value of depicting rear area ops, again

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Just now realized. You have called everyone not in a front line combat unit a coward. [:D]

I think it's a bit unreasonable to describe someone as a coward just because they surrender. Generally, that's what rear area personnel do when they're caught by enemy troops. The situations where they can be rounded up to fight are the exceptions.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Yeah he has mentioned it a time or two.

OK, well here's what I can remember of how I thought this should work out:

First off, each supply point would have a capacity- I'll call it tons for the sake of simplicity but it could be expressed in a different way- and each unit would have a consumption: how many tons supply to recover 1 point of supply. This is reasonably easy to build up from equipment pieces just like the unit weight; I would make it a function of AP+AT+AA strength, the "weight" of the equipment and whether it acts as transport or not (so that 1 "TOAW truck" consumes more fuel than 1 TOAW armoured car of a similar weight)

Then, each hex would have a carrying capacity: how many tons can pass through here per turn? That depends on the scales, what kind of terrain is in the hex, the interdiction rate and a force-specific variable set by the designer. The Supply Radius variable is co-opted into how far forward supply can move in a single turn. The player could designate forward supply dumps which can both receive and deliver supply.

The really hard part would be the calculation. First, all units need to be assigned to a supply source. If more than one supply source is in range (according to the supply radius) then the system needs a way of determining which one should deliver supply to that unit. I'd suggest this should be based on formation and under the player's control: each formation has a default supply source; if that's not in range the closest is used (which would not necessarily be the best choice). Then the total supply needs of all units in range are calculated. Assuming they can't be fully met, the game would determine what % of that need can be met, and then assign that evenly across all units in range. i.e. if the total need is 1,000 and the capacity is 100, a unit which needs 10 gets assigned 1.

This allows the game to calculate how much supply is moving through each hex according to this distribution, with supply moving by the shortest route (in terms of movement rate). The game can then identify any hexes which exceed capacity, and do some sort of preliminary search for alternative routes for the excess, but this would not need to be exhaustive as the player can create his own diversions with forward supply dumps. The supply level for units depending on such routes are then pro-rated down again accordingly, with the balance of supply remaining in the supply source to be used on a subsequent turn. Unit movement could also count against the total capacity of hexes for supply purposes for the following turn.

This would cover the basics. If you have units far ahead of your supply sources, you have to establish forward depots or they get nothing. Add more units to a strained sector and everyone gets less supply. If you fall back along your supply line, you'll pick up loads of goodies along the way while the other guy will take a while for supply to "catch up".

There's lots that can be added- the capacity to actually deliver supplies on a given turn, prioritisation of different formations, a map overlay so the player can see what routes on his supply network are under strain and where to prioritise opening new ones, the possibility for forward supply dumps to be captured, supply capacity for anchorages and airfields, a co-operation level for supply points for multi-force scenarios- but these are the main points.

I consider this volume-based approach to be significantly more important than breaking down supply by different types of consumption, but the latter is a lot easier to code and ideally you'd do both.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Just now realized. You have called everyone not in a front line combat unit a coward. [:D]

I think it's a bit unreasonable to describe someone as a coward just because they surrender. Generally, that's what rear area personnel do when they're caught by enemy troops. The situations where they can be rounded up to fight are the exceptions.

I was kidding. Although Chesty Puller or Patton would slap you for that. [:D]

[Lobster]

Well, Bob doesn't budge on much so it's probably his way or the highway. [;)]

So yeah, not really any reason to break it up between beans and bullets since what is needed is all printed out someplace already as total tonnage needed. Just total tonnage to keep a unit supplied is all you need. I think your way would be much easier to do than breaking it all down. And if you break it all down to beans and bullets and pol and, in the desert, water you might as well be playing SPI's North Africa Campaign. Looking at all the planned stuff I'm worried about how complex things are going to get. Your way would add some simplicity since most of it will be handled by the computer and no worries about any single supply type.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Well, Bob doesn't budge on much so it's probably his way or the highway. [;)]

So yeah, not really any reason to break it up between beans and bullets since what is needed is all printed out someplace already as total tonnage needed. Just total tonnage to keep a unit supplied is all you need. I think your way would be much easier to do than breaking it all down. And if you break it all down to beans and bullets and pol and, in the desert, water you might as well be playing SPI's North Africa Campaign. Looking at all the planned stuff I'm worried about how complex things are going to get. Your way would add some simplicity since most of it will be handled by the computer and no worries about any single supply type.

It's a lot easier to understand Bob if you work out what scenarios he's interested in. He's probably looking at some American Civil War scenario and thinking about how to reflect the fact that it's no trouble keeping the Confederate Army fed (as long as it keeps moving) but resupplying ammunition is another matter. Well, in TOAW today you can't manage this, because a unit either resupplies or it doesn't.

