Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

 
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 >> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist Page: <<   < prev  21 22 [23] 24 25   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/26/2010 7:26:37 PM   
jmlima

 

Posts: 782
Joined: 3/1/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

What you will find isn't entirely to my liking. Wadis were obstructions to movement; however, the piece comments that they only seem to have been used as the basis for a defensive line once -- and in that case the defenders actually wound up deploying forward of the wadi.


So, let me get this straight: You didn't find any examples of them being used in defense either!
...


Not wanting to be the judge on who has got the bigger one, but, the examples I posted above include Wadis used in defence, one of them including the mining of the Wadi base et all.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 661
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/26/2010 7:48:36 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: jmlima


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

What you will find isn't entirely to my liking. Wadis were obstructions to movement; however, the piece comments that they only seem to have been used as the basis for a defensive line once -- and in that case the defenders actually wound up deploying forward of the wadi.


So, let me get this straight: You didn't find any examples of them being used in defense either!
...

Not wanting to be the judge on who has got the bigger one, but, the examples I posted above include Wadis used in defence, one of them including the mining of the Wadi base et all.



Maybe I missed something, but you refer to one example of the bottom of a wadi being mined. You provide no information if that was to use it as part of a defensive line, or simply to make it take even longer to cross the wadi than it would otherwise.

A wadi is going to channel movement into those points where it can be easily crossed. That makes it a good point to put mines. That doesn't mean it has defensive value.

...Of course, how true that is depends on what we mean by 'wadi.' It just means 'dry river bed.' It can be almost anything. Apparently, most 'wadis' in North Africa weren't substantial enough to serve as defensive positions.

In fact, this is what you propose:

"...In that context, yes, you have similar problems, but a clear and obstructed major wadi poses no issues to the actual 'crossing', assuming an egress route in the banks, but gives the defenders an advantage point..."

That's pretty much the opposite of what Bayerlein et al observe. They say (or imply) that wadis in North Africa had no value for defense, but were obstructions to movement. As course as with many terms, what effects a wadi does or does not have depends on what wadi we're talking about. However, the document makes me think that I might go back and replace many of those North African wadis with 'rocky.'


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 1/26/2010 7:58:21 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to jmlima)
Post #: 662
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/26/2010 8:15:23 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline 		The conclusions I've gathered out of all of this are these:

A wadi is as shallow as a dinner plate or as deep as the Grand Canyon.

You can shoot out of it with a direct fire weapon or you'll need a large rocket.

You can walk out of one without undue exertion or you need rock climbing gear. Perhaps a helicopter would be faster.

It would appear the 'wadi' term needs to be replaced with 'shallow dry riverbed' since a wadi is vastly variable in scope.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 663
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/26/2010 9:41:46 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Panama

The conclusions I've gathered out of all of this are these:

A wadi is as shallow as a dinner plate or as deep as the Grand Canyon.

You can shoot out of it with a direct fire weapon or you'll need a large rocket.

You can walk out of one without undue exertion or you need rock climbing gear. Perhaps a helicopter would be faster.

It would appear the 'wadi' term needs to be replaced with 'shallow dry riverbed' since a wadi is vastly variable in scope.


'Shallow dry riverbeds' would be almost equally variable in scope. It's a question of what one represents in a scenario and how one represents it.

Many or most wadis probably shouldn't be on the map at all -- particularly at the larger scales. Something that is of no defensive value and involves perhaps an extra hour to cross simply shouldn't be on the map if one MP represents four hours of movement.

Ones that do impose a significant delay would best be represented with the 'rocky' or 'sandy' tile -- 'rocky' in particular isn't all that visually obtrusive, and often these areas are pretty rocky anyway.

Then there are bigger ones. I haven't read anything to dissuade me from my view that these should be handled similarly to rivers. As to that nonsense about wadis being akin to trenches -- well, that tells us a lot about Curtis. It's not very interesting otherwise.

Depending on the circs, I could represent a 'wadi' in any one of five ways.

1. I could not represent it at all.

2. I could represent it with some terrain type that is mildly obstructive to movement but has no combat effect. In fact, I might substitute some kind of faded-out 'wadi' tile for the 'cropland' tile and use that in the application I'm thinking of. I could do without cropland, I think. Maybe not...

3. I could use 'canal' with the 'wadi' tile substituted. That's what I do now for your basic 30-60 foot deep ravine running across the countryside.

4. I could line this 'canal' with escarpments.

5. I could line it with major escarpments. This I generally do if we're talking about what appears to be 1:1 gradient or worse climbing up for several hundred feet or a whole hexside worth of sheer cliffs.

