RE: The Truck Unit Icon

RE: The Truck Unit Icon (Full Version)

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

Message

ColinWright -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/15/2008 12:06:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay The supply problem is not universal - otherwise no TOAW scenario would work. Logically, that's an inane statement. Obviously, I have no health problems. Otherwise, I'd be dead. Those scenarios that work merely do so in spite of the limitations of the supply system, not because of it. Its a matter of the shortcomings failing to kill the scenario completely. The current supply system provides a reasonable paradigm for supply in exactly one case: that where the player has one and only one unit tracing supply to any one supply point. For all other cases, it's more or less flawed. I really have a hard time coming up with a good reason why you should be insisting the current supply paradigm is reasonable. I can think of plenty of bad reasons -- but no good ones.

ColinWright -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/15/2008 12:14:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay Yes, and that's just what they could have done. But who will put the entire Afrika Korps down there if they're going to be on semi-supply? It will correctly model just how ineffective they would have been there. Oh honestly. But one battalion should indeed be able to be properly supplied down there -- but it can't be. Not unless we want the whole Afrika Koprs to be properly supplied down there. And why? Because we are stuck with a supply paradigm that doesn't reflect reality. ...and stuck with you insisting that it does. No matter how clear-cut the evidence to the contrary.

golden delicious -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/15/2008 12:04:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay I'll just add back in the part of my statement above that you deliberately deleted: "If you want, you can boost the Force Supply level at the same time, if that's appropriate." The answer was right in front of your eyes. What mechanism forces the Allied player to keep divisions out of action until the port is fixed, as there is not enough supply for them? quote: Because he thought he was going to get a supply boost by capturing them. He was wrong, but the player's don't get to benefit from that hindsight. He was right- but the Germans defended them so fiercely that they were totally wrecked by the time they were captured. You, of course, chose not to reflect this, because in TOAW it's very, very hard.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/15/2008 6:43:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay First, roads. Let's say we have 5-ton trucks doing 20mph = 30fps, spaced 200 ft apart. That gives a rate of 45 tons per minute = 32,400 tons per 12hr day down the road = 972,000 tons per month. Brilliant! Our troops will be in Paris before the leaves fall with these marching rates! No. You will be limited by your lift capacity - how many trucks and planes you have. However, you will not be limited by how many trucks can pass over a stretch of uncongested road. Keeping track of that would be a colossal waste of coding effort and CPU capacity.

golden delicious -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/15/2008 6:48:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay No. You will be limited by your lift capacity - how many trucks and planes you have. However, you will not be limited by how many trucks can pass over a stretch of uncongested road. Look: clearly, roads and rail lines have finite capacities- and these are much lower than the ones you've identified. Why else does the government keep on adding more lanes to major roads?

