RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

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 40 41 [42] 43 44 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 7/31/2010 10:18:31 PM

ColinWright

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

Thinking about this, I don't see any particular reason a supply-based system has to be hopelessly cumbersome -- or even markedly more cumbersome than the current system, with its various attempts at bandages, such as supply units, supply squads, HQ's, and the rest of it.

At the moment, the system knows what the percentage 'supply stockpile' is, and what the maximum percentage is that can be delivered to any particular hex. This system is nonsensical, since it assumes that a battalion requires exactly the same volume of supplies as a corps, but that's not really my point.

My point is that the system could know with equal ease how many tons of supplies can be delivered to the theater as a whole and how many can be delivered to any particular point. On turn 32 of a North Africa scenario, eight hundred tons of supplies will be delivered to the Axis forces. Up to all eight hundred could flow to forces along the road, but only up to ten could flow to forces stationed at Giarabub Oasis.

The system can also easily define the needs of each unit in terms of volume rather than percent. A full combat load for PanzerAufklarungs 3 comes to nine tons, say. A full combat load for all of 21st Panzer comes to seventy tons (all numbers are random guesses).

The difference is that the system can recognize that while those ten tons will suffice to replenish the supplies of PanzerAufklarungs 3 should it feel inclined to wander down to the oasis, they wouldn't do much to fill up all of 21st Panzer if it was down there.

Obviously, there are further points to be discussed, and no doubt some limitations in how close we can get to perfection, but what's the problem? At least so far, I only see an upside.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 7/31/2010 10:24:24 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 1231

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/1/2010 12:11:46 AM

Panama

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

If you fight you use ammo. If you move you use pol. If you do neither you still use some supply. People have to eat. If you have mobile combat units you use both at the same time when you fight. You need so much to stay in full supply. Your supply net can move so much forward. So everyone gets what the supply net can send them with the amounts received depending on how many units are being supplied. That's about the sum total of it.

Now, if someone can make a combat system where each and every individual gun, rifle, machine gun, etc., shoots at every other individual whatever and armor slope, penetration, individual shell and gun attributes and side and rear shots and flanking are all taken into account and that's not too complex, then a volume based supply system should be a walk in the park.

The only thing that makes a better supply system impossible are the people who don't want it. Period. No ifs ands or buts. If you can model the combat system and it's not too complex then anything else should be relatively easy.

_____________________________

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 1232

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/1/2010 7:05:04 AM

ColinWright

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

If you fight you use ammo. If you move you use pol. If you do neither you still use some supply. People have to eat. If you have mobile combat units you use both at the same time when you fight. You need so much to stay in full supply. Your supply net can move so much forward. So everyone gets what the supply net can send them with the amounts received depending on how many units are being supplied. That's about the sum total of it.

Now, if someone can make a combat system where each and every individual gun, rifle, machine gun, etc., shoots at every other individual whatever and armor slope, penetration, individual shell and gun attributes and side and rear shots and flanking are all taken into account and that's not too complex, then a volume based supply system should be a walk in the park.

The only thing that makes a better supply system impossible are the people who don't want it. Period. No ifs ands or buts. If you can model the combat system and it's not too complex then anything else should be relatively easy.

Yeah. The more I think about it, the more I see a volume-based system solving rather than creating problems.

I'm not averse to a distinction between POL and ammunition, but I'd rather at least see the basics of the system ironed out first. The essential issues can be addressed by treating supply as a general category. For example, all types of units have minimum but modest supply needs if they're just peacefully sitting. That Tiger II may need a gallon of fuel to go a mile, but if it's not moving, then all you gotta do is keep the five man crew in dog food and fresh socks.

If a unit moves, it doesn't use much more than it does standing still if it's leg infantry or horsedrawn artillery -- the horses eat a bit more, but they gotta eat no matter what. Same for the men. If anything, moving through fresh country creates opportunities for foraging that offset the 'ahm hongrey' effect.

The unit uses a lot more supply when it moves, if it's mechanized. If it fights, all types of units use supply -- but as already checked, infantry arms have minimal tonnage requirements.

Volume-based supply makes it easier to simulate all of that. The program can just calculate how much the unit drew down its load and how much more it therefore needs, and how large that load is. Then it can see what's available in general and decide how much to assign based on what priority the unit has been assigned -- subject to the maximum that can be delivered to that particular hex. The whole mechanism would bear a strong resemblance to how the program distributes replacements. In fact, that's what the supplies are. Replacements that are subject to delivery constraints.

As a further added bonus, one could literally stockpile supplies for that big push -- just like real armies do. The designer could set some ceiling stockpile for the scenario that would reflect just how much that particular force would be allowed to squirrel away. After all, if the German forces in Italy are awash in supplies, OKH is liable to just say, 'well, you're fine -- we're diverting more to the Eastern Front. Call us when you get below _____.'

