Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

P1/P2 supply and movement recovery

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> P1/P2 supply and movement recovery Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
P1/P2 supply and movement recovery - 3/31/2008 10:38:15 AM   
Legun

 

Posts: 209
Joined: 4/22/2006
From: Cracow, Poland
Status: offline
It looks like P1/P2 problem is Ralph priority. I've looked again at the wishlist and must say, that I would like to suggest different solutions of supply and movement recovery.

Presten Bob's propositions are:
1.1.1 Each side's supply computations occur separately at start of respective player turns
1.1.2 Each side's movement recovery occurs at start of both player turns (recovered twice per game turn)

So, both players are TOAW3 P1 on supply and movement recovery. Both get full penalty in the case of unit's sully line cut by enemy and no benefit if the cut supply line are restored during own turn but cut again in next enemy's turn. There is no reduction of unit's movement rate if the unit is retreated or it moved as a reserve. The simple alternative is to make both players TOAW3 P2. This way there is no penalty for cut supply line as long as you are able to restore it in your own turn but full reduction of movement rate in the case of retreat. But..

What about a compromise - both side have supply check and movement recovery at begining of each player's turn, but with halved values: 1) An unit gets half of present supply at beginning of enemy turn (if supplied) and the second half at beginning of own turn (if still supplied). It's unsupplied in own turn, if enemy cut her supply line, but it's supplied in enemy turn if was able to restore it.
2) An unit get half of it's movement rate at beginning of enemy turn - if it isn't attacked or doesn't react as reserve, it gets the second half of its movement allowances at beginning of own turn. If it's movement ability, available in enemy turn, is consumed, it have only 1/2 of potential movamant allowances at the beginning of own turn.
Post #: 1
RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery - 3/31/2008 7:33:57 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun

It looks like P1/P2 problem is Ralph priority. I've looked again at the wishlist and must say, that I would like to suggest different solutions of supply and movement recovery.

Presten Bob's propositions are:
1.1.1 Each side's supply computations occur separately at start of respective player turns
1.1.2 Each side's movement recovery occurs at start of both player turns (recovered twice per game turn)

So, both players are TOAW3 P1 on supply and movement recovery. Both get full penalty in the case of unit's sully line cut by enemy and no benefit if the cut supply line are restored during own turn but cut again in next enemy's turn. There is no reduction of unit's movement rate if the unit is retreated or it moved as a reserve. The simple alternative is to make both players TOAW3 P2. This way there is no penalty for cut supply line as long as you are able to restore it in your own turn but full reduction of movement rate in the case of retreat. But..

What about a compromise - both side have supply check and movement recovery at begining of each player's turn, but with halved values: 1) An unit gets half of present supply at beginning of enemy turn (if supplied) and the second half at beginning of own turn (if still supplied). It's unsupplied in own turn, if enemy cut her supply line, but it's supplied in enemy turn if was able to restore it.
2) An unit get half of it's movement rate at beginning of enemy turn - if it isn't attacked or doesn't react as reserve, it gets the second half of its movement allowances at beginning of own turn. If it's movement ability, available in enemy turn, is consumed, it have only 1/2 of potential movamant allowances at the beginning of own turn.



You've forgotten about variable initiative. You can have two friendly turns in a row or two enemy turns in a row. Even without that, you wouldn't get the same full recovery as now, since part of the movement recovery would be made with only half the supply recovery.

There are ways to account for retreat & reserve movement with the way we're doing it. We would just have to keep track of what that movement cost was and then deduct it after the next friendly recovery phase. Now if I can just convince Ralph & James to go along. So far, they haven't thought it's worth the effort.

I can see some slight merit to doing the supply calculations twice @ half-rate. But note that that will double the calculation time from how it works now. Is that worth the benefit? Plus, the supply values are integers, so halving it would cause rounding effects that would give slightly different results from how it works now.

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 3/31/2008 7:48:36 PM >

(in reply to Legun)
Post #: 2
RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery - 3/31/2008 7:46:35 PM   
Karri

 

Posts: 1137
Joined: 5/24/2006
Status: offline
Okay...so how are you gonna do replacement calculations?

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 3
RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery - 3/31/2008 8:05:21 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


You've forgotten about variable initiative. You can have two friendly turns in a row or two enemy turns in a row. Even without that, you wouldn't get the same full recovery as now, since part of the movement recovery would be made with only half the supply recovery.


I don't think I've heard anyone ever defend variable initiative in the first place. As far as I'm concerned, it was one of Norm's least successful ideas -- for one thing, it makes it hard to use the P.O. for playtesting.