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/15/2008 7:03:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious Your system for determining if a unit is supplied, semi-supplied or unsupplied depends on a certain system of supply distribution; one which is based on supplies being distributed equitably but ever more sparsely as you move away from the source. If you have one unit out at the extremes, then it can probably be supplied anyway- all the trucks just go to that one hex rather than a few going to every hex even though most are empty. But if you have a hundred then, yes, they're going to be semi-supplied. The units still have to be rated for those conditions regardless of the supply paradigm. They each have significant consequences. I want to hit this some more because it's critical that it be understood (and nobody else is taking any effort to do so). Let's suppose a group of units have been cut-off deep behind enemy lines - but their unit supply levels at the time of the cut-off were > 100%, and a few of the "supply packets" have been trapped along with them. Now if "unsupplied" status is based on the condition of the unit then all these units are still going to be rated as "supplied", and will remain so for quite some time. Even if the rating is based upon whether they receive supplies, they can still stay in that condition via the trapped supply packets continuing to distribute supplies to them - or even perhaps via redistributing supplies among themselves. But now they get attacked by the enemy forces surrounding them. They take losses from those attacks. But, despite being far behind enemy lines, a big chuck of those losses go to the friendly replacement pools (after all, they're rated as "supplied"). This is clearly wrong. Now let's consider a unit that has been traveling to the front. It's been moving and moving. In fact, it's moved so much it's blown off all its supply down to a 1% unit supply level. There are no supply packets nearby. Clearly this unit will be rated as "unsupplied" if that rating is based upon either the condition of the unit or its recent receipt of supply. So now it combat elements start surrendering to the enemy - they drop into the dead pool. But it's still safe in the rear, far from the frontlines and nowhere near the enemy. And, under this condition, who would ever send their forces beyond the point where fresh supply packets will arrive every turn? Do you see where I'm going with this? The units in the first example must be rated as "unsupplied" regardless of their unit supply level. That means that the current definitions of "supplied" and "unsupplied" need to be retained. They cannot be based upon the condition of the unit. Rather they must be based upon the presence or absence of a line of communications between the unit and any supply source. That part of the interturn calculations will have to be retained. The unit in the second case needs to be rated "semi-supplied", so that the stragglers from it go to the replacement pools, not the dead pile. Again, to fix the "infinite supply line" problem this state must be added. Physical supply handling alone doesn't fix it.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/15/2008 7:07:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright Logically, that's an inane statement. Obviously, I have no health problems. Otherwise, I'd be dead. Therefore we should all be in the ICU. quote: Those scenarios that work merely do so in spite of the limitations of the supply system, not because of it. Its a matter of the shortcomings failing to kill the scenario completely. The current supply system provides a reasonable paradigm for supply in exactly one case: that where the player has one and only one unit tracing supply to any one supply point. For all other cases, it's more or less flawed. For most normal subjects the "flaws" are so minor as to not matter. quote: I really have a hard time coming up with a good reason why you should be insisting the current supply paradigm is reasonable. I can think of plenty of bad reasons -- but no good ones. Try cost/benefit. Really, let's all commute to work in helicopters. It really is better than driving - if you ignore all practical considerations.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/15/2008 7:13:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright Oh honestly. But one battalion should indeed be able to be properly supplied down there -- but it can't be. Not unless we want the whole Afrika Koprs to be properly supplied down there. Absolutely! No North Africa scenario could possibly work unless that battalion can be placed in full supply. It's critically important. Absolutely no abstraction can be abided in any situation. Every bullet and bean must be modeled no matter the cost. And don't forget the windage effects on fire missions, how much water is in each soldier's canteen, how virilent the strains of clap carried by the rear-area whores, etc. So long as you ignore practical considerations anything can be justified.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/15/2008 7:18:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious What mechanism forces the Allied player to keep divisions out of action until the port is fixed, as there is not enough supply for them? The reinforcement schedule. quote: He was right- but the Germans defended them so fiercely that they were totally wrecked by the time they were captured. You, of course, chose not to reflect this, because in TOAW it's very, very hard. It was one of his better decisions. But how did I fail to reflect this? The ports are modeled as useless in Brittany, and only provide an immobile supply unit in the others. What, exactly, would physical supply handling add to that?

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/15/2008 7:19:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious Look: clearly, roads and rail lines have finite capacities- and these are much lower than the ones you've identified. Why else does the government keep on adding more lanes to major roads? Traffic congestion. Note that TOAW already models this via stacking limits and traffic penalties.

ColinWright -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/15/2008 9:51:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious Look: clearly, roads and rail lines have finite capacities- and these are much lower than the ones you've identified. Why else does the government keep on adding more lanes to major roads? Traffic congestion. Note that TOAW already models this via stacking limits and traffic penalties. And yet -- amazingly enough -- such penalties don't affect trucks carrying supplies. Only trucks carrying infantry. That would be because the volume of supply remains constant regardless of the number of troops being supplied, of course.