Otherwise, I sometimes put badlands along the bottom when we're dealing with something where motorized movement along the wadi itself or through the adjacent terrain is obviously right out. Happily, generally if one zooms in enough on Google Earth, it'll show everything down to the most insignificant tracks. Even if the road wasn't there in 1940, the inference is that movement is possible.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 1/26/2010 10:04:06 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 664
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/28/2010 4:44:05 PM   
BillLottJr


Posts: 333
Joined: 4/24/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

..but first let's increase the number of place names. Any 300x300 map is going to run out of place names. Hell, a lot of smaller ones do.


In 3.4, the mapOptional bitmaps will put even more demand on the finite number of placenames.

(From the 3.4 draft read-me)
PlaceNames
#1-3 in a placename selects the font Placename 1-3.
<1-9 in a placename select the mapOptional1-9 bitmap. You can select multiple bitmaps.

#1Test will display Test in the PlacenameFont1 style.
<1OilRig Will display mapOptional1.bmp on the map, and OilRig in any combat reports, on the info line, etc

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 665
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/30/2010 10:46:59 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Huh. So an artillery unit which is cut off and fires for ten rounds at 1% supply will disappear ten times faster than the same unit firing for just one round?


It's an abstraction, and you've just given an extreme case. Clearly, if they started at 100% supply, the one firing ten times would disappear much faster. Regardless, at 1% they're both going to be disappearing fast. Being unsupplied in TOAW is a bitch.


But being at 1% supply lets you keep banging away. As long as your enemy's red-light too, it works just fine. Moving this over to the thread it should be on...

...moved.

It occurs to me that one solution might be to let infantry and other non-motorized, non-artillery icon units continue as at present -- but all motorized, aircraft, and artillery-icon units could go into 'negative supply.' Their combat values could continue to be calculated as at present -- but any unit in such a state at the start of a turn would automatically enter re-org and stay there until it had regained positive supply.

This wouldn't be ideal, and of course Curtis will continue to stomp around, but it seems to me (a) relatively doable, and (b) a closer approximation of reality than what we currently have.

One thing I really like about this is that it would encourage players to rest up for the 'big push' and/or hold the units intended for the counterattack out of the fray until der Tag. If all your artillery and tanks are at 20-30% supply, sure you can go ahead and attack -- but assuming a few rounds, everything's going to shut down next turn. If you want your Bagration, you'd better let everybody get to green light before you go.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 1/30/2010 11:20:18 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to BillLottJr)
Post #: 666
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/31/2010 10:30:17 AM   
jmlima

 

Posts: 782
Joined: 3/1/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
...
It occurs to me that one solution might be to let infantry and other non-motorized, non-artillery icon units continue as at present -- but all motorized, aircraft, and artillery-icon units could go into 'negative supply.' Their combat values could continue to be calculated as at present -- but any unit in such a state at the start of a turn would automatically enter re-org and stay there until it had regained positive supply.
...


Let me put in a second vote for this.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 667
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/31/2010 5:10:29 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
...
It occurs to me that one solution might be to let infantry and other non-motorized, non-artillery icon units continue as at present -- but all motorized, aircraft, and artillery-icon units could go into 'negative supply.' Their combat values could continue to be calculated as at present -- but any unit in such a state at the start of a turn would automatically enter re-org and stay there until it had regained positive supply.
...


Let me put in a second vote for this.


Aye, and me a third. In fact, I would go a bit further. A tank regiment with no mobility is a maginot line with no infantry. Reduce their defense.

< Message edited by Panama -- 1/31/2010 5:11:32 PM >

(in reply to jmlima)
Post #: 668
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/31/2010 6:39:12 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

It's an abstraction, and you've just given an extreme case. Clearly, if they started at 100% supply, the one firing ten times would disappear much faster. Regardless, at 1% they're both going to be disappearing fast. Being unsupplied in TOAW is a bitch.


But being at 1% supply lets you keep banging away. As long as your enemy's red-light too, it works just fine.


Not in the case I listed. If the unit is unsupplied, it's going to wither away.

I'm not saying it's perfect. I'm just saying any claim that guns never stop firing or tanks never run out of gas in TOAW is false. There is a specific situation where they do so - when unsupplied. That needs to be extended, though (see below).

quote:

It occurs to me that one solution might be to let infantry and other non-motorized, non-artillery icon units continue as at present -- but all motorized, aircraft, and artillery-icon units could go into 'negative supply.' Their combat values could continue to be calculated as at present -- but any unit in such a state at the start of a turn would automatically enter re-org and stay there until it had regained positive supply.

This wouldn't be ideal, and of course Curtis will continue to stomp around, but it seems to me (a) relatively doable, and (b) a closer approximation of reality than what we currently have.