So if variable initiative is an obstacle to some otherwise worthy suggestion, I'd see that as just another reason to bag variable initiative.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 4
RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery - 3/31/2008 8:21:04 PM   
Legun

 

Posts: 209
Joined: 4/22/2006
From: Cracow, Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri

Okay...so how are you gonna do replacement calculations?


Replacement should be calculated at beginning of own player turn.

(in reply to Karri)
Post #: 5
RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery - 3/31/2008 8:24:30 PM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


You've forgotten about variable initiative. You can have two friendly turns in a row or two enemy turns in a row. Even without that, you wouldn't get the same full recovery as now, since part of the movement recovery would be made with only half the supply recovery.


I don't think I've heard anyone ever defend variable initiative in the first place. As far as I'm concerned, it was one of Norm's least successful ideas -- for one thing, it makes it hard to use the P.O. for playtesting.

So if variable initiative is an obstacle to some otherwise worthy suggestion, I'd see that as just another reason to bag variable initiative.


You just haven't been listening in the "right" places...

VI was admittedly not too well implemented by Norm. However, the concept is good, and one that I hope to flesh out better in TOAW IV. As an option, of course.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 6
RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery - 3/31/2008 8:29:53 PM   
Legun

 

Posts: 209
Joined: 4/22/2006
From: Cracow, Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
You've forgotten about variable initiative. You can have two friendly turns in a row or two enemy turns in a row. Even without that, you wouldn't get the same full recovery as now, since part of the movement recovery would be made with only half the supply recovery.


I agree with Colin - variable initiative isn't necessary idea. It makes as many strange effects, that diferent supply and movement recovery isn't really important.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
There are ways to account for retreat & reserve movement with the way we're doing it. We would just have to keep track of what that movement cost was and then deduct it after the next friendly recovery phase. Now if I can just convince Ralph & James to go along. So far, they haven't thought it's worth the effort.


This is completely new procedure with consequences difficult to predict. Double semi-calculation is much simpler and creates partian punishment for encircled and retreated units.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
I can see some slight merit to doing the supply calculations twice @ half-rate. But note that that will double the calculation time from how it works now. Is that worth the benefit? Plus, the supply values are integers, so halving it would cause rounding effects that would give slightly different results from how it works now.

These doubts are secondary, when I see benefits as really important - you can ask Colin, what happens when P1 and P2 forces get into a spiral of mutual encirclement - P2 units are all time unsupplied when P1 units are never unsupplied. I would like them both partially unsupplied.


(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 7
RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery - 3/31/2008 9:12:09 PM   
Karri

 

Posts: 1137
Joined: 5/24/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri

Okay...so how are you gonna do replacement calculations?


Replacement should be calculated at beginning of own player turn.


Okay. So we have the following situation:
Two identical units with identical strenght. Side 1 attacks, and both sides lose half their equipment.
Side 2 then receives replacements(for sake of argument, full replacements), and can now attack with overwhelming strenght.


(in reply to Legun)
Post #: 8
RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery - 3/31/2008 11:41:24 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:


...These doubts are secondary, when I see benefits as really important - you can ask Colin, what happens when P1 and P2 forces get into a spiral of mutual encirclement - P2 units are all time unsupplied when P1 units are never unsupplied. I would like them both partially unsupplied.




Add ships and weather. P1 ships can use the clouds to ameliorate the effectiveness of P2 spotting and air strikes; P2 ships cannot.

I've never understood why the program could not just look at each player's turn as a complete 'turn' in itself -- with one force or the other moving. Of course, the players would be told that what the computer regarded as turns 37 and 38 was all one turn 19 -- but that wouldn't take much to implement.

In other words, there would be nothing different about P1 and P2 from the program's point of view. That should settle the question of differences nicely.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Legun)
Post #: 9
RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery - 3/31/2008 11:43:16 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri


quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri

Okay...so how are you gonna do replacement calculations?


Replacement should be calculated at beginning of own player turn.


Okay. So we have the following situation:
Two identical units with identical strenght. Side 1 attacks, and both sides lose half their equipment.
Side 2 then receives replacements(for sake of argument, full replacements), and can now attack with overwhelming strenght.




I'd suggest adjusting the amount of equipment in the pool and the unit replacement priorities if this is an issue.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Karri)
Post #: 10
RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery - 4/1/2008 9:51:54 AM   
Karri

 

Posts: 1137
Joined: 5/24/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri


quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri

Okay...so how are you gonna do replacement calculations?


Replacement should be calculated at beginning of own player turn.


Okay. So we have the following situation:
Two identical units with identical strenght. Side 1 attacks, and both sides lose half their equipment.
Side 2 then receives replacements(for sake of argument, full replacements), and can now attack with overwhelming strenght.




