Slitherine

quote:

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

quote:

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun
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?

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
The weather jigs around more, but hey -- clouds do that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
The weather jigs around more, but hey -- clouds do that.

As an aside, I'm going to go on the record here as loathing the way that TOAW handles weather. The thought of being able to spot cloud cover, and move about trying to stay under it strikes me as gamey. What I want to do for TOAW IV, is to make the weather zones have a range of effects and have the exact effect probabilistically determined *after* an attack is launched against a particular hex. Thus, you might know the general weather conditions within a zone, but not know a priori whether there is heavy rainfall over the bridge, until the bombers are over the hex. This might need to be adjustable, dependent on on how modern the scenario is, its time and hex scales.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
The weather jigs around more, but hey -- clouds do that.

As an aside, I'm going to go on the record here as loathing the way that TOAW handles weather. The thought of being able to spot cloud cover, and move about trying to stay under it strikes me as gamey. What I want to do for TOAW IV, is to make the weather zones have a range of effects and have the exact effect probabilistically determined *after* an attack is launched against a particular hex. Thus, you might know the general weather conditions within a zone, but not know a priori whether there is heavy rainfall over the bridge, until the bombers are over the hex. This might need to be adjustable, dependent on on how modern the scenario is, its time and hex scales.

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
..mmm, at 9.am i can see Gen San, at 12 i can't find the water-pump just outside the front door and the horses have gills..

quote:

ORIGINAL: L`zard

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
..mmm, at 9.am i can see Gen San, at 12 i can't find the water-pump just outside the front door and the horses have gills..

AH HAH!

So your only sinking into the sea intermittently, eh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Sorry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

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

What are you talking about? There will be no P2 advantage if supply is restored at the start of each player's respective friendly player turn. Splitting & halving that restoration will only benefit a surrounded unit that breaks that containment and restores its line of communications - and then the benefit will only be that it gets resupplied a half turn earlier. Most units that get surrounded stay surrounded. That's why it's a minor effect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
As I understood it, the rationale for splitting & halving the movement recovery was to retain some of the retreat & reserve movement expenditures. I explained that there is a way to handle that within the method we're using. So we can address the retreat & reserve issue and still retain VI. Why would we do otherwise?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun
OK - I've mixed two connected problems. One is P1/P2 asymmetry,

quote:

the second - the penalty for cut supply. The half of turn is usually critical. One successful (even very weak) encirclement starts a snowball effect. Again - if I'm able to cut opponent's supply at the end of my turn I'm sure that the cut units have "unsupplied" status during my attacks in the NEXT turn, not depend on defender actions. This is I don't like and this isn't minor effect for me.

quote:

The asymmetry of retreat & reserve recovery is the a twin problem to the supply recovery problem. We could solve both the same way - by splitting and havling the calculation. If movement recovery is solved other way, there is still a reason for splitting and halving. If there is splitting and halving, there is no reason to look for other way to solve the movement recovery problem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



Again, that's only a problem if those cut off units have somehow restored communications during their player turn. That's not typical. Most surrounded units stay surrounded.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Let's at least agree that there won't be any P1/P2 supply recovery asymmetry with the way we're doing it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Again, that's only a problem if those cut off units have somehow restored communications during their player turn. That's not typical. Most surrounded units stay surrounded. And if they somehow do manage to restore communications, then they just need to stay out of action for half a turn. Is fixing that worth doubling the supply calculation time? It's a cost/benefit issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun
That isn't "ONLY" a problem. It's worth dobuling the supply calculation time for me. I see it as an important factor of my strategy. F.e. - for optimalization purose I should remember during turn 2 which enemy units were cut and unsupplied at turn 1. This is important even if the units are already mixed with rescue, supplied forces. This isn't problem of thier health indicators - their losses are just two times higher becouse any lost equipment doesn't go to "on hand" pool.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


From my experience, it occurs, but rarely. If anyone has hard evidence to the contrary, let's see it. All I'm saying is that that cost/benefit consideration has to be part of the programming decision.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
I can reverse that statement. From my experience...let's see your evidence.

quote:

Legun sees it. I know 'Golden Delicious' sees it. I see it.

