Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid


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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima

Not adding anything to the discussion, but this thread is just like a parliament.

A lot of nit-picking, meaningless discussions, relevant discussions lost in the noise, and in the end, very little get's done.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

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

There's nothing wrong with my reasoning. Keep beating your head against that wall till you get that epiphany.

Your understanding of TOAW's supply system is 100% wrong. It broadcasts supply just the way a truck system would broadcast it, not like a radio...

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima

Not adding anything to the discussion, but this thread is just like a parliament.

A lot of nit-picking, meaningless discussions, relevant discussions lost in the noise, and in the end, very little get's done.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid

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...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

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

There's nothing wrong with my reasoning. Keep beating your head against that wall till you get that epiphany...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Till that epiphany occurs, I'll go ahead and post my solution for a physical supply system for TOAW.

A Physical Supply System would be modeled via concentrations of physical supplies in new map features called “Supply Dumps”.

Supply and Supply Dumps would have the following Properties:

A. Supply Dumps would have a map icon similar to (but different from) the icon of a Supply Point.

B. Supply Dumps would contain a quantity of supply in tons (perhaps split into components). Amount would be displayed via popup to friendly player only. This would enable them to function like a variable supply point.

C. Their variable supply value would depend upon what the FSL was, how much supply was in the dump and how much equipment could trace a line of communication to the dump. Presence of other dumps or supply points in the same contiguous area might have an effect as well. This is way too complicated and critical to figure out just now.

D. Their Variable Supply Value would change dynamically as the above conditions changed (or at some regular interval – maybe just at the friendly supply calculation phase).

E. Equipment supply tonnage needs would have to be figured out. It might be a new equipment parameter preset in the equipment list. Or it might be some combination of AP, AT, AA, and other existing parameters, dependent upon equipment type.

F. During the friendly supply calculation phase, a supply dump would function just like a variable supply point with two exceptions: 1. After all units that traced supply to the dump were replenished, the total amount of supply required for whatever level of replenishment they all received would be deducted from the dump’s supply total (which may even eliminate the dump). 2. And, if the dump’s variable supply level began at less than some minimum fraction of the FSL, the dump could not be used to avoid an “unsupplied” unit state. Not sure yet what that minimum should be. This level might even be set by the designer.

G. There would have to be another supply deduction from the dump to represent food consumption or the numbers won’t come out right (units at 150% supply would never need supply). This is better done at the unit (an automatic drop similar to what unsupplied units suffer) but that could screw up existing scenarios. This is why the whole thing needs component supply to be implemented first, which would deal with the issue at the unit.

H. Naval unit supply would have to be made explicit in some fashion so that they consume supply as well.

I. Supply Dumps could be placed on the map in the editor by the designer. There would have to be a limit, perhaps 99 – like supply points.

J. Supply Dumps could be placed on the map via a “Place Dump” event (Value = supply amount in tons). This could deduct or add supply to an existing dump as well.

K. Supply Dumps could be subject to air/artillery attack, similar to bridge attack. Results would deduct supply from the dump.

L. Supply Dumps could be placed on the map during play by delivery of supply to a location.

M. Supply could be lifted out of a dump by transport mechanisms, up to the total amount of supply in the dump (which would delete the dump).

N. Perhaps supply could be lifted out of supply points as well. Not sure yet what the per-turn limit should be, if any. There would be no effect on the supply point itself, though. This ability would have to be enabled by the designer, however – perhaps by event.

O. Supply transport mechanisms include Sea Cap, Air Cap, Rail Cap, as well as physical transport units (trucks, horse teams, porters, cargo vessels, amphibious vessels, cargo aircraft, etc.).

P. Lift capacities (in tons) of various transport equipment would have to be specified as equipment parameters.

Q. Supply could remain “lifted” indefinitely.

R. Transport units would consume supply like any other unit.

S. Ports would have a “capacity” in tons (it could be zero – for just a beach), and cargo vessels could only disembark that limit per unit interval per port. Amphibious vessels would not be limited. The existing Sea Cap would continue to be treated as “amphibious”. There might be a new “Cargo Cap” that wouldn’t be.

T. Naval units would take up Port Cap as well. So naval units would no longer be able to enter beach hexes.

U. Disembarking equipment (combat units) in the port could cost capacity too (unit weight), if not by amphibious vessels.

