Comprehensive Wishlist

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

Is obsurantism a real word? Just wondering. Perhaps you meant obfuscation? One of my favorites.

'Obscurantism' most certainly is a word.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Spectacular. The planned and proposed changes you enumerate are completely irrelevant to the concerns I raised.

Why? Double the movement rate on an improved road and twice the stuff can be moved down it. It's going to make improved roads much more valuable. It would especially help the Desert War, as the coast road would focus supply on the coast.

Sure...but only because it'll all be moving twice as fast -- and presumably, twice as fast as would otherwise be possible.

I-5 can handle twice the traffic of US 97 -- but not because cars can average 140 mph on it instead of 70 mph. I'd say you're seeking to paper over the central issue rather than actually confronting it. A good road net will admittedly increase the maximum possible speed of a single vehicle somewhat -- but what it will really do is increase how much traffic can travel at the same speed. Where one panzer division could move along without undue delay, now three can. It's not that any one panzer division could go three times faster.

To bring the conversation back to earth, I'd look first of all at the traffic penalties and how to use them to make an improved road capable of handling significantly more traffic than an unimproved road. Second -- of course -- we actually need an actual volume-based supply system. The obstacles to getting this last might turn out to be insuperable, but that's something of an unknown. We never get that far in the discussion.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
I'd be more inclined to use the analogy of educated Russians and the last Tsar. Indeed, it all reminds me of their feelings about Rasputin. I suppose your sex life isn't as good as R-dude's -- but one does begin to get the same combination of concern for the future coupled with frustration at the sheer mindless obscurantism. Then too, there's the same uncertainty about the exact extent of your influence. It's really a rather good match.

This kind of post only proves your inability to be a decent human being.

Ever noticed how I've never initiated a conversation with you in my life? That is to say, unless it's been a personal attack, I can't recall responding to any post you've made? It's odd, too, because to put it mildly, I'm a prolific poster.

But not when it comes to you. That's because other than pointless verbal abuse, you never have anything to say. It's really quite an achievement -- a negative one, of course, but still...

Rhinobones. The world's first poster completely without redeeming social value. Have you ever said anything that could even be construed as constructive? Well, there were some mildly dim-witted but essentially harmless remarks, I suppose. No need to exaggerate.

But go ahead...we've been down this road before. You seem to have masochistic tendencies, so have another go.

Check out my byline for some of your earlier gems of manhood.

Regards, RhinoBones

Yes, Rhino. This isn't the first time you've tried to get me to acknowledge your byline. So okay -- I hereby acknowledge your byline. The pathetic thing is that in both cases you've managed to ignore the context and misconstrue my meaning. All you're doing is advertising your own mental acuity -- or lack thereof.

But again, by all means keep the quotes. I really find them only mildly irritating. I've often stalked off fuming about Curtis -- but about you? Never.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Spectacular. The planned and proposed changes you enumerate are completely irrelevant to the concerns I raised.

Why? Double the movement rate on an improved road and twice the stuff can be moved down it. It's going to make improved roads much more valuable. It would especially help the Desert War, as the coast road would focus supply on the coast.

But there you are. In point of fact, forces as large as a brigade operated deep in the desert -- and as far as I know, without any supply problems.

The difficulty is channeling a lot of supply out that far. That is to say, to support a force larger than a single brigade. Once again, the alternatives don't really provide satisfactory solutions -- what is needed is a true volume-based supply system.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
To bring the conversation back to earth, I'd look first of all at the traffic penalties and how to use them to make an improved road capable of handling significantly more traffic than an unimproved road. Second -- of course -- we actually need an actual volume-based supply system. The obstacles to getting this last might turn out to be insuperable, but that's something of an unknown. We never get that far in the discussion.

One of the things you would need to correct is how the game handles 'traffic'. Currenty it appears to me that it uses the old stacking method used in old board games. Traffic only counts if something is physically there during movement. Ideally, traffic would come into play during a turn even if something had been there during the turn but no longer is.

In other words, if two units had used the same number of movement points during a turn to get through a specific road hex then they would pay a traffic penalty for that hex. The problem arises when you consider this is not a rts game. You couldn't possibly make the first unit through the hex pay a penalty when you don't even know if a second unit will enter the hex at the same time. So you could only make the second unit pay a penalty even though the first unit was in the same traffic jam.