Of course, the system still wouldn't be perfect in its simpler version -- but it starts out as already a vast improvement over the system we have now.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 8/1/2010 7:15:13 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Panama)

Post #: 1233

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/1/2010 6:38:35 PM

Curtis Lemay

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

At the moment, the system knows what the percentage 'supply stockpile' is, and what the maximum percentage is that can be delivered to any particular hex. This system is nonsensical, since it assumes that a battalion requires exactly the same volume of supplies as a corps, but that's not really my point.

It's not nonsensical at all. It correctly models that the further you are from the source, the more spread out your supply vehicles are, thereby exponentially attenuating the amount of the Force Supply Level that can be delivered to that point per unit time interval. And it doesn't assume that a battalion requires exactly the same volume of supplies as a corps. Rather it assumes that the battalion will have a proportionate fraction of those supply vehicles assigned to it relative to that corps.

quote:

My point is that the system could know with equal ease how many tons of supplies can be delivered to the theater as a whole ...

It would know nothing of the sort. That would have to be figured out by the designer. And it's non-trivial.

quote:

...and how many can be delivered to any particular point. On turn 32 of a North Africa scenario, eight hundred tons of supplies will be delivered to the Axis forces. Up to all eight hundred could flow to forces along the road, but only up to ten could flow to forces stationed at Giarabub Oasis.

Again, that depends upon how many supply vehicles are involved, how fast they can move, how many are interdicted in transit, and how they are distributed. How many of those supplies could be delivered anywhere might be completely unrelated to how many were arriving in theater. And don't forget that the vehicles themselves consume supply, especially fuel. You can assume that each unit has a proportionate fraction of the total vehicles - but that would basically produce the same results as the current system achieves.

If you're not going to physically move the supplies around, thereby allowing players to manipulate their distribution, I really don't see the point. And, in the end, all you'll have achieved, if anything, is that some unit will get 15 supply per turn instead of 10. It's trivial, except for sea supply.

Let me make that last point clear: Currently, all units with a line of communications will be in supply and enjoy the exhorbitant benefits of being in supply regardless of how much supply they are receiving. We won't get anywhere if we don't address that. That's why I want a third (intermediate) supply state. A state that's halfway between supplied and unsupplied. That's item 5.9: The Over-Extended Supply State. Without that, the unit supply level is only marginally impactful.

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 8/1/2010 7:21:51 PM >

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 1234

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/1/2010 6:45:49 PM

Curtis Lemay

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

If you fight you use ammo. If you move you use pol. If you do neither you still use some supply.

Component supply. It would allow units to move without expending all their ammo - you could actually add manuvering as a TOAW tactic. It would allow units to fight without expending all their fuel. It would allow for more finely crafted combat strength and movement allowance formulas.

Wouldn't be too hard to do, either. Just add one or two additional parameters per unit. Then tweak the formulas.

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 8/1/2010 7:03:23 PM >

(in reply to Panama)

Post #: 1235

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/1/2010 11:47:40 PM

ColinWright

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

At the moment, the system knows what the percentage 'supply stockpile' is, and what the maximum percentage is that can be delivered to any particular hex. This system is nonsensical, since it assumes that a battalion requires exactly the same volume of supplies as a corps, but that's not really my point.

It's not nonsensical at all. It correctly models that the further you are from the source, the more spread out your supply vehicles are, thereby exponentially attenuating the amount of the Force Supply Level that can be delivered to that point per unit time interval. And it doesn't assume that a battalion requires exactly the same volume of supplies as a corps. Rather it assumes that the battalion will have a proportionate fraction of those supply vehicles assigned to it relative to that corps.

quote:

My point is that the system could know with equal ease how many tons of supplies can be delivered to the theater as a whole ...

It would know nothing of the sort. That would have to be figured out by the designer. And it's non-trivial.

quote:

...and how many can be delivered to any particular point. On turn 32 of a North Africa scenario, eight hundred tons of supplies will be delivered to the Axis forces. Up to all eight hundred could flow to forces along the road, but only up to ten could flow to forces stationed at Giarabub Oasis.

Again, that depends upon how many supply vehicles are involved, how fast they can move, how many are interdicted in transit, and how they are distributed. How many of those supplies could be delivered anywhere might be completely unrelated to how many were arriving in theater. And don't forget that the vehicles themselves consume supply, especially fuel. You can assume that each unit has a proportionate fraction of the total vehicles - but that would basically produce the same results as the current system achieves.

If you're not going to physically move the supplies around, thereby allowing players to manipulate their distribution, I really don't see the point. And, in the end, all you'll have achieved, if anything, is that some unit will get 15 supply per turn instead of 10. It's trivial, except for sea supply.

