Some questions about the latest patch

[1_Lzard]

NDA's, Colin, NDA's............couldn't talk about it then, can't now!

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Looked for this, but couldn't find it. The only thing that turned up was this:

However, I admit that the amount of redirection of logistical transport assets is arbitrary. it would be nice if it could be varied as designers and players wanted. The way to do that is, as I've said, by making it possible for multiple Supply Units to combine their effects. Then, if you want a greater effect, you can throw more and more Supply Units at the problem.

This would appear to simply offer the choice of having lots of supply units and herding them all together.

I've already noted the problems with that.

Right. Daisy chains. Something Supply Units have never required.

Nevertheless, I had further refined the above with this:

Now, there can be more sophistication than just a simple combination of Supply Units. For example, there could be an editor parameter that defined the quantity of transport necessary for a Supply Unit to deduct one radius. Then, units with more or less transport would deduct more or less. This would then allow enemy bombardment to directly impact the SUs impact - since a reduction by losses would have the same effect as a reduction by design. This is in contrast to now, when you have to eliminate the SU to have any effect.

This would, as I said, allow you to make any supply unit as powerful as you desire.

In the end, you've broken it.

No. Its original design function has been enhanced. And the original, retrograde, way it worked is still available under Old Supply.

...and while you are beginning to resort to verbal abuse,...

That is known, in TOAW terms, as Counterbattery Fire. You've made this thread personnel from the start and in every post up to this point.

...you've yet to offer a coherent reason why this couldn't be done.

None that can convince you. But then, it's not the job of the prosecutor to convince the defense attorney of anything.

I have, in fact, proven that what you want is a kluge. And not a very good one at that. If it had ever worked then there wouldn't be the clamor for sea supply that there is. We can't be handcuffed by anyone's misuse of one of TOAW's features from improving that feature.

In fact, I'm hopeful that we'll have some sort of true sea/air supply mechanism in operation before too long. What would we need this kluge for then?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


That is known, in TOAW terms, as Counterbattery Fire. You've made this thread personnel from the start and in every post up to this point.

Well, here are the remarks you have made over the past month or so.

'you repeat this idiotic claim'

'Don't buy his kool-aid,'

'only an imbecile would draw it that way'

'I know you're full of it'

'you can repeat your nonsense indefinitely'

'this endless deluge of stupidity'

'he's the worst web troll I've ever encountered'

'TOAW is too important to allow his monstrously stupid ideas to pollute it'


Now, you can go back and list whatever remarks you please that I've addressed to you (or for that matter, anyone else) over the past month. We can compare and contrast.

However, while I am sure you will respond, I am also sure you will not do this.

[ColinWright]

Let me ask one question -- one which I would really like to see directly answered.

How much trouble would it be -- actually -- to allow supply units to function as they used to under the new system? To simply add 25% of the base supply to all hexes within the full supply radius of the supply unit?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Now, you can go back and list whatever remarks you please that I've addressed to you (or for that matter, anyone else) over the past month. We can compare and contrast.

However, while I am sure you will respond, I am also sure you will not do this.

I can only assume that you're oblivious to your own offensive behavior. I think that makes you some sort of sociopath, doesn't it? Virtually every post you've made in this thread (and in the most recently completed thread) was filled with personnel vindictive malice. Anyone can see it without my needing to list it (which would take a few days). That’s how you operate when anyone dares to stand up to you.

But, that doesn’t matter. The important thing is that you were wrong on this issue. What you were doing was a kluge, and was never an intended use of Supply Units. The change that was made was necessary to eliminate infinite supply lines. Otherwise, a force with a supply unit could just carry it along all the way to Vladivostok and stay at 25% supply the whole way – like it was magic beans or something.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Now, you can go back and list whatever remarks you please that I've addressed to you (or for that matter, anyone else) over the past month. We can compare and contrast.

However, while I am sure you will respond, I am also sure you will not do this.

I can only assume that you're oblivious to your own offensive behavior. I think that makes you some sort of sociopath, doesn't it? Virtually every post you've made in this thread (and in the most recently completed thread) was filled with personnel vindictive malice. Anyone can see it without my needing to list it (which would take a few days).

