Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
The thing is, the current system rests on an essentially false paradigm: that supply capacity is the ability of the system to supply a portion of each unit's needs without reference to how many units there are.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones
While on the subject, would also like to open two other supply proposals to discussion.

1)      The ability to move supply by rail should have an impact that diminishes the total amount of RR capacity available to move troops.  Maybe events could be devised that gives the player the option to give transport priority to either troops or supply.

This is already modeled by the fact that if you don't use your RR cap to move troops your supply level is enhanced by transport sharing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
It would mean that twice the forces would get half the supply.

quote:

And the difficulty of supplying large forces in the deep desert, and the logistical problems involved in campaigns in the Arctic (forget that house rule you have for this in your 1941 scenario), and scenarios with widely separated theatres of combat and....

quote:

Any beach which has favourable conditions for landing amphibious craft and good transport links inland, yes.

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.

quote:

The Germans can only mount a two-division assault on Murmansk. Why? Because that's all they can supply up there.

quote:

The Americans could base only a few B-29's in China. Why? Because that's all they could supply there.

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.

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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
It would mean that twice the forces would get half the supply.

But remain in supply! Which ultimately means they're good to go - regardless of how many they are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay Nevertheless, I am being constructive about it. You just don't like the answer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


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:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




Hogwash!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima

Also, a more mysterious one , at least to me. In a rant against a review of TOAW 1, Norm (on his webpage) said the following:

quote:

All ports/beaches have the same capacity to handle shipping or supply. I am sure the Western Allies wished that was the case on D-Day! If the game's model were accurate, they must have been confused about needing to take Cherbourg or Antwerp. How about weather, or damage from combat having an effect on any of these capacities? These real-world considerations were overlooked too.
Two words: Event Engine. There isn't one item on your list that couldn't be handled with a few events.

Now. How does one models varying supply capabilities of ports in the event engine? Or was this removed from TOAW 1?

There's no direct way. Some tricks, though.

1. Don't have the rail line go directly into any port you want to have a limited supply capacity.

2. Put the supply hex immediately offshore. Same effect.

3. Go over to 'sea roads' and broken 'bridges.' Same effect as above, plus it allows the enemy to potentially disrupt supplies and also allows you to control how many such ports can be put into service at once by controlling the supply of units that can 'bridge' the gap.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima

Also, a more mysterious one , at least to me. In a rant against a review of TOAW 1, Norm (on his webpage) said the following:

quote:

All ports/beaches have the same capacity to handle shipping or supply. I am sure the Western Allies wished that was the case on D-Day! If the game's model were accurate, they must have been confused about needing to take Cherbourg or Antwerp. How about weather, or damage from combat having an effect on any of these capacities? These real-world considerations were overlooked too.
Two words: Event Engine. There isn't one item on your list that couldn't be handled with a few events.

Now. How does one models varying supply capabilities of ports in the event engine? Or was this removed from TOAW 1?

There's no direct way. Some tricks, though.

1. Don't have the rail line go directly into any port you want to have a limited supply capacity.

2. Put the supply hex immediately offshore. Same effect.

3. Go over to 'sea roads' and broken 'bridges.' Same effect as above, plus it allows the enemy to potentially disrupt supplies and also allows you to control how many such ports can be put into service at once by controlling the supply of units that can 'bridge' the gap.

Colin,
Do you know what scenarios use these tactics? (2 and 3) I'm curious about how the supply rewrite works with them. I think I can support variable supply hexes through a kludge, so they're less necessary, but I should verify that the old supply rules work as expected with the the new code and these scenarios.

Thanks,
Ralph

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Not really. This assumes the enemy is good enough not to pester them -- nor especially obstinate about yielding territory.

quote:

In any case, it would represent a significant improvement over the current situation. If you feel a more radical change would improve things still further, far be it from me to discourage you from presenting it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay Nevertheless, I am being constructive about it. You just don't like the answer.

