Some questions about the latest patch

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Some questions about the latest patch

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> TOAW III Support >> Some questions about the latest patch

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Some questions about the latest patch - 5/1/2011 1:16:31 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

Maybe this should be in the 'wishlist' thread, but...

WHY do the new supply rules not permit sea roads?

Also -- in what seems to be a connected development -- the new supply rules prevent the use of a combination of major river and anchorage hexes to create a barrier that all units can cross but supply cannot.

Finally, it's a bit disappointing that the new supply rules effectively eviscerate supply units. They've gone from being a tool that can effectively double supply in some situations to one that merely extends the supply radius a bit, if I read the description aright.

I realize of course that I can merely use the old supply rules if I'm disappointed, but I'd like to use the new supply rules, as I like the basic concept. But there again...to have variable supply points, I have to use the new supply rules. But that entails chucking sea roads and having supply units that cannot revolutionize the situation in areas otherwise suffering from poor supply.

Who makes these decisions? When are they discussed? Is there some kind of real programming need for these restrictions or are they -- ala the 'no helicopters before 1960' restriction -- just someone's notion of what is fitting?

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

Post #: 1

RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/1/2011 2:52:08 PM

Telumar

Posts: 2236
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

WHY do the new supply rules not permit sea roads?

They do. All works fine.

You may have falsely interpreted the "Anzio issue". That is that ferry bridging cap can no longer trace supply over a blown bridge/major river/deep water combination.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Also -- in what seems to be a connected development -- the new supply rules prevent the use of a combination of major river and anchorage hexes to create a barrier that all units can cross but supply cannot.

A logical consequence. New supply gets everywhere motorised movement does.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Who makes these decisions? When are they discussed? Is there some kind of real programming need for these restrictions or are they -- ala the 'no helicopters before 1960' restriction -- just someone's notion of what is fitting?

Ralph, Bob... ?? I don't know more than you. The only place such things would be discussed is the beta tester's/development forum. As said, i don't know more than you.

_____________________________

http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 2

RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/1/2011 7:20:57 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

WHY do the new supply rules not permit sea roads?

They do. All works fine.

You may have falsely interpreted the "Anzio issue". That is that ferry bridging cap can no longer trace supply over a blown bridge/major river/deep water combination.

I think I need to rephrase this then. WHY can 'ferry bridging cap no longer trace supply over a blown bridge/major river/deep water combination'?

It's a misfortune with no up side as far as I can see.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 5/1/2011 7:39:00 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Telumar)

Post #: 3

RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/1/2011 7:23:58 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

Ralph, Bob... ?? I don't know more than you. The only place such things would be discussed is the beta tester's/development forum. As said, i don't know more than you.

quote:

It's a misfortune with no up side as far as I can see.

This then would also be a misfortune as far as I can see.

After all, as in this case, the consequences for scenarios in progress can be dramatic. It'd be nice to have some input.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 5/1/2011 7:36:59 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Telumar)

Post #: 4

RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/1/2011 7:46:05 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Finally, it's a bit disappointing that the new supply rules effectively eviscerate supply units. They've gone from being a tool that can effectively double supply in some situations to one that merely extends the supply radius a bit, if I read the description aright.

Supply units are not and never were supply sources. Rather they represent independent supply transport assets. Specifically, enough to increase the number of supply vehicles in the supply column by 25%. As such, the lift to supply is dependent upon how far from the supply source the destination is at.

If you add 1,000 trucks to a supply line that is 50 km long it has much more effect (in gross supply delivered) than if you add 1,000 trucks to a supply line that is 1000 km long.

So, it was done for realism purposes. New supply is an attempt to increase realism. Had the supply unit boost been independent of distance, that would have been a hit to realism.

Some day, we, hopefully, may have the ability to amalgamate the effects of multiple supply units. Then there can be greater support applied. But it will still be dependent upon distance from supply source.

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 5

RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/1/2011 7:47:06 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

WHY do the new supply rules not permit sea roads?

