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 (1/23/2008 9:40:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


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...


And (once again) we also need volume-based supply. Lighters and such can deliver adequate supply for a relatively small force fighting close to the beach -- but when that force expands or moves inland, the volume of supplies needed increases, and more volume is needed.

In other words, the beaches at Normandy can deliver 30% supply to twenty divisions engaged in static warfare within twenty miles of the beaches -- they cannot support fifty divisions engaged in mobile warfare two hundred milles from the beach.

...a difference the current system can only partially and clumsily account for.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/25/2008 3:13:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
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.


On the contrary, if the designer knows how much force is going to be supplied by a known volume he can set the Force Supply Level accordingly. That's the case for most scenarios. That's why most scenarios work pretty well under the current supply paradigm. It only breaks down when either the force being supplied via a particular supply route or the volume of that route itself is wildly unknown. Those cases are primarily the ones where sea operations are critical to the scenario.

quote:

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.


By "marginal" I mean any scenario that functions out at TOAW's extremes - "the margins". We all know what they are. Whether you think all scenarios should have been designed at those extremes is irrelevant. The pertinent fact is that the vast majority in existence are not. And those scenarios will not benefit from volume supply enough to justify the huge costs of revising them, or playing them even if it were possible for them to be so revised. On the contrary, modest, simple enhancements to the existing paradigm will benefit them a lot.

quote:

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.


First, as I've said above, your characterization of the existing system is ridiculously overstated. Very few scenarios will ever be redesigned for volume supply because of the incredible effort required both from the designer and the players vs. the vanishing benefits that would be realized. The existing system is going to be maintained, and deserves some comparatively easy enhancements.

Second, the prerequisites are necessary and without them any attempt at volume supply would be a fiasco. It most certainly would not work as well as what we have now. If we're going to physically move the supply then we have to model how to do move it and how to interdict it. We don't even have any way to lift stuff by truck as it now stands. Stuff lifted by sea-cap can cross any coastal hex.

Thinking about it, I realized it's even more complicated than I first thought. Think of Antwerp: It's a major port, but it's not on the coast. It's inland - only reachable via the Schelde Estuary. Now, how to model that? Make it a Major River? Sea-cap can't enter it. Make it deep-sea hexes? German units can't interdict traffic on it. Either way is wrong.

Physical supply is going to remain unusable until the supply-movement and supply-interdiction issues are addressed, among other things. And they are a huge can of worms.

quote:

Now, can we drop this attempt to insist that no fundamental change is needed and start discussing what it should be?


This particular fundamental change is not needed nor will it ever be used for the vast majority of scenarios. Now, it is needed for a select few and deserves some attention at some point. But it has obvious cost/benefit issues.

As to how to implement it, I've been discussing that - both here and in the wishlist. We'll need the prerequisite items I listed. If you think there's some other way, no one is stopping you from spelling it out.



ColinWright -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/25/2008 7:36:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

...This particular fundamental change is not needed nor will it ever be used for the vast majority of scenarios. Now, it is needed for a select few and deserves some attention at some point. But it has obvious cost/benefit issues.

As to how to implement it, I've been discussing that - both here and in the wishlist. We'll need the prerequisite items I listed. If you think there's some other way, no one is stopping you from spelling it out.


To be frank, I only read the last two paragraphs of your post. Going by that, it would appear that you are just repeating -- and I choose the word advisedly -- your mantra. Although I have admittedly not read much of your text, I am confident that you have not offered any more logical justication for it here than you have previously.



ColinWright -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/25/2008 7:43:30 AM)

Anyway, the absence of volume-based supply is probably the single most universally relevant flaw TOAW still has, and it would be good to see it rectified.

Furthermore, the opinions of LeGuin notwithstanding, there's little point in fine-tuning the existing supply system if the whole thing is to be revised. What Curtis is pleased to call prerequisites are in fact the TOAW equivalent of coming up with improved harnesses for the horses -- a tad pointless if the obvious thing to do is to go over to cars.



a white rabbit -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/25/2008 1:15:09 PM)

in an attempt to shorten the polemics..

..Colin, you're wrong, the current toaw supply system does work, and quite nicely for short time-scale scens, ie under 10 moves at 1/2 week turns, it starts to come adrift beyond that as there is no facility to change formation priorities to cope with the changing on-map situation.

..You're correct in that it is totally unrealistic as a representation and the major flaw..

