RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (Full Version)

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



Message

Curtis Lemay -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (4/4/2008 5:41:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun
Maybe - I never play monster scenarios. However - PCs are speeder each day...


And the faster they get the less patient players get. We still get the "TOAW crashed" message on the problem board - and, as always, find that the player just wasn't waiting long enough for the calculations to finish.

quote:

This isn't minor for me, and especially for my opponents [:)]. I'm not Monty - I've found encirclement as basic military procedure. This is the really important P2 adventage - if I'm able just to make a (for sure) temporary, very weak encirclement, I'm sure that all encircled units will be unsupplied during my next attacks. So, I prefer such weak encirclement to save my troops for a general attack in next turn to make a final, strong encirclement. P2 as defender needn't be affraid about weak units cutting my supply lines - I have my whole turn to restore the supply line before my troops get any negative effect. You find this a very minor problem?[X(] We could try a match of Agonya y Vicoria by JMS [;)]


What are you talking about? There will be no P2 advantage if supply is restored at the start of each player's respective friendly player turn. Splitting & halving that restoration will only benefit a surrounded unit that breaks that containment and restores its line of communications - and then the benefit will only be that it gets resupplied a half turn earlier. Most units that get surrounded stay surrounded. That's why it's a minor effect.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (4/4/2008 5:47:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun
Frankly, it doesn't sound friendly :(. A suggestion, that an opponent statement has a different, hidden reason isn't a good way to discuss at all, is it?


Sorry.

quote:

You had just remainded me about VI - I'm only playing by e-mail, so this isn't a problem for me. Anyway, one of the reasons I don't play agaist PO is VI - PO usually isn't a challenge, but any case of changed initative causes a massacre of his troops additionally. I've found VI as just too big random handicap. Anyway, I don't see a problem with VI and dobuled/halved supply/recovery/wheather phase. Movement recovery should have just a limit - an unit cant get more MP then it's maximal level. You can keep the VI if you want[;)].


As I understood it, the rationale for splitting & halving the movement recovery was to retain some of the retreat & reserve movement expenditures. I explained that there is a way to handle that within the method we're using. So we can address the retreat & reserve issue and still retain VI. Why would we do otherwise?



Curtis Lemay -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (4/4/2008 5:51:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




And, beyond that, there's the issue of the "on hand" pool. How is that to be distributed?


One would halve the distribution that would otherwise occur.


Since the entire "on hand" amount is rarely fully distributed each turn, I think it's more involved than that. Without knowing exactly what's going on, I can't predict just how halving it would have to work or whether it would be a problem.



JAMiAM -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (4/4/2008 6:45:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
The weather jigs around more, but hey -- clouds do that.


As an aside, I'm going to go on the record here as loathing the way that TOAW handles weather. The thought of being able to spot cloud cover, and move about trying to stay under it strikes me as gamey. What I want to do for TOAW IV, is to make the weather zones have a range of effects and have the exact effect probabilistically determined *after* an attack is launched against a particular hex. Thus, you might know the general weather conditions within a zone, but not know a priori whether there is heavy rainfall over the bridge, until the bombers are over the hex. This might need to be adjustable, dependent on on how modern the scenario is, its time and hex scales.



ColinWright -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (4/4/2008 7:15:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
The weather jigs around more, but hey -- clouds do that.


As an aside, I'm going to go on the record here as loathing the way that TOAW handles weather. The thought of being able to spot cloud cover, and move about trying to stay under it strikes me as gamey. What I want to do for TOAW IV, is to make the weather zones have a range of effects and have the exact effect probabilistically determined *after* an attack is launched against a particular hex. Thus, you might know the general weather conditions within a zone, but not know a priori whether there is heavy rainfall over the bridge, until the bombers are over the hex. This might need to be adjustable, dependent on on how modern the scenario is, its time and hex scales.


Without thinking about it too deeply, the current system certainly isn't one to be defended fiercely. However, bombers are told exactly what weather is at the target, and make a decision as to whether to strike there or elsewhere on that basis.

A long of times you do know there is heavy rainfall over the bridge, and so go bomb something else. That's actually how come Nagasaki got it. It was a lousy day in Nagoya.