They do. All works fine.

You may have falsely interpreted the "Anzio issue". That is that ferry bridging cap can no longer trace supply over a blown bridge/major river/deep water combination.

I think I need to rephrase this then. WHY can 'ferry bridging cap no longer trace supply over a blown bridge/major river/deep water combination'?

It's a misfortune with no up side as far as I can see.

It simply wasn't anticipated. I expect it to be fixed in 3.5.

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 6

RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/1/2011 7:58:58 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Finally, it's a bit disappointing that the new supply rules effectively eviscerate supply units. They've gone from being a tool that can effectively double supply in some situations to one that merely extends the supply radius a bit, if I read the description aright.

Supply units are not and never were supply sources. Rather they represent independent supply transport assets. Specifically, enough to increase the number of supply vehicles in the supply column by 25%. As such, the lift to supply is dependent upon how far from the supply source the destination is at.

If you add 1,000 trucks to a supply line that is 50 km long it has much more effect (in gross supply delivered) than if you add 1,000 trucks to a supply line that is 1000 km long.

So you say. I say they represent a concentration of logistical effort -- whether trucks, planes, mule teams, shipping, or simply available supplies.

quote:

So, it was done for realism purposes. New supply is an attempt to increase realism. Had the supply unit boost been independent of distance, that would have been a hit to realism.

Again, so you say. One could also argue they represent a concentrated effort get supplies up to a certain area in spite of logistical obstacles.

quote:

Some day, we, hopefully, may have the ability to amalgamate the effects of multiple supply units. Then there can be greater support applied. But it will still be dependent upon distance from supply source.

Indeed, and this was already the case. Supply units couldn't put you in full supply -- just ameliorate the consequences of being in very poor supply.

At the end of the day, the change takes a fairly useful tool in the designer's armory and eviscerates it -- apparently because of a conception of supply as simply a matter of 'trucks' rather than as a more generalized simulation of a concentration of effort and resources in general.

The first application of supply units in a disc scenario was some Austro-Hungarian 'attack Serbia or fight Russia' thing. It was set in 1914, and I doubt if the supply unit was supposed to represent 'trucks' in particular. It would seem that it was simply intended to reflect where Austria would place the weight of her effort -- be that in the form of trucks, wagon trains, available munitions, or hectoring letters from Vienna.

This is how I've always conceived of the things, and it is treated in this way that they make a useful tool. I don't think deciding that they represent masses of trucks in particular really improves matters. Rommel is at the end of a tortuous supply line where he is demanding scarce resources that will have to be brought over rail, sea, road, and/or air with considerable loss.

The Axis player moves his supply unit to him rather than sending it with Armeegruppe A into the Caucasus. Is it trucks? Is it Italian tankers? Is it Ju-52's airlifting stuff from Crete?

None of the above, really. It's simply where the effort goes.

As another example, I use 'supply units' in Seelowe. They pop up at any airfield the German takes. Now, they're not representing trucks here -- they're representing Ju-52's. And I don't want the supply net extended -- if anything, I want it concentrated around the airfields where the Ju-52's are landing. After all, in this case, the supply units hardly represent 'trucks.' They represent cases of MG 34 ammunition and mortar shells piling up at the strip ten kilometers off. Send some guys and carry them back...better than hoofing it to Dover, right? You're a long way from an airstrip, you're in that much worse straits.

Point is, supply units are an optional tool that doesn't really represent any one thing in particular. Depending on the situation, they could represent almost anything. Seeing them as 'trucks' is simply a restriction of their meaning that robs them of much of their utility. It is also, I might point out, a consequence of making changes without sufficient discussion. After all, it's not that your vision of supply units is flawed so much as that it's not the only possible vision.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 5/1/2011 8:28:28 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 7

RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/1/2011 8:02:13 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

WHY do the new supply rules not permit sea roads?

They do. All works fine.

