Comprehensive Wishlist

[Meyer1]

ORIGINAL: Panama



Easiest solution in a case such as this IMO. Have the combat consume as much time as it took the 'last' unit to arrive. The unit that consumed the most time to close the pocket is the one time consumed is based on.

That's similar, but not the same. In that way you still have the "gamey" tactic of surround the enemy with units, and start the combat at round 1. Yes, the combat would last longer, posibly the entire turn, but the result could be the same: enemy destroyed because it's surrounded by units that actually arrived after the combat started (and sometimes ended)

Even more, if that unit consumed it's entire turn to get there then the combat can't take place until next turn.

That also would happen with my idea: friendly units with 0 movement points, adjacent to the unit that would be attacked: attack can not take place.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

I have not read the wishlist (but I'm gonna), so I don't know if this is covered.
One of the features of TOAW, the combat rounds, works well as long as the units that are attacking are concerned. I mean, an example: unit A has not moved, unit B has moved and have left 50% of movement points, and both are attacking unit C. The combat will start in a "middle" round, refelcting the fact that unit A have to wait to unit B to get there.
All very nice here.
The problem starts when we are talking about non-attacking units. Other example: unit A has not moved, and is attacking enemy unit G, which is sourronded by friendly units B, C, D, E anf F, so there's no escape. All of these friendly units ( B, C, D, E and F) have moved before. So, the combat starts in round one, and if succesfull, the result would be the destruction of unit G, who can not escape, because his retreat route is blocked by units that should be not there at that moment
Very unrealistic result.

Fix to this problem is very simple (that doesn't mean that would be easy to implement in TOAW code [:)]): the round in which the combat starts, should not be based in the percentage of movement points of the units that are attacking, but instead, in the friendly unit that have less percentage of movement points available, and is adjacent to the unit that is attacked.
I'm thinking that an exception could be made to the units that are in the same hex of the ones attacking, as long as these units don't affect the retreat behaviour of the attacked unit (I don't know if that is the case now)
I don't know how popular this may be (considering how it would change the way of play the game, probably not much), but it would result in a more realistic simulation

Easiest solution in a case such as this IMO. Have the combat consume as much time as it took the 'last' unit to arrive. The unit that consumed the most time to close the pocket is the one time consumed is based on. Even more, if that unit consumed it's entire turn to get there then the combat can't take place until next turn.

The problem is that while on the attack dialogue, you can add or omit units as you please, if units can affect how much time the combat will take regardless of whether you choose to select them for an attack, setting up that attack becomes much trickier. You'd have to avoid moving in late arrivals rather than just piling everyone in and then deciding who takes part in the attack when it comes time to set up your battles. One really would need some kind of 'take back' feature -- or one where the late-arriving unit would just get booted out of the way if defender wanted to retreat.

Else playing TOAW well will become much, much more challenging.

Any turn based game will have problems. Such as high movement point units moving through the opponents lines thus cutting them off without the opposing units reacting to the movement. In real life the opposing side could react and prevent such manuevers at least in part. Since no reaction is possible during the other side's turn lots of pockets are formed that wouldn't be possible in a real time environment.

This is at least partly a design flaw. If you set your scale/turn length ratio appropriately, it won't happen as much. You want week-long turns at 2.5 km per hex? There'll be a price tag.

But then again, you enable the non moving side to react to movement the same way they react to attacks with some kind of reactionary setting.

I'm beginning to believe Ralph's wego option might be a good idea if it doesn't add appreciably to how long email games take.

Ralph has a 'we-go' option? Well, good stuff. However, efforts in this direction have failed before. Caveat Programmator...

[Meyer1]

One desirable feature I see from the standpoint of playability is that when one goes to the attack dialogue, one would want to have the option of removing any units that were making the thing take all turn by having them back up to the last hex they were in before moving adjacent to the target unit...else planning and executing attacks would become enormously more difficult.

Yes, that would be nice. Overall I think that the players would try to execute the movements more simultaneously, instead of moving some units "all the way", and others step by step. That is more realistic, the downside is that would probably result in more clicks (moving several times the same units).

[ColinWright]

As long as we're on the subject, another part of the package that I've long advocated is that the defender needs to be able to check combat results against any adjacent stack, not just those that contain units that are participating in the attack.

