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: Some questions about the latest patch

 
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 >> TOAW III Support >> RE: Some questions about the latest patch Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/4/2011 5:21:14 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



But Old Supply extended supply to infinity. New Supply fixes that. Both regular supply and the boost from Supply Units are dependent upon the distance of the locations from the supply source - just like in the real world. Had we not done that, Supply Unit boosted supply would have extended at 25% all the way to infinity.


'Fixed' is perhaps the wrong word. Assuming designers wanted the effect in the first place, they might not have appreciated having it 'fixed.'

On the other hand, designers seeking supply units that wouldn't exert such a dramatic effect could always just...omit them?

The fact remains that supply units did offer a way for designers to dramatically manipulate the supply system. That is, in fact, why they were created.

In the name of some specious reasoning that you neither made public nor apparently even believe yourself, you unilaterally did away with them.

Why? If you don't want supply units, don't use them. There's no need to prevent the rest of us from having access to this tool as it was.

Actually, of course, in no TOAW system does supply 'extend to infinity.' It can't go past the boundaries of the map, and indeed, terrain permitting, modern armies have almost invariably managed to get supplies to any force they could physically reach in the field. Army Group A's panzers in the Caucasus were way out there, and they certainly weren't getting all the supplies they wanted, but they were getting some. Ditto for Rommel at El Alamein. These people may have charged out to eight times the usual supply radius -- but they were still getting some packages in the mail.

Now, how could we simulate that? A supply unit that always increases the supply by 25% of the base perhaps? And when it couldn't be done? Why, omit the supply unit.

But no...Curtis has decided you can get one additional step in the supply radius and that's it. Never mind what others decided would be best in the past; Curtis has fixed it.

Like you 'fixed' AA, right? You were quite sure that was fit and proper, but we've gone back to where it is now possible to scale AA to...what it was in the first place.

Before you 'fixed' it.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 5/4/2011 5:53:48 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 31
RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/4/2011 5:28:16 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Oh yeah...I suppose I didn't think of proposed changes to TOAW as something that should be kept confidential.

Come to think of it, I still don't. It seems -- witness the above -- that whatever the legitimate function of an NDA, in this case it also serves to make a change a fait accompli.


Feel free to take that up with Matrix. But I think they prefer their games to not be developed by committee.


I doubt very much that anything Matrix ever said would have prevented you from posting a list of what was going to be in the patch. In fact, considering that you posted a beta of the patch, this is a transparent falsehood.
quote:



quote:

What would actually have been the problem with discussing -- in advance of making the change -- the notion that supply units should merely extend the supply radius rather than increasing the supply delivered by a fixed percentage of the base supply level as in the past? Or the notion that they necessarily can only represent and should only represent an increase in land transportation assets?

The fact of the matter is that the definition and potential usefulness of supply units was radically altered -- and radically altered without any public discussion.


Nevertheless, had you been reading the Wishlist, you would have been aware of it. But I guess we were supposed to give you a personal notification.


You are referring to a discussion that took place three years ago -- on a thread that is fifty four pages long. Everything from submarines to strategic bombing has been on that wish list.

Yes, I think you are thinking of changing the system, you should list the changes you're considering so that people can comment.

For one, it would avoid the sort of disappointment that occurred here. If nothing else, I would have immediately inquired whether sea roads were still going to work -- and that would have saved you from what you have already admitted was an oversight.



What part of "Non Disclosure Agreement" did you not understand? We can't discuss what we're doing on the board. But this item was there in the Wishlist for everyone to see.


What part of 'bull' do you not understand? You most certainly can -- and do -- discuss proposed changes when it suits you. See what you and others indicated would be in this patch and will be in the next. Should I really drag up the posts?

And saying 'something was on the wishlist for everyone to see' is absurd. I'm supposed to comb fifty four pages looking for bad ideas I disagree with and then get your personal assurance you won't implement them?

In fact, there is no earthly reason you couldn't list the changes you were considering and invite comment. Something like that occurs all the time. 'It'll be in the next patch.' What happens to the NDA then?

You're using the NDA as a crutch to justify what was in fact an error. Inadvertently or not, you imposed several controversial changes without giving people a reasonable chance to comment. Saying it 'was in the thread' is one step up from meaningless.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 5/4/2011 5:59:58 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 32
RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/4/2011 5:59:08 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

Nothing was done to the 1.5 multiple for adjacent units. That's still there.