The whole naval warfare mechanic which is focused on ships becoming less effective as they get damaged makes sense when you understand that it's intended to support his Okinawa scenario.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Well, Bob doesn't budge on much so it's probably his way or the highway. [;)]

Amazingly, I have total control over myself. It's almost like I'm a free person. No control over Ralph, however.

So yeah, not really any reason to break it up between beans and bullets since what is needed is all printed out someplace already as total tonnage needed. Just total tonnage to keep a unit supplied is all you need. I think your way would be much easier to do than breaking it all down. And if you break it all down to beans and bullets and pol and, in the desert, water you might as well be playing SPI's North Africa Campaign. Looking at all the planned stuff I'm worried about how complex things are going to get. Your way would add some simplicity since most of it will be handled by the computer and no worries about any single supply type.

It doesn't bother you that you move a unit some distance - no combat - and when it arrives, it somehow has spent all its ammo! Component supply pays off in usage, not delivery. Different supply components are used in different circumstances.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Well, Bob doesn't budge on much so it's probably his way or the highway. [;)]

So yeah, not really any reason to break it up between beans and bullets since what is needed is all printed out someplace already as total tonnage needed. Just total tonnage to keep a unit supplied is all you need. I think your way would be much easier to do than breaking it all down. And if you break it all down to beans and bullets and pol and, in the desert, water you might as well be playing SPI's North Africa Campaign. Looking at all the planned stuff I'm worried about how complex things are going to get. Your way would add some simplicity since most of it will be handled by the computer and no worries about any single supply type.

It's a lot easier to understand Bob if you work out what scenarios he's interested in.

Everything from Leipzig to NATO vs. Warsaw Pact.

He's probably looking at some American Civil War scenario and thinking about how to reflect the fact that it's no trouble keeping the Confederate Army fed (as long as it keeps moving) but resupplying ammunition is another matter. Well, in TOAW today you can't manage this, because a unit either resupplies or it doesn't.

Not if I add that battalion of Tiger II's to the ANV!

The whole naval warfare mechanic which is focused on ships becoming less effective as they get damaged makes sense when you understand that it's intended to support his Okinawa scenario.

Or any other topic that involved ships!

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Not if I add that battalion of Tiger II's to the ANV!

I'm not sure there were any bridges capable of carrying a Tiger II in 1863 so they wouldn't have been able to cross the Potomac without going well upstream- at which point they'd probably run out of fuel. You'll have to stick to AK-47s.

Or any other topic that involved ships!

Normally, damaged ships go home to get un-damaged (become "disabled" and return to the replacements engine). At any TOAW scale, the battle is over in a single turn, probably a single round of combat. You don't then go off to the next battle with a 12 degree list and one turret out of action.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Not if I add that battalion of Tiger II's to the ANV!

I'm not sure there were any bridges capable of carrying a Tiger II in 1863 so they wouldn't have been able to cross the Potomac without going well upstream- at which point they'd probably run out of fuel. You'll have to stick to AK-47s.

The Potomac is wadeable at many points. Their fuel needs are why we need component supply! Don't need AK-47s if you've got Tiger II's!

Or any other topic that involved ships!

Normally, damaged ships go home to get un-damaged (become "disabled" and return to the replacements engine).

Relying on the replacement system to return ships from damage was a farce. Luckly we now have a servicable repair feature.

At any TOAW scale, the battle is over in a single turn, probably a single round of combat. You don't then go off to the next battle with a 12 degree list and one turret out of action.

Assuming they can get away.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



Assuming they can get away.

Well, your real issue is that land combat scales and naval combat scales are totally incompatible. If leg infantry have a movement rate of six or whatever then naval units have a movement rate of 100. No wonder the French were able to get out of the Mediterranean before Nelson even knew they were out of port!

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Well, your real issue is that land combat scales and naval combat scales are totally incompatible. If leg infantry have a movement rate of six or whatever then naval units have a movement rate of 100. No wonder the French were able to get out of the Mediterranean before Nelson even knew they were out of port!

Naval warfare is a big subject. Lots further to go. Naval Reaction, for example.

Land combat and air combat scales are also totally incompatible. Yet we do both.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



Naval warfare is a big subject. Lots further to go. Naval Reaction, for example.

Land combat and air combat scales are also totally incompatible. Yet we do both.

That's a really good analogy. It would be interesting if naval units were handled like air units.

[Lobster]

It's worked just fine for 23 years without making supply more complex. Don't see a need to add more complexity. With all the other complexity planned it's going to be a a non seller. Hopefully there's a whole page of on/off switches so people can ease themselves into it. But hey, talking to the wall. [;)]

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

It doesn't bother you that you move a unit some distance - no combat - and when it arrives, it somehow has spent all its ammo! Component supply pays off in usage, not delivery. Different supply components are used in different circumstances.

