falls to 4 AP under 6 supply

Infantry falls to 3 AP under 6 supply

Cavalry falls to 1 AP at 0 supply

Infantry falls to 1 AP at 0 supply

Not that it makes much difference as a result. Maybe the manual isn't up to date or it was a table error ?

[Bill101]

Looking at this, I think it must be the case that we introduced the rule about units with zero supply only have 1 AP after the manual was written.

[Strategiclayabout]

Thanks for the clarification Bill .

[Papafourtwo]

Hello Papafourtwo ,

- All units with 0 supply have a 1 AP movement.

- However, If I remember well, they also have a 1 tile default movement if all adjacent tiles require 2 AP or more but the default tile(s) where the unit will be able to move are always the one(s) with the lowest AP requirement.

-Meaning if you have mountain tiles (4 AP) all around except for 1 hill tile, you can only move on the hill tile (2 AP).

Hope it was clear ^^ .

Thanks very much for your replies.

Bill.

Is strategiclayabout correct above? Particularly highlighted element.

I have a cavalry unit that can wander freely in an enemies backyard, but I dont think it can capture any towns because it will be in zero supply before it reaches any of them and the nearest town is in hill terrain next to clear terrain.

Thanks again

[Strategiclayabout]

You're welcome Papafourtwo ,

The highlighted part is good, see ingame pics below:

- Pic1: german cavalry unit is at 0 supply with 1 AP and can't go back to friendly territory because forest tiles are 2 AP, only option remaining to move are 1 AP open ground tiles.

- Pic2: german cavalry unit is at 0 supply with 1 AP but can move on any adjacent tiles (except those blocked by lakes) since they're all 2 AP.

- You can capture a town whatever the tile terrain/AP cost if you can reach it following a road/railroad since it negates terrain/weather penalties for movement.

[Bill101]

Thanks very much for your replies.

Bill.

Is strategiclayabout correct above? Particularly highlighted element.

I have a cavalry unit that can wander freely in an enemies backyard, but I dont think it can capture any towns because it will be in zero supply before it reaches any of them and the nearest town is in hill terrain next to clear terrain.

Thanks again

Yes, strategiclayabout is correct. This way, getting a cavalry unit behind enemy lines isn't necessarily very useful, particularly as your opponent will get a National Morale if they destroy it while it's in low supply.

[Papafourtwo]

Thanks very much for all the answers.

Below is basically what I was getting at. Its a bit frustrating that I cant capture this town. If that town was on clear terrain I would be able to capture it.

Only a minor issue but frustrating at the same time.

Thanks again

[Strategiclayabout]

- Argh, I understand your frustration , going all the way in the Valley of Death, oops I mean Serengetti Plain to be pinned one tile away from your objective...

- You can say to yourself some german staffer looked at the map and said it was "open" to horses while it was a vertical cliff some dumb colonial geographer called "hills" (something like the Qatarra depression in North Africa).

- Another way to look at it is starving men without ammo are in no condition to climb hills and try to seize a town with more or less hostile civilians in it ^^ .

[Hubert Cater]

Hi Papafourtwo,

The problem was when we allowed at least 1 tile movement in every possible direction, units were squeezing through zones of control and other terrain spots where ideally they shouldn't have except for the 1 tile movement rule... it became an issue for game play especially with front lines and other areas that we went with this rule.

Alternatively what we could do for a spot like that would be to put a little road in there so that if you did come from that direction you could capture the town... I'd have to double check with Bill to see what he thinks but either way a solution such as this will only solve very specific areas of the map and not change the general rule otherwise.

Hubert

[Papafourtwo]

Sending a unit through the desert to capture a town which your not too sure is going to be defended or not IMO is in the spirit of the game and in the type of conflict at the time. High risk = high reward.

I would be pretty confident that this is not the only scenario where this could occur.

Strategiclayabout does make a good point about poorly mapped terrain and angry local populace but you could also say that a thousand very thirsty, hungry and desperate german cavalrymen would be pretty motivated to overcome a village which may only contain a small garrison.

A rule change may be very difficult, or unnecessary depending on your viewpoint, to implement for SCWW1 but maybe it should be noted for its next incarnation.

[SeaMonkey]

A rule change here would need an extensive forum discussion. There are a lot of possibilities with unit types, transport, ZoCs, terrain and weather, not to mention the "Law of Unintended Consequences" to examine. It's going to be difficult to think of everything that could occur, a "think tank" seems necessary for proper resolution and still there will be anomalies.