Curtis Lemay -> RE: Suply - little question (11/6/2008 5:22:58 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ColinWright quote:
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay That is not a false paradigm if the number of units being supplied is a reasonably fixed parameter. That's the case for most topics that don't involve unlimited amphibious operations. That's why most scenarios work pretty well in TOAW, provided they stay away from that one taboo. Not really. The Allies need Antwerp. Why? So that they can supply more units on the Continent. Sounds like a job for an event or two. Capture Antwerp and supply levels increase and/or conditional reinforcements become available, etc. The system can handle this now. quote:
The Germans can only mount a two-division assault on Murmansk. Why? Because that's all they can supply up there. I seriously doubt that was the issue. It's far more likely that they were limited by lack of properly equipped forces for the conditions that far north. Plus, TOAW doesn't model those conditions well. Plus, they had other priorities. quote:
The Americans could base only a few B-29's in China. Why? Because that's all they could supply there. I'll admit that TOAW can't do the entire Pacific War. But, if you're just doing China, or part of it, then you control how many B-29s are available there. Again, just avoid the taboos. quote:
The British can only pushone or two divisions past Tobruk in 1941-1942. Why? Because that's all they could supply that far forward. Hogwash! quote:
In the real world, supply is volume-based. So long as TOAW denies this, it's ability to simulate actual warfare will be crippled to a greater or a lesser degree. Your 'argument,' such as it is, consists in accepting this crippling where it doesn't vitiate the scenario entirely, and minimizing the range of situations where it does. At best, you design around the problem. At worst, you don't design at all. Wouldn't it be a little more constructive to consider how best to address the problem? Please re-read the one condition I set in my first statement. If that condition is true, TOAW holds up pretty well. And it's the case for the vast majority of scenarios in existance, regardless of your ability to dream up expansive topics that violate it. The problem you're complaining about is something I want to get fixed too. I just don't agree on how easy you think it's going to be to fix, or how many scenarios will actually benefit from it. There are a whole host of other supply issues that need addressing just as badly. Nevertheless, I am being constructive about it. You just don't like the answer.
|
|
|
|