Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

In my mind I see the division in Kent tracing it's supply chain, even thru several HQ's, right down the road to the main HQ in London. No major disruptions there. But if located in Norway, the chain must cross those nasty blue hexes, which throws up big negative numbers. This is also affected by the amount of sea transport available, which can be used to manually increase the tonnage from port to port, via a few convenient mouse clicks. 'Sea superiority' would influence the numbers, but we don't have that in TOAW. The same with air transport, from airfield to airfield, influenced by air superiority.

Mr. Rabbit, I understand what you are describing now, it makes good sense. It does seem similar to what I was saying, I think, in that there is a specific supply chain running between higher echelon HQ's, and then from the lowest HQ to the individual units, or from a specific HQ to whatever units are attached to it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: L`zard


What scares ME the most, is that I'm finally both beginning to understand 'Our rabbit' as to his way o' thinking, and even to occasionally agree with his obscure mind-paths.........Ghod save me!

Aaahhh! Fk me running!

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

And TOAW already has a formation specific supply level to help with those distant areas of operation...

That's more or less the problem. Supply isn't formation-specific so much as area specific. Units of the 1st Guards division can be supplied just fine -- if they're in Kent. Considerably harder keeping them supplied if they move to some bridgehead in Norway.

..and i'm even agreeing with you more these days, one of us must be getting old...

..but you've put your finger on the real problem with the current toaw supply, it is area not formation specific.

..At a cost, i accept, the Germans can supply a panzer korp for the drive on Murmansk. The cost is that it should use virtually every transport unit they have, given the terrain, so draining the other fronts, and the result should be that the Allies can destroy most of the cargo ships involved if unprotected, and/or do serious damage to the fighting ships deployed to protect that part of the supply line..

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

And TOAW already has a formation specific supply level to help with those distant areas of operation...

That's more or less the problem. Supply isn't formation-specific so much as area specific. Units of the 1st Guards division can be supplied just fine -- if they're in Kent. Considerably harder keeping them supplied if they move to some bridgehead in Norway.

..and i'm even agreeing with you more these days, one of us must be getting old...

..but you've put your finger on the real problem with the current toaw supply, it is area not formation specific.

..At a cost, i accept, the Germans can supply a panzer korp for the drive on Murmansk. The cost is that it should use virtually every transport unit they have, given the terrain, so draining the other fronts, and the result should be that the Allies can destroy most of the cargo ships involved if unprotected, and/or do serious damage to the fighting ships deployed to protect that part of the supply line..

No...the problem with TOAW supply is that it is not volume specific. It simply does nothing to reflect the fact that more troops consume more supplies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

And TOAW already has a formation specific supply level to help with those distant areas of operation...

That's more or less the problem. Supply isn't formation-specific so much as area specific. Units of the 1st Guards division can be supplied just fine -- if they're in Kent. Considerably harder keeping them supplied if they move to some bridgehead in Norway.

..and i'm even agreeing with you more these days, one of us must be getting old...

..but you've put your finger on the real problem with the current toaw supply, it is area not formation specific.

..At a cost, i accept, the Germans can supply a panzer korp for the drive on Murmansk. The cost is that it should use virtually every transport unit they have, given the terrain, so draining the other fronts, and the result should be that the Allies can destroy most of the cargo ships involved if unprotected, and/or do serious damage to the fighting ships deployed to protect that part of the supply line..

No...the problem with TOAW supply is that it is not volume specific. It simply does nothing to reflect the fact that more troops consume more supplies.

..if supply goes to a given formation, at the rate i set as a player, i'll be happy, at the moment the designer sets the rate and it's basically fixed at start..

..if, as the opposing player, i can really (mostly)snap that supply thread without having to go to extremes sucha s a total surround, i'll be happy..

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

And TOAW already has a formation specific supply level to help with those distant areas of operation...

That's more or less the problem. Supply isn't formation-specific so much as area specific. Units of the 1st Guards division can be supplied just fine -- if they're in Kent. Considerably harder keeping them supplied if they move to some bridgehead in Norway.

..and i'm even agreeing with you more these days, one of us must be getting old...

..but you've put your finger on the real problem with the current toaw supply, it is area not formation specific.

..At a cost, i accept, the Germans can supply a panzer korp for the drive on Murmansk. The cost is that it should use virtually every transport unit they have, given the terrain, so draining the other fronts, and the result should be that the Allies can destroy most of the cargo ships involved if unprotected, and/or do serious damage to the fighting ships deployed to protect that part of the supply line..

No...the problem with TOAW supply is that it is not volume specific. It simply does nothing to reflect the fact that more troops consume more supplies.

..if supply goes to a given formation, at the rate i set as a player, i'll be happy, at the moment the designer sets the rate and it's basically fixed at start..

..if, as the opposing player, i can really (mostly)snap that supply thread without having to go to extremes sucha s a total surround, i'll be happy..