It's a significant factor, and in many scenarios, it occurs not rarely, but frequently.

quote:

...aside from everything else, if 'you're not seeing it' during hotseat sessions in the course of scenario development, let me point out that actual PBEM play tends to differ significantly from hotseat in intangible but important ways. In 'hotseat' the player/designer really tends to decide for both sides who has won and who should pull back and dig in -- one just isn't going to have the sort of frantic dogfight that erupts over points in PBEM, where with two players, there is often violent disagreement over who is to have (43,52). So in PBEM you really should get more of the repeatedly cut off units than you might see if your primary point of contact is solo playtest.

It's just a thought. You may genuinely not see the phenomenon much -- but you may not be looking in the right places.

quote:

ORIGINAL: When you consider that, plus the abstraction of IGO-UGO, it's not unreasonable to expect those units to have to wait till their next friendly player-turn to be considered "officially" back in communications.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
It wouldn't be unreasonable -- nor would it necessarily be unreasonable for communications to be restored immediately. The difficulty is that with the whole P1/P2 thing, the former applies for one side, but the latter for the other.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun
I'm the Russian player (P2, red units). There is 5 pockets with German units at the end of my turn. Only one of them have no real chance to restore supply line during German turn. 4 pockets, with 45% of German units present in the game, are able to restore a connection with their supply base without any attacks - they only need to occupy some critical hexes with my ZOCs. Anyway, I know now, that they are unsupplied during MY next turn. I think that the penalty causes some unrealistic features. My opponent, as well as me, should include knowledge about present situation of the units when planning defence or attacks in my next player-turn.

quote:

One of my Cossack regiments has been sent to a hex without supply, too (SW from Suwalki). With supply calculation made at beginning of own turn, it isn't subject of any penalty if attacked during closest German turn...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



I'll just repeat my comments about the Market-Garden airdrops: Suppose that large pocket manages to re-establish communications by the end of the German player-turn; should it even be considered back in supply that quickly? ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Of course this can be flipped around -- if a unit is cut off, should it be considered out of supply that quickly? It wasn't like Rommel's panzers advanced into the cauldron, discovered they were 'out of supply' and instantaneously went kerflop. They fought on. Supply became an acute problem, but not immediately.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Of course this can be flipped around -- if a unit is cut off, should it be considered out of supply that quickly? It wasn't like Rommel's panzers advanced into the cauldron, discovered they were 'out of supply' and instantaneously went kerflop. They fought on. Supply became an acute problem, but not immediately.

"Unsupplied" covers more than just the unit's Unit Supply level. It also impacts line-of-communication and desertion issues, and those are the main concerns. But, even for those, you are correct that there can be a range of circumstances in the enemy player turn. It can range from being completely surrounded on all six sides early in the enemy turn to just barely cutoff by a combination of enemy units & ZOCs (possibly not even enemy owned) at the very end of the enemy turn. Then add in IGO-UGO issues.

Just one more reason not to quibble about half a game turn.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun

Back to the problem of big pocket from picture above:
1. The Germans enter the critical hexes and the bulge isn't cut:

2.I attack the narrow connection and the group is cut again:

3. The Germans push off my spearheads again:

4. My main forces are coming and cut the retreating group one more time:

The cut group is without supply for 3 turns, although a two hexes wide pass to supply source was established two times.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

not something that actually occurs on a regular basis.

quote:

ORIGINAL: viridomaros

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

not something that actually occurs on a regular basis.

Take any scenario where player 2 counter attack on a large scale for several turns and it's a nightmare for player 1 because of what Legun, Colin are saying.

I'm currently playing Braunschweig as the axis and the russians have started to counter attack. I can't count the number of units which stay unsupplied despite being able to reestablish the supply lines at the end of my turn.

quote:

ORIGINAL: viridomaros

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
not something that actually occurs on a regular basis.

Take any scenario where player 2 counter attack on a large scale for several turns and it's a nightmare for player 1 because of what Legun, Colin are saying.

I'm currently playing Braunschweig as the axis and the russians have started to counter attack. I can't count the number of units which stay unsupplied despite being able to reestablish the supply lines at the end of my turn.