Re: Thoughts on food
 

Well, it's beautiful and that's a good enough reason for me, although maybe not for JK since he'd have to work on it.

What does it change? 1) It gives C'tis a bonus. 2) It slightly reduces the value of beefy combatants relative to ones with special abilities. 3) It makes mounted troops less valuable. 4) other...

I think C'tis is fairly middle of the road and being a little better isn't needed but isn't harmful.

The potential effect on mounted troops bothers me. How much are cavalry used in MP presently?

Realism would demand that supplies be harvested in the Fall and pillaged or purchased from the locals the rest of the year but I imagine that's too much of a pain.

Re: Thoughts on food
 

Well, from what I can tell it would make supplies a much bigger deal, meaning summons that need not eat (and commanders which can't starve) even better.

Re: Thoughts on food
 

No, it shouldn't make supplies a "bigger deal", as it only change the way they are calculated. A random army of many assorted units (like the AI makes) should not be any more or less likely to starve in either system... but things like "X Terrain Survival" could be more effectively implemented, hoburgs and light infantry would not be quite as terrible, and other interesting things could be accomplished because it would allow finer control. It's sort of like adding a gas pedal to a car that previously just had an "on-off" switch - it doesn't make speed limits or roads or destinations more important, it just lets you interact with them more smoothly.

Re: Thoughts on food
 

I do not really see what the gain of basing supply on HP's instead of size would be. As the system stands mounted humans allready eat twice that of unmounted humans, because of cavalry being size 3. Fliers are usually about one size class bigger than comparable troops without wings, thus they usually eat 50% to 100% more. Giants being size 4 and having 30 hp or so would have about the same supply ratio visavi humans that they allready do. My point with all this is that many of Saber Cherrys suggestions are allready pretty much covered by the current system. If desired some or all of the remaining points could be added on top of the current one, including the chuckwagons. The current system also have the advantage of allready being in place, which is a pretty awesome advantage. The current system, besides being familiar, also keeps supply numbers smaller and therefore more accessible. It also accomplishes much of what Cherry desires by virtue of its basic structure rather than it's exceptions, which is a virtue in a system.

Re: Thoughts on food
 

I humbly bow before this unimpeachable condensate of truth http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: Thoughts on food
 

Yeah, I am that way, I condensate truth all the time, more or less.

Btw: Glad to see you back.

Re: Thoughts on food
 

One thing I noticed about supplies, not sure if it is fixed yet: the supply items reduce the the supply requirement of the army carrying them, rather than increasing the amount of supplies available in the province.
This has one unfortunate consequence: an army in a low supply province, relying on supply items to survive, will be overly-starved should their supply usage exceed the amount available. This happens as the supply items seem to be ignored when the army is in a state of being under supplied.
For example: an army needing 101 supplies is given 4 bags of wine. Its supply usage drops to 1 supply. The army enters a zero supply province, and it begins to starve. It ought to suffer a single point of "starvation damage" (not sure how this is worked out exactly). However, it takes 100 points of starvation, because only the supply value of the province and the unadjusted supply requirement of the army (which doesn't count supply items) are taken into account.