RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (Full Version)

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



Message

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/25/2010 3:31:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

I see. The Axis on the East Front and the Allies on the West Front would have loved to have known these things. They would have had no problems with logistics if they had just stopped to reason things out. I guess they were pretty stupid, eh?


No. It's a subtle point, so make an effort to understand: They weren't limited by how much supply-truck-traffic that a road, out in the middle of nowhere, could handle.

Math doesn't lie. 94 x 20 x 4.5 = 8460 tons (that's averaging about 2.5 mph). But, of course, that requires 40 supply-trucks (two-way traffic) per km of distance from the supply source, plus a buffer of trucks at the start and end for loading/unloading.

What they were limited by was: How many trucks they had, port capacities (Allies), and, near the front, traffic jams with combat units. Those are already modeled in TOAW with supply radius, Force Supply Levels, and traffic penalties. But, keeping track of how much supply-truck traffic has passed through every hex would be a waste.



Panama -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/25/2010 5:09:19 PM)

"Traffic jams near the front" as you call them are not a fact, merely fiction. You yourself say how the traffic is disipated nearer the front. Then you say there are traffic jams near the front. This comes periously close to flip flopping your comments to suit your 'facts'.

Here we go, post #1189:

"Extend a few hundred miles and the truck density drops accordingly.

So, the supply trucks themselves aren't going to be the issue. It's the traffic penalties encountered at the front lines - and those are already built in - or will be in 3.4."

If the truck density drops how is there a problem "at the front lines"?

Which brings up another point. The supply columns don't drive to the front lines. They deliver to a depot. From the depot Corps or what passes for such receives it's supply and they pass it on to division who passes it down from there. There is not a traffic jam at the 'front' because the supply is spread out.

"like out in the middle of nowhere - there is no need to figure how many trucks passed over the hex. The capacity is so huge it needn't be a concern."

This also bothers me. You're saying if I have a corps out in the middle of the desert supply will never be a problem as long as there's a track out to them, right?

My closing thoughts on this subject are that supply will not change. Ever. It will be so abstracted as to not make any more difference than it now does. Just like transport doesn't matter. These two things are so vital to modern warfare that to ignore them makes me think that the powers that be know nothing of modern warefare and the only concern is to make a 'game', like checkers is a 'game'.



ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/25/2010 7:01:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

I see. The Axis on the East Front and the Allies on the West Front would have loved to have known these things. They would have had no problems with logistics if they had just stopped to reason things out. I guess they were pretty stupid, eh?


No. It's a subtle point, so make an effort to understand: They weren't limited by how much supply-truck-traffic that a road, out in the middle of nowhere, could handle.

Math doesn't lie. 94 x 20 x 4.5 = 8460 tons (that's averaging about 2.5 mph). But, of course, that requires 40 supply-trucks (two-way traffic) per km of distance from the supply source, plus a buffer of trucks at the start and end for loading/unloading.

What they were limited by was: How many trucks they had, port capacities (Allies), and, near the front, traffic jams with combat units. Those are already modeled in TOAW with supply radius, Force Supply Levels, and traffic penalties. But, keeping track of how much supply-truck traffic has passed through every hex would be a waste.


I don't think so. This might work for the cases you choose to consider, but it doesn't for others.

For example, the German drive on Murmansk was limited by the fact that only so much in the way of supplies could be pumped up the arctic road. German exploitation of their gains against the French in the Spring of 1918 was limited by the fact that absent clearing certain critical routes into the bulge, the military effort they could mount from within it was sharply limited.

The ultimate example, of course, would be the German efforts to support surrounded pockets on the Eastern Front by air. They had been able to sustain the Demjiansk pocket throughout the winter of 1941-1942.

They couldn't do the same for Stalingrad. Sadly for the Germans, it turned out that supply is indeed volume-based. Just because they could support five divisions at 5% supply that way didn't mean they could support fifteen divisions at 5% supply that way.

And the same with a given supply route. It may well be possible to support three divisions at 20% supply up it. That doesn't mean thirty divisions can be supported at 20% supply up it.



ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/25/2010 7:22:33 PM)

Thinking about the supply thing again (happily, since we go in circles around here, the ground is well-trodden), I see two elements.