V. When supply was lifted by Sea Cap, Air Cap, or Rail Cap, it would be represented by an ad hoc sea-embarked, air-embarked, or entrained unit (counter-set specified by designer). I’m not sure how to handle formations for them yet.

W. Space for ad hoc units would need to be retained within the unit-per-side-limit if such are to be permitted in the scenario.

X. Physical transport units would have to be created by the designer as part of the OOB.

Y. Physical transport units could be used to lift other things than supplies (other equipment, for example). Transport unit would have to be big enough to lift the entire unit being lifted. Fine control of unit subdivision would be useful here.

Z. Lifted contents of physical transport units could be viewed via popup by friendly player only.

AA. Obviously, transport units (including the ad hoc units) would be subject to enemy attack/interdiction in transit. Losses to transport equipment would cause corresponding loss of supply/equipment as well.

BB. Attacked physical transport units would defend with their own defense parameters, not those of the lifted contents.

CC. The ad hoc units would have defense parameters proportional to the size of the supply lift they were making.

DD. Existing enemy interdiction effects on the friendly FSL would still take effect as before. This is a little problematic, since interdictors will get to physically interdict supply transport units too. But I don’t know what to do about that yet.

EE. Transport sharing effects would be retained as well, but lift units that contain supplies would be omitted from it.

FF. I don’t understand TOAW’s air supply mechanism well enough yet to decide how dumps will mesh with it.

GG. When supply was disembarked from any of these means it would create a new supply dump at the location. If disembarked into an existing dump, the amount would add to that dump’s total – adjusting its variable supply level accordingly. Disembarked onto a supply point, the supply would just disappear into the point.

HH. If the number-of-dumps-limit had been reached, some other dump would have to be removed before any other supply disembarking could take place.

II. Friendly units could destroy dumps during the friendly movement phase.

JJ. Enemy units could capture dumps during the enemy movement phase (subject to chance of full or partial destruction if friendly occupied – mechanism to be determined).

Note that this system retains, and operates within the existing system. It allows players to move supplies as much or as little as they desire. Designers could eschew it entirely, use it partially, or even rely on it entirely. There is, however, a huge amount of “stuff” to code. And lots of it (including some critical parts) hasn’t been figured out just yet, either. This is not going to be trivial.

Other supply items I’ve advocated would still be desirable for the above system: An intermediate supply state, halved costs for motorized units on improved roads, and component supply.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid


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 a turn based game I don't really mind the time inconsistencies as long as one turn is actually one turn. In most of the later board games there was a combat phase and an exploitation phase but even the inconsistancies that cropped up from this weren't so bad. It's when a turn is broken up into many little turns or rounds that it really starts to become a problem.

In TOAW time becomes almost like a science fiction movie. One of those where the space time continuum is shredded. One combat that takes a long time will make all combats take a long time on all points of the map. They will all consume the same amount of time because one took a this amount of time. I don't care if it's ten divisions vs one company two thousand miles distant, if another difficult combat on the map ate up the entire turn so does this easy one. A unit moved around a flank to stop a retreat isn't really there yet but magically has an effect on the retreat. There is no logic involved. It just is. Time consumed by one combat should emcompass just that combat. If a unit cannot possibly be in position to prevent a retreat that retreat should be allowed.

I guess we should have a Grognard mode and a Casual mode.

quote:

ORIGINAL: madner

Or it could represent the order to clear the path, while using other units to complete the encirclement/destruction.

quote:

ORIGINAL: madner

The change would produce much larger historical anomalies then it would solve, as Norms intention was to make the units pay with MP. Now you would pay both the ZOC MP and force the turn burn.
It would be fine if there would be no ZOC higher cost of movement, but then the issue would be that you can't order units to wait with the attack. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: madner

Or it could represent the order to clear the path, while using other units to complete the encirclement/destruction.

The change would produce much larger historical anomalies then it would solve, as Norms intention was to make the units pay with MP. Now you would pay both the ZOC MP and force the turn burn.
It would be fine if there would be no ZOC higher cost of movement, but then the issue would be that you can't order units to wait with the attack. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

quote:

ORIGINAL: madner

The change would produce much larger historical anomalies then it would solve, as Norms intention was to make the units pay with MP. Now you would pay both the ZOC MP and force the turn burn.
It would be fine if there would be no ZOC higher cost of movement, but then the issue would be that you can't order units to wait with the attack. 