You may have falsely interpreted the "Anzio issue". That is that ferry bridging cap can no longer trace supply over a blown bridge/major river/deep water combination.

I think I need to rephrase this then. WHY can 'ferry bridging cap no longer trace supply over a blown bridge/major river/deep water combination'?

It's a misfortune with no up side as far as I can see.

It simply wasn't anticipated. I expect it to be fixed in 3.5.

Ah. That IS good news. In fact, very good news.

Without creating a legal liability, can you give me a date on when '3.5' might be expected?

Also, seeing as how I'll be proceeding on the assumption that this will be revised as I obviously want, let me know if there are second thoughts.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 8

RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/1/2011 8:40:01 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Finally, it's a bit disappointing that the new supply rules effectively eviscerate supply units. They've gone from being a tool that can effectively double supply in some situations to one that merely extends the supply radius a bit, if I read the description aright.

Supply units are not and never were supply sources. Rather they represent independent supply transport assets. Specifically, enough to increase the number of supply vehicles in the supply column by 25%. As such, the lift to supply is dependent upon how far from the supply source the destination is at.

If you add 1,000 trucks to a supply line that is 50 km long it has much more effect (in gross supply delivered) than if you add 1,000 trucks to a supply line that is 1000 km long.

So you say. I say they represent a concentration of logistical effort -- whether trucks, planes, mule teams, shipping, or simply available supplies.

quote:

So, it was done for realism purposes. New supply is an attempt to increase realism. Had the supply unit boost been independent of distance, that would have been a hit to realism.

Again, so you say. One could also argue they represent a concentrated effort get supplies up to a certain area in spite of logistical obstacles.

quote:

Some day, we, hopefully, may have the ability to amalgamate the effects of multiple supply units. Then there can be greater support applied. But it will still be dependent upon distance from supply source.

Indeed, and this was already the case. Supply units couldn't put you in full supply -- just ameliorate the consequences of being in very poor supply.

At the end of the day, you've taken a fairly useful tool in the designers armory and eviscerated it -- apparently because you conceive of supply as simply a matter of 'trucks' rather than as a more generalized simulation of a concentration of effort and resources in general.

The first application of supply units in a disc scenario was some Austro-Hungarian 'attack Serbia or fight Russia' thing. It was set in 1914, and I doubt if the supply unit was supposed to represent 'trucks' in particular. It would seem that it was simply intended to reflect where Austria would place the weight of her effort -- be that in the form of trucks, wagon trains, or hectoring letters from Vienna.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 5/2/2011 1:59:14 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 9

RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/1/2011 11:23:25 PM

1_Lzard

Posts: 528
Joined: 8/18/2010
From: McMinnville, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Without creating a legal liability, can you give me a date on when '3.5' might be expected?

Like usual, Colin, when it's done.

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 10

RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/2/2011 3:36:19 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Supply units are not and never were supply sources. Rather they represent independent supply transport assets. Specifically, enough to increase the number of supply vehicles in the supply column by 25%. As such, the lift to supply is dependent upon how far from the supply source the destination is at.

If you add 1,000 trucks to a supply line that is 50 km long it has much more effect (in gross supply delivered) than if you add 1,000 trucks to a supply line that is 1000 km long.

So you say. I say they represent a concentration of logistical effort -- whether trucks, planes, mule teams, shipping, ...

So..."independent supply transport assets"? I only used trucks in the example. I wouldn't include planes or shipping, however. Clearly, a Supply Unit is a ground unit.

quote:

...or simply available supplies.

Nope. They are not supply sources. Never were.

quote:

Again, so you say. One could also argue they represent a concentrated effort get supplies up to a certain area in spite of logistical obstacles.

Explain what sort of "concentrated effort" would be independent of distance involved.

quote:

quote:

But it will still be dependent upon distance from supply source.

Indeed, and this was already the case. Supply units couldn't put you in full supply -- just ameliorate the consequences of being in very poor supply.