Supply would have to be handled the same way. If an improved road is used to route supply then the more supply routed down that road the less distance that supply could reach in a turn since a larger amount of traffic on a road would reduce the overall speed any suppy could achieve. Or better yet reduce the amount of supply reaching units based on how many units a road has to supply.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
To bring the conversation back to earth, I'd look first of all at the traffic penalties and how to use them to make an improved road capable of handling significantly more traffic than an unimproved road. Second -- of course -- we actually need an actual volume-based supply system. The obstacles to getting this last might turn out to be insuperable, but that's something of an unknown. We never get that far in the discussion.

One of the things you would need to correct is how the game handles 'traffic'. Currenty it appears to me that it uses the old stacking method used in old board games. Traffic only counts if something is physically there during movement. Ideally, traffic would come into play during a turn even if something had been there during the turn but no longer is.

In other words, if two units had used the same number of movement points during a turn to get through a specific road hex then they would pay a traffic penalty for that hex. The problem arises when you consider this is not a rts game. You couldn't possibly make the first unit through the hex pay a penalty when you don't even know if a second unit will enter the hex at the same time. So you could only make the second unit pay a penalty even though the first unit was in the same traffic jam...

Yeah. At least for now, the imperfect solution would be to just say the penalties get worse for the later units. After all, an army can always give a unit priority. 'Clear the way -- Brigade Panama has to come through.' You simulate 'Brigade Panama' having such a priority by moving it first.

What I'm visualizing at the moment is a system where the designer assigns 'capacity' for improved and unimproved roads. Like, say, 5000 unit weight points for improved roads and 2000 for unimproved. Then units can travel through the hex without penalty until 100% of the capacity has been consumed. From 100% to 200%, the hex costs an extra MP. From 200% to 300% an extra two MP's. Etc.

One could get some very realistic outcomes this way. For example, in the move across the Ardennes, infantry divisions got in the way of 5th Panzer. As a result, it was seriously delayed. So you shoved the infantry divisions down the road first -- and now 5th Panzer is paying 3 MP for every hex it enters.

Supply, now -- well, there is a more elaborate problem. However, I think it could be handled with an elaboration of the above mechanism. Players could assign 'supply priority' to various units -- or even be denied such an ability by the designer to simulate such things as the broad front 'strategy' the Allies used in 1944-45 to keep both Montgomery and the Americans happy.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Sure...but only because it'll all be moving twice as fast -- and presumably, twice as fast as would otherwise be possible.

The Fast Motorized rate in TOAW is a little over 94km per day. That's over friendly-owned hexes. (That averages less than 4km/hour, by the way). Enemy-owned hexes would add the hex-conversion cost to that, dropping it to 47km per day. We know that there were advances over enemy territory in excess of 150km per day. So, halving the cost would allow 188km per day over friendly hexes and about 63km per day over enemy hexes. So, it's not unrealistic at all. Also, note that this was a feature of the SPI CFNA wargame.

I-5 can handle twice the traffic of US 97.

Because it has four lanes instead of two. In contrast, a dirt road has two lanes, just like a paved highway. The difference between them is the speed that motor vehicles can travel on them.

I'd say you're seeking to paper over the central issue rather than actually confronting it. A good road net will admittedly increase the maximum possible speed of a single vehicle somewhat -- but what it will really do is increase how much traffic can travel at the same speed. Where one panzer division could move along without undue delay, now three can. It's not that any one panzer division could go three times faster.

No. That's absurd. If it has the same number of lanes and traffic is traveling at the same speed, then the traffic flow is the same for both. Again, the difference is the speed possible. That's what makes a paved road superior to a dirt one.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

But there you are. In point of fact, forces as large as a brigade operated deep in the desert -- and as far as I know, without any supply problems.

Without much combat, though - in contrast to the main forces. If you sit around most of the time, supply will correctly build up in TOAW, regardless of the rate.

The difficulty is channeling a lot of supply out that far. That is to say, to support a force larger than a single brigade. Once again, the alternatives don't really provide satisfactory solutions -- what is needed is a true volume-based supply system.

All that I need is the speed advantage for the coast road. It would correctly focus supply on the coast. Well, to be certain, I would need the 5.9 wish, too - ending infinite supply lines.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Panama

One of the things you would need to correct is how the game handles 'traffic'. Currenty it appears to me that it uses the old stacking method used in old board games. Traffic only counts if something is physically there during movement. Ideally, traffic would come into play during a turn even if something had been there during the turn but no longer is.

In other words, if two units had used the same number of movement points during a turn to get through a specific road hex then they would pay a traffic penalty for that hex. The problem arises when you consider this is not a rts game. You couldn't possibly make the first unit through the hex pay a penalty when you don't even know if a second unit will enter the hex at the same time. So you could only make the second unit pay a penalty even though the first unit was in the same traffic jam.