One thing I really like about this is that it would encourage players to rest up for the 'big push' and/or hold the units intended for the counterattack out of the fray until der Tag. If all your artillery and tanks are at 20-30% supply, sure you can go ahead and attack -- but assuming a few rounds, everything's going to shut down next turn. If you want your Bagration, you'd better let everybody get to green light before you go.


Step one in implementing this would be to give Ralph a lobotomy. As I've pointed out, it actually facilitates offensives continuing indefinitely because it is more harmful to the defense than the offense. The offense would only have to rest their armor and artillery. The defense would have to abandon theirs. Add that there's no direct correlation between the unit's icon and what equipment it actually contains.

Item 5.9 (Over-Extended Supply) in the Wishlist addresses this more realistically. The problem with TOAW is that there is no "tentative" supply condition. You're either "supplied", which is very beneficial, or "unsupplied" which is very deleterious. There's nothing inbetween. This would add a third supply state that would have properties of both. If in this state, you would have a line of communications and would still receive supply and replacements. But you would also suffer attrition similar to being unsupplied (but losses would go to the pools instead of the dead pile). This state would be triggered if the hex had a supply level below the designer set level. (So, if the setting was 10, then any hex with 9 supply or less would be "Over-Extended".

Once in this condition, units would have to slow-down / pause to recover supply sufficiently to keep above the unit supply level that would cause them attrition (or even wait for the full supply net to catch up to them) or find themselves withering away. The defender, in contrast, would be falling back on his full supply net, and would be better able to make a stand.

This would directly address the "infinite" supply line problem. As well as the need to pause after an advance to build up supply.

The other issue here is the lack of any breakdown of supply into its components. One reason the movement reduction for 1% supply is not that great is that the game doesn't keep track of what the supply was expended on. You can get to 1% firing without moving a single hex, or you can get there moving around without firing a shot. The game doesn't really know how you got there.

If we had Component Supply (Wishlist Item 5.14) that could be accounted for. So, supply could be broken down into fuel and ammo. Then moving would use only fuel and fighting would use only ammo. Then there could be justification for making the penalties for being 1% in either more stringent for the associated function. Of course, there could be more breakdown further, but I think those two would be enough for a while. The breakdown wouldn't need to take place until the supply got to the unit (for simplicity purposes).

The other wishlist item I'm hawking is Item 5.6 (Mobile Supply Points). This would crudely facilitate sea supply, and would be a stepping stone to discrete supply / tonnage supply, etc.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 669
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/31/2010 6:50:46 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Step one in implementing this would be to give Ralph a lobotomy...


Yes Curtis. It's always nice to deal with someone who can be counted on to be consistent.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 670
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/31/2010 6:55:49 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


The offense would only have to rest their armor and artillery. The defense would have to abandon theirs.


It's perfectly possible to address that objection.

But there's no point in describing how. Roadblock LeMay will stand firm...


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 671
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/31/2010 7:03:00 PM   
jmlima

 

Posts: 782
Joined: 3/1/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
...

Step one in implementing this would be to give Ralph a lobotomy. ...


I'm sorry to say, but once you decide to put in a sweeping statement like this, I would like to hear on Ralph's words, why would he require a lobotomy to implement the change proposed. In fact, I think we would all like to hear him about that.

From my experience in developing games, I'm beginning to have an idea of what's happening here, so I would really like to hear more from Ralph on the changes being proposed on this thread in particular, and why he would be require to be lobotomised before implementing some of them.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 672
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/31/2010 8:31:47 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

It is a valid objection, regardless of the source. Defending mechanized units would find themselves unable to retreat. The universal 'Fuhrer order.'

So...

The quick 'n dirty solution is to only allow units to go to a state of 'negative supply' in their half of the turn. It seems to me that it would be fairly easy to make the program could simply restore all units not meeting that qualification to 1% supply when the turn ends.

Now the defender can move away. Of course, any of his mechanized units that have been depleted will now fall below 1% and not be able to move the next turn.

This is not necessarily bad -- particularly if certain other changes I am about to propose turn out to be practical. After all, it would force defenders to actually post rear guards so as to allow his retreat to occur in an organized fashion.

One concomitant change that occurs to me is to increase the mechanized movement rate. After all, we are now talking about a device that will totally immobilize mechanized units who fall below a certain value in the course of their turn. It would follow that the 'normal' mechanized movement rate should be increased -- and in fact, as matters stand, it's impossible in TOAW to replicate the advances well-supplied mechanized units did stage.

So that strikes me as a good thing anyway -- and it has the happy advantage of allowing exhausted defending mechanized units to pull back far enough in one turn so that they can sit and recover when 'negative supply' immobilizes them the turn after that.

We now have a paradigm where mechanized units can indeed stage truly striking advances -- but will come to a halt after a certain interval. This is what in fact repeatedly happened in World War Two.