First, there's the gross quantity of supplies available, and how much unit consumes, depending on its activity for that turn. Did it sit still, did it attack, did it defend, did it move? We have a gross quantity of supplies available, and we have gross consumption. I don't think the categories of supplies matter much, since generally quartermasters can anticipate the ratios that will be needed, and order up whatever is short. As a rule, if a division has ten thousand hot dogs, it won't find itself fresh out of buns.

Second, there's what volume can be distributed to any given point. This is going to be trickier to model, but it's also essential. In the real world, armies do choose axes of attack that will permit a sufficient volume of supplies to be delivered along them. You can send a regiment up that track through the swamps; if you send a corps, you'd best have a plan to open up a better supply route to it very soon after it bumps into the enemy.



Panama -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/25/2010 11:03:11 PM)

I really don't think you can do much beyond what Ralph has done short of rewriting the entire thing. Pigs will learn how to fly before that happens. [8|]



ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/26/2010 12:04:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

I really don't think you can do much beyond what Ralph has done short of rewriting the entire thing. Pigs will learn how to fly before that happens. [8|]


Maybe.

However, the current supply system owes nothing to reality. It has no connection to the nature of military logistics. Supply is volume based. Two divisions will use twice as much supply tonnage as one. That shouldn't be hard to see.

Until that fact is granted, it's hard to say whether or not we can get anywhere. Who knows whether a volume-based supply system is practicable? We never even get to the point of admitting it's needed.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/26/2010 9:02:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

"Traffic jams near the front" as you call them are not a fact, merely fiction. You yourself say how the traffic is disipated nearer the front. Then you say there are traffic jams near the front. This comes periously close to flip flopping your comments to suit your 'facts'.

Here we go, post #1189:

"Extend a few hundred miles and the truck density drops accordingly.

So, the supply trucks themselves aren't going to be the issue. It's the traffic penalties encountered at the front lines - and those are already built in - or will be in 3.4."

If the truck density drops how is there a problem "at the front lines"?


There's so much misunderstanding here I don't know if I can straighten it out, but I'll try one more time.

First, just think how many combat vehicles that TOAW allows to move over a road per day without suffering a traffic penalty. Again, the movement allowance is 94km/day. And, depending upon hex scale, the allowed density per km is between 27 and 101 vehicles per km. So, you can move at least 94 x 27 = 2538 combat vehicles down a road in a day without incurring traffic penalties. You can see this for yourself in the game.

All I'm saying is that if you can move that many combat vehicles without penalty you can move that many supply vehicles without penalty as well. Note that I actually used a smaller figure of 20 vehicles per km for the supply vehicles. That totals 1880 supply trucks. Just think if you modeled the supply trucks as combat units. You could move that quantity of them without traffic penalty.

And (this is the main point) that quantity of trucks is going to be carrying a huge amount of supply. I figured 8460 tons. That's such a high number that it's unnecessary to concern the game with a higher amount being carried over a single road. Supply trucks themselves are never going to incur traffic penalties from other supply trucks. There is no reason for the game to keep track of how many supply trucks have passed through a hex.

However, when the supply trucks get to the front they will then encounter huge concentrations of combat vehicles. Or if they pass by combat units anywhere along the route. Wherever they encounter combat vehicles, there will be a potential for traffic penalties. But this is now going to be modeled in version 3.4. Supply distances are now in MPs and traffic penalties are added to the distance when incurred (the supply trace is assumed to have 50% of allowed density).

quote:

Which brings up another point. The supply columns don't drive to the front lines. They deliver to a depot. From the depot Corps or what passes for such receives it's supply and they pass it on to division who passes it down from there. There is not a traffic jam at the 'front' because the supply is spread out.


The traffic jam would be caused by combat vehicles - which are generally at the front. But, wherever they are encountered, there may be traffic penalties incurred. These would now be added to the supply distance.

quote:

"like out in the middle of nowhere - there is no need to figure how many trucks passed over the hex. The capacity is so huge it needn't be a concern."

This also bothers me. You're saying if I have a corps out in the middle of the desert supply will never be a problem as long as there's a track out to them, right?


No. I'm saying that supply vehicles will not incur traffic penalties with other supply vehicles out in the middle of the desert. The supply state of the corps will depend on other factors. Rommel had all sorts of supply problems. But supply truck traffic jams 500 miles behind the front weren't one of them.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/26/2010 9:14:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

For example, the German drive on Murmansk was limited by the fact that only so much in the way of supplies could be pumped up the arctic road.