Point is, that just because you can run enough supply for two battalions down that jungle track to keep them fighting doesn't mean that you should be able to run enough supply for the whole division down it.

I indeed had plenty of food for the four people we had for Christmas dinner. It doesn't follow that there was enough food for forty...but it would follow in OPART-land. That's the crux of the problem as I see it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit




..but of course it can, if i put enough transort on the job, and maybe widen the road, create some drop zones, maybe landing stages for the boats, even build a railway alongside the road, always assuming the supply exists in the first place..

..we went from 14 to 36 for Xmas, by increasing transport to include both horses, both bikes and the multicab, and by having a supply point with a good supply proficiency level, basically another family arriving, kill a couple more ducks, go get some more crates of beer

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
The OPART model for supply is fundamentally flawed. In it, if the Germans can supply two divisions for an attack on Murmansk, they can supply twelve just as easily.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
The OPART model for supply is fundamentally flawed. In it, if the Germans can supply two divisions for an attack on Murmansk, they can supply twelve just as easily.

Well, sort of. I would say it is flawed at the margins. Mainline scenarios that don't stretch the system don't have much of a problem. A Murmansk scenario would only have two German divisions available for attack anyway. The problem doesn't arrive until you want to do the entire eastern front or such.

Now, I'm certainly not opposed to scenarios at the margins. In fact, I'm one of the worst transgressors. But the problem is isolated to them. And, while this is an issue worthy of addressing, it's not as pressing as issues that affect all scenarios.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
So, say Northwest Europe in 1944 would be a scenario 'at the margins'?

quote:

The fact is that this limitation of the program forces us to impose all sorts of artificial boundries on players. If you've got an Italy scenario, well, you can't draw any supply at all if you land at the fishing port Blankermo. Why? Because if you can supply one brigade through it, you can supply ten brigades. So it's take that big port or bust -- or more commonly, be constrained to make whatever compromise between the various conflicting factors was made historically.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Before we go heading down that wrong road again, let me try pointing something out.

There may well be a legitimate debate about precisely how crippling OPART's shortcomings with supply are. I could make up a list of what things I would like to see improved in the game. Depending on my mood, supply might come in at #2, or at #3. Maybe #1.

Somebody else might rank it at #5. So be it. After all the dust settles, it'd be clear it needs to be fixed, and it'd be a lot more constructive to discuss how it should be fixed than to have a ferocious argument about just how important it is that it be fixed.

A better supply model would do a hell of a lot more for the game than having Sopwith Camels. That should be clear.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Before we go heading down that wrong road again, let me try pointing something out.

There may well be a legitimate debate about precisely how crippling OPART's shortcomings with supply are. I could make up a list of what things I would like to see improved in the game. Depending on my mood, supply might come in at #2, or at #3. Maybe #1.

Somebody else might rank it at #5. So be it. After all the dust settles, it'd be clear it needs to be fixed, and it'd be a lot more constructive to discuss how it should be fixed than to have a ferocious argument about just how important it is that it be fixed.

A better supply model would do a hell of a lot more for the game than having Sopwith Camels. That should be clear.

I agree, and I'm not going down that road. But "fixing supply" is a vast subject. Did you ever download the wishlist? There have been all sorts of intermediate suggestions on how to do things escalating all the way to the "nuclear" option of discrete supply handling. And it isn't a case of picking the one best way. The best way depends on the subject.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
So, say Northwest Europe in 1944 would be a scenario 'at the margins'?

Depends upon what you mean. The "Invade Anywhere" version? Yes, that's probably way out at the margins. But if the invasion is restricted to the historical invasion beaches then it can be pretty mainstream. (I think I have a bit of experience about that).

quote:

The fact is that this limitation of the program forces us to impose all sorts of artificial boundries on players. If you've got an Italy scenario, well, you can't draw any supply at all if you land at the fishing port Blankermo. Why? Because if you can supply one brigade through it, you can supply ten brigades. So it's take that big port or bust -- or more commonly, be constrained to make whatever compromise between the various conflicting factors was made historically.

Well, if you're going to do unrestricted amphibious invasions you're at the margins.

I'm pretty sure I was the first out there to clamor for discrete supply, and I'm still doing it. I'm not saying it isn't needed - it is. But just for certain subjects. For most subjects, that just cover an offensive on a front, it would be unnecessary overkill that would only burden the players with quartermaster duties.

You make a fine case for those subjects where it is needed, but it's exaggerating to apply that to all (or even most) scenarios.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
I've a suspicion that the 'best way' will tend to be the way that bears some resemblance to the reality of what is going on. That is, a model that treats supply as something more troops will consume more of will consis ...

Etc. If we have supply system that reflects the way supply works in reality, it is bound to prove more satisfactory more often than one that is based on a nonsensical paradigm. ...