Another thought, which is more elaborate, but which could conceivably also work well, is to have the program read all mechanized equipment in an exhausted unit as static. So you could keep moving -- but your unit would be a shell. This also is what effectively happens. Retreating armies do become disorganized masses useless for combat. They then stop, recover their cohesion, collect replacement equipment, and become able to fight once again. Something like this could simulate the German retreat from Normandy very well, for example. The Germans manage to fall back to the Rhine and regroup.

More importantly, since the unit is temporarily worthless for combat, this would allow armies to retreat regardless of their supply condition, but would render it almost impossible to conduct an opposed advanced without pausing at some point. Again, this is what in fact repeatedly happened in World War Two.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 673
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/31/2010 8:48:46 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Step one in implementing this would be to give Ralph a lobotomy. As I've pointed out, it actually facilitates offensives continuing indefinitely because it is more harmful to the defense than the offense. The offense would only have to rest their armor and artillery. The defense would have to abandon theirs. Add that there's no direct correlation between the unit's icon and what equipment it actually contains.


First off, I think Ralph would be better served if he were to be given a large club to bludgeon us all with.

How would the defense having to abandon their armor/artillery be ahistorical? It's happened time and again. I'm perplexed as to why it would be bad. Also, there have been offensives that have 'run out of gas' as it were and ended up having to abandon their equipment too. Popov's armored group in the Ukraine comes to mind.

I do like your proposal for breaking supply down into two parts. At least it would force people to stop playing a game and start playing a simulation. But then alot of people like the games so I can see a necessity for a simple supply button. Maybe call it the 'Grognard off' button.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 674
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/31/2010 9:26:57 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




If we had Component Supply (Wishlist Item 5.14) that could be accounted for. So, supply could be broken down into fuel and ammo. Then moving would use only fuel and fighting would use only ammo. Then there could be justification for making the penalties for being 1% in either more stringent for the associated function. Of course, there could be more breakdown further, but I think those two would be enough for a while. The breakdown wouldn't need to take place until the supply got to the unit (for simplicity purposes).




The difficulty here is that units don't use fuel and ammo at the same rates.

Artillery that receives one tenth of its full supply of shells can do about a fifth of the damage it could otherwise; it can hold its fire until the target is really good, but at the end of the day, it needs tons of ammo to be of much use. Worse, in a lot of armies, fuel will be needed to bring that ammo up.

Infantry, on the other hand, can remain at least defensively quite potent with a minimum of ammunition; the requirements are almost absurdly modest compared to that required by tanks and artillery to remain useful. One 105 mm round weighs around 40 pounds -- that's the equivalent of a thousand or so rifle-caliber bullets. Bring up a ton of ammunition to your artillery battalion and it'll burn through it in four salvos. Bring up a ton of rifle ammunition to your infantry battalion and you've got forty rounds per man -- quite enough to stave off anything but a determined attacker. It's twelve pieces that can fire four times each versus eight hundred pieces that can fire forty times each.

This helps to explain why the Stalingrad pocket could hold out for so long, among other things. The tanks and artillery quickly became capable of only the most limited resistance -- but the infantry could still fight.

Similarly with fuel, of course. Given a reasonably well-settled region, foot infantry and cavalry can keep moving almost indefinitely; they'll start to get a little frayed, but they can push on. Tanks and trucks, of course, simply stop. That is unless either (a) they can bring up fuel (and again, a lot of it) or (b) the enemy has been good enough to leave some behind.

This helps to explain why the Russians continued to field cavalry. It gave them continued offensive mobility even in the absence of supply.

The distinction between fuel and ammunition strikes me as largely flawed. First, forces that have enough ammunition generally have enough fuel, and vice-versa. Secondly, for a lot of forces, fuel is needed to get the ammunition. Thirdly, those forces that need large physical quantities of ammunition to fight often need large quantities of fuel to fight as well, while conversely, those forces with modest ammunition requirements often have no fuel requirements at all.

Finally, of course, there are those forces (hores-drawn artillery) that need lots of ammunition to fight, but have no fuel requirements whatsoever -- either for fighting or for moving. They do need fodder -- but that may or may not be obtainable locally, depending on the circumstances. Also, a horse keeps running for a while without 'fuel.' Not so a truck.

So while in an ideal world distinguishing between all types of supply would be good, this strikes me as something that would definitely complicate the game but whose benefits would be questionable. In the end, we are managing as a one-man team in our spare time what is normally the sole occupation of thousands of trained personnel -- who often muff the job at that. We don't want a perfectly detailed simulation. What we want is one where the generalizations reflect what generally happens. Breaking down supply -- and breaking it down in a way that doesn't seem to me to reflect the operative factors particularly well in the first place -- is not the way to go.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 2/1/2010 12:06:32 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 675
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/31/2010 9:35:06 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: jmlima




From my experience in developing games, I'm beginning to have an idea of what's happening here...