Due to other factors than traffic jams. How many supply truck did they have? What was the actual condition of the road? Did they actually have combat units to spare for a larger effort?

Clearly, given enough time, you could stockpile supplies sufficient for a short offensive. And they spent four years there mostly sitting on their thumbs.

quote:

German exploitation of their gains against the French in the Spring of 1918 was limited by the fact that absent clearing certain critical routes into the bulge, the military effort they could mount from within it was sharply limited.


Mostly using horse transport.

quote:

The ultimate example, of course, would be the German efforts to support surrounded pockets on the Eastern Front by air. They had been able to sustain the Demjiansk pocket throughout the winter of 1941-1942.

They couldn't do the same for Stalingrad. Sadly for the Germans, it turned out that supply is indeed volume-based. Just because they could support five divisions at 5% supply that way didn't mean they could support fifteen divisions at 5% supply that way.

And the same with a given supply route. It may well be possible to support three divisions at 20% supply up it. That doesn't mean thirty divisions can be supported at 20% supply up it.


Air supply obviously doesn't use roads. So, what does this have to do with the issue?



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/26/2010 9:26:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

However, the current supply system owes nothing to reality. It has no connection to the nature of military logistics. Supply is volume based. Two divisions will use twice as much supply tonnage as one. That shouldn't be hard to see.


But, for most scenarios, the designer knows how many divisions are going to be in combat. Controlling the Force Supply Level is adequate for those situations. The scenarios that need more detail are special cases.

But modeling that additional detail is expensive - for the coder, the designers, and for the players. So, we will get there - but in its proper time.



ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/26/2010 10:00:00 PM)

I think the above demonstrates my point. We can't consider the practicality of sailing around the world in the first place. Someone keeps insisting it's flat and we'll fall off the edge. Worse, that someone is in a position where he can impose his views.



ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/26/2010 10:26:21 PM)

We have been over this before, and with conclusive results. However, it is important, so let's fight the good fight.

To take Murmansk, in TOAW terms, the Germans were historically able to bring up about enough supplies to sustain two divisions at something like 10%. If they'd put in four, the supply level would have been about what 5% would represent. Had they confined themselves to one, it would have been 20%.

That's how it works in reality. All else being equal, two divisions will consume twice as much supply as one -- or, if the supplies are fixed, two divisions will each get half as much as one.

This is not hard to figure out. You can simulate it at home. Get a bag of cookies. Share them with one person, or share them with three. In the latter case, each person gets fewer cookies.

Pretty obvious, huh? It's not the theory of relativity. However, this is not how it works in TOAW. In TOAW, one division, two divisions, or four -- they'll all still get 10%. TOAW treats supply like cell phone coverage. In a given location, everyone gets one bar. Doesn't matter if dude over there hangs up -- you'll still have only one bar. Let ten people show up and start talking -- still only one bar.

If we were trying to model cell-phone coverage, we'd have a great system. But we're not -- we're trying to model supply, and the system sucks.

As I say, we've been through this before. Eventually, Curtis will retreat to the position that 'Murmansk is a special case.' But it's not: it just illustrates the point more clearly than usual. The same simple relationship can also be seen to govern how many troops the Axis could put into North Africa, the broad front versus narrow thrust controversy in France in 1944, how many divisions the Germans could have pumped into England if they had attempted an invasion. No doubt it has affected all campaigns to some extent.

The cookie bag is only so big. The more share, the fewer cookies for each. That's how supply works. It's volume-based.

But not in OPART. That's because the supply paradigm is fundamentally flawed.

Now, Curtis will think of something else. Failing that, he'll just pretend this point never was made and repeat his mantra the next time someone desperately tries to get the question of how to rectify this error addressed.

So, we don't get anywhere. And indeed, this applies to almost any suggestion anyone except Curtis himself makes. If it ain't Curtis' idea, it ain't getting into play. We're sitting here, with King Log, who is firmly convinced the world is flat, and fully intends to quash any attempts to see if circumnavigating the globe is possible.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/27/2010 3:35:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

We have been over this before, ...