One quickly learns not to include the solo 1-2 engineer company in the attack on those two 7-12 infantry regiments one has surrounded; if it's in the hex by itself, it'll get blown up by the two infantry regiments, which will then retreat into the now vacated hex.

This mechanism needs to apply whether or not the engineer company participates in the attack. As it is, a division's worth of forces can be 'surrounded' by a net that includes a solo company of any random junk stretched over 5 km. In real life, of course, the division would just run over such 'surrounding' forces if it had to retreat.

*****

...If I don't say anything, Curtis will respond to this with the assertion that proper design will make this impossible. That's not so: it's hardly unreasonable to have battalion and regimental size units in the OOB at 5 km per hex. If one does, then one can have two regiments in a hex, and battalions can be subdivided into companies.

This sort of range is perfectly common, and cannot be avoided except by extraordinary restrictions on the design. Sure -- if one made all the units in the OOB one size, and one size only, and picked a size such that no more than two or three of the units could fit into a single hex, the events described wouldn't occur much -- but what kind of scenarios would we have then?

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

As long as we're on the subject, another part of the package that I've long advocated is that the defender needs to be able to check combat results against any adjacent stack, not just those that contain units that are participating in the attack.

One quickly learns not to include the solo 1-2 engineer company in the attack on those two 7-12 infantry regiments one has surrounded; if it's in the hex by itself, it'll get blown up by the two infantry regiments, which will then retreat into the now vacated hex.

This mechanism needs to apply whether or not the engineer company participates in the attack. As it is, a division's worth of forces can be 'surrounded' by a net that includes a solo company of any random junk stretched over 5 km. In real life, of course, the division would just run over such 'surrounding' forces if it had to retreat.

I think this one is already planned.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

However, the current situation is at least as bad. Units can simply continue offensive action indefinitely. The system says they get enough supplies to retain 30% or so effectiveness no matter how long they continue attacking. The result is that -- contrary to all history -- it is often best just to keep pressing ahead regardless of the state of your forces so long as the defender is in just as bad shape.

1. Item 5.9 (Over-extended supply state) would make this more and more difficult once units pressed on into locations at that intermediate state, and the further they pressed on into it.

2. Item 5.14 (Component supply) would justify lower movement/combat strength values at 1% fuel/ammo. So the lowest MA level wouldn't be 58% of full, it would be much lower; and the lowest CS level could be significantly lower than now too.

In my opinion, the problem is really that supplied mechanized forces are too slow in the first place. They really do rip off some astonishing forward leaps. Currently, mechanized forces have about 2.5 times the MP's of leg infantry. Something like that. If the ratio was set at more like 4 to 1 -- but the tanks stop rolling and the guns stop shooting when the supplies run out, my betting's that we'd be on our way to a more accurate simulation. The infantry might eventually catch up, but absent any effective artillery and absent any mobile forces, it's not going to be able to mount much of an attack. That will be a function of the other arms being properly resupplied -- and that will lead to some very authentic pauses in advances.

1. Item 6.7 (Motorized units pay 1/2 MP per hex on Improved Roads). This would impact supply distribution, too.

2. Item 6.16 (Careless movement - no hex conversion costs, but no recon either). This would realistically make this progressively more dangerous as the war progresses from 1939 to 1945, since late in the war, even infantry is dangerous to armor.

3. Item 5.3.2 (Readiness cost of movement much lower for motorized units than foot). So motorized units arrive in good shape to fight, but foot arrive blown.

4. Item 6.25 (Tracked Movement mode). Can ignore mud/snow costs.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

ORIGINAL: Panama



Easiest solution in a case such as this IMO. Have the combat consume as much time as it took the 'last' unit to arrive. The unit that consumed the most time to close the pocket is the one time consumed is based on.

That's similar, but not the same. In that way you still have the "gamey" tactic of surround the enemy with units, and start the combat at round 1. Yes, the combat would last longer, posibly the entire turn, but the result could be the same: enemy destroyed because it's surrounded by units that actually arrived after the combat started (and sometimes ended)

Even more, if that unit consumed it's entire turn to get there then the combat can't take place until next turn.

That also would happen with my idea: friendly units with 0 movement points, adjacent to the unit that would be attacked: attack can not take place.