I've got an idea as well. One doesn't really need to have experience in game design to guess.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 2/1/2010 12:04:55 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to jmlima)
Post #: 676
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/31/2010 10:19:47 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Aye, and me a third.


...and my axe!


_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 677
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/1/2010 4:16:43 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Sigh...

It is a valid objection, regardless of the source. Defending mechanized units would find themselves unable to retreat. The universal 'Fuhrer order.'


Thank you, Colin. Thus, the lobotomy would have been justified.

quote:

So...

The quick 'n dirty solution is to only allow units to go to a state of 'negative supply' in their half of the turn. It seems to me that it would be fairly easy to make the program could simply restore all units not meeting that qualification to 1% supply when the turn ends.


Not going to work. Units would be falling into the state long before the need to abandon the defense arrived, and even if they could move that one turn, they'd be stuck the very next one, and run down.

It's completely absurd that artillery units being out of ammo (not fuel) would have to be abandoned. And when forces retreat, it's almost always the foot-bound stuff that gets left behind, not the mechanized forces.

And let's not forget the other factor that I had mentioned earlier: Artillery that is still in range of the front would still support, even if in reorg.

Lastly, let's just remind ourselves of just how popular putting units in reorg (for any reason) is with players.

If you'll just look at what I proposed in Item 5.9, you'll see it's vastly superior. It doesn't even need a defense.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 678
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/1/2010 4:23:14 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

The difficulty here is that units don't use fuel and ammo at the same rates.

Artillery that receives one tenth of its full supply of shells can do about a fifth of the damage it could otherwise; it can hold its fire until the target is really good, but at the end of the day, it needs tons of ammo to be of much use. Worse, in a lot of armies, fuel will be needed to bring that ammo up.

Infantry, on the other hand, can remain at least defensively quite potent with a minimum of ammunition; the requirements are almost absurdly modest compared to that required by tanks and artillery to remain useful. One 105 mm round weighs around 40 pounds -- that's the equivalent of a thousand or so rifle-caliber bullets. Bring up a ton of ammunition to your artillery battalion and it'll burn through it in four salvos. Bring up a ton of rifle ammunition to your infantry battalion and you've got forty rounds per man -- quite enough to stave off anything but a determined attacker. It's twelve pieces that can fire four times each versus eight hundred pieces that can fire forty times each.

This helps to explain why the Stalingrad pocket could hold out for so long, among other things. The tanks and artillery quickly became capable of only the most limited resistance -- but the infantry could still fight.

Similarly with fuel, of course. Given a reasonably well-settled region, foot infantry and cavalry can keep moving almost indefinitely; they'll start to get a little frayed, but they can push on. Tanks and trucks, of course, simply stop. That is unless either (a) they can bring up fuel (and again, a lot of it) or (b) the enemy has been good enough to leave some behind.

This helps to explain why the Russians continued to field cavalry. It gave them continued offensive mobility even in the absence of supply.

The distinction between fuel and ammunition strikes me as largely flawed. First, forces that have enough ammunition generally have enough fuel, and vice-versa. Secondly, for a lot of forces, fuel is needed to get the ammunition. Thirdly, those forces that need large physical quantities of ammunition to fight often need large quantities of fuel to fight as well, while conversely, those forces with modest ammunition requirements often have no fuel requirements at all.

Finally, of course, there are those forces (hores-drawn artillery) that need lots of ammunition to fight, but have no fuel requirements whatsoever -- either for fighting or for moving. They do need fodder -- but that may or may not be obtainable locally, depending on the circumstances. Also, a horse keeps running for a while without 'fuel.' Not so a truck.

So while in an ideal world distinguishing between all types of supply would be good, this strikes me as something that would definitely complicate the game but whose benefits would be questionable. In the end, we are managing as a one-man team in our spare time what is normally the sole occupation of thousands of trained personnel -- who often muff the job at that. We don't want a perfectly detailed simulation. What we want is one where the generalizations reflect what generally happens. Breaking down supply -- and breaking it down in a way that doesn't seem to me to reflect the operative factors particularly well in the first place -- is not the way to go.


What sophistry. If we had component supply we could address these things far more effectively. And I'm sure players would enjoy being able to move their units without rendering them out of ammo. Not to mention having them fight without rendering them out of fuel.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 679
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/1/2010 4:39:51 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima

From my experience in developing games, I'm beginning to have an idea of what's happening here...


I've got an idea as well. One doesn't really need to have experience in game design to guess.


