ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: a white rabbit ..the more you describe it, the less it charms..it seems front end only, no transport units to destroy, no fragile supply lines to protect It would be as bad as what we have, any "notional/ abstract" method without a physical presence will be. Supply is a physical thing with actual units that move the stuff and actual units, usually slow moving , that distribute it.. ..i still go for something like that used in the SPI Great battles series, actual tons of supply checkable in show unit, a supply unit NOT an HQ, that has x supply points and can distribute SPs over a given area, that gets either default, virtually as now, or can receive extra SPs if within range of a transport unit, be that truck/plane/ship/train/horsedrawn (each has a designer setable range), with at least one on a supply center to start the chain.. ..any such multiplier chain reduces supply across the board elsewhere, but can never transport to an end user more than its weekest link, eg 1 unit 1 SP , 6 units 6 SPs but only within their range.. ..any transport unit needs switching on, maybe setting in Strategic Reserve ? to work, has designer settable squads/boats/planes so defends as normal but with a 0 or fixed low attack value and can move as per it's squad type . A moving transport can't supply, neither can a moving supply icon. Non cooperative means no supply function .. ..the SPs in a supply icon are used something like move 1SP, cmbat min level 1 SP / normal 2 SPs/ ignore 3 SPs.. ..its simple and reasonably accurate, and the Axis can go mad giving NA incredible supply, by using all the transport units road/rail/air/sea, and supply units, and the Allies can go mad sinking, and otherwise destroying them.. ...first off, I have no problems with an abstracted supply model -- I just want one that vaguely resembles reality. Two divisions use more supply than two battalions, and while one may be able to get a hundred tons of supplies a day up to divisions fighting outside Murmansk, one cannot get ten thousand tons a day there, no matter how badly one wants to. Secondly, 'supply units' aren't really more accurate in any meaningful sense. Presumably, we don't want five hundred of the suckers to move each turn, and in fact, supply doesn't normally move in great ten thousand truck convoys. So your 'supply unit' would represent something that is never actually there, in one hex. It would be about as realistic as the 'priest' units in Age of Empires. I could see a system with physical units turning out to be the way to go. If nothing else, that might be the element the player would have control over, and designers could manipulate how much of the supply came through some abstracted network versus how much was physically distributed by the player. For example, a North Africa scenario might rely heavily on them, with only a trickle of supply coming via the abstracted net, while a Ukraine 1943 scenario might not have any physical supply units at all, the abstracted net being the sole source of supply. In any case, and all other things being equal, I don't see concrete units as being inherently more desirable than an abstracted distribution program. Certainly such units would need to be designed with an eye to possible abuses as combat units. Shouldn't be able to conduct recon or close pockets with them, for example. That's what often happens with HQ's now.
_____________________________
I am not Charlie Hebdo
|