No, it was not the case. Old Supply ran on forever. Infinite supply lines. New supply was specifically intended to address that very issue.

quote:

At the end of the day, you've taken a fairly useful tool in the designers armory and eviscerated it -- apparently because you conceive of supply as simply a matter of 'trucks' rather than as a more generalized simulation of a concentration of effort and resources in general.

Nothing has been "eviscerated". Old Supply is still there if you still want infinite supply lines. New Supply, however, is intended to be a boost to realism. Supply Units have to be modeled as they now are for that reason. Anything else would be unrealistic.

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 11

RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/2/2011 3:42:25 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

It is also, I might point out, a consequence of making changes without sufficient discussion. After all, it's not that your vision of supply units is flawed so much as that it's not the only possible vision.

We have NDAs. However, this feature was clearly described in item 5.8 in the Wishlist version 8 (posted in 2008, if I recall).

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 12

RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/3/2011 12:15:59 AM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Supply units are not and never were supply sources. Rather they represent independent supply transport assets. Specifically, enough to increase the number of supply vehicles in the supply column by 25%. As such, the lift to supply is dependent upon how far from the supply source the destination is at.

If you add 1,000 trucks to a supply line that is 50 km long it has much more effect (in gross supply delivered) than if you add 1,000 trucks to a supply line that is 1000 km long.

So you say. I say they represent a concentration of logistical effort -- whether trucks, planes, mule teams, shipping, ...

So..."independent supply transport assets"? I only used trucks in the example. I wouldn't include planes or shipping, however. Clearly, a Supply Unit is a ground unit.

quote:

...or simply available supplies.

Nope. They are not supply sources. Never were.

quote:

Again, so you say. One could also argue they represent a concentrated effort get supplies up to a certain area in spite of logistical obstacles.

Explain what sort of "concentrated effort" would be independent of distance involved.

quote:

quote:

But it will still be dependent upon distance from supply source.

Indeed, and this was already the case. Supply units couldn't put you in full supply -- just ameliorate the consequences of being in very poor supply.

No, it was not the case. Old Supply ran on forever. Infinite supply lines. New supply was specifically intended to address that very issue.

quote:

At the end of the day, you've taken a fairly useful tool in the designers armory and eviscerated it -- apparently because you conceive of supply as simply a matter of 'trucks' rather than as a more generalized simulation of a concentration of effort and resources in general.

Nothing has been "eviscerated". Old Supply is still there if you still want infinite supply lines. New Supply, however, is intended to be a boost to realism. Supply Units have to be modeled as they now are for that reason. Anything else would be unrealistic.

Well, I'm sure discussing this with you will prove futile, so I shouldn't, but...

Supply units -- whatever you may claim -- were not intended to represent any one thing in particular, and never did until you appointed yourself arbiter of such matters.

As they existed, they permitted a significant improvement of supply in areas that would otherwise have very poor supply. As such, they were a useful tool for designers who -- for whatever reason -- wanted to create such a capability. They could represent airlifted supply, strategic emphasis -- whatever. No particular concrete symbolism -- just a tool. To be used or not as appropriate.

As you have 'improved them' they still don't necessarily represent trucks. If I have one appear when an airfield is captured, it obviously doesn't represent more trucks. It represents whatever I intend it to represent -- in this case, Ju-52's or DC-3's or Valentias or whatever bringing in more supplies.

However -- again thanks to your 'improvement' -- the effect is no longer as dramatic and worse, is also linked to something -- the length of the ground supply line -- that may have nothing at all to do with the effect the designer is interested in.

You've announced these 'are more trucks' and acted accordingly. There's nothing about them that makes them 'more trucks.' They can't carry a leg infantry unit around. Conversely, they can show up in places and in scenarios where they couldn't possibly be trucks. I fail to see how you have done anything positive at all here.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 13

RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/3/2011 12:18:56 AM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

We have NDAs.

What are 'NDA's?' Is there some reason I should recognize these initials?

quote:

However, this feature was clearly described in item 5.8 in the Wishlist version 8 (posted in 2008, if I recall).