Either I failed to communicate properly or someone failed to understand. [;)]

Player A has a unit. Player B is surrounding it and then will attack it. B mush occupy six hexes to complete the manuever. Hex one has a unit in it already. This unit has consumed no part of the turn. Player B must move five other units into the five other hexes to surround Player A's unit. The unit player B moves the farthest, the one that consumes the greater part of the turn, is the one the combat's length is based on.

If player B has one unit there already obviously this will NOT be that unit. One of the units that player B has moved to surround player A's unit has consumed 75% of it's turn. So, when the combat is conducted at least 75% of the turn is consumed in the combat. Maybe more. If there are a possibility of ten rounds then this combat would use at a minimum 8 rounds, not 1. There would be no need to move units back and it would simplify things.

Even if the unit that used 75% of it's turn does not take part in the actual combat, the combat as a pocket couldn't be successfully conducted as such until that unit arrived and so it is as though it took part in the combat. Thus the 8 round result instead of 1.

Does that clarify things? All units that pocket a unit are considered to be taking part in the actual combat because the result of thier actions pocketed the unit. It could not be surrounded until they got there so their movement counts towards rounds consumed. If they used 50% of their turn to surround a unit, even if one unit only used 0%, the 50% part would be used regardless of whether a unit used less then that as the attacking unit.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

It will be the case if supplies are severely straightened. In fact, if there's only one ton of munitions that can be brought in, and it can go to either the infantry battalion or the artillery battalion, the entirety would probably go to the infantry battalion, and none at all to the artillery.

That's absurd. The quartermasters aren't idiots. They know the supply requirement ratios and fill them accordingly. Most of the supply tonnage will be artillery ammo. In fact, it's easier to supply the artillery because it is in the rear, while the infantry is at the front - under fire.

And the supply requirements aren't that disparate when you consider how many more infantry squads there are (even counting just frontline ones) than artillery peices. Add in the mortars, food, and fuel (for motorized infantry) needs, and it closes even more.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Then we get back to how -- in reality -- could the 1939-1941 Luftwaffe be so effective but the 1944-1945 Allied tactical airforces fail to sweep all before them?

If you have evidence that the early luftwaffe bombers caused vastly more damage than they do when modeled in TOAW, then please provide it.

I will remind you that I modeled a number of known bomber missions as detailed in the AAA thread. And the results were not unhistorical.

Flak impacts aircraft effectiveness -- and it does not do it primarily by shooting down planes. This impact is not somehow 'built in' -- else why the flak guns? Once this is acknowledged, it follows that it would be desirable to simulate this effect.

Why do you insist on denying this?

Why are you being so willfully dense? I am not saying that the flak is built in. I'm saying that the bomber tactics to avoid flak effects are built in.

If they are not then we will have to slash bomber effectiveness from current levels whenever the target has flak (virtually every case). Do you have any evidence that bombers are inflicting much heavier damage than historical? If so, it will conflict with mine.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

As a bit of history here, in the beginning there was TOAW flak as it was represented in OPART I, WGOTY, ACOW, etc.

It didn't shoot down many planes. Of course, real flak doesn't shoot down all that many planes either. Some planes go down of course -- flying TacAir isn't safe -- but on any given sortie, the attacker has a pretty good chance of coming home safe and sound.

Curtis, however, in his wisdom detected what he assumed was an error in the program that was producing these low kills. Curtis fixed this 'error.' My own suspicion is that Norm realized the slaughter that the unmodified values would cause, and deliberately cut the effect, but that's not really either here or there.

The point is that Curtis 'fixed' the value. Rather typically, he doesn't seem to have bothered to run a few test cases and seen if the resulting slaughter bore any relation to the general run of historical outcomes. It would have been easy enough: I can think of two tests right off. No -- every day just became Sedan bridgehead day for attacking air forces.

Also rather typically, Curtis tried to defend this mayhem. His arguments, of course, were fallacious, but he kept tirelessly presenting them.