...and in an aside, I had a girlfriend from said Nagoya for a while. Sort of like a butterfly shaking its wings in Peking and affecting the weather in Central Park, but noisier.



a white rabbit -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (4/5/2008 9:11:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM



quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


You've forgotten about variable initiative. You can have two friendly turns in a row or two enemy turns in a row. Even without that, you wouldn't get the same full recovery as now, since part of the movement recovery would be made with only half the supply recovery.


I don't think I've heard anyone ever defend variable initiative in the first place. As far as I'm concerned, it was one of Norm's least successful ideas -- for one thing, it makes it hard to use the P.O. for playtesting.

So if variable initiative is an obstacle to some otherwise worthy suggestion, I'd see that as just another reason to bag variable initiative.


You just haven't been listening in the "right" places...[;)]

VI was admittedly not too well implemented by Norm. However, the concept is good, and one that I hope to flesh out better in TOAW IV. As an option, of course.



..agreed..

..agreed..

..good..



a white rabbit -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (4/5/2008 9:15:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
The weather jigs around more, but hey -- clouds do that.


As an aside, I'm going to go on the record here as loathing the way that TOAW handles weather. The thought of being able to spot cloud cover, and move about trying to stay under it strikes me as gamey. What I want to do for TOAW IV, is to make the weather zones have a range of effects and have the exact effect probabilistically determined *after* an attack is launched against a particular hex. Thus, you might know the general weather conditions within a zone, but not know a priori whether there is heavy rainfall over the bridge, until the bombers are over the hex. This might need to be adjustable, dependent on on how modern the scenario is, its time and hex scales.


..mmm, at 9.am i can see Gen San, at 12 i can't find the water-pump just outside the front door and the horses have gills..



L`zard -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (4/5/2008 11:15:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
..mmm, at 9.am i can see Gen San, at 12 i can't find the water-pump just outside the front door and the horses have gills..


AH HAH!

So your only sinking into the sea intermittently, eh?



ColinWright -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (4/5/2008 8:07:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: L`zard


quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
..mmm, at 9.am i can see Gen San, at 12 i can't find the water-pump just outside the front door and the horses have gills..


AH HAH!

So your only sinking into the sea intermittently, eh?



He just moved to Seattle.



Legun -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (4/9/2008 8:24:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Sorry.


No problem.



Legun -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (4/9/2008 8:45:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
quote:

This isn't minor for me, and especially for my opponents [:)]. I'm not Monty - I've found encirclement as basic military procedure. This is the really important P2 adventage - if I'm able just to make a (for sure) temporary, very weak encirclement, I'm sure that all encircled units will be unsupplied during my next attacks. So, I prefer such weak encirclement to save my troops for a general attack in next turn to make a final, strong encirclement. P2 as defender needn't be affraid about weak units cutting my supply lines - I have my whole turn to restore the supply line before my troops get any negative effect. You find this a very minor problem?[X(] We could try a match of Agonya y Vicoria by JMS [;)]


What are you talking about? There will be no P2 advantage if supply is restored at the start of each player's respective friendly player turn. Splitting & halving that restoration will only benefit a surrounded unit that breaks that containment and restores its line of communications - and then the benefit will only be that it gets resupplied a half turn earlier. Most units that get surrounded stay surrounded. That's why it's a minor effect.


OK - I've mixed two connected problems. One is P1/P2 asymmetry, the second - the penalty for cut supply. The half of turn is usually critical. One successful (even very weak) encirclement starts a snowball effect. Again - if I'm able to cut opponent's supply at the end of my turn I'm sure that the cut units have "unsupplied" status during my attacks in the NEXT turn, not depend on defender actions. This is I don't like and this isn't minor effect for me. With P1/P2 asymmetry, the problem is doubled. Anyway, without the asymmetry, the problem still exists.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
As I understood it, the rationale for splitting & halving the movement recovery was to retain some of the retreat & reserve movement expenditures. I explained that there is a way to handle that within the method we're using. So we can address the retreat & reserve issue and still retain VI. Why would we do otherwise?