It doesn't matter if a unit arrives and there's no food. It doesn't matter if a unit can't get there if there's no pol/fodder to get it there. It doesn't matter if a unit arrives and there's no ammo. It all matters. Why go to all the trouble of splitting it up if, without one component, the others don't matter? [;)]

It won't matter how much time you spend on this if it's so complex only a handful bothers to buy it.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

It doesn't bother you that you move a unit some distance - no combat - and when it arrives, it somehow has spent all its ammo! Component supply pays off in usage, not delivery. Different supply components are used in different circumstances.

It doesn't matter if a unit arrives and there's no food. It doesn't matter if a unit can't get there if there's no pol/fodder to get it there. It doesn't matter if a unit arrives and there's no ammo. It all matters. Why go to all the trouble of splitting it up if, without one component, the others don't matter? [;)]

It won't matter how much time you spend on this if it's so complex only a handful bothers to buy it.

You're being ridiculus. The petrol needed to do combat is only a tiny fraction of the petrol needed to travel long distances. So, a unit can be very low on petrol after driving to the target yet flush with ammo and have very little debilitation of its combat power. And then there's foot units.

As for complex - WitP:AE has petrol and ammo split up as well. Also note the practice of targeting fuel carriers over all else. Gotta split it up for that to be modeled.

[Lobster]

Ah yes. Typical Bob response. You're being ridiculous. You're throwing a tantrum. You're being childish. You're in a snit. Blah blah blah. 14+ years of the same drivel. [8|]

So for 23 years the game hasn't worked right because supply is badly modeled. So lets redo the entire naval end and throw in leaders first. [:D]

[Lobster]

You're talking about naval in a game Norm intended to be a ground game again but that's not the real issue.

This is:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

As for complex -... Gotta split it up for that to be modeled.

Bang...you hit the nail on the head. If you want to accomplish a complex task you have to split it up. You need to have a team. But your paranoia about someone defecting and making the code public has put blinders on your eyes. If you create a team to accomplish all of your goals no one but you needs to have all of the code. You can split off parts of the project you want others to work on.

Awhile back Ralph told me Norm was a decent programmer. If that's true then there shouldn't be much of a problem assigning a volunteer a portion of code that accomplishes whatever task you assign them. Let someone else code the supply. Let someone else debug hierarchy. You can concentrate on something else until they send you their work so you can fit it into the program and find bugs for that team member to debug. I've seen plenty of people offer their assistance.

Unless you're a control freak this is basically how a complex programming project is done. After that it's just a question of how badly all the new stuff affects optimization. Probably won't be good. [;)]

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Ah yes. Typical Bob response. You're being ridiculous. You're throwing a tantrum. You're being childish. You're in a snit. Blah blah blah. 14+ years of the same drivel. [8|]

So for 23 years the game hasn't worked right because supply is badly modeled. So lets redo the entire naval end and throw in leaders first. [:D]

If this isn't a tantrum, I don't know what one is.

And, yes, supply is a very valid target for improvement. Overseas supply has been missing forever, for example. And why add that if the naval stuff isn't there first?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster


You're talking about naval in a game Norm intended to be a ground game again but that's not the real issue.

TOAW is whatever we make it.

Bang...you hit the nail on the head. If you want to accomplish a complex task you have to split it up. You need to have a team. But your paranoia about someone defecting and making the code public has put blinders on your eyes. If you create a team to accomplish all of your goals no one but you needs to have all of the code. You can split off parts of the project you want others to work on.

Awhile back Ralph told me Norm was a decent programmer. If that's true then there shouldn't be much of a problem assigning a volunteer a portion of code that accomplishes whatever task you assign them. Let someone else code the supply. Let someone else debug hierarchy. You can concentrate on something else until they send you their work so you can fit it into the program and find bugs for that team member to debug. I've seen plenty of people offer their assistance.

Unless you're a control freak this is basically how a complex programming project is done. After that it's just a question of how badly all the new stuff affects optimization. Probably won't be good. [;)]

Again, I don't control hiring, or have any sayso about it. But your current actions certainly illustrate how risky a bad actor in a snit could be.

[Lobster]

But you do have the ability to get help. You just choose not to. Regardless of whether or not someone has taken actor classes any programmer worth their salt can manage a team and assign portions of a program to individual. But you just totally disregard that and instead pretend that you would have to hand out the entire set of code. You can admit that you don't want any help.

Exactly what kind of acting classes are Snits allowed in anyway? That's a new one on me. Is that like a Moot? Do they have bad acting classes for them too? [:D][:D][:D][:D]

BTW, you've used snit twice in a row. I think you need to use tantrum or some other demeaning word now. [:D]