Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
But in TOAW, supply points are sources of infinite supply. If they can keep one brigade operating at a given level, they can keep a hundred operating at that level at a given point.

First, my comment referred to the implementation of Discrete Supply. You literally asked me for my input on it, so I provided it. You're the one who says that supply sources should be unlimited for that purpose:

"It may be reasonable to treat supply as the ability to distribute supplies from an essentially infinite stockpile."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
OK: what are the major improvements which can be delivered to the supply distribution model in existing scenarios without any extra work being done on those scenarios?

5.7 (eliminates infinite supply lines)
5.8 (radius depends on MPs not just hexes)
5.9 (a semi-supplied state - part of the fix to infinite supply lines)
5.14 (component supply types).

But there's more to the supply problems than just distribution. Other issues:

5.2 (fix the ant attack problem)
5.4 (fix the supply cost of movement problem).

None of the above would require scenario editing. And even if other items would require editing, there is a cost/benefit consideration. Most are going to be far cheaper than item 5.15.

And, note that some of the above are actually prerequisites for discrete supply handling:

5.2 because it's pointless to address any supply issue until the ant attack thing is fixed.

5.4 because the supply cost of movement must be addressed first since the lift for the supply is going to be consuming fuel as it moves - otherwise the lift will eat all the fuel before delivering any in some environments - or consume almost none in others.

And 5.14 - Component supply goes hand in hand with discrete supply handling. Equipment needs to be rated for the tonnage of both the ammo and fuel it needs to reach full supply. Ammo amount would be based upon AP, AT, & AA ratings; fuel amount on movement type, etc.

quote:

Certainly, nothing which addresses the particular problem that Colin has raised- which is the single biggest problem with the supply system.

For Colin's scenario. Few others. Item 5.6 (Supply units as supply points) could help, though.

quote:

quote:

The ship design issue is clearly labeled as "revolutionary" in the wishlist.

And yet you're eagerly hammering away at it, even though the benefits would be felt in fewer scenarios than would be the case for supply improvements.

I am not. I understand it to be a "blue sky" issue. If we really want Naval Warfare, then it will eventually need to be included. But far easier items should precede it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


I suppose with your reading comprehension skills everyone must seem pig-headed. What a way to go through life!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
OK: what are the major improvements which can be delivered to the supply distribution model in existing scenarios without any extra work being done on those scenarios?

5.7 (eliminates infinite supply lines)
5.8 (radius depends on MPs not just hexes)
5.9 (a semi-supplied state - part of the fix to infinite supply lines)
5.14 (component supply types).

But there's more to the supply problems than just distribution. Other issues:

5.2 (fix the ant attack problem)
5.4 (fix the supply cost of movement problem).

None of the above would require scenario editing. And even if other items would require editing, there is a cost/benefit consideration. Most are going to be far cheaper than item 5.15.

And, note that some of the above are actually prerequisites for discrete supply handling:

5.2 because it's pointless to address any supply issue until the ant attack thing is fixed.

5.4 because the supply cost of movement must be addressed first since the lift for the supply is going to be consuming fuel as it moves - otherwise the lift will eat all the fuel before delivering any in some environments - or consume almost none in others.

And 5.14 - Component supply goes hand in hand with discrete supply handling. Equipment needs to be rated for the tonnage of both the ammo and fuel it needs to reach full supply. Ammo amount would be based upon AP, AT, & AA ratings; fuel amount on movement type, etc.

[
[.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
But in TOAW, supply points are sources of infinite supply. If they can keep one brigade operating at a given level, they can keep a hundred operating at that level at a given point.

First, my comment referred to the implementation of Discrete Supply. You literally asked me for my input on it, so I provided it. You're the one who says that supply sources should be unlimited for that purpose:

"It may be reasonable to treat supply as the ability to distribute supplies from an essentially infinite stockpile."

Well here we're getting into some semantic confusion -- although I think you know perfectly well what I mean.

By 'stockpile' I am not referring to the term as employed in the OPART manual. I mean the literal stockpile: the oil in the ground in Texas, the wheat growing in Canada, the artillery pieces coming off the line in Essen.

I think that for our purposes its best to ignore such numbers. Rather and more generally, supply at OPART's level is a function of the ability of the combatants to actually distribute such goods within the theater of operations. That is primarily a function of transportation assets, and the logistical network, and such.

Now, there's a semantic path in all that to continue to somehow justify the current system, but I'd rather you didn't take it. Why don't you think about how a good supply system would work, instead?

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
But in TOAW, supply points are sources of infinite supply. If they can keep one brigade operating at a given level, they can keep a hundred operating at that level at a given point.