golden delicious -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/16/2008 10:47:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay The reinforcement schedule. So you have divisions arriving as a result, not of specific ports being captured, but of sufficient ports being captured anywhere to provide supply for them? quote: It was one of his better decisions. But how did I fail to reflect this? The ports are modeled as useless in Brittany, and only provide an immobile supply unit in the others. What, exactly, would physical supply handling add to that? Why are the ports in Brittany modelled as useless? They weren't until they'd been thoroughly demolished, and could have been repaired if there was time.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/16/2008 6:36:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright And yet -- amazingly enough -- such penalties don't affect trucks carrying supplies. Only trucks carrying infantry. That would be because the volume of supply remains constant regardless of the number of troops being supplied, of course. I'm not saying otherwise. Modeling that would require discrete supply handling. What I'm saying is that whenever we get around to discrete supply handling there will still be no need to keep track of how much traffic has crossed every road/rail hex out in the middle of nowhere. Stacking limits and traffic penalties will suffice. So there is no need for road/rail "capacity", unlike the need for port capacity. Now, note that the existing system does have stacking limits - that force the players to keep their forces deconcentrated to some extent. And note that that is another part of the stacking limit issue - not just how much combat equipment can fit in the hex, but how much can be supplied in it.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/16/2008 6:45:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious So you have divisions arriving as a result, not of specific ports being captured, but of sufficient ports being captured anywhere to provide supply for them? If that really was necessary for your scenario you could do it. You would have to use the event variable. quote: Why are the ports in Brittany modelled as useless? They weren't until they'd been thoroughly demolished, and could have been repaired if there was time. A footnote issue at best. The front was so far away by the time they were captured there was no point to repairing them. If you'll check, I think you'll see I didn't scrimp on event-modeled features in that scenario. And port repair is not going to be magically added to the game just because supplies are physically on the map. This raises another reason why physical supplies have to remain a "blue sky" project: So many other needed features are prerequisites for it. Not just the supply issues I raised (5.2, 5.4, 5.9, 5.14, etc.) but a vast number of transportation and facilities issues as well.

ColinWright -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/16/2008 9:26:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay And port repair is not going to be magically added to the game just because supplies are physically on the map. This raises another reason why physical supplies have to remain a "blue sky" project: So many other needed features are prerequisites for it. Not just the supply issues I raised (5.2, 5.4, 5.9, 5.14, etc.) but a vast number of transportation and facilities issues as well. I love this. Port repair would no more be a prerequisite to the proposed supply system than it is to the current supply system. Yet 'Curtis' waves his magic wand and the change can't be made -- port repair has mysteriously become a 'prerequisite.' This is really exasperating. It's like arguing with some old cavalry general -- in 1942. Look, we really should create mechanized divisions. No we shouldn't: blah, blah, blah...

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/17/2008 7:08:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay And port repair is not going to be magically added to the game just because supplies are physically on the map. This raises another reason why physical supplies have to remain a "blue sky" project: So many other needed features are prerequisites for it. Not just the supply issues I raised (5.2, 5.4, 5.9, 5.14, etc.) but a vast number of transportation and facilities issues as well. I love this. Port repair would no more be a prerequisite to the proposed supply system than it is to the current supply system. Yet 'Curtis' waves his magic wand and the change can't be made -- port repair has mysteriously become a 'prerequisite.' I think it's clearly necessary. It's a complete wast of time without it. Interdiction of supplies will no longer be abstracted as it is now. Therefore all interdiction vectors will have to be modeled. And one of those vectors is the ability to damage ports. And if they can be damaged then they need the ability to be repaired too. Here's the full list of prerequisites (that I can think of off-hand): 2.10: Ports (separate from anchorages) 2.19: Port damage, repair, construction, & demolition. 5.2: Ant attack problem 5.4: Supply cost of movement 5.9: Semi-supplied state 5.14: Component supply 6.6: Port Capacities 6.7.2: MP cost reduction for motorized units on Improved Roads 6.11: Airfield-to-airfield transfer of non-airborne 6.13: Truck lift ability; Cargo ship lift ability; Transport plane lift ability; Train lift ability 9.1 & 9.2: Naval Interdiction 9.3: Naval Reaction 9.7: Combat modeling of embarked units 9.8: Amphibious vs. Cargo modes of sea lift 9.9: Designer control over disembarkment in all sea hexes 9.13: Submarines 11.1: More units per force (a lot more) quote: This is really exasperating. It's like arguing with some old cavalry general -- in 1942. Look, we really should create mechanized divisions. No we shouldn't: blah, blah, blah... I don't really see the need for insults - especially since you've been so consistently and repeatedly wrong about all your assumptions on this issue.

ColinWright -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/17/2008 9:02:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay I don't really see the need for insults - especially since you've been so consistently and repeatedly wrong about all your assumptions on this issue. Mmm. Well, I think you weigh 300 pounds and actually live on Malta. I have absolutely no evidence to support these assertions -- but then, no evidence whatsoever has been produced to support the one you just made.