Let me make that last point clear: Currently, all units with a line of communications will be in supply and enjoy the exhorbitant benefits of being in supply regardless of how much supply they are receiving. We won't get anywhere if we don't address that. That's why I want a third (intermediate) supply state. A state that's halfway between supplied and unsupplied. That's item 5.9: The Over-Extended Supply State. Without that, the unit supply level is only marginally impactful.

You should try reading my posts. It would be illuminating. 'How a volume based supply system would work.' Basically, the point is that if the program can calculate how much supply could potentially reach a particular hex as a percentage, it can calculate it as a tonnage.

Now, being a reasonably bright boy, once you do read the posts, some flaws will come to your mind, and then you can point those out, and then we can discuss how serious the flaws are, whether they could be remedied, and how best to remedy them.

Or...you can keep stonewalling. Your choice.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 8/1/2010 11:50:59 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 1236

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/1/2010 11:55:14 PM

ColinWright

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

...and how many can be delivered to any particular point. On turn 32 of a North Africa scenario, eight hundred tons of supplies will be delivered to the Axis forces. Up to all eight hundred could flow to forces along the road, but only up to ten could flow to forces stationed at Giarabub Oasis.

Again, that depends upon how many supply vehicles are involved, how fast they can move, how many are interdicted in transit, and how they are distributed. How many of those supplies could be delivered anywhere might be completely unrelated to how many were arriving in theater. And don't forget that the vehicles themselves consume supply, especially fuel. You can assume that each unit has a proportionate fraction of the total vehicles - but that would basically produce the same results as the current system achieves.

All of these objections apply equally to a percent-based supply system.

quote:

quote:

If you're not going to physically move the supplies around, thereby allowing players to manipulate their distribution, I really don't see the point. And, in the end, all you'll have achieved, if anything, is that some unit will get 15 supply per turn instead of 10. It's trivial, except for sea supply.

Now that's silly. Twenty tons can be delivered to hex x. If the units there need four tons of supplies, they've filled up. If they need two hundred, they're going to go short.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 1237

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/2/2010 3:01:10 PM

Curtis Lemay

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

All of these objections apply equally to a percent-based supply system.

But they've already been sorted out for the current system. That would have to be done again, in more detail, for a volume supply system - if the supplies were going to be moved around by the players. If they weren't, then it would produce more or less the same results as the current system - except for sea supply.

Cost vs. benefit.

quote:

Now that's silly. Twenty tons can be delivered to hex x. If the units there need four tons of supplies, they've filled up. If they need two hundred, they're going to go short.

That's just not how it works in the real world. How much can be delivered to any one hex is dependent upon how much transport is assigned to deliver it. And the amount assigned is going to be proportionate to the size of the force receiving it. In fact, for most ground operations, it's transport abilities that determine frontline supply levels, not the quantity of supplies available back at in the homeland.

Note that this discounts most of the issue about adding forces to a theater, since they arrive with their own transport. Conversely, if they withdraw or are destroyed, their transport will also withdraw or be mostly destroyed with them.

Finally, my main point was about the need for an intermediate supply state. That was not silly. Without that, any unit with a line of communications is Supplied regardless of unit supply level - with all the benefits that entails.

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 8/2/2010 3:04:28 PM >

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 1238

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/2/2010 3:23:41 PM

Panama

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

That's just not how it works in the real world. How much can be delivered to any one hex is dependent upon how much transport is assigned to deliver it. And the amount assigned is going to be proportionate to the size of the force receiving it. In fact, for most ground operations, it's transport abilities that determine frontline supply levels, not the quantity of supplies available back at in the homeland.

Note that this discounts most of the issue about adding forces to a theater, since they arrive with their own transport. Conversely, if they withdraw or are destroyed, their transport will also withdraw or be mostly destroyed with them.

Finally, my main point was about the need for an intermediate supply state. That was not silly. Without that, any unit with a line of communications is Supplied regardless of unit supply level - with all the benefits that entails.

You are not allowed to consider transport. As you've said, it's abstracted. In fact, into oblivion so that it really doesn't become a factor in the game. This means that unless transport becomes directly represented, truch by truck, it doesn't matter.

_____________________________

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 1239

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/2/2010 6:01:42 PM

ColinWright

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

All of these objections apply equally to a percent-based supply system.

But they've already been sorted out for the current system. That would have to be done again, in more detail, for a volume supply system - if the supplies were going to be moved around by the players. If they weren't, then it would produce more or less the same results as the current system - except for sea supply.

Cost vs. benefit.

quote:

Now that's silly. Twenty tons can be delivered to hex x. If the units there need four tons of supplies, they've filled up. If they need two hundred, they're going to go short.

That's just not how it works in the real world...

! The current system is definitely not how it works in the real world.