..Curtis, you're wrong in assuming that anything needs changing in the existing system as  prerequisite for a new system to be added, for all short time-scales it works well, say up to 10 moves at 1/2 week turns, beyond that it comes adrift as there is no facility to change formation priorities to cope with the changing on map situation..

..You're correct in that the addition of a new supply system will ask the designers to revise their scens, but that can be made optional..

..to both of you, yup it'l require work to define the methods and means, so ? can we please get on with it, it's been a running sore since toaw 1..

..so, are we proposing an all-at-once solution, or an intially simplistic version that can be refined as time goes by ?



Curtis Lemay -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/25/2008 7:04:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..Curtis, you're wrong in assuming that anything needs changing in the existing system as  prerequisite for a new system to be added,


I'm right about it. As it stands now, supplies couldn't even be lifted by trucks. Somehow I figure that's going to be pretty important. Even after that's added, the delivery of supplies by those trucks for each scenario is going to be wildly inaccurate until multiple revision loops are completed via playtests. That's because, unlike the simple supply radius we have now, the impact of the quantity of trucks, the lack of component supply, the unfixed supply cost of movement, and the poorly modeled interdiction paradigm will make that delivery impossible to estimate in advance. It will have to be brought into line via trial-and-error. So, no, even for the simplist scenarios, it is not going to "work as well as the current system". It's going to work much worse, and at a huge cost to the players. Which means it's not going to be used at all for those subjects (nor does it need to be) - and that's even if the designer is still around.

And that's without any consideration of sea-communications, which is the entire rationale for the whole thing to begin with - those are the subjects that really need it. As I've made clear, that's going to be the mother of all revisions. Logistical sea communications are very complex.

quote:

for all short time-scales it works well, say up to 10 moves at 1/2 week turns, beyond that it comes adrift as there is no facility to change formation priorities to cope with the changing on map situation..


I have any number of much longer scenarios I've made that work quite well. Only one of those would actually be worth the enormous cost of switching to physical supply. And there is a facility to allow players to change priorities - the supply unit.



jmlima -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/25/2008 10:14:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
... And there is a facility to allow players to change priorities - the supply unit.


[X(]

Can you exemplify that???



ColinWright -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/25/2008 10:54:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit



..to both of you, yup it'l require work to define the methods and means, so ? can we please get on with it, it's been a running sore since toaw 1..


Hear, hear.



ColinWright -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/25/2008 11:02:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..Curtis, you're wrong in assuming that anything needs changing in the existing system as prerequisite for a new system to be added,


I'm right about it. As it stands now, supplies couldn't even be lifted by trucks. Somehow I figure that's going to be pretty important. Even after that's added, the delivery of supplies by those trucks for each scenario is going to be wildly inaccurate until multiple revision loops are completed via playtests. That's because, unlike the simple supply radius we have now, the impact of the quantity of trucks, the lack of component supply, the unfixed supply cost of movement, and the poorly modeled interdiction paradigm will make that delivery impossible to estimate in advance. It will have to be brought into line via trial-and-error. So, no, even for the simplist scenarios, it is not going to "work as well as the current system". It's going to work much worse, and at a huge cost to the players. Which means it's not going to be used at all for those subjects (nor does it need to be) - and that's even if the designer is still around.

And that's without any consideration of sea-communications, which is the entire rationale for the whole thing to begin with - those are the subjects that really need it. As I've made clear, that's going to be the mother of all revisions. Logistical sea communications are very complex.

quote:

for all short time-scales it works well, say up to 10 moves at 1/2 week turns, beyond that it comes adrift as there is no facility to change formation priorities to cope with the changing on map situation..


I have any number of much longer scenarios I've made that work quite well. Only one of those would actually be worth the enormous cost of switching to physical supply. And there is a facility to allow players to change priorities - the supply unit.


Christ. There's no point in even trying. He's obviously quite impossible to reason with. I particularly love the assertion that '...sea-communications [are] the entire rationale for the whole thing to begin with...' The only one who has made that particular claim is Curtis. So Curtis gets to define the issue, Curtis gets to set the rules, and Curtis gets to win the argument. How exciting.

The point is that to be realistic, supply needs to be volume-based -- to reflect the fact that more troops consume more beans. How do supply units address that? All they do is allow an improvement in the supply available in otherwise poorly-supplied areas -- completely without regard to how many troops are being thus supplied.

