quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
The current supply system 'works fine' in the sense that designers restrict themselves to topics where the flaws aren't crippling and then treat those topics in such a way as to simply rule out the sort of abuses that the current system would permit. Like, what happens if one sends an armored brigade into the deep desert in CFNA? Well, you can't -- the deep desert isn't there for you to do the impossible in.

Even when the scenarios do work, they do so in spite of the supply system, not because of it. One never has to deal with the fact that this one road can't support ten divisions, etc -- one just attacks anyway, and it doesn't look too bad.

On the whole, to say that scenarios work and that therefore the supply system is just fine is a bit like observing that humanity survived the Middle Ages and that therefore medical practices were just fine. Not exactly -- TOAW is merely not rendered completely unusable in all cases by its supply system. This is not evidence that the supply system is just fine. In fact, one look at its underlying paradigm and it becomes clear that it is not and never can be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
You did read the 5, or so, pages that deal with supplies, didn't you?

Mechanically, it is fairly simplistic, and any discrete supply paradigm must maintain a reasonable level of simplicity for usability's sake. I'm not looking at ripping off the OCS system, whole cloth, but rather taking the concept and extending its usability by utilizing the strengths of our computers to keep track of the supply stockpiles, proportional unit usages, estimating/projecting formation requirements, transport (delivery) capacities, etc.

No I didn't, and I'm not going to be able to for a while. But it seemed likely that units were characterized simply by a combat strength and either had supply or didn't. So I'm guessing that elevating that concept to TOAW's level, where units are complex amalgamations of hundreds of peices of assorted types of equipment and have unit supply values ranging from 1 to 100, the subject would become about as complex as what I've been describing.

I'll also guess that the prerequisite issues I've listed are probably already implemented in that system. So there are ways to lift supply by truck, horse teams, cargo/amphibious vessels, aircraft, etc. And ways to interdict them. Because those issues are easy to add to a board game - about as easy as adding them to a wishlist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
The current supply system 'works fine' in the sense that designers restrict themselves to topics where the flaws aren't crippling and then treat those topics in such a way as to simply rule out the sort of abuses that the current system would permit. Like, what happens if one sends an armored brigade into the deep desert in CFNA? Well, you can't -- the deep desert isn't there for you to do the impossible in.

Even when the scenarios do work, they do so in spite of the supply system, not because of it. One never has to deal with the fact that this one road can't support ten divisions, etc -- one just attacks anyway, and it doesn't look too bad.

On the whole, to say that scenarios work and that therefore the supply system is just fine is a bit like observing that humanity survived the Middle Ages and that therefore medical practices were just fine. Not exactly -- TOAW is merely not rendered completely unusable in all cases by its supply system. This is not evidence that the supply system is just fine. In fact, one look at its underlying paradigm and it becomes clear that it is not and never can be.

Again, you're listing benefits that are so small that they can't possibly justify the enormous cost of physically handling supplies. Most of these are footnote issues at best. The real beneficiaries of moving supplies are going to be the subjects that depend upon extensive sea communications. It's just a waste to create that system until those sea communication issues have been addressed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
"...as his entire front in the Marne bulge had to be supplied through the single rail way junction of Soissons on the extreme west, he was under pressure from his Staff to mount yet another attack in the area in order to capture Rheims and give himself another supply line on the east..."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
"...as his entire front in the Marne bulge had to be supplied through the single rail way junction of Soissons on the extreme west, he was under pressure from his Staff to mount yet another attack in the area in order to capture Rheims and give himself another supply line on the east..."

Sounds to me that it was the distance the eastern part of the operation was from the railhead, not the railhead's capacity that was the issue. TOAW's paradigm does model supply disipation due to distance (the supply radius thing).