First, my comment referred to the implementation of Discrete Supply. You literally asked me for my input on it, so I provided it. You're the one who says that supply sources should be unlimited for that purpose:

"It may be reasonable to treat supply as the ability to distribute supplies from an essentially infinite stockpile."

Well here we're getting into some semantic confusion -- although I think you know perfectly well what I mean.

By 'stockpile' I am not referring to the term as employed in the OPART manual. I mean the literal stockpile: the oil in the ground in Texas, the wheat growing in Canada, the artillery pieces coming off the line in Essen.

I think that for our purposes its best to ignore such numbers. Rather and more generally, supply at OPART's level is a function of the ability of the combatants to actually distribute such goods within the theater of operations. That is primarily a function of transportation assets, and the logistical network, and such.

Now, there's a semantic path in all that to continue to somehow justify the current system, but I'd rather you didn't take it. Why don't you think about how a good supply system would work, instead?

..for most scens it's fair to accept the infinite stockpile, as defined above, buuuuttttt it's a scale thing, if the map has the base sources on it then even the base-stockpile needs to enumerable. Take Ploesti, destroy Ploesti, isolate Ploesti, whatever, and the German gasoline number has to drop..

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
But in TOAW, supply points are sources of infinite supply. If they can keep one brigade operating at a given level, they can keep a hundred operating at that level at a given point.

First, my comment referred to the implementation of Discrete Supply. You literally asked me for my input on it, so I provided it. You're the one who says that supply sources should be unlimited for that purpose:

"It may be reasonable to treat supply as the ability to distribute supplies from an essentially infinite stockpile."

Well here we're getting into some semantic confusion -- although I think you know perfectly well what I mean.

By 'stockpile' I am not referring to the term as employed in the OPART manual. I mean the literal stockpile: the oil in the ground in Texas, the wheat growing in Canada, the artillery pieces coming off the line in Essen.

I think that for our purposes its best to ignore such numbers. Rather and more generally, supply at OPART's level is a function of the ability of the combatants to actually distribute such goods within the theater of operations. That is primarily a function of transportation assets, and the logistical network, and such.

Now, there's a semantic path in all that to continue to somehow justify the current system, but I'd rather you didn't take it. Why don't you think about how a good supply system would work, instead?

..for most scens it's fair to accept the infinite stockpile, as defined above, buuuuttttt it's a scale thing, if the map has the base sources on it then even the base-stockpile needs to enumerable. Take Ploesti, destroy Ploesti, isolate Ploesti, whatever, and the German gasoline number has to drop..

Yeah, but generally such effects occur outside the timespan of the scenario. The Schweinfurt raid proving successful doesn't have the least effect on the number of new Panthers actually reaching the front for at least three months. The scenario would have to be of truly gargantuan scale before Ploesti being bombed or not bombed would affect anyone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
But in TOAW, supply points are sources of infinite supply. If they can keep one brigade operating at a given level, they can keep a hundred operating at that level at a given point.

First, my comment referred to the implementation of Discrete Supply. You literally asked me for my input on it, so I provided it. You're the one who says that supply sources should be unlimited for that purpose:

"It may be reasonable to treat supply as the ability to distribute supplies from an essentially infinite stockpile."

Well here we're getting into some semantic confusion -- although I think you know perfectly well what I mean.

By 'stockpile' I am not referring to the term as employed in the OPART manual. I mean the literal stockpile: the oil in the ground in Texas, the wheat growing in Canada, the artillery pieces coming off the line in Essen.

I think that for our purposes its best to ignore such numbers. Rather and more generally, supply at OPART's level is a function of the ability of the combatants to actually distribute such goods within the theater of operations. That is primarily a function of transportation assets, and the logistical network, and such.

Now, there's a semantic path in all that to continue to somehow justify the current system, but I'd rather you didn't take it. Why don't you think about how a good supply system would work, instead?

..for most scens it's fair to accept the infinite stockpile, as defined above, buuuuttttt it's a scale thing, if the map has the base sources on it then even the base-stockpile needs to enumerable. Take Ploesti, destroy Ploesti, isolate Ploesti, whatever, and the German gasoline number has to drop..

Yeah, but generally such effects occur outside the timespan of the scenario. The Schweinfurt raid proving successful doesn't have the least effect on the number of new Panthers actually reaching the front for at least three months. The scenario would have to be of truly gargantuan scale before Ploesti being bombed or not bombed would affect anyone.

..true, but the scens just seem to get bigger in scope, war in Europe, FitE, China 37 to 45, etc. Whether toaw was designed to do this size is now almost irelevant, the fact is those are the scens being produced and played, future toaw development has to take this into account..