As to the practicality of a volume-based supply system, I was playing Civil War Generals II -- admittedly a real old soldier, but I like rounding up and slaughtering masses of Yankees. Point is, it's got a volume-based supply system. Conceptually, it just doesn't seem that a more sophisticated version of such a system would be all that hard to implement.

Of course, it's almost impossible to determine just how hard. Why? Because Curtis keeps the conversation stuck at the stage of trying to prove the world isn't flat in the first place. How the hell are we supposed to work out how long it will take to get to China by sailing West if he won't even admit that it can be done at all?

If we could get to the point of admitting that a volume-based supply system would be desirable in the first place, then we could discuss what the specifics of that system should be, and how best to implement them. But we can't get to that point. Why? Because Curtis has to stay in denial, insisting -- quite illogically -- that the current system is somehow an adequate representation of the actual dynamics of supply.



jmlima -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/25/2008 11:18:34 PM)

Guys, sorry to come between your good fun, but Jamiam has several times already said that supply was going to be substantially revised for TOAW4, OCS was talked about several times, but that there would be no major changes done for TOAW3.

Doesn't the above pretty much summarizes the entire thing?

Or are we (Curtis actually) now saying that there will be no major revision for TOAW4, because to be quite honest , if for TOAW3 there are only going to be a couple more patches (Jamiam or Ralph, can't remember), it's pointless to expect anything major from them...



ColinWright -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/25/2008 11:29:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima

Guys, sorry to come between your good fun, but Jamiam has several times already said that supply was going to be substantially revised for TOAW4, OCS was talked about several times, but that there would be no major changes done for TOAW3.

Doesn't the above pretty much summarizes the entire thing?

Or are we (Curtis actually) now saying that there will be no major revision for TOAW4, because to be quite honest , if for TOAW3 there are only going to be a couple more patches (Jamiam or Ralph, can't remember), it's pointless to expect anything major from them...


What's OCS? Anyway, glad to hear supply will be substantially revised. That's what I'd like to talk about -- how to revise it. Not talk about how it's just fine the way it is.



jmlima -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/25/2008 11:31:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima

Guys, sorry to come between your good fun, but Jamiam has several times already said that supply was going to be substantially revised for TOAW4, OCS was talked about several times, but that there would be no major changes done for TOAW3.

Doesn't the above pretty much summarizes the entire thing?

Or are we (Curtis actually) now saying that there will be no major revision for TOAW4, because to be quite honest , if for TOAW3 there are only going to be a couple more patches (Jamiam or Ralph, can't remember), it's pointless to expect anything major from them...


What's OCS? Anyway, glad to hear supply will be substantially revised. That's what I'd like to talk about -- how to revise it. Not talk about how it's just fine the way it is.



OCS = Operational Combat Series, by The Gamers, have a look here:

http://www.gamersarchive.net/theGamers/archive/ocs.htm



ColinWright -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/26/2008 12:22:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima

Guys, sorry to come between your good fun, but Jamiam has several times already said that supply was going to be substantially revised for TOAW4, OCS was talked about several times, but that there would be no major changes done for TOAW3.

Doesn't the above pretty much summarizes the entire thing?

Or are we (Curtis actually) now saying that there will be no major revision for TOAW4, because to be quite honest , if for TOAW3 there are only going to be a couple more patches (Jamiam or Ralph, can't remember), it's pointless to expect anything major from them...


What's OCS? Anyway, glad to hear supply will be substantially revised. That's what I'd like to talk about -- how to revise it. Not talk about how it's just fine the way it is.



OCS = Operational Combat Series, by The Gamers, have a look here:

http://www.gamersarchive.net/theGamers/archive/ocs.htm


Mm. Sounds like an improvement -- although it's unclear to what extent the supply is volume-based. One thing that sounds promising is the hybrid trace- and supply unit- system.

That would permit current scenarios to continue to function. They could just rely on the trace.

At any rate, it's a starting point. It might not be full emancipation, but at least we're getting away from the TOAW equivalent of 'God has ordained that the Black man is to be the hewer of wood and bearer of water and that's that.'



jmlima -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/26/2008 12:28:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

..

At any rate, it's a starting point. It might not be full emancipation, but at least we're getting away from the TOAW equivalent of 'God has ordained that the Black man is to be the hewer of wood and bearer of water and that's that.'



My understanding , when OCS was referred, was obviously not a copy of the system, but to look at it as something that actually works very well, and is simple, heck, if it can be used in a boardgame...

