Supply & Logistics

Supply & Logistics (Full Version)

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

Message

rhinobones -> Supply & Logistics (1/19/2008 11:33:25 PM)
I would really prefer to see supply modeled by supply units that enter at the supply points, are moved to a point of distribution by the player and then consumed by the individual units based on their activity level. Once totally consumed the supply unit would be removed from the board. This would give real meaning to the consequences of maintaining the logistics trail, interdiction, landing supplies on a beach rather than an improved port facility and from being cut off from the supply base. Possibly an auto move feature could be incorporated to reduce the burden of moving the extra units. It would also be necessary to have the game engine create the supply units rather than cluttering the OOB with supply unit formations. Events (or enemy action) could be used to stimulate or reduce the appearance of supply units. Probably far too radical of an idea for incorporation into TOAW III, but might be a consideration for TOAW IV. Regards, RhinoBones

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/20/2008 12:55:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright I'll take the first of your claims. 'Supply sucking has to be fixed or there's no point to fixing supply provision.' Why? Because the semi-supplied state is useless without the fix. quote: 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. They're not equal. Supply sucking is universal. The need for physical supply is not. quote: 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.' Why? Unit supply and the supply states will remain the same. Only distribution changes. quote: So lets' start talking about how a volume-based supply system should work and how it could be implemented. You go ahead. I've been talking about it, in detail - both in the wishlist and on this thread. We need the prerequisite items I listed.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/20/2008 1:00:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: a white rabbit ..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.. So, clearly, they had the TOAW equivalent of "amphibious" transport available. Makes sense, since the invasion of Malaya was an amphibious operation. But if all you've got are cargo ships without the amphibious component, you need a port. It's really a critical issue for physical supply handling. We have to model how the supply actually gets there. That requires lots of transport issues to be addressed.

a white rabbit -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/20/2008 5:58:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright 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... ..do you really want the details, which ships, what they carried, how long each took to unload, the names of their captains, voyage times, major port turn -round times, the Unloading units, their TOEs, their commanding officers etc ? ..it's easier in a fully equipped deep-water port, but that isn't necessary..

a white rabbit -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/20/2008 6:18:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright 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. ..if they were longer, maybe the "sea road" approach would be better, but some have to be mobile, if slow, so that they can be used for the other coastal operations, and maybe sunk, the survivors reaching Singapore for the end of campaign party.. ..as "bridging units', they can also transport combat units, clumsily it's true, but at a correct speed, which leaves them open to destroyer, PT-boat and Insect Class gun-boat attack, and gives my Japanese naval combat units something realistic to do, a whole game on it's own with all the added pressure on the players..

a white rabbit -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/20/2008 6:36:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: a white rabbit ..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.. So, clearly, they had the TOAW equivalent of "amphibious" transport available. Makes sense, since the invasion of Malaya was an amphibious operation. But if all you've got are cargo ships without the amphibious component, you need a port. It's really a critical issue for physical supply handling. We have to model how the supply actually gets there. That requires lots of transport issues to be addressed. ..given that my other scen is the Philippines, and then DEI if i don't get bored, i can't help but think that your cargo ships without deep-water port access and without off-loading facilities, your 'amphibious thingy' are only for scenarios on the margins.. ..1 cargo ship icon has a supply range, over sea, of 1/3 a normal move, to function it needs to be with range of either port on a supply line, or another cargo-boat. It can 'move' across it's range 1,10 or 100 SPs, depending on its size/class...simple really, the existing road and rail tiles do this already and the connected y/n check is easy programming ..

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/20/2008 6:52:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: a white rabbit ..given that my other scen is the Philippines, and then DEI if i don't get bored, i can't help but think that your cargo ships without deep-water port access and without off-loading facilities, your 'amphibious thingy' are only for scenarios on the margins.. Right now, all TOAW has is "amphibious" transport. So if you lift supply with that it can come in anywhere - every coastal hex of France. There's no need for ports or mulberries, or even beaches. Supply will flow in through every coastal hex. That despite the fact that all the historical amphibious transport departed right after D-Day for the South of France and then on to the Pacific.

