Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

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.

Deleted uncalled for, personal attack. Keep it clean, Colin.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

I'm pretty sure you know that 'Bobism' isn't what got your post edited...

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

I'm pretty sure you know that 'Bobism' isn't what got your post edited...

It's perhaps pointless to mention it, but in that case, I have no idea what you are talking about -- your certainty to the contrary notwithstanding.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

I'm pretty sure you know that 'Bobism' isn't what got your post edited...

It's perhaps pointless to mention it, but in that case, I have no idea what you are talking about -- your certainty to the contrary notwithstanding.

PM sent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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.

That seems to be a sequence that you contrived just for this discussion - not something that actually occurs on a regular basis.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Regardless, note that your alternative would have meant that, despite having been cutoff during three consecutive Russian player turns, no German units in the pocket would have ever been considered cutoff when attacked by Russian units. And that would be the case, even if they were cutoff right from the start of the Russian player turns and just relieved at the very end of the respective German player turns. And note that it just takes Russian combat units to cutoff the Germans, while establishing communications requires more vulnerable supply columns and retreat paths for "evaporated" units instead.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun
Oh, Bob. You try to doubt my frankness again, don't you? No - this is a game I was playing. Could I send you e-mail adress of my opponent?
This is just a trick I always try to implement when I'm P2.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun
Oh, Bob. You try to doubt my frankness again, don't you? No - this is a game I was playing. Could I send you e-mail adress of my opponent?
This is just a trick I always try to implement when I'm P2.

1. I remain dubious. It just looks contrived. But, regardless of how that example originated, we know that such cases (total reversals of initiative occurring multiple times in very short intervals) are rare in history. And, therefore, by definition, they should be rare in historical simulations as well. I still think that most surrounded units don’t recover from that condition.

2. And regardless of how common it may be, we’ve seen that it’s not clear-cut just how to deal with it, given the abstractions of IGOUGO.

3. Finally, regardless of either of the above, it is for certain that what you want will cause a doubling of the supply calculation time. That would be a black stripe against it even if its value were not so ambiguous.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




1. I remain dubious. It just looks contrived. But, regardless of how that example originated, we know that such cases (total reversals of initiative occurring multiple times in very short intervals) are rare in history.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
3.4 should reduce supply calcualtion time substantially. I'm seeing times of less than a second for CFNA, and about 2 seconds for FITE for example.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
3.4 should reduce supply calcualtion time substantially. I'm seeing times of less than a second for CFNA, and about 2 seconds for FITE for example.

Then that would make it a moot point. But, just to be safe, tell us what your equipment is, please.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri

I remember when FitE took like 3-4 hours to calculate...boy was that boring. Now it takes a few minutes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
The only slowdowns I'm seeing are the darn Aircraft carriers. They'll be up on the chopping block sometime. I figure I can speed them up a bunch too with a little creativity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
The only slowdowns I'm seeing are the darn Aircraft carriers. They'll be up on the chopping block sometime. I figure I can speed them up a bunch too with a little creativity.

With one of the major Wish List items being a more realistic naval game, this has to be a priority if you plan to accomodate the Navy.

Regards, RhinoBones

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

3.4 should reduce supply calcualtion time substantially. I'm seeing times of less than a second for CFNA, and about 2 seconds for FITE for example.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
The full rewrite is definitely something for the next version, since it's a major redesign for Elmer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
The only slowdowns I'm seeing are the darn Aircraft carriers. They'll be up on the chopping block sometime. I figure I can speed them up a bunch too with a little creativity.

With one of the major Wish List items being a more realistic naval game, this has to be a priority if you plan to accomodate the Navy.

Regards, RhinoBones

The issue is that it looks at moving the carrier one hex, then at all the hexes the planes can reach, then looks at moving it another hex, and .... As you can imagine, you end up with one huge circle for all the spots the carrier can hit, then one for each of those that the planes can hit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
The issue is that it looks at moving the carrier one hex, then at all the hexes the planes can reach, then looks at moving it another hex, and .... As you can imagine, you end up with one huge circle for all the spots the carrier can hit, then one for each of those that the planes can hit.

It's an incredibly simple and very expensive check. I just need to figure out what a more efficient way to do this is. Even just doing one circle with a range of the combination of the ranges of the carrier and the aircraft would be a lot better. I need to look at that again sometime and figure out why Norm did it the way he did.

There are some other problems like this with land, aircraft and navy, so I'll eventually end up with doing something to fill a 'field' with their influence and the other influences and working from their to figure out 'what would elmer do'<g>

The full rewrite is definitely something for the next version, since it's a major redesign for Elmer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
This probably isn't helpful, or maybe it's what the program already does -- but how about viewing the aircraft carrier and its planes as a single piece of ranged artillery?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


Personally, I think the PO has already gotten too much revision attention for not much effect. It's a gigantic black hole, down which an almost unlimited amount of effort can be poured without any discernable result.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Personally, I think the PO has already gotten too much revision attention for not much effect. It's a gigantic black hole, down which an almost unlimited amount of effort can be poured without any discernable result.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri

Even with Silvanskis unchallenged skills the PO still can't accomplish anything really...let's face it, it would need a COMPLETE overhaul. I mean, currently it's so poor that even if you improve current system to be ten times better, it still sucks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: viridomaros
I have the same oppinion, TOAW is really fun when you play against a human opponent.

i'd prefer to see the game's engine to be completely revised before having a better AI.