To supply the army... whom do we pillage first?

[Secret Master]

I was just curious as to whether the model for provisioning armies had been decided upon yet?

Will it matter at all in terms of the ? Will you pillage and loot the enemy's provinces, taking away the peasants food? Can I loot my own lands to deny their supplies to the enemy? If Im going to go campaign somewhere far away, do I have to pay big bucks for a supply train? (I assume yes beased on something Greven said but I thought Id ask anyway.)

Or will it be modeled more like in EU, where there is attrition and no micro-management of supply?

 

[unmerged(6777)]

Personally I'd love to see supply chains and micro (or semi-micro) management incorporated. It's one of the more interesting aspects of EIA, the great grandfather of the games we're playing now.

In EIA there are very strict rules governing supply:

- supply chain creation: army must pre-exist in a territory, can only be 2 territories away from the nearest supply chain, must be traceable via land and/or sea all the way back to an owned province, etc...

- maintenence costs: there is a cost to establish a supply depot and a cost paid quarterly to keep it

- maximum supply chain length: different countries can extend chains of different lengths and there are a limited number of supply depots available

- reinforcement along the chain: new troops may be raised through supply chains, meaning that if you raise 20k infantry they can be added to an army somewhere along the supply chain (with various limitations...

- limitation on the number of troops that can be supplied by a single depot: since EIA uses corps counters, a supply depot can only supply a certain number of corps befor its ability is exhausted. This is replenshished monthly, but does mean that to bring a large army of multiple corps into a province can easily cost a fortune

- cutting supply: an enemy merely hsa to have a corps intervene anywhere along hte supply chain to cut it completely. It is often necessary to leave behind portions of the artmy to act as garrisons for the depots or they can be "stolen" by an enemy.

- effect of being out of supply: horrible effects on the army depending on the terrain and time of year

- cost to supply: depending on where the army is relative to the closest supply depot, the cost of feeding them may be astronomical. If they exceed the range of a depot, it's starvation time...

Implementing some of these aspects to CK would be, in a word, awesome!

 

[Secret Master]

Thats sounds very interesting, MrT.

But I wonder, did feudal armies usually have supply trains? My military history is a bit fuzzy on the logistics of the era, but I could have sworn they looted to feed themselves when not at home.

Of course, this might just be because of the sheer number of times I have played Lord of the Realm II, with the "army eats in province" option.

 

[unmerged(8399)]

Medieval armies for sure didn´t have depots and a supply chain, except for the Byzantine Empire, they did have supply trains, they are mentioned many times, peasant levies were used mainly in supply and support roles as camp followers. In any case, knights campaigned only from May to October to have fresh grass available to feed their horses.

 

[unmerged(6777)]

A good point. I was thinking of the game and completely forgot the issue of the time period. Doh!

You're right, SM. Supply would be almost entirely derived by pillaging, and Aryaman's reminder re the "war" season makes me wonder if, somehow, this will be incorporated in CK. It was very common for "war" to be declared after the crops had been planted, and then a truce of some sort would be signed in time to get the respective armies back to the fields in time for harvest. A prolongued campaign was very rare and would usually end up bankrupting at least one (if not both) sides in the conflict.

 

[unmerged(3564)]

I recall with fondness the distinction that was
made in the old board game "Empires of the
Middle Ages" between "pillage" and "plunder".
In that game, it was not strictly related to the
supply of armies, but the principle and the
mechanics might be instructive.

"Pillage" is what one does to an occupied
territoriy in wartime. You get to sack the towns
for whatever resources you can find, and while
that will of course upset the inhabitants, they
are already likely to be unhappy with you and
it makes little difference.

"Plunder" is something that you do to your
own provinces. As such, one cannot be as
thorough or as brutal, at least not without
having a high likelihood of revolt. Plunder
isn't as effective as pillage, but you can do
it more often.

In EOTMA, ones ability to successfully pillage
and plunder provinces was linked with their
having a base religion or language group that
is *different* from that of one's kingdom.
Which is to say, your army will be less likely
to listen to the pleas of mothers to leave enough
food for their children if they don't understand
the language, and it's always easier to put
heathens and heretics to the sword for resisting
than it is to court damnation by killing co-religionist
civilians.

I don't know how applicable these principles
would be to CK, but they seem relevant to me.

As others have noted, supply trains were not the
norm in the period. Armies tended to live off the
land, which meant that, above a certain size, they
had to keep moving, or else bivouac in large cities.
I would suggest that, as a general rule, armies in
"enemy provinces" be assumed to supply themselves
through pillage, though really large formations might
get additional supply by pillage/plunder of adjacent
provinces under control of the same kingdom.
Sort of a modified "zone of control" supply model,
as opposed to a "line of supply" model.