That's the thing. A simple volume-based system could have all kinds of flaws: it would still represent a quantum leap over what we have now.

It is as if we have two theories. One holds that the world is flat. The other holds that the world is round. Even if -- like Columbus -- we are off on our size calculations by about two-thirds, realizing that the world is round offers an immediate improvement in performance over thinking it is flat.

quote:

In fact, for most ground operations, it's transport abilities that determine frontline supply levels, not the quantity of supplies available back at in the homeland.

Yeah...and the system I am proposing would indicate just how much volume could be delivered. The current system says that it doesn't matter whether one division or thirty have advanced across the Caucasus: they will all get exactly the same 10% of their supply requirements delivered across that pass.

The program just needs to treat the little number in the hex as if it represents a unit of volume rather than some kind of signal strength. And that's what supplies are: volume.

Transport abilities do in fact determine a volume, not a percent. So at the end of the day, eighty trucks a week can struggle up that track, dump whatever's on board, and go back for more. Great: those 160 tons of goodies per week will keep one division going full blast, allow three to restock fairly quickly but not really keep up if they're under heavy pressure, or keep six divisions alive if they keep real still and no one bothers 'em.

That's not what the current system does. One division or six: the supply recovery rate will be the same for all. It is what a volume-based system would permit.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 8/2/2010 6:15:54 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 1240

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/2/2010 6:28:49 PM

ColinWright

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Finally, my main point was about the need for an intermediate supply state. That was not silly. Without that, any unit with a line of communications is Supplied regardless of unit supply level - with all the benefits that entails.

At the end of the day, this sort of thing is just another desperate effort to shore up what is an essentially flawed system.

What is going on in your 'intermediate supply state' will immediately be addressed with a volume-based system. Sure: two regiments can be kept functioning out there -- just not the whole corps.

We've already got a lot of this. Supply units. Supply squads. Now 'an intermediate supply state.' They are all attempts to make a flawed paradigm work.

Fix the paradigm. Then you can fix the problems. Until then, you can't.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 1241

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/2/2010 6:43:50 PM

ColinWright

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Note that this discounts most of the issue about adding forces to a theater, since they arrive with their own transport. Conversely, if they withdraw or are destroyed, their transport will also withdraw or be mostly destroyed with them...

Not really -- not if needs dictate otherwise. Trucks were treated as a separate need and delivered accordingly to North Africa. It didn't matter how much transport units brought with them if they were sent against Murmansk or over the Caucasus passes: only so many tons of supplies could be delivered along the arctic road or over those passes. It was the absolute supply capacity in theater -- not the organic equipment of each division -- that determined how many divisions could be fully supported in a dash across France in 1944.

Did the units surrounded in Demiansk survive whilst those at Stalingrad perished because the units had Demiansk had more organic airborne transport? No -- the fate of each was a function of the absolute potential of the Luftwaffe to deliver supply tonnage.

Now any supply system -- any system at all -- in TOAW will be a simplification, and it won't work perfectly for all conditions. However, it can be a simplification -- like AT guns versus armor -- that reflects an essential dynamic in the equation, or it can be something -- like the current supply paradigm -- that upon analysis is quite misconceived.

Supply is not a percentage affair. Add another division, and you have not added the ability to bring more tons of supplies to where it is operating. The ability of each unit to obtain the supplies it needs drops the more units are trying to draw supply from the same source. The British could support a couple of divisions in active operations in the Western Desert in early 1941, perhaps four in late 1941, and I suppose more like eight in late 1942. Pumping more divisions in at any point would have just led to poorly-supplied divisions.

You can analyze both how many tons can be delivered to the theater in general and how many can be delivered to any particular point. Then you can have a supply system that at least partially reflects reality.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 8/2/2010 6:50:32 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 1242

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/3/2010 3:22:49 PM

Curtis Lemay

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

! The current system is definitely not how it works in the real world.

Yes it is!!!

quote:

The program just needs to treat the little number in the hex as if it represents a unit of volume rather than some kind of signal strength. And that's what supplies are: volume.

But that would be totally incorrect. This is the problem: You don't understand how the current system works. In fact, you don't seem to understand logistics at all.

Supplies are delivered by vehicles. The vehicles are apportioned proportionate to the size of the target in the hex. That means that if you have a battalion in that hex, there are supply vehicles proportionate to a battalion delivering the supply to that hex. But if there is a corps in that hex, then there will be about 27 times the number of vehicles delivering supply to that hex. So, the battalion and the corps get the same fraction of their unit supply level. So, the way it works now is correct.