What's happening here is that you're being defeated by superior ideas. Try coming up with some better ones.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 680
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/1/2010 6:33:51 PM   
jmlima

 

Posts: 782
Joined: 3/1/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima

From my experience in developing games, I'm beginning to have an idea of what's happening here...


I've got an idea as well. One doesn't really need to have experience in game design to guess.


What's happening here is that you're being defeated by superior ideas. Try coming up with some better ones.


My point was not regarding ideological debates...

But far from me from raining on your parade, I'm certain that when we see the patch, or TOAW 4, or the wish-list items you so vigorously defend implemented, we can then judge the validity of them.

For me, if you want to only incorporate the items of your wish-list, then so be it, we would indeed have a fine simulation, and I would be very happy. As it is, the wish-list seems to be nothing more than wishful thinking, without any real produce as an outcome, hence, it remains as theoretical and unproven as any of the other ideas tossed around, and subject to questions being raised on it's validity. In fact , I would be glad to be proven wrong, and see that wish-list implemented. Please do not let any objections get in the way of seeing it implemented in my lifetime.

There's one point I never saw discussed though, the feasibility of implementing the wish-list items, versus the feasibility of incorporating some of the 'work around' ideas being tossed around. I think Ralph could chime in on this one also, if he so pleases of course. Since he is actually the one doing all the work.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 681
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/1/2010 8:14:47 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima

From my experience in developing games, I'm beginning to have an idea of what's happening here...


I've got an idea as well. One doesn't really need to have experience in game design to guess.


What's happening here is that you're being defeated by superior ideas. Try coming up with some better ones.



Taken in context, that's a really witty remark.

You are, after all, the guy who thinks supply is like cell phone coverage. If ten people can talk in Eastern Oregon, a hundred can, and likewise with the supply paradigm TOAW uses. If the Wehrmacht can support an attack by two divisions on Murmansk, it can support an attack by twenty.

Then there's your refusal to admit that artillery and armor simply become useless when they run out of supplies.

Then there's your idea that one can move just as fast in the presence of heavy interdiction as otherwise.

Then there's your notion that the way to model AA's effect is to have it shoot down planes.

Then there's your notion that wadis are like trenches.

Finally, and perhaps worst of all, once you've adopted your position on any of these issues or anything else, you will bitterly and vociferously defend it, making free use of whatever abusive language comes to hand. You just keep concocting increasingly spurious defences of whatever your original position was, no matter how absurd the claims you have to start making as a consequence. The 'wadi' argument was an excellent illustration of that.

Forward progress becomes impossible. I'm perfectly happy to discuss the flaws in my ideas or anyone else's -- but it never comes to that. We just wind up yanking on the rope of this donkey that takes pride in its obstinate refusal to budge one inch -- no matter how absurd its position. It also happens to be a donkey that kicks, but that's the least of the problem. The central difficulty is that it just won't move. Constructive conversation is ruled out. It's Curtis' way or the highway -- and we can rest assured that Curtis' way will be pretty damned bad.

I'm not sure whether it's a matter of your being really stupid, or just pathologically stubborn, but in the end it doesn't matter. Either way, you do take up really inane positions and defend them come hell or high water. This -- given the position you occupy -- makes intelligent development of TOAW highly unlikely. Either (a), the problem won't be admitted, or (b) some completely unworkable approach will be adopted. See, for example, your pathetic attempts to address the problems of AA by tinkering with the kill rate. That's never going to do it, and it never will, because that's not how AA exerts an effect. But can that get admitted? Can we move to a discussion of how to make AA exert something like its actual effect? Oh no -- we have to restrict ourselves to moving the kill rate up and down. Why? Because that's all Curtis will consider.




< Message edited by ColinWright -- 2/1/2010 9:11:30 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 682
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/1/2010 8:50:13 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


...It's completely absurd that artillery units being out of ammo (not fuel) would have to be abandoned. And when forces retreat, it's almost always the foot-bound stuff that gets left behind, not the mechanized forces...


Just cutting out the verbal abuse here and getting down to the one valid objection.

Yeah, that is so. At least it was true in North Africa, when Rommel fell back from El Alamein. How true it was elsewhere I don't know. More generally -- Russia, France in 1944 -- forces turned up three hundred miles rearward with a lot of their men but not much else. Indeed, tank forces at least tend to lose most of their tanks when they have to retreat precipitately over long distances. (Any vehicle that breaks down or runs out of fuel has to be abandoned.)

Just the reverse of what you are insisting on.

There was my idea about having units abandon their equipment. One could also simply set the limit to which unit's supply could be reduced in the opposing player's turn higher than 1%. This last would also have the happy effect of rendering 'supply burning attacks' less useful.

I'm up for modifications. I'm not dogmatically clinging to my idea regardless of how unworkable or unrealistic it's shown to be.