It's time to make some serious improvements -- not to try to argue they aren't needed, or that they only apply to marginal situations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
I've a suspicion that the 'best way' will tend to be the way that bears some resemblance to the reality of what is going on. That is, a model that treats supply as something more troops will consume more of will consis ...

Etc. If we have supply system that reflects the way supply works in reality, it is bound to prove more satisfactory more often than one that is based on a nonsensical paradigm. ...

It's time to make some serious improvements -- not to try to argue they aren't needed, or that they only apply to marginal situations.

Even given the perfect tonnage-based discrete/component supply system this minute not one scenario would be helped by it.

quote:






Designers would first have to update their scenarios. And it would be a difficult change. Decisions about port capacities and rail/sea/air capacities would have to be made. Truck units for lifting the supplies would have to be devised. The amounts/types of supply appearing each turn at the sources would have to be programmed. That's only going to happen to a few scenarios - and only a few scenarios would really need it. For most scenarios the benefits could justify neither the programer, designer nor player efforts. (And I say that knowing that CFNA is one of those subjects that really needs it. I'm an advocate for it - but I'm also keeping it in perspective.)

Most scenarios are going to continue to rely on the existing abstract system. It makes sense to focus improvements on it first, since they will have universal and immediate impact. And there are some good ideas on how to improve it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Even given the perfect tonnage-based discrete/component supply system this minute not one scenario would be helped by it.

Two of the three I've seriously worked on would. Erik Nygaard's Norway would. Ben's Poland would be improved -- although here the difference wouldn't be as crucial. You yourself know perfectly well CFNA would. Given that all of these have been designed in spite of the current limitations, that's an impressive list. In fact, it's about half of the scenarios I'm familiar with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Even given the perfect tonnage-based discrete/component supply system this minute not one scenario would be helped by it.

Two of the three I've seriously worked on would. Erik Nygaard's Norway would. Ben's Poland would be improved -- although here the difference wouldn't be as crucial. You yourself know perfectly well CFNA would. Given that all of these have been designed in spite of the current limitations, that's an impressive list. In fact, it's about half of the scenarios I'm familiar with.

That's not what I meant. Neither Yours, Erik's, Ben's, or mine would be improved at all - until we each made very difficult updates to them. Now, some scenarios will get those updates. But there will be hundreds of others that won't. Either the designers aren't around anymore, or there just isn't enough justification for the effort. Of the ten subjects I've simulated, only one (CFNA) would justify such an update. The current abstract system will remain the system of choice for most scenarios. It has to get priority.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Look, just surrender and agree with me.

quote:

Then we can quit wasting time and get on with working out what exactly the new supply system should be. Better still, we can argue about that. That would be potentially useful.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
1. 'Changing existing scenarios would be 'very difficult.''

quote:

First, there's the interesting point that unlike as with adding an entirely new alternative system, such changes would necessarily affect existing scenarios. Such changes would actually impose the need to revise existing scenarios that 'LeMay' inaccurately claims my approach would. I'm reminded of the havoc wrought with Seelowe by the 'improvements' made to accommodate low-MP units. Tinkering with existing mechanisms is not the way to allow existing scenarios to continue to function.

quote:

Second, in principle, I don't think much can be accomplished without a major addition. The current supply paradigm is nonsense at heart. Supply isn't like cell phone reception. It's a function of potential volume delivered and actual consumption/demand. Let's not waste time trying to make the flying carpet work. Let's start building airplanes. That's how we can get to Disney World.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
1. 'Changing existing scenarios would be 'very difficult.''

Yep. Gotta research historical supply tonnages, port capacities, truck reserves, rail stuff, etc. etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Major changes to the supply system would be implemented as advanced rules options, unlike the bug-fix that you're objecting to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
No...that's the beauty of starting from such an abysmally low point. We don't need to do much research to know that less supply can be landed at Dieppe than at Cherbourg. So we can make it possible to land ten times at much at Cherbourg rather than the same amount.

Choice was made without research, but we've already improved things. Guaranteed.

quote:

It's like we're living in Somalia. We don't really need to work out whether to emigrate to Canada, Denmark, or Chile. Any one of the three is certain to constitute an improvement.

Now, since you don't know which would be the perfect choice, you say we should stay in Somalia. I say move -- and rest assured it'll be a change for the better.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
'Bug fix.' A change that happens to have had major and apparently unanticipated effects on a wide range of scenarios but that you are unprepared to consider modifying or reversing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



Not necessarily. Before Cherbourg was a supply terminal and Dieppe wasn't. That's probably closer to reality than the above. It really is a research problem. Regardless, even if you just guess, all those capacity design choices for ports and lift have to be made, implemented, and tested. And few will want to just guess. It's a very difficult task that most won't bother with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Now, I'm not saying helicopters shouldn't get any further development, just that irrational exuberance over them as the solution to all transport issues is nuts.