All the above is an outrageous lie. I had absolutely nothing to do with the increase in AAA lethality in the release of TOAW III. In fact, I lead the way in finding how far off it was and getting it changed.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

I have not read the wishlist (but I'm gonna), so I don't know if this is covered.
One of the features of TOAW, the combat rounds, works well as long as the units that are attacking are concerned. I mean, an example: unit A has not moved, unit B has moved and have left 50% of movement points, and both are attacking unit C. The combat will start in a "middle" round, refelcting the fact that unit A have to wait to unit B to get there.
All very nice here.
The problem starts when we are talking about non-attacking units. Other example: unit A has not moved, and is attacking enemy unit G, which is sourronded by friendly units B, C, D, E anf F, so there's no escape. All of these friendly units ( B, C, D, E and F) have moved before. So, the combat starts in round one, and if succesfull, the result would be the destruction of unit G, who can not escape, because his retreat route is blocked by units that should be not there at that moment
Very unrealistic result.

Fix to this problem is very simple (that doesn't mean that would be easy to implement in TOAW code [:)]): the round in which the combat starts, should not be based in the percentage of movement points of the units that are attacking, but instead, in the friendly unit that have less percentage of movement points available, and is adjacent to the unit that is attacked.
I'm thinking that an exception could be made to the units that are in the same hex of the ones attacking, as long as these units don't affect the retreat behaviour of the attacked unit (I don't know if that is the case now)
I don't know how popular this may be (considering how it would change the way of play the game, probably not much), but it would result in a more realistic simulation

Curtis will explain to you why the current system is just fine, ...

Another outrageous lie. You know perfectly well that the "Time Stamp" (Item 7.20) suggestion is mine. I'm all in favor of fixing this. It's not a trivial issue, though.

However, the issue not considered with the above idea is that the round that the unit retreats will not be the same round as when the combat starts, and the blocking unit only needs to get there by the time the retreat happens, not when the combat starts.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

As long as we're on the subject, another part of the package that I've long advocated is that the defender needs to be able to check combat results against any adjacent stack, not just those that contain units that are participating in the attack.

One quickly learns not to include the solo 1-2 engineer company in the attack on those two 7-12 infantry regiments one has surrounded; if it's in the hex by itself, it'll get blown up by the two infantry regiments, which will then retreat into the now vacated hex.

This mechanism needs to apply whether or not the engineer company participates in the attack. As it is, a division's worth of forces can be 'surrounded' by a net that includes a solo company of any random junk stretched over 5 km. In real life, of course, the division would just run over such 'surrounding' forces if it had to retreat.

I think this one is already planned.

Actually, it's already implemented. Units forced to retreat but are blocked by enemy units will get to attempt RBCs against all of them before being eliminated. So, it will take substantial forces to block retreat paths now.

[Meyer1]

ORIGINAL: Panama



Either I failed to communicate properly or someone failed to understand. [;)]

Got the feeling that was aimed at me [:D]
Actually we are saying the same, only that in you first post you used wrongly the TOAW terms, here:

Have the combat consume as much time as it took the 'last' unit to arrive. The unit that consumed the most time to close the pocket is the one time consumed is based on.

How much the time the combat would comsume, or last, depends on many things. But I'm talking when the combat would start (which round)

If player B has one unit there already obviously this will NOT be that unit. One of the units that player B has moved to surround player A's unit has consumed 75% of it's turn. So, when the combat is conducted at least 75% of the turn is consumed in the combat

I think you actually mean "So, when the combat is conducted at least 75% of the turn is already consumed"

Is just semantics. And I still think Collin's idea of moving units back could be useful.

[Meyer1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




Another outrageous lie. You know perfectly well that the "Time Stamp" (Item 7.20) suggestion is mine. I'm all in favor of fixing this. It's not a trivial issue, though.

However, the issue not considered with the above idea is that the round that the unit retreats will not be the same round as when the combat starts, and the blocking unit only needs to get there by the time the retreat happens, not when the combat starts.

That's true. I know is not perfect but would be an improvement, don't you think?