The asymmetry of retreat & reserve recovery is the a twin problem to the supply recovery problem. We could solve both the same way - by splitting and havling the calculation. If movement recovery is solved other way, there is still a reason for splitting and halving. If there is splitting and halving, there is no reason to look for other way to solve the movement recovery problem.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (4/10/2008 6:48:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun
OK - I've mixed two connected problems. One is P1/P2 asymmetry,


Let's at least agree that there won't be any P1/P2 supply recovery asymmetry with the way we're doing it. That's the major issue that needed to be fixed.

quote:

the second - the penalty for cut supply. The half of turn is usually critical. One successful (even very weak) encirclement starts a snowball effect. Again - if I'm able to cut opponent's supply at the end of my turn I'm sure that the cut units have "unsupplied" status during my attacks in the NEXT turn, not depend on defender actions. This is I don't like and this isn't minor effect for me.


Again, that's only a problem if those cut off units have somehow restored communications during their player turn. That's not typical. Most surrounded units stay surrounded. And if they somehow do manage to restore communications, then they just need to stay out of action for half a turn. Is fixing that worth doubling the supply calculation time? It's a cost/benefit issue.

quote:

The asymmetry of retreat & reserve recovery is the a twin problem to the supply recovery problem. We could solve both the same way - by splitting and havling the calculation. If movement recovery is solved other way, there is still a reason for splitting and halving. If there is splitting and halving, there is no reason to look for other way to solve the movement recovery problem.


First, splitting & halving movement recovery doesn't solve the retreat & reserve issue - it only half solves it. Half of the retreat & reserve movement would be wrongly recovered.

Second, there is a very good reason to look for another way to solve it - VI. VI won't work under such a method.

Third, the way we're doing it can handle both issues. Why do it any other way?



ColinWright -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (4/10/2008 7:03:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



Again, that's only a problem if those cut off units have somehow restored communications during their player turn. That's not typical. Most surrounded units stay surrounded.


For many scenarios, this is simply not true. It would be convenient for your argument if it were, but it is not.



Legun -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (4/11/2008 9:56:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Let's at least agree that there won't be any P1/P2 supply recovery asymmetry with the way we're doing it.


Sure

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Again, that's only a problem if those cut off units have somehow restored communications during their player turn. That's not typical. Most surrounded units stay surrounded. And if they somehow do manage to restore communications, then they just need to stay out of action for half a turn. Is fixing that worth doubling the supply calculation time? It's a cost/benefit issue.


That isn't "ONLY" a problem. It's worth dobuling the supply calculation time for me. I see it as an important factor of my strategy. F.e. - for optimalization purose I should remember during turn 2 which enemy units were cut and unsupplied at turn 1. This is important even if the units are already mixed with rescue, supplied forces. This isn't problem of thier health indicators - their losses are just two times higher becouse any lost equipment doesn't go to "on hand" pool.




Curtis Lemay -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (4/11/2008 6:56:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun
That isn't "ONLY" a problem. It's worth dobuling the supply calculation time for me. I see it as an important factor of my strategy. F.e. - for optimalization purose I should remember during turn 2 which enemy units were cut and unsupplied at turn 1. This is important even if the units are already mixed with rescue, supplied forces. This isn't problem of thier health indicators - their losses are just two times higher becouse any lost equipment doesn't go to "on hand" pool.


I'm not saying the idea is without merit. But let's have a realistic assessment of how serious the problem is and what the costs will be. For sure we know what the cost will be - supply calculation time will be doubled. That's not just a coding cost - that cost will be paid by players every game turn of every scenario. How often surrounded units recover communications is more difficult to estimate. From my experience, it occurs, but rarely. If anyone has hard evidence to the contrary, let's see it. All I'm saying is that that cost/benefit consideration has to be part of the programming decision.



ColinWright -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (4/11/2008 8:42:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


From my experience, it occurs, but rarely. If anyone has hard evidence to the contrary, let's see it. All I'm saying is that that cost/benefit consideration has to be part of the programming decision.


I can reverse that statement. From my experience...let's see your evidence. Legun sees it. I know 'Golden Delicious' sees it. I see it.

It's a significant factor, and in many scenarios, it occurs not rarely, but frequently.

...aside from everything else, if 'you're not seeing it' during hotseat sessions in the course of scenario development, let me point out that actual PBEM play tends to differ significantly from hotseat in intangible but important ways. In 'hotseat' the player/designer really tends to decide for both sides who has won and who should pull back and dig in -- one just isn't going to have the sort of frantic dogfight that erupts over points in PBEM, where with two players, there is often violent disagreement over who is to have (43,52). So in PBEM you really should get more of the repeatedly cut off units than you might see if your primary point of contact is solo playtest.