Since you're being constructive about the issue of volume-based supply, would you link to your suggestion about it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
That's just it. Ideally, one would want to the player to decide: 'do I want fifty divisions with 20% supply or one hundred divisions with 10% supply?'

In a volume-based supply system, the program would more or less automatically present this question. 'Bring more divisions over if you want -- but they'll be getting less supply.'

However, since TOAW has a supply system that is at such odds with reality, either the choice has to be rather clumsily and artificially presented through events, or the player is just confined to the historical course of events -- and God help us if he manages to take Rotterdam without taking Antwerp.

Sure, one can come up with work-arounds, expedients, compromises, etc. However, that is evidence of the problem, not proof that it doesn't exist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
It is? Playfair seems to feel differently (and so, apparently, did both the British and the German High Commands).

The fact is that in general, one of the operating effects in North Africa was that as either side was driven back, its supply improved while that of its opponent got worse. Naturally, other factors also came into play -- but that was an element. The British come up on el Agheila twice -- and twice find themselves gasping for air. Rommel comes up on Tobruk, then he comes up on El Alamein. Both times his supply situation becomes acute. The Germans are finally driven back on Tunisia. They are able to stage quite a stand there.

quote:

In TOAW-land, El Alamein's no problem. The Germans can put twenty divisions into the front at El Alamein if they want to. If five get 15% supply, so do fifty. Just plonk in everything that went into Tunisia, break Auchinleck's line, and triumphantly march into Cairo. Boy, those Germans -- why can't they be as smart as us TOAW players?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Now what you're really saying here is 'just don't allow the game's supply engine to govern how many B-29's can go into China.'

Because the sky will be the limit. Because the supply engine is totally unrealistic.

quote:

Suppose we've got a CBI scenario. And suppose I capture Rangoon in early '44. Shouldn't I be allowed to base lots of B-29's there? Must the scenario designer anticipate the possibility?

quote:

Wouldn't it be neat if, instead, we had a supply engine that modelled reality better?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Now what you're really saying here is 'just don't allow the game's supply engine to govern how many B-29's can go into China.'

Because the sky will be the limit. Because the supply engine is totally unrealistic.

If you stick to the operational level the designer can control the force levels available.

quote:

Suppose we've got a CBI scenario. And suppose I capture Rangoon in early '44. Shouldn't I be allowed to base lots of B-29's there? Must the scenario designer anticipate the possibility?

China, Burma, and India? That's far beyond operational.

quote:

Wouldn't it be neat if, instead, we had a supply engine that modelled reality better?

Yes it would be neat. I've never said otherwise. But your claim that it has universal application is absurd. The vast majority of scenarios out there don't need it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

Point 3: West Front 44 2.x - The modded version from the gamesquad forums, i think it's in the download section over there.

quote:

3. Go over to 'sea roads' and broken 'bridges.' Same effect as above, plus it allows the enemy to potentially disrupt supplies and also allows you to control how many such ports can be put into service at once by controlling the supply of units that can 'bridge' the gap.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima

Also, a more mysterious one , at least to me. In a rant against a review of TOAW 1, Norm (on his webpage) said the following:

quote:

All ports/beaches have the same capacity to handle shipping or supply. I am sure the Western Allies wished that was the case on D-Day! If the game's model were accurate, they must have been confused about needing to take Cherbourg or Antwerp. How about weather, or damage from combat having an effect on any of these capacities? These real-world considerations were overlooked too.
Two words: Event Engine. There isn't one item on your list that couldn't be handled with a few events.

Now. How does one models varying supply capabilities of ports in the event engine? Or was this removed from TOAW 1?

There's no direct way. Some tricks, though.

1. Don't have the rail line go directly into any port you want to have a limited supply capacity.

2. Put the supply hex immediately offshore. Same effect.

3. Go over to 'sea roads' and broken 'bridges.' Same effect as above, plus it allows the enemy to potentially disrupt supplies and also allows you to control how many such ports can be put into service at once by controlling the supply of units that can 'bridge' the gap.

Colin,
Do you know what scenarios use these tactics?

Thanks,
Ralph