And you would think that you would someday understand my position, but that never seems to happen. You keep repeating your straw man.

One more time:

For most scenarios, the designer knows how many divisions are going to be in combat.

Players of most scenarios don't have the option to double their force. Even if they do, the Force Supply Level will handle it.

Just take the Murmansk example. If you're designing a scenario modeling just the Murmansk operation, it's not a problem. If the players opt for twice as many divisions then just halve the FSL when they do.

The problem occurs for strategic-level scenarios or scenarios with contested naval operations. They are a special case. I want them to work, too. But don't claim that this is a problem for every scenario. TOAW works too well for that to be the case.



Panama -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/27/2010 4:02:35 PM)

Curtis, sticking to the East Front/Murmansk example, how would you choke the supply in the Great White North without affecting the supply farther south where it was relatively better? In FitE the Axis is limited to how many German divisions go to Finland but the Soviets are not restricted. You can have several armies operating in the Murmansk area. Not possible in the real world but doable in the sceanrio.

BTW, I know what the stock answer is, but what could be done to enable the game engine to restrict excisive supply in one area of a scenario and not another?



ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/27/2010 7:21:35 PM)

...



ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/27/2010 7:28:08 PM)

...



ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/27/2010 7:44:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

We have been over this before, ...


And you would think that you would someday understand my position, but that never seems to happen. You keep repeating your straw man.


It's actually just the opposite. I repeatedly address every element of what you are pleased to describe as a 'position,' while you just keep repeating the same discredited claims. However, we can go through it again...
quote:



One more time:

For most scenarios, the designer knows how many divisions are going to be in combat.


However, he can use all of them vigorously or only some of them, with a minimal effect on the resulting supply level. For example, in France 44 scenario, there is no broad front/narrow thrust dilemma for the Allies. Advance with all of 'em -- they'll get just as about as many supplies as if you advance with none of 'em.

The funny bit is that this shows what could happen if the problem was admitted. What if the designer could radically increase the transport asset effect? Then one could create a dilemma between moving all one's divisions or only some of them.

Not exactly a comprehensive solution, but if it's under the control of the designer, it could only help. See what neat things happen if you admit the problem is there in the first place?

In a second case, though, the designer may well know how many divisions there will be -- but he has no means of controlling how many of those divisions the player pumps into situations where only a few of them could have been supplied.

It's a Case Blau scenario. Send two divisions through the Caucasus passes or send ten -- they'll get the same supply either way. It's North Africa. You can send a brigade down to Siwa Oasis -- why not send a corps?


quote:



Players of most scenarios don't have the option to double their force. Even if they do, the Force Supply Level will handle it.


That's a nonsensical statement. Far from 'handling it,' the force supply level will simply ignore it. It'll stay exactly the same, even though twice as many troops are now attempting to use the supplies.

The fact is that in supply, we've got a paradigm that owes nothing to reality. We might as well have a system where weapons values are assigned according to the value of the weapon's designation. A British Mk VII light tank, for example, would be three and a half times more powerful than a JS II.

...and no doubt if that was the system, you would vigorously and stubbornly defend it. Point out that Mk VII's aren't going to fight JS II's, etc.
quote:



Just take the Murmansk example. If you're designing a scenario modeling just the Murmansk operation, it's not a problem. If the players opt for twice as many divisions then just halve the FSL when they do.


Uh huh. Suppose we've got a real ambitious scenario. Like one covering the whole Finnish front? You can advance around Leningrad with ten divisions if you've got them -- why not ten divisions against Murmansk?
quote:



The problem occurs for strategic-level scenarios or scenarios with contested naval operations. They are a special case.


The 'special case' shibboleth. So far, I have cited the following 'special cases'. Sealion. The Northern part of the Eastern Front. The Southern part of the Eastern Front. France in 1944. North Africa. Without thinking too hard, I can add Burma in 1943-45, and France in 1918. What exactly are you going to be left with? The Korean war and three carefully-limited World War Two scenarios?
quote:



I want them to work, too. But don't claim that this is a problem for every scenario. TOAW works too well for that to be the case.


In fact, TOAW doesn't work well at all. Wildly ahistorical results occur, tactics that never would have worked in reality are rewarded, and designers often can obtain reasonable results only by frog-marching the scenario to the desired conclusion with liberal doses of shock.