It's just a thought. You may genuinely not see the phenomenon much -- but you may not be looking in the right places.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (4/12/2008 7:39:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
I can reverse that statement. From my experience...let's see your evidence.


See my France 1944 D-Day AAR here:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1546619

and continued here:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1726673

Out of the scores, if not hundreds, of German units that got cut off in it, I can't recall any that ever restored communications - or even had a remote chance to expect to do so. On the Allied side, only the Market-Garden airdrops were ever out of communications and had them restored. Even in those cases, the restorations were always at the very end of the Allied player turn and via tenuous one-hex wide links. When you consider that, plus the abstraction of IGO-UGO, it's not unreasonable to expect those units to have to wait till their next friendly player-turn to be considered "officially" back in communications.

quote:

Legun sees it. I know 'Golden Delicious' sees it. I see it.

It's a significant factor, and in many scenarios, it occurs not rarely, but frequently.


Oh, I see it too. How often is the issue. That still seems to be an unquantified parameter. Regardless, anyone reading this can use their own experience.

quote:

...aside from everything else, if 'you're not seeing it' during hotseat sessions in the course of scenario development, let me point out that actual PBEM play tends to differ significantly from hotseat in intangible but important ways. In 'hotseat' the player/designer really tends to decide for both sides who has won and who should pull back and dig in -- one just isn't going to have the sort of frantic dogfight that erupts over points in PBEM, where with two players, there is often violent disagreement over who is to have (43,52). So in PBEM you really should get more of the repeatedly cut off units than you might see if your primary point of contact is solo playtest.

It's just a thought. You may genuinely not see the phenomenon much -- but you may not be looking in the right places.


Well, it's possible there's some element of truth to that - although I think I would have played France 1944 the same as I did from either side against a PBEM opponent. I was striving for best play.

Regardless, I have another example that is PBEM (against Jeremy) found in this old CFNA article here:

http://www.gamesquad.com/toaw/?p=21

Sadly, the images don't seem to work anymore. But, while there were some wild moments, most of the time one side or the other just had the initiative and cut off units were never seen by their comrades again.



ColinWright -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (4/12/2008 11:54:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: When you consider that, plus the abstraction of IGO-UGO, it's not unreasonable to expect those units to have to wait till their next friendly player-turn to be considered "officially" back in communications.


It wouldn't be unreasonable -- nor would it necessarily be unreasonable for communications to be restored immediately. The difficulty is that with the whole P1/P2 thing, the former applies for one side, but the latter for the other.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (4/13/2008 6:55:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
It wouldn't be unreasonable -- nor would it necessarily be unreasonable for communications to be restored immediately. The difficulty is that with the whole P1/P2 thing, the former applies for one side, but the latter for the other.


That's true now, but that will be fixed by simply fully recovering supply at the start of each player's respective player turn. It is not necessary to recover twice per turn at half rates just to fix the P1/P2 issue. Doing that affects the more subtle issue discussed above. That's what the argument with Jarek is about.



Legun -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (4/13/2008 9:39:18 PM)

Yeah - again: P1/P2 problem is only one side of the problem. The second is a penalty for temporary cut supply. This is an example - a turn I'm just finishing (my "FB - Suwalki 1914" scenario):
[image]http://media.miks.uj.edu.pl/~jflis/pasje/TOAW/suw1.JPG[/image]

I'm the Russian player (P2, red units). There is 5 pockets with German units at the end of my turn. Only one of them have no real chance to restore supply line during German turn. 4 pockets, with 45% of German units present in the game, are able to restore a connection with their supply base without any attacks - they only need to occupy some critical hexes with my ZOCs. Anyway, I know now, that they are unsupplied during MY next turn. I think that the penalty causes some unrealistic features. My opponent, as well as me, should include knowledge about present situation of the units when planning defence or attacks in my next player-turn.
One of my Cossack regiments has been sent to a hex without supply, too (SW from Suwalki). With supply calculation made at beginning of own turn, it isn't subject of any penalty if attacked during closest German turn...