ColinWright -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/20/2008 8:10:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay Right now, all TOAW has is "amphibious" transport. So if you lift supply with that it can come in anywhere - every coastal hex of France. There's no need for ports or mulberries, or even beaches. Supply will flow in through every coastal hex. That despite the fact that all the historical amphibious transport departed right after D-Day for the South of France and then on to the Pacific. What are you talking about?

ColinWright -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/20/2008 8:22:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: a white rabbit quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright 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. ..if they were longer, maybe the "sea road" approach would be better, but some have to be mobile, if slow, so that they can be used for the other coastal operations, and maybe sunk, the survivors reaching Singapore for the end of campaign party.. ..as "bridging units', they can also transport combat units, clumsily it's true, but at a correct speed, which leaves them open to destroyer, PT-boat and Insect Class gun-boat attack, and gives my Japanese naval combat units something realistic to do, a whole game on it's own with all the added pressure on the players.. ... In principle, I think you're headed in the wrong direction here. The naval aspect of the campaign has to be simulated -- but you should develop it as little as possible. TOAW's air/naval mechanics are just so lame that the more of this you create, the worse the scenario will be. You want to keep the focus on where the simulation is best -- that is to say, on the land combat.

ColinWright -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/20/2008 8:30:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay I've been talking about it, in detail - both in the wishlist and on this thread. We need the prerequisite items I listed. Your rhetorical techniques appears to consist of simply repeating that which you wish to be true. It is nonsensical to insist that any of these items are 'prerequisites' to changing the supply system. In fact, as I've pointed out, the relationship is the other way round -- if we do change the supply system, then we are going to have to redo whatever's been done about the problems that you have listed. It'd be best if we replaced the foundation first -- then got all the windows opening and closing properly. ...your attempts to insist otherwise notwithstanding. But it's futile to point this out. You'll just go right on and repeat yourself as if nothing was ever said. 'The machine gun is a much over-rated weapon...the place of the horse is secure on the modern battlefield...' 'Quite impractical, those new machines. Old ways are the best ways.' Have another drink, Colonel LeMay. But how do we get you out of the ordnance department?

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/21/2008 6:19:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay Right now, all TOAW has is "amphibious" transport. So if you lift supply with that it can come in anywhere - every coastal hex of France. There's no need for ports or mulberries, or even beaches. Supply will flow in through every coastal hex. That despite the fact that all the historical amphibious transport departed right after D-Day for the South of France and then on to the Pacific. What are you talking about? Ever played this game before? Sea embarked units can land in any beach hex, and they can even land on non-beach hexes, if they stop next to them for a turn.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/21/2008 6:23:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright Your rhetorical techniques appears to consist of simply repeating that which you wish to be true. No. That's what you've been doing. I've provided clear reasons for each of my claims. You yet to justify anything you've claimed. quote: Have another drink, Colonel LeMay. But how do we get you out of the ordnance department? That's really all you've got, isn't it. Repeat your lame mantra about volume supply and issue insults.

golden delicious -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/21/2008 6:45:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay That's really all you've got, isn't it. Repeat your lame mantra about volume supply and issue insults. Incidentally, also a neat description of your argument.

golden delicious -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/21/2008 6:46:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay Ever played this game before? Sea embarked units can land in any beach hex, and they can even land on non-beach hexes, if they stop next to them for a turn. For beach hexes, presumably read anchorages. Anyway, this doesn't really help with supply modelling. You can't land supply this way, but if you could there would be no limits on it.

a white rabbit -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/21/2008 7:16:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay Ever played this game before? Sea embarked units can land in any beach hex, and they can even land on non-beach hexes, if they stop next to them for a turn. For beach hexes, presumably read anchorages. Anyway, this doesn't really help with supply modelling. You can't land supply this way, but if you could there would be no limits on it. ...errr, Ben, see my earlier post pn page 7, or take a quick look at a nautical map of Malaya and southern Thailand, or/and read up on the Tin trade with Japan.. ..you can, they did.. ..anchorages are just that, safe places to park boats..