I see. Should I comb the last three years of the wishlist to see what else has or hasn't been resolved? And was it resolved at that time?

Somehow I suspect not.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 5/3/2011 12:24:14 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 14

RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/3/2011 12:23:20 AM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

...New Supply, however, is intended to be a boost to realism. Supply Units have to be modeled as they now are for that reason. Anything else would be unrealistic.

One would hope any change is intended to have a positive effect on realism. The alternative would be a bit perverse.

I heartily disagree with your assertion that the new supply units are 'more realistic.'

However, leaving that aside, is there any particular reason the new adjustable supply points could not be used with the old supply system?

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 15

RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/3/2011 3:53:20 AM

1_Lzard

Posts: 528
Joined: 8/18/2010
From: McMinnville, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
What are 'NDA's?' Is there some reason I should recognize these initials?

NDA= Non Disclosure Agreement. Something we've signed with Matrix when we became testers. Keeps us from telling the world what we're doing. You'd be surprised how many people DO recognise them, Colin!

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 16

RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/3/2011 4:08:42 AM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1_Lzard

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
What are 'NDA's?' Is there some reason I should recognize these initials?

NDA= Non Disclosure Agreement. Something we've signed with Matrix when we became testers. Keeps us from telling the world what we're doing. You'd be surprised how many people DO recognise them, Colin!

Oh yeah...I suppose I didn't think of proposed changes to TOAW as something that should be kept confidential.

Come to think of it, I still don't. It seems -- witness the above -- that whatever the legitimate function of an NDA, in this case it also serves to make a change a fait accompli.

What would actually have been the problem with discussing -- in advance of making the change -- the notion that supply units should merely extend the supply radius rather than increasing the supply delivered by a fixed percentage of the base supply level as in the past? Or the notion that they necessarily can only represent and should only represent an increase in land transportation assets?

The fact of the matter is that the definition and potential usefulness of supply units was radically altered -- and radically altered without any public discussion.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 5/3/2011 4:28:13 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to 1_Lzard)

Post #: 17

RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/3/2011 4:23:34 AM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

Anyway, what's really unfortunate is that it's all a 'package.'

If you want the variable supply points, you've got to accept that supply units have now been eviscerated. At least we'll apparently get sea roads back -- some day.

To return to the point that's starting to interest me most, is there some programming reason the variable supply points have to be bound up with accepting the new supply lines? Or could they in fact be used with the old supply system as well without undue difficulty?

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 18

RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/4/2011 12:59:57 AM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

...New Supply, however, is intended to be a boost to realism. Supply Units have to be modeled as they now are for that reason. Anything else would be unrealistic.

One would hope any change is intended to have a positive effect on realism. The alternative would be a bit perverse.

I heartily disagree with your assertion that the new supply units are 'more realistic.'

However, leaving that aside, is there any particular reason the new adjustable supply points could not be used with the old supply system?

I don't know what alternate reality you reside in (and don't want to know), but here on Earth, there is no way to extend supply lines to infinity. Any other mechanism other than the one effected would have left infinite supply lines in place. There was only one correct solution.

Supply units have never, ever, modeled a supply source. That you may have been using them in that fashion is not TOAW's problem. The objective of new supply was realism.

Obviously, we can't afford to support two supply systems. The retrograde Old Supply thing is not going to get any more development. Whether it can, nevertheless, benefit from developments of New Supply, only Ralph can say.

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 19

RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/4/2011 1:03:53 AM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Oh yeah...I suppose I didn't think of proposed changes to TOAW as something that should be kept confidential.

Come to think of it, I still don't. It seems -- witness the above -- that whatever the legitimate function of an NDA, in this case it also serves to make a change a fait accompli.