Think of the entire force. Suppose it contains 200 divisions. And there are 20,000 supply trucks in the force. Then wherever there is 1 division in a hex, 100 supply trucks will be backing it up. If there are 10 divisions in a hex, 1000 trucks will back it up, etc.

quote:

Transport abilities do in fact determine a volume, not a percent. So at the end of the day, eighty trucks a week can struggle up that track, dump whatever's on board, and go back for more. Great: those 160 tons of goodies per week will keep one division going full blast, allow three to restock fairly quickly but not really keep up if they're under heavy pressure, or keep six divisions alive if they keep real still and no one bothers 'em.

One division is backed up by 80 trucks. Two by 160. Three by 240. Etc. Same fraction of supply delivered in each case.

quote:

That's not what the current system does. One division or six: the supply recovery rate will be the same for all.

Which is correct.

Now, there are some special cases where the amount of supply in theater is the limiting factor - sea operations, for example. But for the general case, transport alone determines how much supply reaches the front lines. Think of FITE: How much supply is at the western map edge is irrelevant to how much reaches the front. That depends entirely on transport. And even when the amount of supply in theater is the limiting factor, in most cases, the designer knows about the size of the force that will be in operation and can adjust Force Supply Levels accordingly.

I'm willing to admit that one day this thing is going to have to be implemented in some fashion. After all, we want to model sea operations one day. But there's really no hope if you continue to misunderstand the subject.

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 8/3/2010 3:44:01 PM >

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 1243

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/3/2010 3:27:29 PM

Curtis Lemay

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Finally, my main point was about the need for an intermediate supply state. That was not silly. Without that, any unit with a line of communications is Supplied regardless of unit supply level - with all the benefits that entails.

At the end of the day, this sort of thing is just another desperate effort to shore up what is an essentially flawed system.

What is going on in your 'intermediate supply state' will immediately be addressed with a volume-based system. Sure: two regiments can be kept functioning out there -- just not the whole corps.

We've already got a lot of this. Supply units. Supply squads. Now 'an intermediate supply state.' They are all attempts to make a flawed paradigm work.

Fix the paradigm. Then you can fix the problems. Until then, you can't.

You're delusional if you think anything will be "immediately addressed" by what you're proposing. It would have to be actually coded. There are going to have to be supply states, and those states will have properties associated with them that have to be implemented. Absent that, just fiddling with unit supply levels will have practically no effect whatsoever.

And it's not just the supply states that matter. Transport issues have to be addressed as well. Things like the impact of improved roads. Otherwise, there will be no difference between the coast and the deep desert, for example. Lift issues will have to be addressed if supplies are to actually be moved around.

You can't just wave your hands and declare these things solved.

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 8/3/2010 3:51:14 PM >

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 1244

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/3/2010 7:28:32 PM

ColinWright

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

Oh God. Let me go outside and pound my head against the concrete for a while...

The irony is that there are some valid objections to my system. However, you don't appear to have noticed them. If we ever get to the stage of constructive discussion, I'll point them out myself and maybe someone will have an idea on how to address them.

(Warning to Curtis: this is a trap. I'm trying to lure you into a positive discussion on how to improve the system)

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 8/3/2010 7:30:43 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 1245

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/3/2010 7:36:53 PM

ColinWright

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

! The current system is definitely not how it works in the real world.

Yes it is!!!

quote:

...The vehicles are apportioned proportionate to the size of the target in the hex. That means that if you have a battalion in that hex, there are supply vehicles proportionate to a battalion delivering the supply to that hex. But if there is a corps in that hex, then there will be about 27 times the number of vehicles delivering supply to that hex.

There just will be. Had the Germans moved another division up to the Murmansk front, more trucks would have magically been able to pass down that road. Had the Germans moved another Panzer division to North Africa, more supplies would have begun appearing at Tripoli and more trucks would have materialized to haul them down the coast road. Had the Germans had an even larger force in Stalingrad, their supply predicament would have stayed exactly the same. The Ju-52 supply would have jumped, you see...

Before the 'handful of situations' argument resurrects itself, let me point out that variations of this apply to the southern end of the Eastern Front as well, to France in 1944, to a Seelowe scenario, to most of the fighting in the Pacific, to Burma, and probably to every other campaign that we care to examine in detail.

In fact, a critical consideration in the planning of all operations is whether adequate supplies can be delivered, and (unless it's the Japanese we're considering) an attempt is made to choose fronts where the amount of supplies that can be delivered will correspond to what the requirements will be.

...But not in TOAW. If one division can be supplied through those hills, ten can. No problem. More trucks will just fit down the one wandering cart track...

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 8/3/2010 7:40:22 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 1246

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/3/2010 7:46:58 PM

ColinWright

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Finally, my main point was about the need for an intermediate supply state. That was not silly. Without that, any unit with a line of communications is Supplied regardless of unit supply level - with all the benefits that entails.

At the end of the day, this sort of thing is just another desperate effort to shore up what is an essentially flawed system.