a white rabbit -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/21/2008 7:22:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright quote: ORIGINAL: a white rabbit quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright 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. ..if they were longer, maybe the "sea road" approach would be better, but some have to be mobile, if slow, so that they can be used for the other coastal operations, and maybe sunk, the survivors reaching Singapore for the end of campaign party.. ..as "bridging units', they can also transport combat units, clumsily it's true, but at a correct speed, which leaves them open to destroyer, PT-boat and Insect Class gun-boat attack, and gives my Japanese naval combat units something realistic to do, a whole game on it's own with all the added pressure on the players.. ... In principle, I think you're headed in the wrong direction here. The naval aspect of the campaign has to be simulated -- but you should develop it as little as possible. TOAW's air/naval mechanics are just so lame that the more of this you create, the worse the scenario will be. You want to keep the focus on where the simulation is best -- that is to say, on the land combat. ..accepted, i am trying to keep naval to a minimum, but it's an important part of the campaign that the Japanese can do their flanking amphibious-type moves, and therefore that the British have a chance to destroy them if they have the means..

a white rabbit -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/21/2008 7:32:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: a white rabbit ..given that my other scen is the Philippines, and then DEI if i don't get bored, i can't help but think that your cargo ships without deep-water port access and without off-loading facilities, your 'amphibious thingy' are only for scenarios on the margins.. Right now, all TOAW has is "amphibious" transport. So if you lift supply with that it can come in anywhere - every coastal hex of France. There's no need for ports or mulberries, or even beaches. Supply will flow in through every coastal hex. That despite the fact that all the historical amphibious transport departed right after D-Day for the South of France and then on to the Pacific. ..oh come on, not so, just so not so.. ..supply has to be joined-up, boats to off-loading facilities, be that an actual port, or a Beach off-loading unit , or loads of lighters, otherwise supply doesn't flow from the off-loading point unless by direct provision, just like the current supply icons, it then needs to be on a rail, or road, or within the range of a land supply carrier.. ..to simplify, supply will not flow thru every coastal hex unless you have an off-loading unit in ever coastal hex, and the means to access them from the deep-water..

ColinWright -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/21/2008 9:04:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay That's really all you've got, isn't it. Repeat your lame mantra about volume supply and issue insults. I've observed before that passages like the above seem to take the place of concession speeches with you. I really would like to discuss the specifics of a volume-based supply model, though.

ColinWright -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/21/2008 9:08:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: a white rabbit ..accepted, i am trying to keep naval to a minimum, but it's an important part of the campaign that the Japanese can do their flanking amphibious-type moves, and therefore that the British have a chance to destroy them if they have the means.. Similar in principle to what I am dealing with in Seelowe. The mechanics of creating a real but marginal capacity for secondary landings. Of course, the Japanese tended to crawl along the coast, as I recall. Strings of lighters what you have in mind, then? They 'bridge' the coastal hexes and the land units move over them? It'll look awful...like priests in 'Age of Empires.' Totally artificial.

a white rabbit -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/22/2008 4:30:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright quote: ORIGINAL: a white rabbit ..accepted, i am trying to keep naval to a minimum, but it's an important part of the campaign that the Japanese can do their flanking amphibious-type moves, and therefore that the British have a chance to destroy them if they have the means.. Similar in principle to what I am dealing with in Seelowe. The mechanics of creating a real but marginal capacity for secondary landings. Of course, the Japanese tended to crawl along the coast, as I recall. Strings of lighters what you have in mind, then? They 'bridge' the coastal hexes and the land units move over them? It'll look awful...like priests in 'Age of Empires.' Totally artificial. ..1 bridge 1 unit, then it moves like a caterpillar down the coast.. ..i did say it was clumsy, but it's more realistic than any use of naval transport, neither the Daihatsu landing craft nor the commandeered fishing boats can move that fast