I notice you find yourself unable to actually list much.

The real problem is the position you occupy. It means that your personal deficiencies are not merely exasperating, but an actual bar to progress. You seem to be pathologically incapable of allowing evidence or the arguments of others to lead you to modify your position. You probably perceive this to be a sign of strength, but it's not.

[ColinWright]

Try Five.

Let me ask one question -- one which I would really like to see directly answered.

How much trouble would it be -- actually -- to allow supply units to function as they used to under the new system? To simply add 25% of the base supply to all hexes within the full supply radius of the supply unit?

[ColinWright]

...

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

The real problem is the position you occupy. It means that your personal deficiencies are not merely exasperating, but an actual bar to progress. You seem to be pathologically incapable of allowing evidence or the arguments of others to lead you to modify your position. You probably perceive this to be a sign of strength, but it's not.

Ok, let's list this post then.

Literally every post that comes out of you is an Ad Hominem remark. You seem to be oblivious to it as well.

And, just for the record, you couldn't have described yourself better than with the above. But I can assure you that your bullying tactics are never going to work. They just mean that you will be righteously subject to in-kind responses.

As to my position: Obstructing bad ideas is a good thing. Nevertheless, I did offer a sterling solution (that's called modifying your position, by the way) - which you rejected without even considering.

[shunwick]

There should be popcorn. [;)]

Best wishes,
Steve

[ColinWright]

Try Six.

Let me ask one question -- one which I would really like to see directly answered.

How much trouble would it be -- actually -- to allow supply units to function as they used to under the new system? To simply add 25% of the base supply to all hexes within the full supply radius of the supply unit?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

The real problem is the position you occupy. It means that your personal deficiencies are not merely exasperating, but an actual bar to progress. You seem to be pathologically incapable of allowing evidence or the arguments of others to lead you to modify your position. You probably perceive this to be a sign of strength, but it's not.

Ok, let's list this post then.

Literally every post that comes out of you is an Ad Hominem remark. You seem to be oblivious to it as well.

And, just for the record, you couldn't have described yourself better than with the above. But I can assure you that your bullying tactics are never going to work. They just mean that you will be righteously subject to in-kind responses.

This completely ignores the actual sequence of events. You made free with the verbal abuse until I finally began to respond.

As to my position: Obstructing bad ideas is a good thing. Nevertheless, I did offer a sterling solution (that's called modifying your position, by the way) - which you rejected without even considering.

You'll note that I'm not involved in anything like this with anyone else here at the moment. Conversely, few dare to offer more than the most diffident remarks about anything you propose.

One effect your tactics have is that they make any discussion of the actual merits of your ideas and actions virtually impossible. This in turn serves to obscure their weakness.

You have some good ideas, Curtis. You also have some bad ones. The flaws can never be discussed because you effectively prevent any discussion by abusing your critics until they respond in kind -- as has happened with you and me over the past month. I spent weeks wiping the spittle off my face as I pointed out what was wrong with your 'matrix.' You probably still think it's a good idea.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

This completely ignores the actual sequence of events. You made free with the verbal abuse until I finally began to respond.

Spoken like a true sociopath. Of course you are oblivious to your own vile behavior.

I spent weeks wiping the spittle off my face as I pointed out what was wrong with your 'matrix.' You probably still think it's a good idea.

Sure seemed to me like it was discussed. And it's a positively brilliant idea. It can do every thing a tile can do, plus fix existing scenarios, and it's trivial to code. And, if I ever get the second matrix done, it can fix that even thornier problem you raised. Sorry you can't appreciate it. Maybe you will after you see it in operation.

[ColinWright]

Now I know how the priest felt.

[ColinWright]

Anyway, try seven.

Let me ask one question -- one which I would really like to see directly answered.

How much trouble would it be -- actually -- to allow supply units to function as they used to under the new system? To simply add 25% of the base supply to all hexes within the full supply radius of the supply unit?

I don't suppose direct answers to simple questions are on offer?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



And it's a positively brilliant idea.

Notice all the accolades it got.