ColinWright -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/17/2008 9:11:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay I think it's clearly necessary. It's a complete wast of time without it. Interdiction of supplies will no longer be abstracted as it is now. Now why can't interdiction continue to be abstracted? One could just modify the ratio of supply delivered to supply received according to the interdiction level. You make these various claims that this or that would be a prerequisite to the change -- but in fact it invariably isn't. I looked over that list of yours: why do any of those supposed 'prerequisites' have to be implemented to have volume-based supply? And yet you insist all of them would be -- without bothering to explain why. For some mysterious reason you are absolutely determined not to admit the possibility of radically overhauling the supply paradigm. We can't even get to the point of exactly how it should be overhauled or to what extent it might be practical to overhaul it -- because you won't even move on to discussing things at that level. You keep waving your arms, calling up various bogeymen that in fact have no logical substance to them whatsoever. The old cavalry general analogy wasn't an insult. It was an accurate description. We haven't been able to move on to the costs of motorization, the feasibility of using trucks in a battlefield environment, their ability to operate cross country, etc -- because you are mysteriously attached to your 'horse' -- the old, manifestly nonsensical supply paradigm. For whatever reason, you just won't give up on old Trigger. It doesn't matter what the logic of the situation is.

a white rabbit -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/18/2008 2:26:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay And port repair is not going to be magically added to the game just because supplies are physically on the map. This raises another reason why physical supplies have to remain a "blue sky" project: So many other needed features are prerequisites for it. Not just the supply issues I raised (5.2, 5.4, 5.9, 5.14, etc.) but a vast number of transportation and facilities issues as well. I love this. Port repair would no more be a prerequisite to the proposed supply system than it is to the current supply system. Yet 'Curtis' waves his magic wand and the change can't be made -- port repair has mysteriously become a 'prerequisite.' I think it's clearly necessary. It's a complete wast of time without it. Interdiction of supplies will no longer be abstracted as it is now. Therefore all interdiction vectors will have to be modeled. And one of those vectors is the ability to damage ports. And if they can be damaged then they need the ability to be repaired too. Here's the full list of prerequisites (that I can think of off-hand): 2.10: Ports (separate from anchorages) 2.19: Port damage, repair, construction, & demolition. 5.2: Ant attack problem 5.4: Supply cost of movement 5.9: Semi-supplied state 5.14: Component supply 6.6: Port Capacities 6.7.2: MP cost reduction for motorized units on Improved Roads 6.11: Airfield-to-airfield transfer of non-airborne 6.13: Truck lift ability; Cargo ship lift ability; Transport plane lift ability; Train lift ability 9.1 & 9.2: Naval Interdiction 9.3: Naval Reaction 9.7: Combat modeling of embarked units 9.8: Amphibious vs. Cargo modes of sea lift 9.9: Designer control over disembarkment in all sea hexes 9.13: Submarines 11.1: More units per force (a lot more) quote: This is really exasperating. It's like arguing with some old cavalry general -- in 1942. Look, we really should create mechanized divisions. No we shouldn't: blah, blah, blah... I don't really see the need for insults - especially since you've been so consistently and repeatedly wrong about all your assumptions on this issue. ..2.10..yup ..2.19..yup ..5.2..errr, that's a combat thingy, nothing to do with supply provision.. ..5.4..yup ..5.9..marginally at best ..5.14..not necessary in the basic model, 1 supply measure fits all.. ..6.6..Yup, definitely.. ..6.7.2..errrr, nice but not important, they use up horse-shoes quicker ? fit titanium studs.. ..6.11..Yup, but that's not supply, it's an existing klutz.. ..6.13..Yup, of course.. ..9.1 to 9.3..with actual on map icons, with ranged effect, not relevant.. ..9.7..Nope, embarked and attacked is b*ggered, simple really.. ..9.8..bells and whistles ..9.9..what's that got to do with it, irrelevant.. ..9.13..nice, but for other reasons, so really a side line.. ..11.1..got enough spaces already, it'l get rid of some of those anty-thingys.. ..that's your list halved, now can i have an enemy on-map supply system that i can attack if the mood so takes me, please ?