golden delicious -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/22/2008 10:54:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: a white rabbit ...errr, Ben, see my earlier post pn page 7, or take a quick look at a nautical map of Malaya and southern Thailand, or/and read up on the Tin trade with Japan.. ..you can, they did.. ..anchorages are just that, safe places to park boats.. Great. I was talking about TOAW.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/22/2008 6:10:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious Anyway, this doesn't really help with supply modelling. You can't land supply this way, but if you could there would be no limits on it. If we use the current sea-cap to lift supply then they most certainly could land that way. And they could use the 'disembark in an all-sea hex' method to come in at any other coastal hex too. And it would only be limited by the amount of such lift. And if that sea-cap really did represent amphibious transport, it would be correct to allow it - that's how amphibious invasions are supplied prior to capturing a port. But for most cases, the sea-cap needs to model bulk transport (port-to-port only), not the specialized amphibious transport. To model the movement of sea-supply we need these prerequisites: 1. The ability of designers to prevent disembarking in all-sea hexes. (Item 9.9) 2. Spitting sea-lift into amphibious and transport. (Item 9.8) 3. Ports as distinct from beaches/anchorages. (Item 2.10) 4. Port capacities. (Item 6.6) Then we get on land and have to model how supply moves there as well, etc. Note that we currently have no capability to lift anything by truck. If we're going to physically move the supplies then we have to model how supply actually moves. Similarly we have to model how supplies are actually interdicted as well. It's a huge can of worms that will have to be completed before any physical supply can be modeled.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/22/2008 6:15:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright I've observed before that passages like the above seem to take the place of concession speeches with you. This is like trying to have a conversation with an old geezer that has forgotten his hearing aid and is off his meds. He can't understand anything you say, and he's soon yelling nonsense at you.

a white rabbit -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/22/2008 6:47:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious Anyway, this doesn't really help with supply modelling. You can't land supply this way, but if you could there would be no limits on it. If we use the current sea-cap to lift supply then they most certainly could land that way. And they could use the 'disembark in an all-sea hex' method to come in at any other coastal hex too. And it would only be limited by the amount of such lift. And if that sea-cap really did represent amphibious transport, it would be correct to allow it - that's how amphibious invasions are supplied prior to capturing a port. But for most cases, the sea-cap needs to model bulk transport (port-to-port only), not the specialized amphibious transport. To model the movement of sea-supply we need these prerequisites: 1. The ability of designers to prevent disembarking in all-sea hexes. (Item 9.9) 2. Spitting sea-lift into amphibious and transport. (Item 9.8) 3. Ports as distinct from beaches/anchorages. (Item 2.10) 4. Port capacities. (Item 6.6) Then we get on land and have to model how supply moves there as well, etc. Note that we currently have no capability to lift anything by truck. If we're going to physically move the supplies then we have to model how supply actually moves. Similarly we have to model how supplies are actually interdicted as well. It's a huge can of worms that will have to be completed before any physical supply can be modeled. .,3 and 4, yup but what's 1 got to do with anything, call them mulberrys, call them lighters, call them Naval Beach Party no 1, something has to be able to off-load the ships, a unit, if a player chooses to place this unit on a beach that doesn't have a rail/road/airfield then his supply doesn't go very far, if he chooses to place this unit in a hex surrounded by major escarpments then he's a fool.. ..as for 2, irrelevant.. ..supply chains, note chains are just that, lose one link and everything beyond the break is stuffed, no supply.. ..as to interdictiction, destroy the icon and break the chain and everything beyond that break is stuffed, no supply.. ..supply is really very simple..

ColinWright -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/22/2008 8:00:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright I've observed before that passages like the above seem to take the place of concession speeches with you. This is like trying to have a conversation with an old geezer that has forgotten his hearing aid and is off his meds. He can't understand anything you say, and he's soon yelling nonsense at you. That's very helpful, Curtis. Anything else useful to say, or shall we just trade insults ad infinitem? I did note that I would like to have a useful conversation about how the supply system should be revised. That obviously is out of the question.

a white rabbit -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/22/2008 8:18:10 PM)
..children, children.. ..knock it off or daddy will bang your heads together..