..i've about a eighth of a circular world map, land scale correct, view from the North Pole, finish that and WW2/WW3/WW4 become possible as scens, increase map size from 300*300 and the same game gets more detailed..

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..i'm not even sure about "fun to design"..

..but they exist, and toaw's the only engine that can do them, the only one i can think of anyway, so the changes should allow for this, it's a big part of the toaw future..

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

Certainly, nothing which addresses the particular problem that Colin has raised- which is the single biggest problem with the supply system.

For Colin's scenario. Few others. Item 5.6 (Supply units as supply points) could help, though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

Certainly, nothing which addresses the particular problem that Colin has raised- which is the single biggest problem with the supply system.

For Colin's scenario. Few others. Item 5.6 (Supply units as supply points) could help, though.

No- not for Colin's scenario. He's actually come up with a workaround.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I remember playing one monster that was the front of an entire army group at 5 km per hex or some such absurdity. Each turn took -- and I am not exaggerating -- five hours to play. That was if one actually tried to follow some coherent plan and execute it with some tactical finesse, of course.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Yeah. All you need are special units, sea roads, several house rules, an event structure, and you're there -- sort of. Of course, Penzance can still support twenty regiments at exactly the same level as it can support one. You'll just find it hard to get them there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
..beg to differ..any change to play mechanics means a reworking of a scenario, major or minor but still needed..

quote:

..re 5.2..what on earth have ant-attacks to do with the problem of the current supply model ? and why should solving them take priority ? they're only a minor issue with currently available solutions or work-rounds, which supply is not..

quote:

..re 5.4..sorry, i'm not sure if your comment "otherwise the lift will eat all the fuel before delivering any in some environments - or consume almost none in others" is to be taken as a negative thing or not. It's what happens, a horse consumes the fodder it can carry in 9 days, 23 ish if the load is on wheels, the US allied supply line in late 44 was using more gasoline to transport gasoline than it was delivering, hence the need for Antwerp..

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Item 5.6 (Supply units as supply points) could help, though.

No- not for Colin's scenario. He's actually come up with a workaround.

quote:

Here's one for you. Name the two most popular TOAW scenarios. Answer:
1. Europe Aflame
2. Fire in the East

In both of these, the problem being discussed here is critical. In the first case, I'd consider it gamebreaking. It's practically a default action in that scenario to send a million man army to North Africa.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
..beg to differ..any change to play mechanics means a reworking of a scenario, major or minor but still needed..

That's not true. An improvement in mechanics would improve a lot of scenarios immediately. Regardless, none of the listed items require editing in order to be implemented, which was what I was saying.

quote:

quote:

..re 5.2..what on earth have ant-attacks to do with the problem of the current supply model ? and why should solving them take priority ? they're only a minor issue with currently available solutions or work-rounds, which supply is not..

Because it's pointless to finely model the delivery of supply if it can be trivially sucked out of defenders. And there are no workarounds and it's a very serious problem.

quote:

quote:

..re 5.4..sorry, i'm not sure if your comment "otherwise the lift will eat all the fuel before delivering any in some environments - or consume almost none in others" is to be taken as a negative thing or not. It's what happens, a horse consumes the fodder it can carry in 9 days, 23 ish if the load is on wheels, the US allied supply line in late 44 was using more gasoline to transport gasoline than it was delivering, hence the need for Antwerp..

Of course. But it shouldn't depend upon the environment selected to simulate the subject. Those costs should be independent of environment. That's not the case now. Some are very costly while others are very cheap.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



Do I really have to tell you that those two are way out at the margins? And how is it critical to FITE?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
That would also be true of a volume-based supply system. Presumably, just about all the values would defaults.

quote:

I agree ant-unit attacks are a major problem, and obviously they are connected to supply. But to say that therefore ant unit attacks have to be addressed before the supply system is addressed is pure sophistry. One might as well announce that crime rates have to be reduced before inner city schools can be improved.

There is in fact no necessary relationship. Nothing about ant unit attacks requires us to go on using a nonsensical supply system.

quote:

If I understand you aright, you're claiming that it should make no difference whether those twenty five kilometers the supplies have to be brought over are jungle or open plain.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Kind of funny how you cling to this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Kind of funny how you cling to this.

Because I'm right. EA and FITE are definitely out on the margins. Any scenario that depends upon unresticted amphibious opertions is out on the margins. Those are the only scenario types you've listed.

And I'll ask again: How is this critical to FITE?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
..beg to differ..any change to play mechanics means a reworking of a scenario, major or minor but still needed..