What is going on in your 'intermediate supply state' will immediately be addressed with a volume-based system. Sure: two regiments can be kept functioning out there -- just not the whole corps.

We've already got a lot of this. Supply units. Supply squads. Now 'an intermediate supply state.' They are all attempts to make a flawed paradigm work.

Fix the paradigm. Then you can fix the problems. Until then, you can't.

You're delusional if you think anything will be "immediately addressed" by what you're proposing. It would have to be actually coded. There are going to have to be supply states, and those states will have properties associated with them that have to be implemented. Absent that, just fiddling with unit supply levels will have practically no effect whatsoever.

And it's not just the supply states that matter. Transport issues have to be addressed as well. Things like the impact of improved roads. Otherwise, there will be no difference between the coast and the deep desert, for example. Lift issues will have to be addressed if supplies are to actually be moved around.

You can't just wave your hands and declare these things solved.

You're trying to transmogrify the obvious fact that changes would have to be made into an insuperable obstacle.

But worse. You are proposing that we keep tweaking the current system without addressing the underlying problem. As long as you have a paradigm that essentially says a corps consumes no more supplies than a battalion, you're not going to have a viable system.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 1247

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/4/2010 7:51:21 PM

Panama

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

The Encirclement Time Warp

In TOAW a turn is broken down into time segments whose length is based on movement. If you move X number of movement points a corresponding amount of time has passed.

Combat is also broken down into time segments. Ten combat rounds per turn is the base. Each combat round consumes a given amount of time the result being a reduction in remaining movement points for every unit on the map up to the entire movement allowance.

This all works very well and is one of the things I like about TOAW. Until a unit becomes encircled and is eliminated because it has no place to retreat to.

Example: My guys are attacking an enemy unit. A stack of my guys begin the turn adjacent to this unit and will expend minimal time in the attack. I want to destroy this unit completely. Now. So I happily run mobile units around a one hex gap on both of it's flanks, between it and other enemy units. In doing so my last two mobile units use up all of their movement allowance.

So, now my units that have not moved at all commence their attack, using two of ten combat rounds, and force the enemy unit to retreat. But since I've encircled it there is no place for it to go and it is eliminated. And the entire concept that TOAW is based on is trashed, thrown out the window.

How could this enemy unit be destroyed? My attacking units consumed only two rounds. Surely the defeated enemy unit retreated long before my mobile units worked their way around it and encircled it and thus avoided destruction. This glaring inconsistancy in the game always bothers me. You think supply, naval portrayal, AAA lethality and anything else is bad? Then this is inexcusably horrendous.

How could this be 'fixed'. I realize everyone depends on this piece of time travel and now it's a crutch that probably no one wants to be without because, gosh, you would have to face reality and can't destroy destroy destroy like you want. There are alot of very intelligent people on this forum. Surely someone can come up with something.

Let the village idiot put forth an idea. How about this? The program keeps track of movement so why not, if a unit is attacked, allow it to retreat through units that would have been there too late to block it? There's a combat. Unit has to retreat. Program looks at blocking units movement points. Ah, got there too late. Move retreating unit through until it gets to a hex that is vacant or until it gets blocked by unit's who were 'there' in time in which case it's eliminated. Subtract movement at the beginning of the retreated unit's turn for the extra hexes.

_____________________________

(in reply to Panama)

Post #: 1248

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/4/2010 8:44:50 PM

Curtis Lemay

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Oh God. Let me go outside and pound my head against the concrete for a while...

Maybe that will do some good. Because you need to undergo an epiphany.

I never realized till this week how huge your misunderstanding of TOAW's supply system was. I had always thought you were objecting to a few obscure exceptions. But I had never dreamed you were so colossally misguided.

I'm advising you as a colleague now: You need to snap out of it! You're making a complete fool of yourself. Your understanding of TOAW's supply system is 100% wrong. It isn't broadcasting supply like a radio. It's broadcasting it like a truck system would.

My statement in the post #1243 was correct:

"Think of the entire force. Suppose it contains 200 divisions. And there are 20,000 supply trucks in the force. Then wherever there is 1 division in a hex, 100 supply trucks will be backing it up. If there are 10 divisions in a hex, 1000 trucks will back it up, etc."

The supply trucks in the scenario are going to be apportioned in proportion to the sizes of the target units. That's exactly how TOAW's supply system works. If the hex only contains a battalion, then only a few trucks will deliver supply there. If it contains a corps, a huge number will. That's exactly how it works in the real world and exactly how the game models it.

quote:

(Warning to Curtis: this is a trap. I'm trying to lure you into a positive discussion on how to improve the system)

Until you understand TOAW's supply system there's no hope for that. But, don't worry. I'll figure it out on my own.