a white rabbit -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/18/2008 2:34:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright And yet -- amazingly enough -- such penalties don't affect trucks carrying supplies. Only trucks carrying infantry. That would be because the volume of supply remains constant regardless of the number of troops being supplied, of course. I'm not saying otherwise. Modeling that would require discrete supply handling. What I'm saying is that whenever we get around to discrete supply handling there will still be no need to keep track of how much traffic has crossed every road/rail hex out in the middle of nowhere. Stacking limits and traffic penalties will suffice. So there is no need for road/rail "capacity", unlike the need for port capacity. Now, note that the existing system does have stacking limits - that force the players to keep their forces deconcentrated to some extent. And note that that is another part of the stacking limit issue - not just how much combat equipment can fit in the hex, but how much can be supplied in it. ..mmm, pretty..anyway.. ..deconcentrated isn't correct, forces are drawn to the supply points, both sides want them, the one to be supplied and the other to chop them off. One fascinating thing about the war in Russia is the enormous holes in the lines, in the bits without supply, yahh ok, they get filled when things go static, but until then, it's cluster round the rail-heads and advance..

a white rabbit -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/18/2008 2:41:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay I think it's clearly necessary. It's a complete wast of time without it. Interdiction of supplies will no longer be abstracted as it is now. Now why can't interdiction continue to be abstracted? One could just modify the ratio of supply delivered to supply received according to the interdiction level. You make these various claims that this or that would be a prerequisite to the change -- but in fact it invariably isn't. I looked over that list of yours: why do any of those supposed 'prerequisites' have to be implemented to have volume-based supply? And yet you insist all of them would be -- without bothering to explain why. For some mysterious reason you are absolutely determined not to admit the possibility of radically overhauling the supply paradigm. We can't even get to the point of exactly how it should be overhauled or to what extent it might be practical to overhaul it -- because you won't even move on to discussing things at that level. You keep waving your arms, calling up various bogeymen that in fact have no logical substance to them whatsoever. The old cavalry general analogy wasn't an insult. It was an accurate description. We haven't been able to move on to the costs of motorization, the feasibility of using trucks in a battlefield environment, their ability to operate cross country, etc -- because you are mysteriously attached to your 'horse' -- the old, manifestly nonsensical supply paradigm. For whatever reason, you just won't give up on old Trigger. It doesn't matter what the logic of the situation is. ..note the better use of colour..[8D] ..because i wanna go hunting choo-choos with my Mosquitoes, 'n'sinking those Italian tankers with my torpedo planes/ destroyers.. ..otherwise don't put them in the scen, cos if i've none of their actual targets, i'll use them in direct combat, and that's an unrealistic/ non-historical option. The draw on available forces is a continual bind, local use, or strategic use..should the Exeter group go blow away a convoy or support land forces ?...

a white rabbit -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/18/2008 2:48:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright [ For whatever reason, you just won't give up on old Trigger. It doesn't matter what the logic of the situation is. ..Biscuit and Dandelion, not Trigger.. ..when the 44 can't move, and the trials-bike is stuck, the poppoes will still get thru... ..sung to the tune of a four legged friend*..[:D]