I understood it as precisely that, a starting point.

If all of this is still true, it's another matter altogether...



ColinWright -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/26/2008 2:12:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

..

At any rate, it's a starting point. It might not be full emancipation, but at least we're getting away from the TOAW equivalent of 'God has ordained that the Black man is to be the hewer of wood and bearer of water and that's that.'



My understanding , when OCS was referred, was obviously not a copy of the system, but to look at it as something that actually works very well, and is simple, heck, if it can be used in a boardgame...

I understood it as precisely that, a starting point.

If all of this is still true, it's another matter altogether...


Anyway, just to take the concept and run with it...

One could have the current supply system -- along with whatever tweaks others might like -- and then add a system of supply units.

For starters, all units could have a 'supply priority' setting added. Similar to the current 'minimize/limit/ignore losses' setting. Players could adjust units to receive no additional supply, some additional supply, or more additional supply. Units from old scenarios would just default to 'some' as their setting.

Then, one would have supply units. These would distribute so much supply to units within their radius, the amount dispensed being determined by the sum of the weights of the units involved (here artillery should consume a disproportionate part).

In the crude version, the supply unit would just be disbanded, its stocks being distributed according to the weight and supply priority of the units within its radius and accordingly increasing their stockpile. In other words, a supply unit that could increase the supply of five rifle battalions by 50% might only increase the supply of all the units in a full division by 15%.

Here one would have to choose between just a flat percentage boost and a formula that looked at the percentage of supply a unit was short of 100% and satisfied some part of that. I would think the latter formula would be more satisfactory.

In the more elegant version, the player would click on 'dispense supply' and the unit would be drawn down to the needs that the units within it's radius called for. Like, it would bring all units calling for 'more supply' up to 100% if it could, and satisfy all other units proportionate to their setting. The more or less depleted supply unit would then slowly fill up again according to some mechanism. Supply units then become something like the dumps Russians used to establish behind the front before big offensives. Their equipment could even be manipulated so that they either have to be moved into place empty and allowed to fill up, or that they can be loaded with supply and able to move. The latter would presumably be the norm, but the former has its points as an option for some situations.

The beauty of this system is that depending on what setting is chosen for the 'supply trace' designers can either stick with the old mechanism in its entirety, make units entirely dependent upon supply units, or choose any point in between these extremes that strikes their fancy.







ColinWright -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/26/2008 2:26:50 AM)

As a further thought, the supply units could appear at designer-chosen points -- just as any reinforcement does -- and then move. However, they would lose supply in doing so, and of course would lose supply from interdiction hits. So players could be given the choice of supporting easily accessible fronts, or of supporting efforts in atttractive but extremely inaccessible theaters. Like, you can mount that five-divisions-with-lavish-artillery-support advance on Murmansk -- but first, it's going to take a while for the supply units to get up there, and secondly, by the time they do, they'll be so depleted that you'll be expending supply that would suffice to support a twenty division thrust elsewhere. These are more or less exactly the considerations that would dominate any such decision in real life.



rhinobones -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/26/2008 2:46:44 AM)

Do you envision these supply units as being consumed as their supply is dispersed and then being removed from the field once supply has dropped to zero? This seems to be implied in your post.

Regards, RhinoBones



ColinWright -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/26/2008 4:03:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

Do you envision these supply units as being consumed as their supply is dispersed and then being removed from the field once supply has dropped to zero? This seems to be implied in your post.

Regards, RhinoBones


See what I wrote.

quote:



In the crude version, the supply unit would just be disbanded, its stocks being distributed according to the weight and supply priority of the units within its radius and accordingly increasing their stockpile. In other words, a supply unit that could increase the supply of five rifle battalions by 50% might only increase the supply of all the units in a full division by 15%.

Here one would have to choose between just a flat percentage boost and a formula that looked at the percentage of supply a unit was short of 100% and satisfied some part of that. I would think the latter formula would be more satisfactory.

In the more elegant version, the player would click on 'dispense supply' and the unit would be drawn down to the needs that the units within it's radius called for. Like, it would bring all units calling for 'more supply' up to 100% if it could, and satisfy all other units proportionate to their setting. The more or less depleted supply unit would then slowly fill up again according to some mechanism. Supply units then become something like the dumps Russians used to establish behind the front before big offensives. Their equipment could even be manipulated so that they either have to be moved into place empty and allowed to fill up, or that they can be loaded with supply and able to move. The latter would presumably be the norm, but the former has its points as an option for some situations.