Curtis Lemay -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (4/14/2008 6:04:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun
I'm the Russian player (P2, red units). There is 5 pockets with German units at the end of my turn. Only one of them have no real chance to restore supply line during German turn. 4 pockets, with 45% of German units present in the game, are able to restore a connection with their supply base without any attacks - they only need to occupy some critical hexes with my ZOCs. Anyway, I know now, that they are unsupplied during MY next turn. I think that the penalty causes some unrealistic features. My opponent, as well as me, should include knowledge about present situation of the units when planning defence or attacks in my next player-turn.


I'll just repeat my comments about the Market-Garden airdrops: Suppose that large pocket manages to re-establish communications by the end of the German player-turn; should it even be considered back in supply that quickly? Think about the IGO-UGO abstraction. The Russian player, having cut them off in the last turn, would have gained no combat benefit at all. It would be as if they had never been cut off at all.

quote:

One of my Cossack regiments has been sent to a hex without supply, too (SW from Suwalki). With supply calculation made at beginning of own turn, it isn't subject of any penalty if attacked during closest German turn...


Suppose it attacked immediately after reaching that unsupplied location - it would still be rated supplied no matter how supply is calculated. And is that even wrong? Clearly, if the unit moved into an unsupplied location during its own turn, it had a pathway to do so & therefore a pathway out as well. Closing off that pathway by the German player would, realistically, take some time - say about a player turn.



ColinWright -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (4/15/2008 3:50:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



I'll just repeat my comments about the Market-Garden airdrops: Suppose that large pocket manages to re-establish communications by the end of the German player-turn; should it even be considered back in supply that quickly? ...


Of course this can be flipped around -- if a unit is cut off, should it be considered out of supply that quickly? It wasn't like Rommel's panzers advanced into the cauldron, discovered they were 'out of supply' and instantaneously went kerflop. They fought on. Supply became an acute problem, but not immediately.

This is kind of an academic point, since ideally the effects of being 'in supply' -- or out of it -- are very scale, time, and weapon-type dependent. We can't hope to come up with a supply model that is more than a vague approximation for most situations.

Still, that in itself is important to bear in mind. Came up with the perfect model for 'Market Garden' with battalions, 2.5 km per hex, half-day turns, and a mix of late-1944 leg infantry and mechanized units? That's nice...how appropriate it will turn out to be for other settings is entirely unknown. With week-long turns in a munition-intensive environment, units would indeed be instantaneously in or out of supply for all practical purposes. On the other hand, a surrounded infantry battalion holding its ground against easily discouraged attackers might be okay for thirty turns at one day a turn.



a white rabbit -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (4/15/2008 4:52:12 PM)

..reading the supply part of the discussion..

..surely supply should have to do with proximity/link to a supplied supply unit with the movement capability to reach a given unit ?..

..give the Sulwalki scen a horse-drawn supply type, like a supply unit, but same or adjacent hex only, now, if a chain can be established thru those gaps, the units are back in supply, next supply calculation, if not, not..

..orrrrrr, supply counters, carried by transport, that can rush thru the hole, only when reduced to 0 do the combat units become out of supply, my favoured solution to the supply problem, on map supply counters...



Curtis Lemay -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (4/15/2008 5:43:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Of course this can be flipped around -- if a unit is cut off, should it be considered out of supply that quickly? It wasn't like Rommel's panzers advanced into the cauldron, discovered they were 'out of supply' and instantaneously went kerflop. They fought on. Supply became an acute problem, but not immediately.


"Unsupplied" covers more than just the unit's Unit Supply level. It also impacts line-of-communication and desertion issues, and those are the main concerns. But, even for those, you are correct that there can be a range of circumstances in the enemy player turn. It can range from being completely surrounded on all six sides early in the enemy turn to just barely cutoff by a combination of enemy units & ZOCs (possibly not even enemy owned) at the very end of the enemy turn. Then add in IGO-UGO issues.

Just one more reason not to quibble about half a game turn.



ColinWright -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (4/15/2008 8:08:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Of course this can be flipped around -- if a unit is cut off, should it be considered out of supply that quickly? It wasn't like Rommel's panzers advanced into the cauldron, discovered they were 'out of supply' and instantaneously went kerflop. They fought on. Supply became an acute problem, but not immediately.


"Unsupplied" covers more than just the unit's Unit Supply level. It also impacts line-of-communication and desertion issues, and those are the main concerns. But, even for those, you are correct that there can be a range of circumstances in the enemy player turn. It can range from being completely surrounded on all six sides early in the enemy turn to just barely cutoff by a combination of enemy units & ZOCs (possibly not even enemy owned) at the very end of the enemy turn. Then add in IGO-UGO issues.