That's not true. An improvement in mechanics would improve a lot of scenarios immediately. Regardless, none of the listed items require editing in order to be implemented, which was what I was saying.

quote:

..re 5.2..what on earth have ant-attacks to do with the problem of the current supply model ? and why should solving them take priority ? they're only a minor issue with currently available solutions or work-rounds, which supply is not..

Because it's pointless to finely model the delivery of supply if it can be trivially sucked out of defenders. And there are no workarounds and it's a very serious problem.

quote:

..re 5.4..sorry, i'm not sure if your comment "otherwise the lift will eat all the fuel before delivering any in some environments - or consume almost none in others" is to be taken as a negative thing or not. It's what happens, a horse consumes the fodder it can carry in 9 days, 23 ish if the load is on wheels, the US allied supply line in late 44 was using more gasoline to transport gasoline than it was delivering, hence the need for Antwerp..

Of course. But it shouldn't depend upon the environment selected to simulate the subject. Those costs should be independent of environment. That's not the case now. Some are very costly while others are very cheap.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Kind of funny how you cling to this.

Because I'm right. EA and FITE are definitely out on the margins. Any scenario that depends upon unresticted amphibious opertions is out on the margins. Those are the only scenario types you've listed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
..2/ nope, the base line is that ants only exist because the designer wishes, or is sloppy enough, to let them exist..

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


It's not sophistry. If we're going to model any sort of "tenuous" supply condition then we can't retain the defender's ability to trivially strip a unit of its supply. And the supply system is only nonsensical for unresticted amphbious operations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
..2/ nope, the base line is that ants only exist because the designer wishes, or is sloppy enough, to let them exist..

That's definitely an untrue statement. Good design can partially ameliorate the problems with ant units; it cannot eliminate them.

Put it this way. It'd be perfectly reasonable to have a scenario with battalions and regiments. Now, subdivide one of the battalions and attack a stack of three regiments with one of the fragments. Classic ant unit tactic -- and how would good design prevent it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo69

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
..2/ nope, the base line is that ants only exist because the designer wishes, or is sloppy enough, to let them exist..

That's certainly a good idea -- but it's only a partial solution to the ant unit problem. Essentially, the 'ant unit problem' is that an absurdly small force can drain supply and readiness from a very large force by attacking it at 'minimize losses.'

As with the deficiencies with supply, I tend to assume that actually tackling the underlying problem would be the best approach. Scale supply and readiness losses suffered by the defender to the relative size of the attacking force or to equipment actually lost.

Now, should this pose insuperable programming problems, I guess we'd have to go with plan B. However, until that's established, I'm a plan A man.

That's definitely an untrue statement. Good design can partially ameliorate the problems with ant units; it cannot eliminate them.

Put it this way. It'd be perfectly reasonable to have a scenario with battalions and regiments. Now, subdivide one of the battalions and attack a stack of three regiments with one of the fragments. Classic ant unit tactic -- and how would good design prevent it?

Make the battalions undividable by providing a set of custom graphic files that make them platoons in game terms while retaining the battalion-size marker.
Cumbersome though, and it can't be used in all scenarios. What should be implemented if the ant unit problem is to be solved on the designer side is a switch between dividable/non-dividable for each unit, something akin to the untried/veteran switch.
Worth around 2 cents.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
..2/ nope, the base line is that ants only exist because the designer wishes, or is sloppy enough, to let them exist..

That's definitely an untrue statement. Good design can partially ameliorate the problems with ant units; it cannot eliminate them.

Put it this way. It'd be perfectly reasonable to have a scenario with battalions and regiments. Now, subdivide one of the battalions and attack a stack of three regiments with one of the fragments. Classic ant unit tactic -- and how would good design prevent it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
..2/ nope, the base line is that ants only exist because the designer wishes, or is sloppy enough, to let them exist..

That's definitely an untrue statement. Good design can partially ameliorate the problems with ant units; it cannot eliminate them.

Put it this way. It'd be perfectly reasonable to have a scenario with battalions and regiments. Now, subdivide one of the battalions and attack a stack of three regiments with one of the fragments. Classic ant unit tactic -- and how would good design prevent it?

..do you want your on-map units able to divide or not ?..

..if yes, then from btns you'l get companies, a designer's choice..

..if not then design brigades, and let the player divide to btn if he wishes; orrrr divide to btns in the editor, and either leave as are, they can only recombine up, orrr/and then rename, they'l not be able to recombine either, orrr/and change the icon colour, they'l not recombine, orrrr/and change name and colour..

..Bob used the first solution in Kaiserschlacht, with a house rule about no recombining which i don't understand, but that's another matter..

..these solutions have been around since toaw1..

..the last solution, divide in editor, change colour and rename is my chosen solution in Malaya, each btn has a 4th company that can divide, as can mortar/carrier/mg companies..