For what it's worth, and all things being equal, I'd rather have a few, permanent supply units with varying stockpiles of supply moving around the battlefield than endless ant-trails of supply units moving up from the rear and disbanding. However, the latter doesn't strike me as inherently intolerable, and if that's all we can get...

There's also the 'invisible unit' variant I suggested a few pages back. The units exist as far as the computer is concerned, and it manages them in response to the supply priorities you assign, but you don't have to look at the damned things.

They're all just ideas. I'm really trying to avoid nailing myself down to a particular version at this time. Steam, electric, petrol cars -- they're all fine. Just so long as people quit advocating that we keep the horse.



rhinobones -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/26/2008 4:34:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Just so long as people quit advocating that we keep the horse.


At a minimum the logistics supply chain definitely needs to include transport ships, shallow draft boats, wagons, mules, man pack and, of course, the horse. These should all be available to the designer, otherwise, the system is incomplete.

Regards, RhinoBones



ColinWright -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/26/2008 5:02:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Just so long as people quit advocating that we keep the horse.


At a minimum the logistics supply chain definitely needs to include transport ships, shallow draft boats, wagons, mules, man pack and, of course, the horse. These should all be available to the designer, otherwise, the system is incomplete.

Regards, RhinoBones



You are, of course, welcome to advocate such additions.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/27/2008 12:55:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
The point is that to be realistic, supply needs to be volume-based...


The mantra. The facts say otherwise. The reality is that only for some special cirmumstances it that so.

quote:

Because Curtis has to stay in denial, insisting -- quite illogically -- that the current system is somehow an adequate representation of the actual dynamics of supply.


I guess "denial" is believing my lying eyes instead of your baseless claims. It seems that the current supply paradigm works fine for most normal scenarios in TOAW.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/27/2008 1:01:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima
OCS = Operational Combat Series, by The Gamers, have a look here:

http://www.gamersarchive.net/theGamers/archive/ocs.htm


I"ve only just taken a quick look at this, but my first impression is that it's very simplistic, compared to TOAW's detail.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/27/2008 1:27:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Then, one would have supply units. These would distribute so much supply to units within their radius, the amount dispensed being determined by the sum of the weights of the units involved (here artillery should consume a disproportionate part).

In the crude version, the supply unit would just be disbanded, its stocks being distributed according to the weight and supply priority of the units within its radius and accordingly increasing their stockpile. In other words, a supply unit that could increase the supply of five rifle battalions by 50% might only increase the supply of all the units in a full division by 15%.

Here one would have to choose between just a flat percentage boost and a formula that looked at the percentage of supply a unit was short of 100% and satisfied some part of that. I would think the latter formula would be more satisfactory.

In the more elegant version, the player would click on 'dispense supply' and the unit would be drawn down to the needs that the units within it's radius called for. Like, it would bring all units calling for 'more supply' up to 100% if it could, and satisfy all other units proportionate to their setting. The more or less depleted supply unit would then slowly fill up again according to some mechanism. Supply units then become something like the dumps Russians used to establish behind the front before big offensives. Their equipment could even be manipulated so that they either have to be moved into place empty and allowed to fill up, or that they can be loaded with supply and able to move. The latter would presumably be the norm, but the former has its points as an option for some situations.


This is about the same as your post #101. Your slight of hand here is to completely ignore the actual movement and interdiction of the supplies on their entire path to the individual units. Those are the issues that make the subject so difficult to design and play. Here, the supply is going to be teleported to the units, and perhaps even teleported to the supply units. No consideration of the terrain the unit is in, or the terrain the path to that unit from the supply unit would cross. No consideration of the interdiction risk on that path either. And note that the path from the supply unit to the combat unit will be over the worst terrain and probably incur the most risk of the trip.



JAMiAM -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/27/2008 1:49:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima
OCS = Operational Combat Series, by The Gamers, have a look here:

http://www.gamersarchive.net/theGamers/archive/ocs.htm


I"ve only just taken a quick look at this, but my first impression is that it's very simplistic, compared to TOAW's detail.

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.