Just one more reason not to quibble about half a game turn.


Perhaps. As far as the issues discussed here go, my primary concern would be that the effects not favor P1 over P2.

As an abstract matter, and on the whole, I'd incline towards some delay in when entering or leaving supply takes effect as opposed to trying to make the effect as immediate as possible. The average OPART scenario involves turns of a day or a half-week, units around the size of regiments, a scale of 5 or 10 km per hex, and is set in World War Two with a mix of leg and motorized units.

In that environment, there is a perceptible lag between when supply lines are cut and when the unit starts to fall apart. Units can and do function for a day or two without supply without getting their panties in a twist about it.



Legun -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (4/16/2008 10:19:51 AM)

[image]http://media.miks.uj.edu.pl/~jflis/pasje/TOAW/suw1.JPG[/image]

Back to the problem of big pocket from picture above:
1. The Germans enter the critical hexes and the bulge isn't cut:
[image]http://media.miks.uj.edu.pl/~jflis/pasje/TOAW/suw2.JPG[/image]

2.I attack the narrow connection and the group is cut again:
[image]http://media.miks.uj.edu.pl/~jflis/pasje/TOAW/suw3.JPG[/image]

3. The Germans push off my spearheads again:
[image]http://media.miks.uj.edu.pl/~jflis/pasje/TOAW/suw4.JPG[/image]

4. My main forces are coming and cut the retreating group one more time:
[image]http://media.miks.uj.edu.pl/~jflis/pasje/TOAW/suw5.JPG[/image]

The cut group is without supply for 3 turns, although a two hexes wide pass to supply source was established two times.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (4/17/2008 7:35:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun

Back to the problem of big pocket from picture above:
1. The Germans enter the critical hexes and the bulge isn't cut:

2.I attack the narrow connection and the group is cut again:

3. The Germans push off my spearheads again:

4. My main forces are coming and cut the retreating group one more time:

The cut group is without supply for 3 turns, although a two hexes wide pass to supply source was established two times.


That seems to be a sequence that you contrived just for this discussion - not something that actually occurs on a regular basis.

Regardless, note that your alternative would have meant that, despite having been cutoff during three consecutive Russian player turns, no German units in the pocket would have ever been considered cutoff when attacked by Russian units. And that would be the case, even if they were cutoff right from the start of the Russian player turns and just relieved at the very end of the respective German player turns. And note that it just takes Russian combat units to cutoff the Germans, while establishing communications requires more vulnerable supply columns and retreat paths for "evaporated" units instead.

That's the thing about IGO-UGO: It has about half-a-turn of ambiguity in it.



viridomaros -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (5/18/2008 2:08:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

not something that actually occurs on a regular basis.



Take any scenario where player 2 counter attack on a large scale for several turns and it's a nightmare for player 1 because of what Legun, Colin are saying.

I'm currently playing Braunschweig as the axis and the russians have started to counter attack. I can't count the number of units which stay unsupplied despite being able to reestablish the supply lines at the end of my turn.



ColinWright -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (5/18/2008 6:53:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: viridomaros


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

not something that actually occurs on a regular basis.



Take any scenario where player 2 counter attack on a large scale for several turns and it's a nightmare for player 1 because of what Legun, Colin are saying.

I'm currently playing Braunschweig as the axis and the russians have started to counter attack. I can't count the number of units which stay unsupplied despite being able to reestablish the supply lines at the end of my turn.


Deleted uncalled for, personal attack. Keep it clean, Colin.



ralphtricky -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (5/19/2008 4:49:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: viridomaros
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
not something that actually occurs on a regular basis.

Take any scenario where player 2 counter attack on a large scale for several turns and it's a nightmare for player 1 because of what Legun, Colin are saying.

I'm currently playing Braunschweig as the axis and the russians have started to counter attack. I can't count the number of units which stay unsupplied despite being able to reestablish the supply lines at the end of my turn.

We're trying to get rid of the P1/P2 assymetries for the 3.4 patch. It's looking hopeful. There will be some things like Events that will still trigger only at the beginning of the turn, but we should be able to change when supply is calculated for each player, along with some of the other calculations. This should help with some of the inconcictencies.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.171875