I don't particularly mind all that -- I don't expect a computer system to be able to perfectly simulate large chunks of a historical reality that often isn't terribly well-understood to begin with.

However, it would help if the problems could at least be admitted. Then there would be some hope of at least partially addressing them. For an example, see what popped up the instant I opened up the case of France in 1944. Why, creating an option to enhance transport-asset sharing allows a sort of volume-based supply mechanism...

Come on out and play, Curtis. All kinds of neat things can turn up. Just quit with this 'all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds' schtick. Admit the problems that are obviously there and we might be able to make some improvements.



ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/27/2010 7:59:38 PM)

So taking the incremental approach, for a start it would improve matters if the impact of transport asset sharing could be varied by the designer.

The designer control is important. In some situations, as in France 1944, an enhanced effect could indeed allow for more accurate simulation of the problem. In others, it would just make matters worse. Like, the German just halts enough divisions and now he can miraculously pump a high level of supplies through the Caucasus passes...



Panama -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/27/2010 8:55:03 PM)

Another thing that could be done would be to allow the player to decide which units get full supply at the expense of others getting only partial supply regardless of who moves and who doesn't. This could also be carried over to replacements.



ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/27/2010 9:12:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Another thing that could be done would be to allow the player to decide which units get full supply at the expense of others getting only partial supply regardless of who moves and who doesn't. This could also be carried over to replacements.


One idea I've had is an additional setting similar to the loss setting. Units would be assigned either high priority, normal priority, or low priority for supplies and replacements (since the two needs would usually coincide, I don't see two such toggles as more than an unnecessary complication).

Particularly in conjunction with a volume-based supply system, this could work very well -- but it wouldn't be a bad idea in any case. In an ideal world, the designer could enable or disable such a toggle. After all, in some situations, the ability to so modify the stream of supplies wouldn't really be an option available to the commanding general. For example, the commander of the Arab armies in a 1948 scenario might want supplies to flow to the Arab Legion rather than the Egyptian Army. That wasn't really an option...



ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/27/2010 9:26:28 PM)

In favor of the toggle idea, note that much of the necessary programming appears to already be in place.

Replacement and supply priorities can already be set in the editor. So all that's needed -- in a sense -- is some wiring and another switch on the wall. Of course, with supply, a means of sending the supply of other units down when the supply of a selected unit goes up (and vice-versa) is needed.

However, that's really just another argument for a volume-based supply system. If supplies were treated as a quantity that is consumed and replenished, the rise and corresponding fall would occur the same way it does with replacements.

I realize it's a novel concept -- that if a given shell is fired by battalion 1, it can't be fired by battalion 2 -- but maybe we can get there.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/28/2010 3:29:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Curtis, sticking to the East Front/Murmansk example, how would you choke the supply in the Great White North without affecting the supply farther south where it was relatively better? In FitE the Axis is limited to how many German divisions go to Finland but the Soviets are not restricted. You can have several armies operating in the Murmansk area. Not possible in the real world but doable in the sceanrio.

BTW, I know what the stock answer is, but what could be done to enable the game engine to restrict excisive supply in one area of a scenario and not another?


My point was that if all you were doing was just a Murmansk scenario, you would have full control of the forces and supply levels available via the event system.

However, you can do it for FITE if you control access to the Murmansk area via Theater Options. Not too hard to do for FITE, since Murmansk is a separate map area. Version 3.4 allows Variable Supply Points. And the values of individual supply points are settable by event. In other words, historical forces would arrive in the Murmansk area automatically, with the variable supply levels in that area set accordingly. If the player wanted extra forces there, he would have to exercise a TO to get them, and the supply levels could be adjusted accordingly again.

Nevertheless, a tempest in a teapot if you ask me. Is modeling that important enough to add quartermaster duties to all of FITE?

Regardless, understand that FITE is definitely not a typical scenario. I'm not saying there would be no benefit to any scenarios. Just not to most - not enough to warrant the huge costs to designers and players.

Colin will continue to rant. But in every case his examples are either scenarios with huge scopes, the benefits are trivial, or could be effected via the current system. Most of the scenarios made for TOAW have been small and tightly focused on a single ground operation.

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.