Hmm, I thought movement consumed time. The issue here is time. Movement takes time. It takes time to move around to the rear of the bad guy. If I attack the bad guy on Monday and force a retreat and my other units doesn't get into a position to block the bad guys retreat until Wednesday it's a bit too late, don't ya think? RBC applied to retreats is a partial fix but it doesn't address the time issue which is what I'm addressing here.

I only mentioned forcing everyone to attack as a way to discourage surrounding and eliminating units while ignoring time all together. You don't HAVE to ignore time just as you don't HAVE to use ant units in a way that is not in keeping with reality. Players could pay attention to time but it would be too much work just as they could keep from using a recce company with ten artillery brigades to beat down those three infantry divisions.

The game mechanics are ok. The brain mechanics are severely broken.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Lessee here. A truck system potentially delivers a certain physical quantity to any given point.

A radio delivers a certain signal strength to any given point.

Now which one would you say the TOAW supply system resembles again?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima

Not adding anything to the discussion, but this thread is just like a parliament.

A lot of nit-picking, meaningless discussions, relevant discussions lost in the noise, and in the end, very little get's done.

Yeah. Maybe I'm being partial, but I see it as a matter of Roadblock LeMay preventing all significant forward progress.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

The thing is, combat units don't deliver their own supply -- not all the way from the rear. Ultimately, the percent argument implies that 2.Gebirgsjager has organic supply assets that go all the way back to Spandau and pick up fresh MG 34's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

All of the turn based wargame, for that matter all the wargames, recognize that fact

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Now, I ask you. If it took more time to get the last unit to the locaticon it is in how can it possibly effect the defending units path of retreat if it is not involved in the combat? It's not there if all of the other units attack. It is there if it is included in the attack. Movement = Time Consumed. All of the turn based wargame, for that matter all the wargames, recognize that fact. Just asking if the game can't do the same when retreats are blocked by moved units that are not taking part in the attack and got there 'too late' to prevent a retreat.

BTW, sorry if I seemed to have spammed the forum. Won't allow more than one picture per post.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

All of the turn based wargame, for that matter all the wargames, recognize that fact

Now come on. I remember plenty of old board wargames that would not only allow such units to block the retreat, but would even allow those blocking units to add to the attack without penalty. And the blocked defenders would be totally destroyed. TOAW at least improves on that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: madner

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Now, I ask you. If it took more time to get the last unit to the locaticon it is in how can it possibly effect the defending units path of retreat if it is not involved in the combat? It's not there if all of the other units attack. It is there if it is included in the attack. Movement = Time Consumed. All of the turn based wargame, for that matter all the wargames, recognize that fact. Just asking if the game can't do the same when retreats are blocked by moved units that are not taking part in the attack and got there 'too late' to prevent a retreat.

BTW, sorry if I seemed to have spammed the forum. Won't allow more than one picture per post.

I'm perfectly aware how the system works, and I'm certain your "fix" would brake the game.

Consider this picture with the new system:


with your new rule and the overrun check by weak units.

Despite holes of 20km, it would be impossible to advance more then 2 or 3 hexes in the Red line, as due to ZOC MP cost it would be impossible to move strong enough units for encirclement. The only way would be to bash with frontal assaults, pushing the units back. Which would eat the turn away quickly.

Your "fix" would make the game far less realistic. Making such defense lines far to powerful and encirclement far to impractical.

What is more realistic:
a) the isolated unit is quickly pushed aside and the advance continues fairly quickly whit some units tasked with mopping up the unit.
b) Panzerarmy 1, 2, 3 and 4 are stopped by 4 rifle divisions for half an week.

You fail to recognize that due to moving in ZOC the units paid the heavy cost in MP. That was a design choice to make encirclement more costly and harder to pull off. Now you want to make the units pay twice for it.
Which boardgames recognize this and operate at the same scale?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Lessee here. A truck system potentially delivers a certain physical quantity to any given point.

A radio delivers a certain signal strength to any given point.

Now which one would you say the TOAW supply system resembles again?

How can you still not get this?

Think of the post office: One truck delivers to a subdivision spread over 500 acres. 50 trucks deliver to that high-rise office building on 1 acre.

Same in TOAW: a hex with a battalion in it has a handful of trucks backing it up. If that same hex has a corps in it then there will be a huge number of trucks backing it up. The battalion or the corps get the same fraction of the FSL in each case.

Try beating your head on the wall some more.