Feel free to take that up with Matrix. But I think they prefer their games to not be developed by committee.

quote:

What would actually have been the problem with discussing -- in advance of making the change -- the notion that supply units should merely extend the supply radius rather than increasing the supply delivered by a fixed percentage of the base supply level as in the past? Or the notion that they necessarily can only represent and should only represent an increase in land transportation assets?

The fact of the matter is that the definition and potential usefulness of supply units was radically altered -- and radically altered without any public discussion.

Nevertheless, had you been reading the Wishlist, you would have been aware of it. But I guess we were supposed to give you a personal notification.

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 20

RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/4/2011 3:40:27 AM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Oh yeah...I suppose I didn't think of proposed changes to TOAW as something that should be kept confidential.

Come to think of it, I still don't. It seems -- witness the above -- that whatever the legitimate function of an NDA, in this case it also serves to make a change a fait accompli.

Feel free to take that up with Matrix. But I think they prefer their games to not be developed by committee.

I doubt very much that anything Matrix ever said would have prevented you from posting a list of what was going to be in the patch. In fact, considering that you posted a beta of the patch, this is a transparent falsehood.

quote:

quote:

What would actually have been the problem with discussing -- in advance of making the change -- the notion that supply units should merely extend the supply radius rather than increasing the supply delivered by a fixed percentage of the base supply level as in the past? Or the notion that they necessarily can only represent and should only represent an increase in land transportation assets?

The fact of the matter is that the definition and potential usefulness of supply units was radically altered -- and radically altered without any public discussion.

Nevertheless, had you been reading the Wishlist, you would have been aware of it. But I guess we were supposed to give you a personal notification.

You are referring to a discussion that took place three years ago -- on a thread that is fifty four pages long. Everything from submarines to strategic bombing has been on that wish list.

Yes, I think you are thinking of changing the system, you should list the changes you're considering so that people can comment.

For one, it would avoid the sort of disappointment that occurred here. If nothing else, I would have immediately inquired whether sea roads were still going to work -- and that would have saved you from what you have already admitted was an oversight.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 5/4/2011 4:04:23 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 21

RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/4/2011 3:50:06 AM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

...New Supply, however, is intended to be a boost to realism. Supply Units have to be modeled as they now are for that reason. Anything else would be unrealistic.

One would hope any change is intended to have a positive effect on realism. The alternative would be a bit perverse.

I heartily disagree with your assertion that the new supply units are 'more realistic.'

However, leaving that aside, is there any particular reason the new adjustable supply points could not be used with the old supply system?

I don't know what alternate reality you reside in (and don't want to know), but here on Earth, there is no way to extend supply lines to infinity.

Leaving aside the Curtisism, neither of the two alternative forms of supply units 'extends supply lines to infinity.' There has to be supply in the first place for it to be enhanced.

quote:

Any other mechanism other than the one effected would have left infinite supply lines in place. There was only one correct solution.

Aside from the concept that there is only one correct solution and it is invariably your solution, what you say is both inaccurate and irrelevant. With the old system, supply extended infinitely. With your system, units remain 'supplied' to infinity as well. So what are you talking about?

quote:

Supply units have never, ever, modeled a supply source. That you may have been using them in that fashion is not TOAW's problem.

Sigh. How was I able to use them as a 'supply source'? I only wish I could have.

quote:

The objective of new supply was realism.

As already noted, I would hope that realism is always the objective. The difficulty is that you missed. Supply units do not invariably simply represent more trucks. No one -- other than yourself -- ever assumed that they did.

quote:

Obviously, we can't afford to support two supply systems. The retrograde Old Supply thing is not going to get any more development. Whether it can, nevertheless, benefit from developments of New Supply, only Ralph can say.

Ah. So as far as you know, there is no particular reason variable value supply points couldn't be offered in the old system?

One can only morbidly wonder -- behind all the smoke and thunder, just how much work would it actually entail?

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 5/4/2011 4:05:29 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 22

RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/4/2011 7:01:01 AM

sPzAbt653

Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline

quote:

... supply units have now been eviscerated.

What happened to the supply units ? They no longer boost supply 50% for adjacent units ?

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 23

RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/4/2011 10:21:44 AM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

... supply units have now been eviscerated.

What happened to the supply units ? They no longer boost supply 50% for adjacent units ?

That's not exactly what they ever did. Once, they used to add 25% of the base supply (not to exceed 100%) for units lying within the supply radius from them. So if you had a supply radius of -- say -- four hexes, and units were out in what would normally be 25% supply country, if there was a supply unit within four hexes, they would get 50% of the base supply. It was effectively possible to as much as double supply.

All kinds of interesting applications. The supply unit goes to support the selected effort. Stationary supply units pop up at captured anchorages and airfields. No doubt others have found other uses for them.

But no more.

Curtis the infinitely wise decided that supply units were simply transport, and that as such, they should simply extend the supply net. The net effect is that supply units do little at all for units that are distant from supply sources. In other words, they are least useful precisely where they once had potentially the most dramatic impact.

Curtis the infinitely wise has not deigned to share with us the source of his revelation that they represent transport and that only. Some of us poor mortals always thought of them simply as a tool for enhancing supply where and how a designer saw fit to permit supply to be enhanced -- and indeed, it was as such that they were introduced.

A nifty design tool, which designers could make use of in all kinds of interesting ways. So much for that idea.

It would appear we had not been given the full text of the revelation. Curtis the infinitely wise uncovered it for us, though, and has ruled accordingly. So now they're basically an extension of the supply radius. And that's that.

Now why he couldn't have just left well enough alone and allowed them to continue to add 25% of the base supply level to units within their radius escapes me. After all, that's what they've always done, and if you didn't want that effect, you didn't have to put them in your scenarios. For those of us who wanted that effect, it was very handy.

Be forewarned before you protest. Curtis reacts badly to those who question the authenticity of his revelations. In fact, he becomes distinctly ill-tempered and abusive.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 5/4/2011 10:44:07 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 24

RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/4/2011 10:41:57 AM

sPzAbt653

Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline

Supply Units: Increases the Supply Level in each supplied location that can trace a path no longer than the Supply Radius to the Supply unit. Additionally, Supply units multiply supply distribution to adjacent Cooperative units by 1.5.

Well, if it changed from that, that wouldn't be so nice. Especially the 1.5 part. A lot of time is spent jiggling Supply Radius, Rail Repair, Supply Level, and the number of Supply Units in order to get a scenario as proper as it can be.

When discussions revolve around possible changes or enhancements, someone always brings up the effect on existing scenarios as a reason to not consider some ideas.

This loss of 1.5 seems odd.

----------------------------------

EDIT : Nothing was done to the 1.5 multiple for adjacent units. That's still there.

< Message edited by sPzAbt653 -- 5/4/2011 5:42:38 PM >

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 25

RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/4/2011 10:48:31 AM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Supply Units: Increases the Supply Level in each supplied location that can trace a path no longer than the Supply Radius to the Supply unit. Additionally, Supply units multiply supply distribution to adjacent Cooperative units by 1.5.

Well, if it changed from that, that wouldn't be so nice. Especially the 1.5 part. A lot of time is spent jiggling Supply Radius, Rail Repair, Supply Level, and the number of Supply Units in order to get a scenario as proper as it can be.

When discussions revolve around possible changes or enhancements, someone always brings up the effect on existing scenarios as a reason to not consider some ideas.

This loss of 1.5 seems odd.

Well, it's only lost if you use the new supply rules. Of course, the new supply rules are bundled (again for reasons that are somewhat unclear) with the variable supply points. So you can't take advantage of variable supply points either if you want to use supply units as they once were.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 26

RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/4/2011 11:04:13 AM

sPzAbt653

Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline

quote:

Well, it's only lost if you use the new supply rules.

Another reason not to use the New Rules unless the scenario briefing specifically states that they should be used. However, D21 was updated for the New Rules but we didn't know about this change to the supply units, which are quite important in the scenario.