Panama -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/28/2010 4:41:30 PM)

I'm thinking TOAW was never meant to cover campaigns lasting months or years by how it's designed. But then the tutorial is the Korean war. Not exactly a short engagement. As you say, it works okay for focused scenarios. Leave it to wargamers to stretch things to the point that they don't work quite right. [;)]



ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/28/2010 7:37:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Another thing that could be done would be to allow the player to decide which units get full supply at the expense of others getting only partial supply regardless of who moves and who doesn't. This could also be carried over to replacements.


At a minimum, one would want this ability to be controlled by the designer.

To return to Murmansk, I shouldn't be able to pump four divisions up to that front and give them full supply -- even if I am willing to take a hit on the supply available to the divisions down around Leningrad.



ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/28/2010 7:40:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

I'm thinking TOAW was never meant to cover campaigns lasting months or years by how it's designed. But then the tutorial is the Korean war. Not exactly a short engagement. As you say, it works okay for focused scenarios. Leave it to wargamers to stretch things to the point that they don't work quite right. [;)]


Well, very limited. Like maybe up to a month, and covering areas of up to a hundred kilometers square.

Some fine little scenarios in that range. About a third of the total. How about if we work on making the engine able to handle the rest?

Anyway, we do stretch things. But in cases like the supply mechanism, or AA, or air/naval warfare, things are just so far off that 'stretching' isn't going to cut it.



ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/28/2010 7:45:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Curtis, sticking to the East Front/Murmansk example, how would you choke the supply in the Great White North without affecting the supply farther south where it was relatively better? In FitE the Axis is limited to how many German divisions go to Finland but the Soviets are not restricted. You can have several armies operating in the Murmansk area. Not possible in the real world but doable in the sceanrio.

BTW, I know what the stock answer is, but what could be done to enable the game engine to restrict excisive supply in one area of a scenario and not another?


My point was that if all you were doing was just a Murmansk scenario, you would have full control of the forces and supply levels available via the event system.

However, you can do it for FITE if you control access to the Murmansk area via Theater Options. Not too hard to do for FITE, since Murmansk is a separate map area. Version 3.4 allows Variable Supply Points. And the values of individual supply points are settable by event. In other words, historical forces would arrive in the Murmansk area automatically, with the variable supply levels in that area set accordingly. If the player wanted extra forces there, he would have to exercise a TO to get them, and the supply levels could be adjusted accordingly again.

Nevertheless, a tempest in a teapot if you ask me. Is modeling that important enough to add quartermaster duties to all of FITE?


'A tempest in a teapot' simply ignores all the examples I cited from other theaters.

If it was one case, your suggestion would be entirely satisfactory. But it's not. It's a very common case. And it's a common case because logistics is fundamental to military operations, and TOAW handles them in a completely unsatisfactory way.

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:

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...

Anyway, I'll note that your invective notwithstanding, if one went through the list of scenarios on the disc, one would find that the issue would affect a good half of them. It's one of the more universal issues, actually.

Almost never do armies have unlimited logistical resources and ample means to move those resources wherever they are needed to support troop bodies of any size regardless of the limitations of the transport system. Really, we could probably skip the concern if the game is to be 'TOAW: America's Bush Wars 1960-2010.' Otherwise, we should model it.

'If one division can be supported across that pass, ten can,' is not a reasonable paradigm. We might as well not model logistics at all.



ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/28/2010 8:16:17 PM)

Another thought on the supply thing is that 'supply' could simply be modeled like weapons.

You get so many, and they are lost -- in the case of these 'weapons' simply through movement, or even passing the turn as well as combat. The lower the unit's stock, the weaker it is.

Note that these 'weapons' don't need to be displayed, or enter into the combat value of the unit. The game just needs to account for their distribution and the consequent effects.

Obviously, we need a mechanism to control their flow, but I think this approach has promise. For one, designers should be able to control the vulnerability of units to loss of supply this way. If there was, say, a type 'a' and a type 'b' and the ease with which they were lost varied, one could have infantry that could retain a good deal of its combat power under circumstances of straightened supply, but artillery and armor that would more or less follow a straight line to complete impotence.



ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/28/2010 8:26:56 PM)

We actually have supply squads. For a number of reasons, these won't serve as is -- but they do suggest that some of the necessary mechanisms and routines are already in place.

Foremost among the flaws are three factors.