Shwew !! Ok then, thanks for the clarification.

With the variable supply points, I think we can get around the other point of the distance factor by using the variable supply points. i.e., in the desert we can have some low percentage supply points at the oasis's, in deep Russia we can have low percentage supply points at forward depots. We've already put some in D21 to make up for the decrease at the extremes in order to take advantage of the new rules.

Another factor to consider in working these problems out in a scenario are the rail lines. There may not have been a rail line to an oasis deep in the desert, but in TOAW terms it nicely simulates a supply line.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 33
RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/4/2011 6:05:39 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

Nothing was done to the 1.5 multiple for adjacent units. That's still there.


Shwew !! Ok then, thanks for the clarification.

With the variable supply points, I think we can get around the other point of the distance factor by using the variable supply points. i.e., in the desert we can have some low percentage supply points at the oasis's, in deep Russia we can have low percentage supply points at forward depots. We've already put some in D21 to make up for the decrease at the extremes in order to take advantage of the new rules.

Another factor to consider in working these problems out in a scenario are the rail lines. There may not have been a rail line to an oasis deep in the desert, but in TOAW terms it nicely simulates a supply line.


Depending on what you want, you may have to temper your joy. 1.5 times 1% is...1.5%. In other words, your supply unit isn't going to help much when you really need it.

Aside from the problems it causes in my scenarios, I still don't see why this 'improvement' was necessary.

Supply units were a tool with a powerful effect. If that effect wasn't desired, omit them. In cases where it was desired, couldn't it have occurred to Curtis that people might not appreciate having the effect reduced by fiat?


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 5/4/2011 6:15:21 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 34
RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/4/2011 6:13:07 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline 		I've already said it, but I'll repeat something.

What really causes me problems is not that I have to choose between the new supply system and supply units that function in the old way. That I could live with. Maybe not like, but live with.

What bugs me is that I can't combine supply units functioning in the old way with the variable supply points. I have yet to hear why it was necessary to 'package' the variable supply points with the new supply system. Variable supply points is something I was looking forward to -- that, and the continued use of supply units.

There may be some reason this combination occurred -- but it's not apparent. Just make supply points variable in both systems; what's the problem? After all, by default they'll all be at 100 in old scenarios -- there's no backwards compatibility issue that I can see.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 35
RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/5/2011 3:38:37 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

Infinite length supply lines are realistic.
NDAs are meaningless.
No one can be expected to read the wishlist.
Up is down.
Left is right.

Anything else?

Back in the real world...

Old Supply is still there for any who don't care about infinite length supply. For those who do, New Supply fixes it.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 36
RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/5/2011 3:45:15 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Nothing was done to the 1.5 multiple for adjacent units. That's still there.


Odd. What happened to the argument that the supply unit represents transportation assets and nothing else?


Nothing odd about it at all. The distance required to travel to the unit is reduced. Therefore a boost is received. Fully in accordance with transportation asset operations.

And "transportation assets" is the only rational way to interpret supply units. Hopefully, we can expand on that down the road by scaling their effect due to losses.

Regardless, whatever anyone wants to interpret them as, their effect would attenuate with distance from the source. There simply is no real-world effect that doesn't.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 37
RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/5/2011 7:15:08 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

So...

Infinite length supply lines are realistic.
NDAs are meaningless.
No one can be expected to read the wishlist.
Up is down.
Left is right.

Anything else?

Back in the real world...

Old Supply is still there for any who don't care about infinite length supply. For those who do, New Supply fixes it.


Good stuff, Curt. 'Up is down.' Left is right.' 'Back in the real world...'

Keep it up. That's what's making this forum thrive.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 38
RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/5/2011 7:17:07 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

And "transportation assets" is the only rational way to interpret supply units.


No...

As noted, it is simply and solely your way.

Believe it or not, this can differ from 'the only way.'

Of course, now that you've imposed your change, it is the only way.

Building a better TOAW -- that's our Curt.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 39
RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/5/2011 7:23:01 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Regardless, whatever anyone wants to interpret them as, their effect would attenuate with distance from the source. There simply is no real-world effect that doesn't.


Fairly comic.

I'm reminded of when you were defending your assertion that the Japanese could have and should have invaded the Hawaiian Islands.

Part of your 'argument' was (rather incredibly) that it doesn't make any difference how long supply lines are -- if they are at sea.