I think this would be very difficult to do and would be unnecessary. Maybe you can conjure up some artificial situation where a logjam doesn't cause traffic penalties, but in real games, they do. Those penalties are sufficient.

Supply would have to be handled the same way. If an improved road is used to route supply then the more supply routed down that road the less distance that supply could reach in a turn since a larger amount of traffic on a road would reduce the overall speed any suppy could achieve. Or better yet reduce the amount of supply reaching units based on how many units a road has to supply.

Again, the new version applies traffic penalties to the supply distance - where there actually are traffic penalties. Absent those penalties - like out in the middle of nowhere - there is no need to figure how many trucks passed over the hex. The capacity is so huge it needn't be a concern.

Just think about the amount of supply that can be pushed down a dirt road out in the middle-of-nowhere in a day:

94km per day, 20 trucks per km, 4.5 tons per truck = 8,460 tons per day. Rommel's Panzerarmee Africa required a little over 60,000 tons per month = a little over 2,000 tons per day. So, the "supply capacity" of a dirt road is enough to supply four armies. Now, if you take a more realistic rate of travel, say 10km/hour, it more than doubles. Take a paved road and it doubles again. And that's delivering full supply - right on the supply point. Extend a few hundred miles and the truck density drops accordingly.

So, the supply trucks themselves aren't going to be the issue. It's the traffic penalties encountered at the front lines - and those are already built in - or will be in 3.4.

[ColinWright]

Sigh.

[Panama]

I see. The Axis on the East Front and the Allies on the West Front would have loved to have known these things. They would have had no problems with logistics if they had just stopped to reason things out. I guess they were pretty stupid, eh?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

I see. The Axis on the East Front and the Allies on the West Front would have loved to have known these things. They would have had no problems with logistics if they had just stopped to reason things out. I guess they were pretty stupid, eh?

Hey. They went through the whole North African campaign without realizing what great trenches wadis make. What can you say?

[desert]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Ever noticed how I've never initiated a conversation with you in my life? That is to say, unless it's been a personal attack, I can't recall responding to any post you've made? It's odd, too, because to put it mildly, I'm a prolific poster.

First forum I've ever seen where a little over a post a day (many of those being a sentence long) makes you a prolific poster.

I'm not insulting you, this is just a weird habit some of you seem to have: making a separate post for every point or member you address.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: desert

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Ever noticed how I've never initiated a conversation with you in my life? That is to say, unless it's been a personal attack, I can't recall responding to any post you've made? It's odd, too, because to put it mildly, I'm a prolific poster.

First forum I've ever seen where a little over a post a day (many of those being a sentence long) makes you a prolific poster.

I'm not insulting you, this is just a weird habit some of you seem to have: making a separate post for every point or member you address.

I thought that's what everyone did. It seems that is what everyone does. Are you suggesting one post comprehensively responding to the posts of five different individuals?

[desert]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I thought that's what everyone did. It seems that is what everyone does. Are you suggesting one post comprehensively responding to the posts of five different individuals?

I've never seen it done that way in any other forum. Double (and triple!) posting is usually frowned upon and offenders usually apologize for doing it.

I've seen single replies longer than most pages in this thread.

Hell, you replied to the same post twice earlier today. In the space of ten minutes. And you edited it over 12 hours later, so why would you feel any compunction about editing in the extra material in the first place?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: desert

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I thought that's what everyone did. It seems that is what everyone does. Are you suggesting one post comprehensively responding to the posts of five different individuals?

I've never seen it done that way in any other forum. Double (and triple!) posting is usually frowned upon and offenders usually apologize for doing it.

I've seen single replies longer than most pages in this thread.

Hell, you replied to the same post twice earlier today. In the space of ten minutes. And you edited it over 12 hours later, so why would you feel any compunction about editing in the extra material in the first place?

Why two short posts are bad but one long post is good escapes me.

I must have had two different points to make. As to editing it later, if I notice an error, or feel the wording could be improved, I certainly see it as desirable to make the change.

Anyway, if you want to write page-long posts, I won't object.

[desert]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Why two short posts are bad but one long post is good escapes me.

I must have had two different points to make. As to editing it later, if I notice an error, or feel the wording could be improved, I certainly see it as desirable to make the change.

Anyway, if you want to write page-long posts, I won't object.

I have nothing of value to say. I'd rather not waste anyone's time.

[desert]

What do you think of irony?

[Panama]

For myself, I prefer coppery or silvery. Irony reminds me too much of Mars. All that red. bleh. What was this thread about again?

[Veers]

[:D]