I'd suggest adjusting the amount of equipment in the pool and the unit replacement priorities if this is an issue.




To what? Zero everything? Otherwise it will be an issue in every scenario.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 11
RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery - 4/1/2008 6:17:21 PM   
Legun

 

Posts: 209
Joined: 4/22/2006
From: Cracow, Poland
Status: offline

quote:

Add ships and weather. P1 ships can use the clouds to ameliorate the effectiveness of P2 spotting and air strikes; P2 ships cannot.


There is the same problem with mud and defensive positions. P1 can deploy his units with knowledge about limits on movement caused by mud. P2 can't.
So - wheater should be calculated at beginning of each player's turn, too.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 12
RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery - 4/1/2008 6:19:58 PM   
Legun

 

Posts: 209
Joined: 4/22/2006
From: Cracow, Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri
To what? Zero everything? Otherwise it will be an issue in every scenario.


If your units have low or very low replacement priority they can get only 20%-40% of their request. I don't see this as a big problem. Of course, we could get replacement the same like supply and movement recovery.

(in reply to Karri)
Post #: 13
RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery - 4/1/2008 6:27:44 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun
I agree with Colin - variable initiative isn't necessary idea. It makes as many strange effects, that diferent supply and movement recovery isn't really important.


Sounds to me like your primary issue with VI is that it's very bad for your idea. We're not going to eliminate it just to accomodate your idea. We have to have a method that works with it. And we've got one.

quote:

This is completely new procedure with consequences difficult to predict. Double semi-calculation is much simpler and creates partian punishment for encircled and retreated units.


We've got a (semi) working version, so it's not so much an issue of prediction anymore.

quote:

These doubts are secondary, when I see benefits as really important - you can ask Colin, what happens when P1 and P2 forces get into a spiral of mutual encirclement - P2 units are all time unsupplied when P1 units are never unsupplied. I would like them both partially unsupplied.


Doubling the supply calculation time is not a "secondary doubt". Players will howl. The benefits, on the other hand, seem very minor to me. Only when an encircled unit breaks containment would there be a benefit of it being rated supplied during the next enemy player turn, rather than having to wait till the next friendly player turn.

(in reply to Legun)
Post #: 14
RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery - 4/1/2008 6:30:43 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun


quote:

Add ships and weather. P1 ships can use the clouds to ameliorate the effectiveness of P2 spotting and air strikes; P2 ships cannot.


There is the same problem with mud and defensive positions. P1 can deploy his units with knowledge about limits on movement caused by mud. P2 can't.
So - wheater should be calculated at beginning of each player's turn, too.


Note that effects have to be halved. Perhaps that's the problem, since I haven't been able to convince James & Ralph to address this.

(in reply to Legun)
Post #: 15
RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery - 4/1/2008 6:40:33 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri
To what? Zero everything? Otherwise it will be an issue in every scenario.


If your units have low or very low replacement priority they can get only 20%-40% of their request. I don't see this as a big problem. Of course, we could get replacement the same like supply and movement recovery.


How do you halve replacements? You would have to support fractional replacement amounts. (Not a bad idea, but not yet implemented).

One alternative is to do both sides replacements at the start of the turn. But that leaves a P1 vs. P2 issue. P1 always faces units that have received replacements, while P2 doesn't.

The other alternative is to do replacements on the enemy player turn. Then P2 couldn't exploit an edge on T1. Rather, his first attacks would be at a disadvantage.

(in reply to Legun)
Post #: 16
RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery - 4/1/2008 8:43:31 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri


quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri

Okay...so how are you gonna do replacement calculations?


Replacement should be calculated at beginning of own player turn.


Okay. So we have the following situation:
Two identical units with identical strenght. Side 1 attacks, and both sides lose half their equipment.
Side 2 then receives replacements(for sake of argument, full replacements), and can now attack with overwhelming strenght.




I'd suggest adjusting the amount of equipment in the pool and the unit replacement priorities if this is an issue.




To what? Zero everything? Otherwise it will be an issue in every scenario.


If you're only going to recover 5% of your losses before you can counterattack, it's

(a) not an issue.

(b) not unrealistic.

and (c) not iniquitous if both sides receive the same benefit.

In any case, I've advocated only allowing units to receive replacements if they're immobile and not adjacent to enemy units. Generally what units do -- withdraw to rest and refit. Break in the replacements.

So if that change was made, the issue you raise would be academic.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 4/1/2008 8:48:33 PM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Karri)
Post #: 17
RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery - 4/1/2008 8:46:46 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri
To what? Zero everything? Otherwise it will be an issue in every scenario.