If the Japanese could put a given quantity of supply ashore in the Philippines, they could have put it ashore in Hawaii. Remember that, Curtis?

In any case, the fact of the matter is that supply units were a fairly abstract tool that could represent almost anything at all but in particular were intended to represent strategic focus (which is not necessarily attentuated by distance). I've already furnished some fine examples of this point.

That's how they were intended, and that's how they were often used -- until you 'fixed' them.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 5/5/2011 8:37:23 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 40
RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/5/2011 8:49:41 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline 		Somewhat ironically, if one considers real-world examples of what might be considered the assignment of a 'supply unit' one can see that they were often used to overcome (or attempt to overcome) situations where absent extraordinary effort, virtually no supply would have been available at all.

Specifically, Rommel at El Alamein, and the Germans in Tunisia. In both cases, absent extraordinary effort to get supplies in, the forces would have gotten virtually none at all.

We do indeed have supply jumping from 1% to 25% -- not from 1% to 1.5%.

We HAVE a way of getting the kind of incremental improvement Curtis would see supply units as intended to represent. It's called 'rail repair.' You send your rail repair unit to the line you want to extend. Now, if Curtis wants to extend the concept of 'damage' to roads and create road repair units, that's an interesting idea -- but the interim solution is not to wreck supply units.

Supply units represent something else entirely. They're what makes it possible for Arnim to fight on in Tunisia. They're what makes it possible for the Germans to mount an offensive against Murmansk. They were -- in their original appearance -- part of what makes it possible for the Austrians to decide on focus on crushing the Serbs, or focus on stopping the Russians.

They're not trucks, carts, or anything else in particular. They're simply a tool to represent strategic emphasis.

Or were, until Curtis fixed 'em.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 41
RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/5/2011 9:07:32 PM   
Telumar


Posts: 2236
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline 		It seems to me, that at one point on the journey towards volume based supply, supply units do need to become more physical. 

_____________________________

http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 42
RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/5/2011 9:16:47 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Telumar

It seems to me, that at one point on the journey towards volume based supply, supply units do need to become more physical. 


Perhaps. But it's hardly clear that this change was a necessary step on the journey.

And whatever rationale Curtis offers, in practical terms it was a change for the worse.

Supply units were a powerful tool. They now are not.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 43
RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/5/2011 9:19:51 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline 		Indeed, if one considers how supply units might fit into a quantitative system, one possibility is that they would simply work to warp the distribution of available supplies.

You move your 'supply' unit towards the units you want favored for whatever supplies are available.

Like now -- or to be exact, no longer like now. Curtis 'fixed' this.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 44
RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/5/2011 9:27:33 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline 		Note that like 'shock' or guerilla effects, supply units are optional.

That means that if the effect they produce isn't appropriate for your scenario, you can omit 'em.

This is an important distinction, because a global, mandatory mechanism (like the conventional supply network) has to be appropriate for all situations -- or at least as many as possible. The designer has no choice about the effect. It's gonna be there.

But supply units (and other optional effects) are different. They only need to be there if they're gonna work.

And that's why Curtis' change makes no sense. He has taken a tool that was useful at times and simply strapped it down to one definition -- his definition.

The net effect has been to simply emasculate one tool we had. I don't see what the point was.

He waves his arms about how supply units are 'transportation assets.' Well, he coulda made a 'transportation asset' unit that had the effects he wanted.

Then he'd have had what he wanted, and the rest of us would have still had what we wanted.

But no. He couldn't do that. He had to alter what was already there to get what he apparently thought should be there. That way he gets what he wants -- and the rest of us lose what we had.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 45
RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/6/2011 4:55:06 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Regardless, whatever anyone wants to interpret them as, their effect would attenuate with distance from the source. There simply is no real-world effect that doesn't.


Fairly comic.

I'm reminded of when you were defending your assertion that the Japanese could have and should have invaded the Hawaiian Islands.

Part of your 'argument' was (rather incredibly) that it doesn't make any difference how long supply lines are -- if they are at sea.

If the Japanese could put a given quantity of supply ashore in the Philippines, they could have put it ashore in Hawaii. Remember that, Curtis?


I never said anything of the sort. What I did say was that the lift for the troops themselves could sail any distance. As they did for Torch.