ColinWright -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/23/2008 10:27:32 AM)
quote: I would like to have a useful conversation about how the supply system should be revised. I would like to have a useful conversation about how the supply system should be revised. It's irritating to deal with someone who keeps effectively preventing that.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/23/2008 5:58:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: a white rabbit .,3 and 4, yup but what's 1 got to do with anything, call them mulberrys, call them lighters, call them Naval Beach Party no 1, something has to be able to off-load the ships, a unit, if a player chooses to place this unit on a beach that doesn't have a rail/road/airfield then his supply doesn't go very far, if he chooses to place this unit in a hex surrounded by major escarpments then he's a fool.. Then the Allies can bring supply in on every coastal hex of France. That shortens the truck route from Normandy a bunch. Now, some designers use that for some subjects. Others don't. It needs to be an editor choice. quote: ..as for 2, irrelevant.. No. It's extremely relevant. Amphibious transport (LSTs, other small craft) can land and unload stuff on beaches. They don't need a port or its capacity. Normal transport (Large cargo vessels) can't. They have to have a port and its capacity. We need a sea-transport mode that models that. Right now, TOAW's sea capacity is modeling amphibious transport. That makes sense because it's intended to model amphibious invasions. But if we're going to model logistical communications we need the other type too.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/23/2008 6:09:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright quote: I would like to have a useful conversation about how the supply system should be revised. I would like to have a useful conversation about how the supply system should be revised. It's irritating to deal with someone who keeps effectively preventing that. Then look to your own deportment. I'm fully within my rights to respond in kind. Frankly, I've been trying to contribute to the matter, but every time I do I'm pilloried by you for doing so, just because you don't like what I'm saying. I'll make a deal with you: If you refrain from personal comments I will too. But note that the last statement you made above counts as a personal comment. And if you disagree with my input then stick to material reasons as to why.

ColinWright -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/23/2008 9:34:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright quote: I would like to have a useful conversation about how the supply system should be revised. I would like to have a useful conversation about how the supply system should be revised. It's irritating to deal with someone who keeps effectively preventing that. Then look to your own deportment. I'm fully within my rights to respond in kind. Frankly, I've been trying to contribute to the matter, but every time I do I'm pilloried by you for doing so, just because you don't like what I'm saying. I'll make a deal with you: If you refrain from personal comments I will too. But note that the last statement you made above counts as a personal comment. And if you disagree with my input then stick to material reasons as to why. Your input to date has consisted of assertions that the core of the current system is just fine, and of assertions that various other changes would be 'prerequisites' to the introduction of any volume-based supply system. In fact neither wing of this argument holds up. Of course supply is not like cell phone coverage: if I fire a bullet you can't fire it too, and a given volume of supply cannot support ten divisions as as plentifully as it supports one. You have attempted to dismiss this argument by asserting that only 'marginal' scenarios are affected, but that is untrue on two counts. First, all scenarios are affected: it's just that some manage to function in spite of the nonsensical supply paradigm. Second, the argument that only the 'marginal' scenarios are affected is circular: the faulty supply paradigm makes it difficult to do scenarios on subjects where its effects would be crippling. Actually, about half the campaigns fought in World War Two would be 'marginal' ones according to you criteria. The 'prerequisites' argument also rests on twin fallacies. First, that any of the problems to be addressed would be any more or less acute under a volume-based rather than the current coverage-based system, and second, that the thing to do is make such relatively superficial corrections first and then decide that the whole system has to go second. If I've got a crumbling plaster-and-lathe wall, I don't first patch and paint it and second decide to rip it out and put in sheet rock -- yet that's what you effectively insist the approach should be. Now, can we drop this attempt to insist that no fundamental change is needed and start discussing what it should be?

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.71875