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/18/2008 7:08:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright Now why can't interdiction continue to be abstracted? Because the supply is now going to be physically present on the map. It's going to be subject to interdiction just like combat units are. The abstraction of supply interdiction has to be dropped and all the explicit interdiction vectors modeled. It's obvious. In fact, it's the whole point of implementing physical supply. If its interdiction isn't going to be modeled then why not just put supply points on the English shore? quote: And yet you insist all of them would be -- without bothering to explain why. I've explained all of them if you would listen. The supply has to be transported - means to do so have to be devised and improved. The supply has to be subject to interdiction - means to do so have to be devised and improved. We can't fix the infinite supply line problem without first fixing the ant attack problem and adding an intermediate supply state. quote: The old cavalry general analogy wasn't an insult. Of course it was and so is this repeat of it as was the "pig-headed" insult earlier. You're the same class act wherever you go.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/18/2008 7:29:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: a white rabbit quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay 2.10: Ports (separate from anchorages) 2.19: Port damage, repair, construction, & demolition. 5.2: Ant attack problem 5.4: Supply cost of movement 5.9: Semi-supplied state 5.14: Component supply 6.6: Port Capacities 6.7.2: MP cost reduction for motorized units on Improved Roads 6.11: Airfield-to-airfield transfer of non-airborne 6.13: Truck lift ability; Cargo ship lift ability; Transport plane lift ability; Train lift ability 9.1 & 9.2: Naval Interdiction 9.3: Naval Reaction 9.7: Combat modeling of embarked units 9.8: Amphibious vs. Cargo modes of sea lift 9.9: Designer control over disembarkment in all sea hexes 9.13: Submarines 11.1: More units per force (a lot more) ..5.2..errr, that's a combat thingy, nothing to do with supply provision.. Supply sucking has to be fixed or there's no point to fixing supply provision. quote: ..5.9..marginally at best Necessary to fix the infinite supply line problem. quote: ..5.14..not necessary in the basic model, 1 supply measure fits all.. No. The supply lift is consuming fuel, not ammo. That needs to be modeled as it impacts how far supply can be projected. quote: ..6.7.2..errrr, nice but not important, they use up horse-shoes quicker ? fit titanium studs.. Necessary so that the DAK can't operate as well in the deep desert as they can along the coast. quote: ..9.1 to 9.3..with actual on map icons, with ranged effect, not relevant.. Essential for interdiction of sea supply. quote: ..9.7..Nope, embarked and attacked is bggered, simple really.. It's true that even more will be needed, but this is a start. Other items that would be necessary for a full fix: 9.5: Task Force creation 9.16: Detailed Ship Modeling 9.17: Detailed Ship Combat quote:* ..9.8..bells and whistles Cargo ships have to have a port, not a beach. quote: ..9.9..what's that got to do with it, irrelevant.. Cargo ships have to have a port, not a beach. quote: ..9.13..nice, but for other reasons, so really a side line.. Again, all the sea supply interdiction vectors have to be modeled. Really, most of the Naval Warfare package needs to be completed first, since almost all subjects that actually need physical supply are ones that depend critically on sea operations. quote: ..11.1..got enough spaces already, it'l get rid of some of those anty-thingys.. Not if you add 20,000 supply packets all over the map.

ColinWright -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/18/2008 8:12:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright Now why can't interdiction continue to be abstracted? Because the supply is now going to be physically present on the map. It's going to be subject to interdiction just like combat units are. The abstraction of supply interdiction has to be dropped and all the explicit interdiction vectors modeled. It's obvious. In fact, it's the whole point of implementing physical supply. If its interdiction isn't going to be modeled then why not just put supply points on the English shore? quote: And yet you insist all of them would be -- without bothering to explain why. I've explained all of them if you would listen. The supply has to be transported - means to do so have to be devised and improved. The supply has to be subject to interdiction - means to do so have to be devised and improved. We can't fix the infinite supply line problem without first fixing the ant attack problem and adding an intermediate supply state. quote: The old cavalry general analogy wasn't an insult. Of course it was and so is this repeat of it as was the "pig-headed" insult earlier. You're the same class act wherever you go. Right Bob. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

ColinWright -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/18/2008 8:22:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: a white rabbit quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay 2.10: Ports (separate from anchorages) 2.19: Port damage, repair, construction, & demolition. 5.2: Ant attack problem 5.4: Supply cost of movement 5.9: Semi-supplied state 5.14: Component supply 6.6: Port Capacities 6.7.2: MP cost reduction for motorized units on Improved Roads 6.11: Airfield-to-airfield transfer of non-airborne 6.13: Truck lift ability; Cargo ship lift ability; Transport plane lift ability; Train lift ability 9.1 & 9.2: Naval Interdiction 9.3: Naval Reaction 9.7: Combat modeling of embarked units 9.8: Amphibious vs. Cargo modes of sea lift 9.9: Designer control over disembarkment in all sea hexes 9.13: Submarines 11.1: More units per force (a lot more) ..5.2..errr, that's a combat thingy, nothing to do with supply provision.. Supply sucking has to be fixed or there's no point to fixing supply provision... I'll take the first of your claims. 'Supply sucking has to be fixed or there's no point to fixing supply provision.' Why? Why wouldn't a better supply model still permit us to better handle all the situations that have been discussed? How would not having dealt with 'supply sucking' prevent us from correctly modeling the Murmansk and the Trans-casucasus front in relationship to the rest of the Eastern Front, North Africa, the Deep Sahara, minor ports in amphibious scenarios, etc? Supply sucking is one problem. A absence of a volume-based supply another. Improve one and you've improved the game. Improve the other and you've improved the game. If anything, the relationship is the opposite of what you posit. There is indeed little point in coming up with a mechanism to stop 'supply-sucking' if supply is to be redefined as some volume-based commodity. At that point, we'd definitely need to redo all whatever solution we'd already come up with for 'supply-sucking.' So lets' start talking about how a volume-based supply system should work and how it could be implemented. You go ahead.