Supply was another matter. Obviously, it takes a lot more ships to get the same supply to Normandy from New York than from Portsmouth. The same would be true for planes or any other logistical transport.

quote:

In any case, the fact of the matter is that supply units were a fairly abstract tool that could represent almost anything at all but in particular were intended to represent strategic focus (which is not necessarily attentuated by distance). I've already furnished some fine examples of this point.


No. They can't represent supplies themselves - they are not and never were supply sources. As such, the only thing they can represent are logistical transport assets. There is nothing in the real world that extends supply to infinity. Every means attenuates its effect with distance.

Supply units used in their normal mode (as ground units moving with the front) would have, as you would have it, extended 25% supply everywhere they go - all the way to infinity. That's infinite supply lines and that was what New Supply was specifically intended to address. We can't have needed improvements to TOAW be handcuffed by anyone's "clever" misuse of a feature.

Old Supply was retained, however. So, it is absurd to say that we've evicerated anything. However, what you seem to want to do would, it seems to me, be best effected via a Variable Supply Point event - with a setting of 25%.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 46
RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/6/2011 5:07:16 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Specifically, Rommel at El Alamein, and the Germans in Tunisia. In both cases, absent extraordinary effort to get supplies in, the forces would have gotten virtually none at all.


Had the same efforts been made at any other point west of El Alamein, the effect would have been significantly greater. The effects of "extraordinary efforts" attenuate with the distance involved. And the supply unit - as a mobile ground unit - needs to model that simple fact. It's not just going to be with Rommel at El Alamein - it's going to be everywhere else he goes.

The effect has to attenuate with distance to be realistic. That's the way it works in New Supply. That's why New Supply is more realistic than Old Supply.

Hopefully we may eventually be able to combine multiple supply units for greater combined effects. But the impact will remain dependent upon distance from the source. It has to, for realism purposes.

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 5/6/2011 5:17:16 PM >

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 47
RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/6/2011 7:01:45 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Regardless, whatever anyone wants to interpret them as, their effect would attenuate with distance from the source. There simply is no real-world effect that doesn't.


Fairly comic.

I'm reminded of when you were defending your assertion that the Japanese could have and should have invaded the Hawaiian Islands.

Part of your 'argument' was (rather incredibly) that it doesn't make any difference how long supply lines are -- if they are at sea.

If the Japanese could put a given quantity of supply ashore in the Philippines, they could have put it ashore in Hawaii. Remember that, Curtis?


I never said anything of the sort. What I did say was that the lift for the troops themselves could sail any distance. As they did for Torch.


No offense, but you did say something precisely of this sort. Japanese logistical capability wouldn't have been affected by distance. As I recall, the definitive proof was that it wasn't in the game 'War in the Pacific' or whatever was your source for answers to all such questions.

However, if you want to, repeat your assertion and I won't bother to dispute it.
quote:



Supply was another matter. Obviously, it takes a lot more ships to get the same supply to Normandy from New York than from Portsmouth. The same would be true for planes or any other logistical transport.

quote:

In any case, the fact of the matter is that supply units were a fairly abstract tool that could represent almost anything at all but in particular were intended to represent strategic focus (which is not necessarily attentuated by distance). I've already furnished some fine examples of this point.


No. They can't represent supplies themselves - they are not and never were supply sources. As such, the only thing they can represent are logistical transport assets. There is nothing in the real world that extends supply to infinity. Every means attenuates its effect with distance.

Supply units used in their normal mode (as ground units moving with the front) would have, as you would have it, extended 25% supply everywhere they go - all the way to infinity. That's infinite supply lines and that was what New Supply was specifically intended to address. We can't have needed improvements to TOAW be handcuffed by anyone's "clever" misuse of a feature.


Bull. If you don't want supply units used in this way, don't put them in your scenario.

You keep repeating 'supply lines would extend to infinity.' Obviously, not until we get an infinite map they won't. They would extend to anywhere on the map -- and that's precisely what supply units were intended to represent -- the ability to get resources to distant points, regardless of the cost.

At some point in 1941, OKH commented that while Rommel only had 1-2% of the Wehrmacht's combat assets, he was consuming 10% of all their trucks. Obviously, a matter of a 'supply unit' allowing significant supply to a point that normally would receive little to none, given the usual distribution procedures.
quote:



Old Supply was retained, however. So, it is absurd to say that we've evicerated anything. However, what you seem to want to do would, it seems to me, be best effected via a Variable Supply Point event - with a setting of 25%.