Just checked items 7.20/21

7.19 Surrounded defender breakout from combat – retreating units could check RBC against the weakest or all blocking enemy units.
7.20 Advanced: Surrounded defender breakout from combat - “time stamp”.
7.20.1 Defenders forced to retreat from combat may force blocking enemy units out of the way if those units’ “time stamp” exceed the combat round of the defender’s retreat.
7.20.2 A blocking unit’s “time stamp” is defined as the combat round the unit would be calculated to have arrived in the blocking hex.
7.20.3 Very advanced: Keep track of the hex each blocking unit entered from, and, if forced to move out of the way, move it back to that previous hex, and restore it’s movement that it had expended in entering the blocking hex.
7.20.4 After all such blocking enemy units are forced to move out of the way, if the defenders are still blocked, they can attempt to breakout via combat. The weakest blocking hex would be targeted for attack by the retreaters. Only one round of combat would be permitted. Only non-routed retreaters would be allowed to participate in the combat. (Alternate: instead of a combat round, a RBC would be attempted instead.)
7.20.5 If the combat succeeded in forcing all remaining blocking units out of the way, all retreaters would be allowed to retreat into the vacated hex. But if the attack failed, the retreaters would be destroyed just as now, and all their losses would go to the dead pile, none would go to the “on hand” pile.
7.21 Very advanced: Breakout before combat.
7.21.1 Under certain (yet to be determined) circumstances, the defending force might choose to attempt a better coordinated breakout than possible during a forced retreat by breaking out before the enemy combat is effected. Obviously, only non-reorganizing units could participate in such an attempt. If triggered, the above sequence would be followed the same way, except that the retreating force would obviously be in better condition to succeed, and it would occur in the beginning round of the attack.
7.21.1.1 Possible triggering factors could include defender average loss tolerance, attacker odds vs. breakout odds, Leader initiative (if implemented and applicable), or prearranged orders.

Good stuff, Curtis.
I knew that problem could not be out of the list [:)]

[Meyer1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

As long as we're on the subject, another part of the package that I've long advocated is that the defender needs to be able to check combat results against any adjacent stack, not just those that contain units that are participating in the attack.

One quickly learns not to include the solo 1-2 engineer company in the attack on those two 7-12 infantry regiments one has surrounded; if it's in the hex by itself, it'll get blown up by the two infantry regiments, which will then retreat into the now vacated hex.

This mechanism needs to apply whether or not the engineer company participates in the attack. As it is, a division's worth of forces can be 'surrounded' by a net that includes a solo company of any random junk stretched over 5 km. In real life, of course, the division would just run over such 'surrounding' forces if it had to retreat.

I think this one is already planned.

Actually, it's already implemented. Units forced to retreat but are blocked by enemy units will get to attempt RBCs against all of them before being eliminated. So, it will take substantial forces to block retreat paths now.

You mean in 3.40 or before?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

As long as we're on the subject, another part of the package that I've long advocated is that the defender needs to be able to check combat results against any adjacent stack, not just those that contain units that are participating in the attack.

One quickly learns not to include the solo 1-2 engineer company in the attack on those two 7-12 infantry regiments one has surrounded; if it's in the hex by itself, it'll get blown up by the two infantry regiments, which will then retreat into the now vacated hex.

This mechanism needs to apply whether or not the engineer company participates in the attack. As it is, a division's worth of forces can be 'surrounded' by a net that includes a solo company of any random junk stretched over 5 km. In real life, of course, the division would just run over such 'surrounding' forces if it had to retreat.

I think this one is already planned.

Actually, it's already implemented. Units forced to retreat but are blocked by enemy units will get to attempt RBCs against all of them before being eliminated. So, it will take substantial forces to block retreat paths now.

Good stuff.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




Another outrageous lie. You know perfectly well that the "Time Stamp" (Item 7.20) suggestion is mine. I'm all in favor of fixing this. It's not a trivial issue, though.

However, the issue not considered with the above idea is that the round that the unit retreats will not be the same round as when the combat starts, and the blocking unit only needs to get there by the time the retreat happens, not when the combat starts.

That's true. I know is not perfect but would be an improvement, don't you think?

It's also worth mentioning that a lot of units that are about to be surrounded would just as soon not stand there and take their licks. If they come under attack, and they're about to be surrounded, they will want to take advantage of that hole before it closes.

What I'm saying is that if the net isn't closed by the time the attack starts, the defender may not stick around for the whole battle. That's at least as likely as the scenario where honor demands that he stay put and see who's the better man whilst his one route of escape is sealed off.

Now of course there are situations where the unit cannot disengage, or it is operating under a very rigid command structure, or it's simply unaware that it's about to be cut off -- but all the same. It's not really valid to assume a unit that is about to be surrounded is going to stay put and fight the good fight if it has a choice about it. In fact, units that find themselves without support on their flanks tend to pull back pretty readily.