a white rabbit -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/19/2008 4:22:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ..9.8..bells and whistles Cargo ships have to have a port, not a beach. quote: ..9.9..what's that got to do with it, irrelevant.. Cargo ships have to have a port, not a beach. . ..i'll take these two fixations.. ..so the Japanese invading Malaya needed ports to unload ? ..but none of their cargo ships, nor troop carriers could actually get into the 'ports' they used in the initial landings, and none of the later supply runs, up to 24 cargo ships could either. The water was too shallow for the deep-water boats... ..so they stopped 1-2 kms off-shore, slung the stuff over the side into small boats, Japanese and local ermmm 'shipping', took it ashore, and put it on the easily accessible, nearby railway, the only reason those 'ports' were chosen, and continued to do this for the whole campaign, tanks, fuel, ammo, food, weapons, re-enforcements, the whole bunny.. ..take a look at the photos of the Thai 'ports', read up on the tin trade from Malaya to Japan, take a look at the photos of the shallow-draft stuff being off-loaded into the deep-water freighters, 2kms off-shore.. ..like i said, bells and whistles, or irrelevant..

a white rabbit -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/19/2008 4:31:07 PM)
..if it's any help, i stuck the 'ports' on the edge of the shallow water, and am using Bioeded bridging units to represent the shallow-water shipping that "bridges" the 2 hex gap.. ..now i've something to sink, if the RAF survive long enough..

ColinWright -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/19/2008 10:45:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: a white rabbit quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ..9.8..bells and whistles Cargo ships have to have a port, not a beach. quote: ..9.9..what's that got to do with it, irrelevant.. Cargo ships have to have a port, not a beach. . ..i'll take these two fixations.. ..so the Japanese invading Malaya needed ports to unload ? ..but none of their cargo ships, nor troop carriers could actually get into the 'ports' they used in the initial landings, and none of the later supply runs, up to 24 cargo ships could either. The water was too shallow for the deep-water boats... ..so they stopped 1-2 kms off-shore, slung the stuff over the side into small boats, Japanese and local ermmm 'shipping', took it ashore, and put it on the easily accessible, nearby railway, the only reason those 'ports' were chosen, and continued to do this for the whole campaign, tanks, fuel, ammo, food, weapons, re-enforcements, the whole bunny.. ..take a look at the photos of the Thai 'ports', read up on the tin trade from Malaya to Japan, take a look at the photos of the shallow-draft stuff being off-loaded into the deep-water freighters, 2kms off-shore.. ..like i said, bells and whistles, or irrelevant.. Where one gets into the wonders of a supply system that isn't volume based. Of course supply can be offloaded almost anywhere the surf isn't too high. The point is how fast, and how much of it? Exactly the reason we need a volume-based supply system. To reflect why -- for example -- the Japanese could land all over the Philippines but needed to stage their main landing at Lingayen. Curtis will now rather predictably announce that amphibious situations are 'marginal' -- as if this was the only example of the way in which a volume-based suppy system would provide more accurate simulation. In reality, supply is volume-based. Isn't it obvious that therefore it should be volume-based in a simulation as well? I mean, that seems clear to me...

ColinWright -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/19/2008 10:51:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: a white rabbit ..if it's any help, i stuck the 'ports' on the edge of the shallow water, and am using Bioeded bridging units to represent the shallow-water shipping that "bridges" the 2 hex gap.. ..now i've something to sink, if the RAF survive long enough.. The 'sea roads' idea works fairly well for this -- it'll even give you your lighters to sink. Let me know if you want to see the concept in action. About the only catch is one needs a house rule barring players from debarking engineers in the 'sea road' hex with the 'blown bridge' and repairing the 'bridge.' However, such a ploy is pretty obviously gamey.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.5