However, the central point -- and the one we can't get you to grant -- is that non-mechanized, non-artillery forces really do have lower supply requirements, and really do retain much more functionality than other types of forces.

More immediately, I just don't see much validity to your attempt to address this problem by distinguishing between POL and ammunition. Generally, forces that are low on one are low on the other. Rommel, after all, wasn't just low on ammo. He was forced to fatally modify his attack at Alam el Halfa due to lack of fuel. The Sixth Army at Stalingrad quickly found itself with crippling shell shortages -- and crippling fuel shortages. I imagine the Germans in Normandy found it difficult both to bring up ammunition and to bring up fuel.

We could distinguish between ammunition and POL. We could add in drinking water, locally obtainable fodder, food, medical supplies...

In the end, we'd just have a game that couldn't be played without a full staff for each corps. That's an interesting concept, and perhaps something West Point should look into, but it's not what we want.

Given that I don't see any dramatic difference between how POL and ammunition supply either works or winds up being expended in most situations (forces that are burning the one usually are burning the other), it doesn't strike me as an especially useful idea. After all, it won't improve matters if we find ourselves looking at a 'POL level' for a Cossack cavalry division.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 2/1/2010 9:06:29 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 683
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/1/2010 8:53:28 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




What sophistry.


How is it sophistry? If you're going to use a big word, look up what it means.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 684
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/1/2010 9:02:48 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright



The quick 'n dirty solution is to only allow units to go to a state of 'negative supply' in their half of the turn. It seems to me that it would be fairly easy to make the program could simply restore all units not meeting that qualification to 1% supply when the turn ends.


Not going to work. Units would be falling into the state long before the need to abandon the defense arrived...


Now this actually illustrates one reason attempts to talk to you are fruitless.

Whatever the other shortcomings of my idea, you obviously failed to consider what I said.

If units cannot fall into negative supply while defending, they aren't going to fall below 1% supply unless they attack, and so cannot fall into the state of negative supply while defending.

Yet you promptly pose this as an objection.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 685
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/1/2010 9:41:17 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline 		It's worth revisiting the supply problem issue at this point. Curt's idea about POL versus ammo really isn't going to help much.

What we need is a volume-based system where players can set the supply priority for units. It's tricky to work out how to do this, but it really is what's needed.

Everything I read and consider keeps telling this is so. Four examples:

German mountain troops cross the Caucasus. However, they can't mount a serious attack on Sukhumi or whatever because while they can bring up supply for their infantry over the passes, they can't bring over anything like the volume that artillery would require. There's a trickle, and that trickle will feed a few infantry regiments -- but that's it.

The British look to their dispositions after Beda Fomm and the decision to support Greece. They decide they can support only one division as far west as El Agheila, and only one division more up around Benghazi. They have more troops -- but they don't have the logistical capability to support them that far west.

The Germans attack Murmansk. Attack with what? Well, not with ten heavily equipped divisions, that's for sure. What passes for infrastructure up there simply can't deliver the necessary volume of supplies. I dunno whether the Germans could have brought more than the two mountain divisions they used to bear -- but they certainly weren't going to attack with three panzer divisions.

The Germans are encircled at Stalingrad. They can keep their infantry on life support as far as ammunition and food go for a while -- but the tanks and artillery simply cannot be allowed to operate. There isn't anything like the volume of supply coming in that these would require.

Rommel decides to retreat from El Alamein. Who gets a ride? That is to say, who gets enough 'supply' to move?

Volume, volume, volume. Volume and priority.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 686
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/2/2010 2:24:39 AM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline 		I want to play the scenario. I don't want to spend all my time messing with logistics. If it gets more complicated than ammo and fuel then keep it as it is.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 687
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/2/2010 6:03:47 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Taken in context, that's a really witty remark.


I suppose I should keep quiet while being falsely accused of ... whatever it was you were implying.

quote:

You are, after all, the guy who thinks supply is like cell phone coverage. If ten people can talk in Eastern Oregon, a hundred can, and likewise with the supply paradigm TOAW uses. If the Wehrmacht can support an attack by two divisions on Murmansk, it can support an attack by twenty.


Didn't I just answer this canard back on post #89 in the FITE Opinions thread?

Regardless, I'll repeat it: That was never my position. My position was that addressing this would only usefully benefit a specific suite of scenarios. Most would not really benefit. It was a priority issue.

quote:

Then there's your refusal to admit that artillery and armor simply become useless when they run out of supplies.


No. I refuse to admit that artillery and armor (or anything else) are out of supply just because they've reached 1% unit supply levels. That would be absurd (again, see that post #89).

quote:

Then there's your idea that one can move just as fast in the presence of heavy interdiction as otherwise.