ColinWright -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/27/2008 2:58:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


...This is about the same as your post #101. Your slight of hand here is to completely ignore the actual movement and interdiction of the supplies on their entire path to the individual units. Those are the issues that make the subject so difficult to design and play. Here, the supply is going to be teleported to the units, and perhaps even teleported to the supply units. No consideration of the terrain the unit is in, or the terrain the path to that unit from the supply unit would cross. No consideration of the interdiction risk on that path either. And note that the path from the supply unit to the combat unit will be over the worst terrain and probably incur the most risk of the trip.


First, to state the above pretty much requires not reading what I actually proposed: I actually deal with both the areas you claim I ignore.

Secondly, so what? Even if we assume your objections have some validity, we've currently got a supply system that doesn't correspond to reality at all: we've got nowhere to go but up. Even the crudest volume-based supply system would yield better results than the nonsensical outcomes produced under the current system.

After all, currently, if one brigade can operate out of Siwa Oasis, a whole corps can. If two divisions can mount an attack on Murmansk, twenty can. If ten divisions can plunge full speed across the Rhine, a hundred can. Pretty much, the designer has to either (a) artificially make it impossible to alter the historical decisions that were made on these and similar questions in virtually every campaign that was ever fought, (b) accept historically impossible maneuvers and thrusts, or (c) do his best to overcome the fundamentally flawed nature of the supply paradigm with event structures and T.O's and things.

One of the few virtues of having a really bad system is that one has nowhere to go but up. I'm all for taking OCS and seeing how we can improve it; the results are bound to be better than what we've got.



ColinWright -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/27/2008 2:59:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
The point is that to be realistic, supply needs to be volume-based...


The mantra. The facts say otherwise. The reality is that only for some special cirmumstances it that so.

quote:

Because Curtis has to stay in denial, insisting -- quite illogically -- that the current system is somehow an adequate representation of the actual dynamics of supply.




I guess "denial" is believing my lying eyes instead of your baseless claims. It seems that the current supply paradigm works fine for most normal scenarios in TOAW.


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.




rhinobones -> Dr. Foo and the “The Truck Unit Icon from Hell” (1/27/2008 5:23:26 AM)

Dr. Foo, did you ever imagine that your simple question regarding truck icons would evolve into one of the greatest debates of all time?  This is the Truck ICON debate from hell. 

We ask you please Dr. Foo, please write another question.  We are dying to hear the TDG response!

Regards, RhinoBones



rhinobones -> The Supply Debate !!!!! (1/27/2008 6:06:30 AM)

Seems that when Norm first invented TOAW he had a vision of operational warfare, but for unknown reasons, expanded in scale to include both tactical and strategic scenarios. As is, TOAW is not a game based on operational maneuver, rather it is a game based on tactical thru strategic warfare. Take your pick on which one you want to play or model.

Maybe what TOAW really needs is to be broken into three separate (possibly over lapping) games. The Tactical, The Operational and The Strategic Arts of War.

Agree with Lemay that on the whole supply for the smaller scale and tactical/operational scenarios does not need fixing. On the other hand, Collin has a point that opororational/strategic scaled scenarios require a volume based supply model. This is particularly evident in the Corps+ level scenarios.

Really think that TOAW has out lived its original design. Is time to start thinking about multiple TOAW’s optimized for scale and era rather than having a bitch fight over who has the best supply train.

Regards, RhinoBones



Curtis Lemay -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/27/2008 5:37:50 PM)


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.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (1/27/2008 5:58:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
First, to state the above pretty much requires not reading what I actually proposed: I actually deal with both the areas you claim I ignore.


If you are going to actually transport supply via some lift method all the way to the combat unit, then the subject will be just as complex and burdensome as I've described. At the very least, you have to address the isssue of some sort of lift ability for truck units - one of my "prerequisites". And then you will still only have a system for pure ground operations. The sea communications issue will remain unmodeled. And that is the only real beneficiary of the subject to begin with.

quote:

Secondly, so what? Even if we assume your objections have some validity, we've currently got a supply system that doesn't correspond to reality at all: we've got nowhere to go but up. Even the crudest volume-based supply system would yield better results than the nonsensical outcomes produced under the current system.


There's no assurance of that at all. It may produce far worse results, with units getting either far more or far less supply than they historically could. In fact, it will be very hard for designers to gauge what the result will be without extensive trial-and-error.

quote:

After all, currently, if one brigade can operate out of Siwa Oasis, a whole corps can.


This would do nothing about that at all. It's a transport problem. There is currently no difference between an improved road and a normal road. So there's no mechanism to force supply columns to prefer the coast road. We need the "prerequisite" that fixes that.



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8125