If your units have low or very low replacement priority they can get only 20%-40% of their request. I don't see this as a big problem. Of course, we could get replacement the same like supply and movement recovery.


How do you halve replacements? You would have to support fractional replacement amounts.


This is a problem now. If you have daily turns, and your figures show Panzergruppe Guderian received an average of 18 Pz IV's per week, what do you do?

Doubling the number of times replacements are received would aggravate the problem -- but it would hardly create it.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 18
RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery - 4/1/2008 8:52:28 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun
I agree with Colin - variable initiative isn't necessary idea. It makes as many strange effects, that diferent supply and movement recovery isn't really important.


Sounds to me like your primary issue with VI is that it's very bad for your idea. We're not going to eliminate it just to accomodate your idea. We have to have a method that works with it. And we've got one.


'We'? You have power? That's a frightening thought.

Anyway, what I don't like about VI is that (a) it makes it difficult to design a scenario will work well for both PBEM and AI play, (b) renders the AI less useful for playtesting, and (c) often has excessive effects.

Take the Holland 1940 scenario I'm working on. Consider what happens if one can be sure the Germans move once and then the Dutch move once versus what happens if the Germans move twice or the Germans move once and the Dutch then move twice.




< Message edited by ColinWright -- 4/1/2008 8:55:53 PM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 19
RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery - 4/1/2008 8:57:33 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri
To what? Zero everything? Otherwise it will be an issue in every scenario.


If your units have low or very low replacement priority they can get only 20%-40% of their request.


That'd be a pretty fast recovery. Generally, it's a lot less than that.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Legun)
Post #: 20
RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery - 4/2/2008 6:32:37 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
This is a problem now. If you have daily turns, and your figures show Panzergruppe Guderian received an average of 18 Pz IV's per week, what do you do?


It's a problem for the designer, not for the program. Regardless of what he wants, the designer must enter integer values for replacements.

quote:

Doubling the number of times replacements are received would aggravate the problem -- but it would hardly create it.


No. It would create a problem for the program. Since scenarios clearly have odd integer values for some replacement items, the system would have to be revised to handle fractions.

And, beyond that, there's the issue of the "on hand" pool. How is that to be distributed?

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 21
RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery - 4/2/2008 6:39:06 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Anyway, what I don't like about VI is that (a) it makes it difficult to design a scenario will work well for both PBEM and AI play, (b) renders the AI less useful for playtesting, and (c) often has excessive effects.

Take the Holland 1940 scenario I'm working on. Consider what happens if one can be sure the Germans move once and then the Dutch move once versus what happens if the Germans move twice or the Germans move once and the Dutch then move twice.


I imagine your job would be much easier if there were no variation in combat results either.

VI needs improvements, that's all. See items 1.10 & 1.11 in the wishlist.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 22
RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery - 4/2/2008 7:06:56 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Anyway, what I don't like about VI is that (a) it makes it difficult to design a scenario will work well for both PBEM and AI play, (b) renders the AI less useful for playtesting, and (c) often has excessive effects.

Take the Holland 1940 scenario I'm working on. Consider what happens if one can be sure the Germans move once and then the Dutch move once versus what happens if the Germans move twice or the Germans move once and the Dutch then move twice.


I imagine your job would be much easier if there were no variation in combat results either.

VI needs improvements, that's all. See items 1.10 & 1.11 in the wishlist.


No. My life would be a lot easier if a scenario that was balanced for PBEM was also balanced for AI and played the same.

VI needs to be optional. As with rectal cancer, that would be the most completely satisfactory improvement possible.




< Message edited by ColinWright -- 4/2/2008 7:47:51 PM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 23
RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery - 4/2/2008 7:11:30 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




And, beyond that, there's the issue of the "on hand" pool. How is that to be distributed?


One would halve the distribution that would otherwise occur. Anyway, I don't really see this as an issue since I'm not advocating this particular change anyway.

My own preference would be to go with discrete, complete 'turns' in which only one player moves. The players alternate, the computer seeing twice as many turns as the players themselves.

In this scheme, only the moving player would get replacements. The fraction problem -- such as it is -- becomes moot.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 24
RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery - 4/3/2008 1:37:25 PM   
Karri

 

Posts: 1137
Joined: 5/24/2006
Status: offline
Some more thoughts on this:
If supply is calculated at the start of the players turn, then encircling enemy units is immediate, and they are out of supply at the start of the enemy turn.
Naturally this means that the attacker has the advantage.