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 1249

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/4/2010 8:53:58 PM

Curtis Lemay

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

There just will be. Had the Germans moved another division up to the Murmansk front, more trucks would have magically been able to pass down that road.

More trucks would have come with the divisions. And, if the divisions could pass over that road, why couldn't the supply trucks? What kind of "road" is it? I'm reaching the conclusion that this Murmansk example is hogwash. There were other reasons why no such attack materialized. Your reasons don't hold up to scrutiny.

quote:

Had the Germans moved another Panzer division to North Africa, more supplies would have begun appearing at Tripoli and more trucks would have materialized to haul them down the coast road.

More trucks would come with the division - they're organic to it. But there wouldn't have been more supplies at Tripoli. The designer would have to address the FSL. Even in a strategic scenario where the desert was just a side show, the designer could use a variable supply point in Tripoli and adjust that as force levels increased or decreased.

quote:

Had the Germans had an even larger force in Stalingrad, their supply predicament would have stayed exactly the same. The Ju-52 supply would have jumped, you see...

Air supply is handled by a completely different mechanism in TOAW - as is transport sharing.

quote:

If one division can be supplied through those hills, ten can. No problem. More trucks will just fit down the one wandering cart track...

That's an amazing cart path. Somehow THIRTY DIVISIONS can cross it, but then it magically slams shut and allows only a trickle of supplies. Nevertheless, TOAW will model that correctly - if there is a terrain feature with those properties. Under 3.4, terrain costs are applied to supply path lengths. So, if it takes a week to cross the path, that will be reflected in the supply level beyond it. So, this has nothing to do with the supply system. Rather, it's the terrain and movement systems that matter.

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 8/4/2010 9:03:16 PM >

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 1250

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/4/2010 8:57:03 PM

Curtis Lemay

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

The Encirclement Time Warp

See item 7.20 in the wishlist: (Time Stamp).

It's fairly high cost, though. Note that we implemented item 7.19 in 3.4.

(in reply to Panama)

Post #: 1251

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/4/2010 11:00:59 PM

Panama

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

The Encirclement Time Warp

See item 7.20 in the wishlist: (Time Stamp).

It's fairly high cost, though. Note that we implemented item 7.19 in 3.4.

Yeah, I realize the RBC had been implemented. That's still not good. How can you RBC something that wasn't actually there at the time of the retreat? Another time warp. Not sure about moving a unit back to where it was. That could get messy. Easy fix would be to force all the surrounding units to participate in combat?

The real problem, just as in the 'ant problem', is the players. In most cases the game mechanics are fine. Maybe shoot them in the foot if they do something that's unreasonable.

_____________________________

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 1252

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/5/2010 4:11:27 AM

ColinWright

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

There just will be. Had the Germans moved another division up to the Murmansk front, more trucks would have magically been able to pass down that road.

More trucks would have come with the divisions. And, if the divisions could pass over that road, why couldn't the supply trucks? What kind of "road" is it? I'm reaching the conclusion that this Murmansk example is hogwash. There were other reasons why no such attack materialized. Your reasons don't hold up to scrutiny.

Lol. Gruppenfuhrer LeMai overrules those defeatists at Army. Orders two more divisions forward to the front.

...details on what ensued are hazy, but there were creditable reports of cannibalism.

The funny bit is that both the Japanese and Russians were given to behaving as if what you postulate was in fact the case. The results were invariably disastrous. Units don not just automatically create more supply for themselves when they advance down a route with poor communications. They really don't, Curtis. No foolin.'

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 8/5/2010 4:26:48 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 1253

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/5/2010 4:14:11 AM

ColinWright

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

More trucks would come with the division - they're organic to it. But there wouldn't have been more supplies at Tripoli. The designer would have to address the FSL. Even in a strategic scenario where the desert was just a side show, the designer could use a variable supply point in Tripoli and adjust that as force levels increased or decreased.

With a volume-based supply system, the designer wouldn't have to do anything -- either for North Africa or for theaters where the essential dynamic is less clear-cut.

That would be, you see, because a volume-based supply system would mirror, in however simplified a form, the actual mechanism underlying supply. Something the current nonsensical system does not.

Sure, in Seelowe I have a rather involved event mechanism that lets the Germans summon up more divisions to set ashore in England at the cost of reduced supply even if he hasn't captured a major port.

It's pretty clunky, though. For one, the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe suffer the reduced supply as well -- even though they could care less how much those river barges are managing to land each turn. And of course, if it was a scenario where there was another front entirely, well, we could forget it.