Again, that was not my position. My position was that the total exposure incurred getting from A to B in daylight is independent of the speed you take to get there. There was no evidence that moving slower got you any real cumulative benefit. The real way to get from A to B in the presence of heavy interdiction is to move at night. Furthermore, the mechanism you proposed was severely flawed.

quote:

Then there's your notion that the way to model AA's effect is to have it shoot down planes.


Well, it does shoot down planes! But you want it to affect bombardment efficacy as well. I say that's already built in. We know that because bombing results are respectably historical. The game assumes that bombers are taking precautions against AAA. Perhaps there should be a bombing boost for those rare occasion where the target has no AAA, and the bombers know it. But those are rare exceptions.

quote:

Then there's your notion that wadis are like trenches.


My position is that the Wadi tile in TOAW is modeling a dry river bed - and nothing else. As such, it's only benefit would be to shelter defenders inside it. Canyons, cliffs, marsh, mountains, etc. are features that have to be added.

Try and actually understand my position before you erect your straw men.

quote:

Finally, and perhaps worst of all, once you've adopted your position on any of these issues or anything else, you will bitterly and vociferously defend it, making free use of whatever abusive language comes to hand. You just keep concocting increasingly spurious defences of whatever your original position was, no matter how absurd the claims you have to start making as a consequence. The 'wadi' argument was an excellent illustration of that.


I do change my mind if I'm shown to be wrong. But my positions are reasoned and I stick to the facts. My comments are directed at the positions, not the person.

You, on the other hand, revert to personal comments right from the getgo every time. It's your MO. Take this post, for example - it's nothing but personal comments. And it's the same in almost every post you make.

Here's a novel idea: Just once, stick to the facts and defend your position on its merits alone. Wouldn't that be a sight!

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 688
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/2/2010 6:33:02 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


Now this actually illustrates one reason attempts to talk to you are fruitless.

Whatever the other shortcomings of my idea, you obviously failed to consider what I said.

If units cannot fall into negative supply while defending, they aren't going to fall below 1% supply unless they attack, and so cannot fall into the state of negative supply while defending.

Yet you promptly pose this as an objection.



Allright, I suppose if it doesn't move at all, that will work. But, generally, there is some repostioning before the front finally craters. Regardless, they will be stuck the very next turn after they retreat.

Let's rattle off some more objections:

Players have no option. "Thou Shalt Not Moveth Thy Tank or Thy Artillery". Contrast this with Item 5.9: The player could opt to press on (Rommel-like) if he felt the situation warranted it. His forces would drop equipment as he did so, but perhaps the enemy will prove to be too weak to resist even the weakened pursuers.

The vanguard of any advance/spearhead will be (drumroll, please): Anything except armor! That, of course, is if you allow mechanized/motorized infantry to be exempt. If not, the spearhead will be foot units! Or maybe AAA - depends upon just who this is applied to.

It doesn't fix the infinite supply line issue. Infantry can press on to infinity at 1% supply forever. They can circumnavigate the Earth multiple times and still press on. Contrast this to Item 5.9, which absolutely ends it. The further one gets beyond the full supply net the slower one must proceed to avoid attrition.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 689
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/2/2010 6:43:07 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

More immediately, I just don't see much validity to your attempt to address this problem by distinguishing between POL and ammunition.


Component supply will help some. But the main feature I'm hawking is Wishlist item 5.9. Take a look at that (I summarized it in post # 669).

quote:

Generally, forces that are low on one are low on the other.


If they've just been moving and not fighting, they'll only be low on fuel. This would enable unit to manuver against a defender's flanks without redlining his combat strength. If they've just been fighting and not moving - mostly the reverse. Defenders would be able to fall back and regroup.

quote:

In the end, we'd just have a game that couldn't be played without a full staff for each corps. That's an interesting concept, and perhaps something West Point should look into, but it's not what we want.


There would just be two supply values on each unit instead of one. They would impact the combat strengths and movement allowances differently, of course, but automatically. Players would function just like before - using just those two values (Combat Strength and Movement Allowance) in their decision process.

quote:

Given that I don't see any dramatic difference between how POL and ammunition supply either works or winds up being expended in most situations (forces that are burning the one usually are burning the other), it doesn't strike me as an especially useful idea. After all, it won't improve matters if we find ourselves looking at a 'POL level' for a Cossack cavalry division.


Let's see... Should I accuse you of being "Roadblock Colin"? Obstructing all ideas?

Oh, and that Cossack cavalry division does use fuel. It's just not gasoline - it's fodder.

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 2/2/2010 6:56:43 PM >

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 690
Page:   <<   < prev  21 22 [23] 24 25   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist Page: <<   < prev  21 22 [23] 24 25   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

2.875