Sure Curtis...and I can just plot supply points for everywhere players might want to go. Of course, I'll want one and only one to be active, so that'll take a few thousand events, won't it?

Now, why you couldn't have left the supply units alone and labeled what you created with another icon (the truck symbol, for example) I'm not sure.

The only reason I can think of is that you feel you should impose your particular notions of correct scenario design on everyone. Is that the case?


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 48
RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/6/2011 7:12:13 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Specifically, Rommel at El Alamein, and the Germans in Tunisia. In both cases, absent extraordinary effort to get supplies in, the forces would have gotten virtually none at all.


Had the same efforts been made at any other point west of El Alamein, the effect would have been significantly greater. The effects of "extraordinary efforts" attenuate with the distance involved. And the supply unit - as a mobile ground unit - needs to model that simple fact. It's not just going to be with Rommel at El Alamein - it's going to be everywhere else he goes.

The effect has to attenuate with distance to be realistic. That's the way it works in New Supply. That's why New Supply is more realistic than Old Supply.

Hopefully we may eventually be able to combine multiple supply units for greater combined effects. But the impact will remain dependent upon distance from the source. It has to, for realism purposes.



Rommel was not getting 1.5 times no supply at all -- which is what he would have gotten had no especial effort been made. He was getting more like 25% of his requirements -- not enough to mount a proper offensive, but as Montgomery found out, quite enough to mount a heck of a defense.

Nothing we do will offer a perfect simulation -- but a supply unit adding 25% of the base supply level comes a lot closer than one that does virtually nothing at all. If you feel that's not the case for the situation you're looking at omit the supply unit.

Note that even under the old system, the total effect is attenuated. You would go 100%-75%-50%-25%. With the supply unit, you go 100%-100%-75%-50%.

Put that into your system (which is interesting otherwise, and I mean that in a good way), and instead of going 100%--0%, you'd go 100%--25%.

Nothing wrong with that. In some campaigns, units did wander off to the most remote locations on the map -- and through heroic effort, they did get some supply there. Entirely appropriate for many situations.

If it's not appropriate for yours, don't have the supply units.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 5/6/2011 7:20:43 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 49
RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/6/2011 7:18:24 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline 		More to the point, it's not for you to decide.  It doesn't matter whether you agree with my reasoning or not.

I disagree with how some weapons are represented in TOAW -- AT rifles, for example.  That doesn't mean I would replace them with something else if I was editing the game everyone uses.  I just wouldn't put them in my scenarios.  As a rule, I don't.

The idea is to give us tools.  Not take away those we have because you don't want to see them used.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 50
RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/6/2011 7:29:56 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Supply units used in their normal mode (as ground units moving with the front) would have, as you would have it, extended 25% supply everywhere they go - all the way to infinity. That's infinite supply lines and that was what New Supply was specifically intended to address. We can't have needed improvements to TOAW be handcuffed by anyone's "clever" misuse of a feature.


Ahem. It is you who has redefined what supply units are intended to represent.

I've pointed it out a couple of times already, but I'll point it out a third time. Supply units originally appeared in an Austro-Hungary in 1914 scenario. They were intended to represent in entirely abstract terms the choice between an emphasis on Serbia, and one on Russia. They weren't intended to represent trucks, wagon trains, supply dumps, train loading schedules, or any one thing in particular. Just the whole ball of wax.

And so they remained. They were a bit of an oddity. Often misunderstood -- but sometimes designers picked them up and found that they worked for their situation.

This was not some 'clever use.' It was using supply units as they were intended -- as a tool.

It is you who have changed things -- by deciding that they are simply transport columns, and so should attenuate to zero. And why do supply columns automatically attenuate to zero? So that they'll fit in nicely with your new supply paradigm. It doesn't matter that actually, supply has been pushed through to places where normally it wouldn't get to at all and so we should have supply units available as a tool to simulate this or whatever else we choose to use it for. You had to have your harmonious little package.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 5/6/2011 7:35:13 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 51
RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/7/2011 3:56:32 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline 		Here's the shot from the What's New. Note that it shows the attenuation of supply in New Supply with and without Supply Units. The new curve "fits" the old way out to about four supply radii. Past that, it starts to diverge. Now, supply radii for WWII forces should be about 100-150km. So, that's out to about 500 km. It's only beyond that that any significant differences appear. Two observations:

1. The old way extends supply to infinity. That's undeniable.

2. The new way is more natural and ends infinite supply lines. Real logistical assets would work just the way it is shown in the new curves. No real world logistics would follow the old curves in any way.