Indeed, it's worth thinking about modifying a unit's ability to retreat according to its loss setting. If it's set to 'ignore losses' it sticks to the hex no matter what. If it has a different setting, the engine would check to see if all the blocking units were actually in place when the attack began. One could come up with something even looser for 'minimize losses'. Like it attempts to pull back as soon as it is has units on four sides.

There'd be some complications, though. Right now, I'll settle for anything that prevents a unit that tries to retreat on Monday being blocked by a unit that won't get there until Saturday.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

As a bit of history here, in the beginning there was TOAW flak as it was represented in OPART I, WGOTY, ACOW, etc.

It didn't shoot down many planes. Of course, real flak doesn't shoot down all that many planes either. Some planes go down of course -- flying TacAir isn't safe -- but on any given sortie, the attacker has a pretty good chance of coming home safe and sound.

Curtis, however, in his wisdom detected what he assumed was an error in the program that was producing these low kills. Curtis fixed this 'error.' My own suspicion is that Norm realized the slaughter that the unmodified values would cause, and deliberately cut the effect, but that's not really either here or there.

The point is that Curtis 'fixed' the value. Rather typically, he doesn't seem to have bothered to run a few test cases and seen if the resulting slaughter bore any relation to the general run of historical outcomes. It would have been easy enough: I can think of two tests right off. No -- every day just became Sedan bridgehead day for attacking air forces.

Also rather typically, Curtis tried to defend this mayhem. His arguments, of course, were fallacious, but he kept tirelessly presenting them.

All the above is an outrageous lie. I had absolutely nothing to do with the increase in AAA lethality in the release of TOAW III. In fact, I lead the way in finding how far off it was and getting it changed.

Okay, someone else did it. However, you certainly defended -- and as far as I know, continue to defend -- the notion that AA's effect can be modeled simply by having it shoot down planes. It couldn't have been anyone else.

The point is that we'll never get anywhere that way because that's not how AA works.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Then we get back to how -- in reality -- could the 1939-1941 Luftwaffe be so effective but the 1944-1945 Allied tactical airforces fail to sweep all before them?

If you have evidence that the early luftwaffe bombers caused vastly more damage than they do when modeled in TOAW, then please provide it.

I will remind you that I modeled a number of known bomber missions as detailed in the AAA thread. And the results were not unhistorical.

Flak impacts aircraft effectiveness -- and it does not do it primarily by shooting down planes. This impact is not somehow 'built in' -- else why the flak guns? Once this is acknowledged, it follows that it would be desirable to simulate this effect.

Why do you insist on denying this?

Why are you being so willfully dense? I am not saying that the flak is built in. I'm saying that the bomber tactics to avoid flak effects are built in.

In your case I don't think the denseness is willful. 'Bomber tactics' are not something fixed -- they vary in direct response to the intensity of the flak encountered.

Since that level of flak varies widely, the tactics bombers employ -- and hence their efficacy -- will vary.

A Spitfire drops down on a truck column. It encounters little or no return fire. It works that column over, keeps coming straight in without taking evasive maneuvers, and keeps at it until either every truck is burning or it's out of ammo.

A Spitfire drops down on a truck column. Flak opens up, and things start banging into the plane. It starts jigging all over, gets off what shots it can, and probably flies off in fairly short order.

There's no fixed level that could be built in. It's ironic that you accused me of sophism. It's your usual stock-in-trade. You erect some paradigm that is fallacious in the first place, refuse to admit it, and keep arguing ad infinitem on that basis. I don't know whether you're pathologically stubborn or just rather dim-witted.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




Another outrageous lie. You know perfectly well that the "Time Stamp" (Item 7.20) suggestion is mine. I'm all in favor of fixing this. It's not a trivial issue, though.

Sure Curtis. I hang on your every word and am intensely aware of every suggestion you've ever made. That's how you know I'm 'lying.'

I guess I just assumed that since the problem is clear, you must be denying that it exists. See volume supply, see what happens when there's only one ton of munitions,see the effect of flak on attacking aircraft, and see probably about eight other things I can't recall at the moment.

It all gets to be a blur, you know? Curtis insisting on something patently idiotic.

It's worth noting that your notion that the presence of the surrounding unit should be timed by when the battle ends has some flaws. Not that there's much point in trying to get you to see that.