If supply is calculated at the end of turn, then the encircled enemy units are in supply and can be manouevered out of harms way without any disadvantages.
Thus defender has an advantage.
However the attacker has the advantage of being better supplied here. For example:
Two identical units, side 1 attacks and drives back side 2 unit. Ends turn and receives supply. Thus at the start of the side 2 turn, his unit has taken losses and has decreased supply, while the attacker has better supply. Thus the attacker has an advantage.

Replacements:
At the start of turn:
Defender has the advantage.

At the end of turn:
Attacker has the advantage.

Calculate replacements for BOTH sides at the start of player 1 turn:
Neither side has a definite advantage. However how does this work with the supply system?

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 25
RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery - 4/4/2008 1:16:09 AM   
Legun

 

Posts: 209
Joined: 4/22/2006
From: Cracow, Poland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Sounds to me like your primary issue with VI is that it's very bad for your idea. We're not going to eliminate it just to accomodate your idea.


Frankly, it doesn't sound friendly :(. A suggestion, that an opponent statement has a different, hidden reason isn't a good way to discuss at all, is it? You had just remainded me about VI - I'm only playing by e-mail, so this isn't a problem for me. Anyway, one of the reasons I don't play agaist PO is VI - PO usually isn't a challenge, but any case of changed initative causes a massacre of his troops additionally. I've found VI as just too big random handicap. Anyway, I don't see a problem with VI and dobuled/halved supply/recovery/wheather phase. Movement recovery should have just a limit - an unit cant get more MP then it's maximal level. You can keep the VI if you want.


< Message edited by Legun -- 4/4/2008 1:17:26 AM >

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 26
RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery - 4/4/2008 1:25:19 AM   
Legun

 

Posts: 209
Joined: 4/22/2006
From: Cracow, Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri
Calculate replacements for BOTH sides at the start of player 1 turn:
Neither side has a definite advantage. However how does this work with the supply system?

Your problem seems to be a bit theoretical. I've never met a situation of such duel. If an unit is strong enough to retreat an enemy unit, the defender needs some reinforcements for a successful counter-attack, not only some replacement and supply. Attacker usually needs an important adventage and successful attack usually increase it. Even after very costly successful assault, you need some fresh troops to counter-stroke.

(in reply to Karri)
Post #: 27
RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery - 4/4/2008 1:40:06 AM   
Legun

 

Posts: 209
Joined: 4/22/2006
From: Cracow, Poland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Doubling the supply calculation time is not a "secondary doubt". Players will howl.


Maybe - I never play monster scenarios. However - PCs are speeder each day...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
The benefits, on the other hand, seem very minor to me. Only when an encircled unit breaks containment would there be a benefit of it being rated supplied during the next enemy player turn, rather than having to wait till the next friendly player turn.


This isn't minor for me, and especially for my opponents . I'm not Monty - I've found encirclement as basic military procedure. This is the really important P2 adventage - if I'm able just to make a (for sure) temporary, very weak encirclement, I'm sure that all encircled units will be unsupplied during my next attacks. So, I prefer such weak encirclement to save my troops for a general attack in next turn to make a final, strong encirclement. P2 as defender needn't be affraid about weak units cutting my supply lines - I have my whole turn to restore the supply line before my troops get any negative effect. You find this a very minor problem? We could try a match of Agonya y Vicoria by JMS

< Message edited by Legun -- 4/4/2008 1:42:33 AM >

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 28
RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery - 4/4/2008 12:03:34 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Doubling the supply calculation time is not a "secondary doubt". Players will howl.


Maybe - I never play monster scenarios. However - PCs are speeder each day...


I find it hard to believe that a graphically modest, ten year old program really can impose unreasonable demands on any computer of recent vintage. If any such change really does drive calculation times to unacceptable lengths, then I'd guess there are some serious inefficiencies in the routines.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Legun)
Post #: 29
RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery - 4/4/2008 12:09:01 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun


This isn't minor for me, and especially for my opponents . I'm not Monty - I've found encirclement as basic military procedure. This is the really important P2 adventage - if I'm able just to make a (for sure) temporary, very weak encirclement, I'm sure that all encircled units will be unsupplied during my next attacks.


Yeah. The difference is exasperating -- and in a lot of scenarios, the cumulative difference it makes is substantial.

...I still see the 'cleanest' solution as doing away with the P1/P2 distinction entirely. Just have the computer view each side's move as a complete turn, with the moving player alternating. Side A moves, gets replacements, etc on odd-numbered turns, side B on even-numbered turns. The players can be told each pair of turns is one turn, and the calendar can change only after each even-numbered turn. The weather jigs around more, but hey -- clouds do that.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Legun)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> P1/P2 supply and movement recovery Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.454