First, the supply squads only affect things if they are in the HQ unit. The obvious solution for the player is just to leave the HQ in the rear with the gear -- this can be overcome, but it'd be a chronic problem.

Second, an absence of supply squads can at most halve a unit's ability to replenish supply. As has been noted, in TOAW, orange- and even red-light units retain plenty of offensive punch. So we can't stop the panzers. Unlike as in reality, they run on empty.

Third, there's no mechanism to control their distribution according to where the receiving unit is and how much company it has. You can bring that POL across the arctic tundra just as easily as you can order it up if you're sitting in garrison at home. One division can get five down a road -- or ten can get a total of fifty.



Panama -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/28/2010 9:33:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

My point was that if all you were doing was just a Murmansk scenario, you would have full control of the forces and supply levels available via the event system.

However, you can do it for FITE if you control access to the Murmansk area via Theater Options. Not too hard to do for FITE, since Murmansk is a separate map area. Version 3.4 allows Variable Supply Points. And the values of individual supply points are settable by event. In other words, historical forces would arrive in the Murmansk area automatically, with the variable supply levels in that area set accordingly. If the player wanted extra forces there, he would have to exercise a TO to get them, and the supply levels could be adjusted accordingly again.

Nevertheless, a tempest in a teapot if you ask me. Is modeling that important enough to add quartermaster duties to all of FITE?

Regardless, understand that FITE is definitely not a typical scenario. I'm not saying there would be no benefit to any scenarios. Just not to most - not enough to warrant the huge costs to designers and players.

Colin will continue to rant. But in every case his examples are either scenarios with huge scopes, the benefits are trivial, or could be effected via the current system. Most of the scenarios made for TOAW have been small and tightly focused on a single ground operation.

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.


I'm not being sarcastic when I say this so correct me if I've misunderstood your statement. Supply has as much impact as naval improvements, that is to say, their impact is limited and not universal. I take this to mean you feel there are bigger fish to fry? If so, what would they be? I'm sure you've posted them someplace but this is a very huge and confused 'thread'. More like a hopelessly tangled fishing line. [;)]



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/30/2010 3:37:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

I'm not being sarcastic when I say this so correct me if I've misunderstood your statement. Supply has as much impact as naval improvements, that is to say, their impact is limited and not universal.


I'm referring to Colin's volume supply thing, not supply in general. It's really critical for naval operations. If you want to model contested sea lanes, you've got to move supplies around. That's why it's about as important as naval improvements.

For pure ground campaigns, though, it's just not worth the effort to the coders, designers, or players. We already have a very good supply distribution system for over-land supply routes. And, even if volume supply were to make any difference at all, it would only be that some unit gets 15 supply per turn instead of 10, etc. Is that really worth players having to push hundreds of supply counters all over the map? It's a trivial benefit, if any.

Note that it doesn't even solve the Murmansk issue Colin is raving about - any number of divisions could still operate up there regardless of how much supply they were receiving.

Other than sea-supply, the real supply issues left concern other factors than unit supply levels.

quote:

I take this to mean you feel there are bigger fish to fry? If so, what would they be? I'm sure you've posted them someplace but this is a very huge and confused 'thread'. More like a hopelessly tangled fishing line. [;)]


It's bang-for-buck that matters. So effective and cheap is what we're looking for. And volume supply will be very expensive, regardless of how effective it is.

See my post #909 on this thread for my supply priorities. (It's on page 31 as I've got the thread paged).



ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/31/2010 9:49:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


For pure ground campaigns, though, it's just not worth the effort to the coders, designers, or players. We already have a very good supply distribution system for over-land supply routes. And, even if volume supply were to make any difference at all, it would only be that some unit gets 15 supply per turn instead of 10, etc. Is that really worth players having to push hundreds of supply counters all over the map? It's a trivial benefit, if any.


There we go. I didn't think that boulder had really moved.

You're amazing, you know. I have methodically debunked each and every of the claims you just made in the last page -- and you just repeat them. It's like I claim Ariete was the premier tank division of World War 2, you carefully list all the reasons why it most certainly was not -- and I just repeat the claim.

Where -- for example -- have I ever advocated 'hundreds of supply counters'? Why would such a thing be necessary?



Page: <<   < prev  39 40 [41] 42 43   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.515625