We have a misconceived system. It needs to be rectified. Precisely how is certainly an open question, but a priori we have to quit wasting time with assertions that it is either sound or susceptible to reform. It's not. It can't be.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 8/5/2010 4:48:07 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 1254

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/5/2010 4:17:53 AM

ColinWright

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

That's an amazing cart path. Somehow THIRTY DIVISIONS can cross it, but then it magically slams shut and allows only a trickle of supplies. Nevertheless, TOAW will model that correctly - if there is a terrain feature with those properties. Under 3.4, terrain costs are applied to supply path lengths. So, if it takes a week to cross the path, that will be reflected in the supply level beyond it. So, this has nothing to do with the supply system. Rather, it's the terrain and movement systems that matter.

Sigh. Is it really necessary to point out what's wrong with your reasoning? I suppose so...

1. All the divisions don't need to have gone down the cart path at once. Once down it, though, they will all need supply at once. The Germans could have ferried twenty divisions over to North Africa by the end of 1942 if they'd put their minds to it. Too bad they never could have supplied more than five.

2. Absent a volume-based system, TOAW won't model anything. The supply path may shorten -- but it'll still do that loaves and fishes miracle number no matter how many divisions are crowding at the teat.

Look; it goes on all the time. After the breakout from Normandy, the Allies had a choice: have some of the divisions burn supply and get all their needs replenished or have all the divisions burn supply and get some of their needs replenished. They went with the latter.

The pluses and minuses of that decision are neither here nor there. The point is that supply is volume-based. That's how it works, and that's how any system that is going to even approximately simulate it has to work.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 8/5/2010 4:42:24 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 1255

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/5/2010 4:21:43 AM

ColinWright

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

The Encirclement Time Warp

See item 7.20 in the wishlist: (Time Stamp).

It's fairly high cost, though. Note that we implemented item 7.19 in 3.4.

Yeah, I realize the RBC had been implemented. That's still not good. How can you RBC something that wasn't actually there at the time of the retreat? Another time warp. Not sure about moving a unit back to where it was. That could get messy. Easy fix would be to force all the surrounding units to participate in combat?

My own choice would be to allow defending units to counterattack any adjacent stack -- whether or not it took part in the attack. This would pose problems of its own -- but I don't think insurmountable ones. It would also mean that that subdivided scrap of Engineer Battalion 900 couldn't hold ten kilometers of front against those two Red Army divisions that would like to leave now.

After all, not all encircling units need to attack to complete a valid encirclement. But they do need to hold the line when the encircled units respond to their plight by immediately trying to break out.

However, this does not address the 'time stamp' problem. How well this is addressed depends upon the exact details of what is done.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 8/5/2010 4:34:57 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Panama)

Post #: 1256

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/5/2010 4:33:31 AM

ColinWright

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

...We really do need a mechanism that reflects the reality of the situation. It doesn't have to be detailed -- God forbid -- but it does need to work something like supply does in reality. More troops have to consume more supply. That's just the way it is.

quote:

(Curtis LeMay) I want to see this effected. But it's importance ranks about at the level of naval improvements. Important, but not the same as things that have universal impact.

Ho! Did that boulder just budge? I can't believe it...

I just wanted to admire this again. For a moment there, I thought there was hope. It was such a nice feeling.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 1257

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/5/2010 4:37:51 AM

ColinWright

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

By the way, where is a list of what exactly will be in 3.4? I glanced around but didn't notice anything immediately obvious.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 1258

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/5/2010 6:16:07 AM

Panama

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

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2531935

_____________________________

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 1259

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/5/2010 9:23:15 AM

el cid

Posts: 186
Joined: 1/28/2006
Status: offline

Supply:

I must agree that there are some things in the supply system that I do not like. The fact that if you move only one unit out of a hundred, versus moving the 100 units, that one unit gets the same supply in both situations. It does not allow you to concentrate supply where you would need them. It is true that supply units will sort of give you this benefit, but I think that if that various supply units could stack up this effect, then you could put more enphasis on concentrated attacks.

I do believe that in the real world both systems apply (volume vs percentaje).

For percentaje, a division would have so many trucks asign to it that can deliver so much supply (regardless of what other units are doing). It does not matter if you just moved that unit in that turn, you still have the same amount of trucks asigned to it. TOAW does great using asset sharing in case very few units move. This means that part of the trucks of units that do not need supply are shared with the units that do need supply to increase the supply they get. But the effect might be too small.

For volume, presently you do not care much about your overall supply. You don�t play with supply conservation, as there is always the same supply available no matter how many units you move. You can move all your units from one place to another, as if fuel was infinite. Same with bullets.

Why not have a percentaje system as today, but that your force supply level goes up or down depending on the supply demand of the previous turn?

Encirclement time wrap

Just to note one fact that you already know, that on the case were you attack on the same turn you encircle, the unit is not treated as unsupplied, and part of the assets do go back to the replacement pool. . But in a system that is IGOYOUGO there is going to be plenty of time inconsistencies.

(in reply to Panama)

Post #: 1260

Page: << < prev 40 41 [42] 43 44 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist