supply - esp for mech units

[SMK-at-work]

I think GD's system would probably work as a surrogate representation of fuel for TOAW given the nature of the supply rules - but I don't think I'd put proficiency in as a parameter, and it would only affect movement rates and combat.

It would only affect units with mechanised movement, and I'd suggest somethign like

1% supply - no fuel, all mechanised equipment counts 0 for combat and movement, all heavy equipment requiring motor transport counts 1/4 for combat and 0 for movement.

>1% and <=5% - minimal fuel for local combat operations only.&nbsp; All mechanised equipment counts 1/3 for combat and movement is restricted to followup or retreat after combat, all heavy equipment requiring motor transport counts 1/2.

>5% and <=10% supply - fuel for limited operations only.&nbsp; All mechanised equipment has movement restricted to 1/3 normal.

It's "rough and ready", and actual values are taken straight from my head so feel free tosuggest alternatives.

But it is simple, and works within the current game engine.......I think..??

[a white rabbit]

..keep it simple..you go red/prof 33/ supply&nbsp;< 33 and there's an increasing chance that on attacking the unit will evaporate..
&nbsp;
..at 1% supply i suggest the chance is 99%..

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

I think GD's system would probably work as a surrogate representation of fuel for TOAW given the nature of the supply rules - but I don't think I'd put proficiency in as a parameter, and it would only affect movement rates and combat.

It would only affect units with mechanised movement, and I'd suggest somethign like

1% supply - no fuel, all mechanised equipment counts 0 for combat and movement, all heavy equipment requiring motor transport counts 1/4 for combat and 0 for movement.

>1% and <=5% - minimal fuel for local combat operations only.  All mechanised equipment counts 1/3 for combat and movement is restricted to followup or retreat after combat, all heavy equipment requiring motor transport counts 1/2.

>5% and <=10% supply - fuel for limited operations only.  All mechanised equipment has movement restricted to 1/3 normal.

It's "rough and ready", and actual values are taken straight from my head so feel free tosuggest alternatives.

But it is simple, and works within the current game engine.......I think..??

It should. There are routines for Armored strength, etc. I'd include Artillery in that too, though. I'd want to make the fact that suppy is critical (below 33%?) very apparent to the player somehow too by adding a black little icon instead of red or something.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

I think GD's system would probably work as a surrogate representation of fuel for TOAW given the nature of the supply rules - but I don't think I'd put proficiency in as a parameter, and it would only affect movement rates and combat.

It would only affect units with mechanised movement, and I'd suggest somethign like

1% supply - no fuel, all mechanised equipment counts 0 for combat and movement, all heavy equipment requiring motor transport counts 1/4 for combat and 0 for movement.

>1% and <=5% - minimal fuel for local combat operations only.  All mechanised equipment counts 1/3 for combat and movement is restricted to followup or retreat after combat, all heavy equipment requiring motor transport counts 1/2.

>5% and <=10% supply - fuel for limited operations only.  All mechanised equipment has movement restricted to 1/3 normal.

It's "rough and ready", and actual values are taken straight from my head so feel free tosuggest alternatives.

But it is simple, and works within the current game engine.......I think..??

It should. There are routines for Armored strength, etc. I'd include Artillery in that too, though. I'd want to make the fact that suppy is critical (below 33%?) very apparent to the player somehow too by adding a black little icon instead of red or something.

Please tell me you're not seriously considering the above.

[sPzAbt653]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Please tell me you're not seriously considering the above.

Ditto. And if you are seriously considering it, please tell me it will only effect squad and platoon level units in six hour turn scenarios.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
If it's optional, you've got to figure out how to convert 'new scenarios to 'old supply rules. I don't really want to force designers to place two sets of supply, one old and one new. This may be as simple as saying that all the new supply sources supply equal amounts of the 'old' supply, but we'll need to test that.

The optional change Bob and I were discussing would be at the end of the supply line, not the source. Quantified supply is another issue.

Do you have a link to the Gamesquad discussion?

Ralph

http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showthr ... 202&page=2

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

I think GD's system would probably work as a surrogate representation of fuel for TOAW given the nature of the supply rules - but I don't think I'd put proficiency in as a parameter, and it would only affect movement rates and combat.

It would only affect units with mechanised movement, and I'd suggest somethign like

1% supply - no fuel, all mechanised equipment counts 0 for combat and movement, all heavy equipment requiring motor transport counts 1/4 for combat and 0 for movement.

>1% and <=5% - minimal fuel for local combat operations only.  All mechanised equipment counts 1/3 for combat and movement is restricted to followup or retreat after combat, all heavy equipment requiring motor transport counts 1/2.

>5% and <=10% supply - fuel for limited operations only.  All mechanised equipment has movement restricted to 1/3 normal.

It's "rough and ready", and actual values are taken straight from my head so feel free tosuggest alternatives.

But it is simple, and works within the current game engine.......I think..??

It should. There are routines for Armored strength, etc. I'd include Artillery in that too, though. I'd want to make the fact that suppy is critical (below 33%?) very apparent to the player somehow too by adding a black little icon instead of red or something.

Please tell me you're not seriously considering the above.

Indeed, as it would immediately break about 99 percent of the scenarios out there.

[SMK-at-work]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Please tell me you're not seriously considering the above.

Ditto. And if you are seriously considering it, please tell me it will only effect squad and platoon level units in six hour turn scenarios.

Well how about some "why it won't work" comments instead of whining?

Both you guys are intelligent folks, so I expect you have some reasons more than simple dislike?

BTW I'd make it a switchable advanced game option, and I see no reason why it should be limited to small scale games - large scale games are invariably on large scale hexes - moving a full strength panzer division 1 hex in FITE (10/16km miles) would take some 12,000 litres of gas, about 1/16th of it's total carry capability according to the site I mentioned earlier.

I see no reason why it shouldn't be limited to that radius of action when it's considered completely gasless. It would halt it at most for 1 move (2.5 days) only if it was at the very extreme end of its supply train, and was having REAL trouble getting supplied.

With even a modicum of supply (over 10% in my example - well within the red) it would suffer no problems at all.

[SMK-at-work]

coem to think of it, I think it would be good to be scaleable as well as switchable - ie have a litle sub-menu where you could set the values at which various effects take place for different classes of units.
&nbsp;
But then I wouldn't have to code it....[8D]

[sPzAbt653]

The game system doesn't deal with individual pieces of equipment at one moment in time. The system takes into account an entire units' overall ability to function over the entire length of a turn. Units with a low level of supply will operate at less efficiency over the course of a turn.
The commander of a tank battalion may be informed by the units' quartermaster that there is only enough on hand fuel for a 40 mile advance. The commander decides to fuel up half his tanks in order to go 80 miles at reduced strength.
The game system is fine the way it is.

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

I think GD's system would probably work as a surrogate representation of fuel for TOAW given the nature of the supply rules - but I don't think I'd put proficiency in as a parameter, and it would only affect movement rates and combat.

It would only affect units with mechanised movement, and I'd suggest somethign like

1% supply - no fuel, all mechanised equipment counts 0 for combat and movement, all heavy equipment requiring motor transport counts 1/4 for combat and 0 for movement.

>1% and <=5% - minimal fuel for local combat operations only.  All mechanised equipment counts 1/3 for combat and movement is restricted to followup or retreat after combat, all heavy equipment requiring motor transport counts 1/2.

>5% and <=10% supply - fuel for limited operations only.  All mechanised equipment has movement restricted to 1/3 normal.

It's "rough and ready", and actual values are taken straight from my head so feel free tosuggest alternatives.

But it is simple, and works within the current game engine.......I think..??

It should. There are routines for Armored strength, etc. I'd include Artillery in that too, though. I'd want to make the fact that suppy is critical (below 33%?) very apparent to the player somehow too by adding a black little icon instead of red or something.

..33% has readiness attached so why not..

..don't worry about making the number obvious, we're quick learners..

..s'a flaw that needs resolving..

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick




Please tell me you're not seriously considering the above.

Ditto. And if you are seriously considering it, please tell me it will only effect squad and platoon level units in six hour turn scenarios.

Well how about some "why it won't work" comments instead of whining?

Both you guys are intelligent folks, so I expect you have some reasons more than simple dislike?

So, you want me to repeat every post I've made in this thread so far? What would be the point?

Regardless, try and imagine the impact if units can be reduced to zero combat strength so trivially.

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
Go is a very simple game
Ralph

..yeah, right, simple..

[jmlima]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
...
The game system is fine the way it is.

I've been following the discussion with interest, but just for clarity, what you're saying is that the way TOAW models supplies is fine and doesn't need changes, am I understanding correctly?

[shunwick]

The essential problem is that supply can never be modelled with precision. Any system will always be a fudge. The trick is to come up with the most painless fudge that doesn't break any of the exisitng scenarios, doesn't upset the play balance, doesn't require a team of logisticians to work 18 hours a day, is easy to understand for designers and players alike, and still does a reasonable job always allowing for the exceptions.

Not easy.

Best wishes,

[Monkeys Brain]

In FiTE I never and repeat never make attacks with red status ARMORED units. Ussually they are deep behind regaining strenghth and supply and as they are very heavy many turns pass without actually shipping them. Only few are on the front lines, those that goes with supply units so they have better supply (and they are still not commited).

Low supply means LOW efficency and combat quality. Yes, higher percentage of prof. tends to give even those red status units bigger quality but...

So my FiTE reflects a economical use of "OIL".

EDIT: try to attack with red armored units and you will have certanly bigger losses. In one game of FiTE I lost 80 German tanks on those Kiev forts. Now look at replacement rate of German tanks and you will realize that you need to be a bit savy with German armour in FiTE. At least I am.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: jmlima

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
...
The game system is fine the way it is.

I've been following the discussion with interest, but just for clarity, what you're saying is that the way TOAW models supplies is fine and doesn't need changes, am I understanding correctly?

As your lawyer, sPzAbt653, I suggest you don't answer that question...[;)]

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: shunwick

The essential problem is that supply can never be modelled with precision. Any system will always be a fudge. The trick is to come up with the most painless fudge that doesn't break any of the exisitng scenarios, doesn't upset the play balance, doesn't require a team of logisticians to work 18 hours a day, is easy to understand for designers and players alike, and still does a reasonable job always allowing for the exceptions.

Not easy.

Best wishes,

Indeed. Any simulation of reality will, by definition, contain necessary abstractions. I'm the first to admit that TOAW's treatment of supply is not perfect. However, it does a fairly good job of abstracting supply usage, when you consider the 33/1 state to be a "normal" state of units that are constantly engaged in combat, and adjust the supply stockpile levels in accordance to that view, and based on reasonably competent and aggressive players.

Will the supply sub-system be improved in the future? This is a pretty safe bet. Some tweaks will come within TOAW III. However, a more drastic overhaul will have to wait until TOAW IV.

[SMK-at-work]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

[Both you guys are intelligent folks, so I expect you have some reasons more than simple dislike?

So, you want me to repeat every post I've made in this thread so far? What would be the point?

no - I'd like some specific arguments about the specific point.

Regardless, try and imagine the impact if units can be reduced to zero combat strength so trivially.

IMO if you think getting down to 1% supply is trivial then that's teh best argument I have for introducing the system - it will stop it beign trivial!

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showthr ... 202&page=2

Thanks.

Ralph