The What's New says : Supply Units still have their enhanced effect: they effectively treat a location as if it were one supply radius closer to the supply point, provided that the location was within a supply radius of the supply unit.

I would think that if the 1.5 bonus was eliminated that it wouldn't say 'still have their enhanced effect' only. It should also mention the loss of 1.5. Not that that would change the effect on existing scenarios.

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 27

RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/4/2011 3:59:53 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Oh yeah...I suppose I didn't think of proposed changes to TOAW as something that should be kept confidential.

Come to think of it, I still don't. It seems -- witness the above -- that whatever the legitimate function of an NDA, in this case it also serves to make a change a fait accompli.

Feel free to take that up with Matrix. But I think they prefer their games to not be developed by committee.

I doubt very much that anything Matrix ever said would have prevented you from posting a list of what was going to be in the patch. In fact, considering that you posted a beta of the patch, this is a transparent falsehood.
quote:

quote:

What would actually have been the problem with discussing -- in advance of making the change -- the notion that supply units should merely extend the supply radius rather than increasing the supply delivered by a fixed percentage of the base supply level as in the past? Or the notion that they necessarily can only represent and should only represent an increase in land transportation assets?

The fact of the matter is that the definition and potential usefulness of supply units was radically altered -- and radically altered without any public discussion.

Nevertheless, had you been reading the Wishlist, you would have been aware of it. But I guess we were supposed to give you a personal notification.

You are referring to a discussion that took place three years ago -- on a thread that is fifty four pages long. Everything from submarines to strategic bombing has been on that wish list.

Yes, I think you are thinking of changing the system, you should list the changes you're considering so that people can comment.

For one, it would avoid the sort of disappointment that occurred here. If nothing else, I would have immediately inquired whether sea roads were still going to work -- and that would have saved you from what you have already admitted was an oversight.

What part of "Non Disclosure Agreement" did you not understand? We can't discuss what we're doing on the board. But this item was there in the Wishlist for everyone to see.

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 28

RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/4/2011 4:10:16 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Supply Units: Increases the Supply Level in each supplied location that can trace a path no longer than the Supply Radius to the Supply unit. Additionally, Supply units multiply supply distribution to adjacent Cooperative units by 1.5.

Well, if it changed from that, that wouldn't be so nice. Especially the 1.5 part. A lot of time is spent jiggling Supply Radius, Rail Repair, Supply Level, and the number of Supply Units in order to get a scenario as proper as it can be.

When discussions revolve around possible changes or enhancements, someone always brings up the effect on existing scenarios as a reason to not consider some ideas.

This loss of 1.5 seems odd.

Nothing was done to the 1.5 multiple for adjacent units. That's still there. And, the other effect is doing what it had done before as well: reducing the distance to the source by one supply radius.

But Old Supply extended supply to infinity. New Supply fixes that. Both regular supply and the boost from Supply Units are dependent upon the distance of the locations from the supply source - just like in the real world. Had we not done that, Supply Unit boosted supply would have extended at 25% all the way to infinity.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 29

RE: Some questions about the latest patch - 5/4/2011 5:18:10 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Supply Units: Increases the Supply Level in each supplied location that can trace a path no longer than the Supply Radius to the Supply unit. Additionally, Supply units multiply supply distribution to adjacent Cooperative units by 1.5.

Well, if it changed from that, that wouldn't be so nice. Especially the 1.5 part. A lot of time is spent jiggling Supply Radius, Rail Repair, Supply Level, and the number of Supply Units in order to get a scenario as proper as it can be.

When discussions revolve around possible changes or enhancements, someone always brings up the effect on existing scenarios as a reason to not consider some ideas.

This loss of 1.5 seems odd.

Nothing was done to the 1.5 multiple for adjacent units. That's still there.

Odd. What happened to the argument that the supply unit represents transportation assets and nothing else?

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 5/4/2011 5:25:56 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> TOAW III Support >> Some questions about the latest patch