There's no question that the new way is the way it had to be done to eliminate infinite supply lines.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 5/7/2011 4:00:23 PM >

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 52
RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/7/2011 4:07:18 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline 		However, I admit that the amount of redirection of logistical transport assets is arbitrary. it would be nice if it could be varied as designers and players wanted. The way to do that is, as I've said, by making it possible for multiple Supply Units to combine their effects. Then, if you want a greater effect, you can throw more and more Supply Units at the problem.

The attached shot shows a new curve, which is how two combined Supply Units would affect supply. Now it isn't until five supply radii (525 km) before there is significant deviation from the constant value of Old Supply. I won't show more - anyone can use their imagination.

But, note that this allows players/designers to heavily concentrate on one section of the front - while still eliminating infinite supply lines.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 53
RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/7/2011 4:14:35 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I never said anything of the sort. What I did say was that the lift for the troops themselves could sail any distance. As they did for Torch.


No offense, but you did say something precisely of this sort. Japanese logistical capability wouldn't have been affected by distance. As I recall, the definitive proof was that it wasn't in the game 'War in the Pacific' or whatever was your source for answers to all such questions.

However, if you want to, repeat your assertion and I won't bother to dispute it.


I never said anything of the sort. What I said was just what I posted above. The troops only have to be delivered once. Supply is a continuous stream, however. What I said about supply for that operation was that the Japs had enough transport to carry it off. I even calculated it out. Once all the amphibious landings had taken place, there would then be a lot of excess transport released by that for logistics.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 54
RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/7/2011 6:11:00 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



1. The old way extends supply to infinity. That's undeniable.


Really? Which is the scenario with the infinite map?

quote:

There's no question that the new way is the way it had to be done to eliminate infinite supply lines.


Only in this scenario with the infinite map you've uncovered...and may I point out that in this scenario (whose existence I don't question), you are free to not use supply units.

It exists, after all, only in your argument. You can do what you like with it. It's not real.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 5/7/2011 6:20:15 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 55
RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/7/2011 6:18:58 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

However, I admit that the amount of redirection of logistical transport assets is arbitrary. it would be nice if it could be varied as designers and players wanted. The way to do that is, as I've said, by making it possible for multiple Supply Units to combine their effects. Then, if you want a greater effect, you can throw more and more Supply Units at the problem.


I appreciate the effort to uncover a happy medium, but this wouldn't work particularly well. If one didn't employ them to extend the supply radius in one particular place, one would have the supply units all over the map, able to extend the supply radius everywhere.

One also couldn't use the supply units to simulate airfields, or anchorages, or captures. It would also be dreadfully artificial -- these twenty 'supply units' racing about to build magic daisy chains.

How about...

Using a separate icon for your new supply unit, and letting the rest of us have our old supply unit back? Could we have that instead?

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 56
RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/8/2011 6:59:35 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Really? Which is the scenario with the infinite map?


This is pure semantics. By this line of reasoning, if the map encompases all of the known universe, it technically isn't infinite. This is like saying that TOAW didn't have an Ant Unit problem because there were no units that were literally made out of ants.

The mathematics for the Old Supply extended supply to infinity. In reality it meant that there was the same supply everywhere past four supply radii. Use whatever term you want to describe that. That's the problem and that's what New Supply fixes. And it's a real problem that lots of real scenarios have. Most people call it the "Infinite Length Supply Line Problem". You can call it whatever you want.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 57
RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/8/2011 7:09:12 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I appreciate the effort to uncover a happy medium, but this wouldn't work particularly well. If one didn't employ them to extend the supply radius in one particular place, one would have the supply units all over the map, able to extend the supply radius everywhere.


Which is exactly what a Supply Unit could do before under Old Supply.

quote:

One also couldn't use the supply units to simulate airfields, or anchorages, or captures. It would also be dreadfully artificial -- these twenty 'supply units' racing about to build magic daisy chains.


Of course you could. It wouldn't be any more dreadful that any other Supply Unit used for that purpose.

If you will open your eyes, you'll see that this is the solution to the issue. I'm confident that infinite supply lines are not going to be reintroduced to New Supply - ever.

And, it has the advantage that it's something we need anyway.

Now, there can be more sophistication than just a simple combination of Supply Units. For example, there could be an editor parameter that defined the quantity of transport necessary for a Supply Unit to deduct one radius. Then, units with more or less transport would deduct more or less. This would then allow enemy bombardment to directly impact the SUs impact - since a reduction by losses would have the same effect as a reduction by design. This is in contrast to now, when you have to eliminate the SU to have any effect.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 58
RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/8/2011 8:49:21 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Really? Which is the scenario with the infinite map?


This is pure semantics. By this line of reasoning, if the map encompases all of the known universe, it technically isn't infinite. This is like saying that TOAW didn't have an Ant Unit problem because there were no units that were literally made out of ants.

The mathematics for the Old Supply extended supply to infinity. In reality it meant that there was the same supply everywhere past four supply radii. Use whatever term you want to describe that. That's the problem and that's what New Supply fixes. And it's a real problem that lots of real scenarios have. Most people call it the "Infinite Length Supply Line Problem". You can call it whatever you want.


Oh B.S. Of course the worry about an 'infinite' supply line is academic -- the map isn't infinite. With 50 km hexes and a maximum distance of 300 hexes, it can't encompass the known universe in the first place, so your 'argument' is pure hyperbole.

More to the point, while your creation of a supply line that drops to zero is useful, your hitching the supply units to that wasn't. The supply unit was useful to simulate various things -- and you eliminated these uses without any justification that makes sense in game terms.

Even if there were infinite maps (which there aren't) and supply lines could therefore extend to infinity (which they can't) it wouldn't matter that supply units could always increase this supply by 25%. If the supply units are there, the designer must have found the effect appropriate.

And it would be. It's a France in Indo-China scenario. Indeed, anywhere on the map, airlift could get some supply to a column if it was important enough. They didn't have resources on the American scale, and they couldn't fly everything everywhere -- but they could keep one column going. You send along your one supply unit.

It's a Fall Blau scenario. Both Army Group A and Army Group B have run way past the supply radius -- and are now involved in heavy fighting. The Germans can send their supply unit to one or the other and permit some continued effort -- not both. The actual distance for each is quite secondary -- it's which gets the truck columns and airlift. Both can't. A supply unit that always provides a 25% bump is just the thing.

It's a Sealion scenario. Most supplies have to come through ports, and indeed, there would be trouble hauling them inland. However, some can also be airlifted to any captured airfields -- regardless of where those airfields are with respect to the ports. Fixed supply units pop up at the airfield -- or did, until Curtis 'fixed' this. Now, of course, capturing an airfield won't do you any good -- unless you're also some plausible distance from a port.

What is it? The Luftwaffe is the federal government, and they have a matching funds policy? They'll only fly in one case of mortar shells if one is also coming overland? The British have effectively taken out Tripoli as a supply point so now Ju-52's have to stop flying from Crete?

You have -- on the most specious possible grounds, and without any respect for the intentions and preferences of any other designer -- simply and unilaterally imposed a mischievous change.

It is bad enough that you did this in the first place. That you continue to insist that it was right to do this, and frankly assert your intention of exploiting your position to make this change stick is worse still.



< Message edited by ColinWright -- 5/8/2011 10:19:00 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 59
RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/8/2011 8:58:22 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay





Of course you could. It wouldn't be any more dreadful that any other Supply Unit used for that purpose.

If you will open your eyes, you'll see that this is the solution to the issue. I'm confident that infinite supply lines are not going to be reintroduced to New Supply - ever.


Nonsense. Now that you've 'fixed' things, an airstrip or a port can't enhance supply -- unless the ground supply line is marginally within reach.

Now that you've 'fixed' things, an extraordinary effort to get supply to some column or spearhead way out there can't be simulated.

Now that you've 'fixed' things, supply units can represent one thing, and one thing only -- a marginal extension of the ground supply radius in a chosen sector.

Supply units could -- and did -- serve to represent a choice of strategic emphasis. Capture of stockpiles. Capture of airstrips. Airlift. Ferrying of supplies along the coast.

Whatever. They were a very useful tool. Without any substantial justification at all, you stripped us all of this tool.

It's infuriating. It's not like you had to use them. If you find them inappropriate for your scenarios, don't use them.

I and others did use them. Evidently, we found them appropriate. Where is the justification for your overruling us?

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 5/8/2011 10:21:03 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> TOAW III Support >> RE: Some questions about the latest patch Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   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

0.766