supply - esp for mech units

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
..errr, yeah but..

..ok toaw works ok, buuutttt communication does not equal supply, my gallopers can get thru to you, but on one horse just how much do you think they can carry ?..

Yes. As posted elsewhere in this thread, the issue of infinite supply lines needs to be addressed, and there needs to be an intermediate state between "supplied" and "unsupplied".

..it does need reworking to something on the attack-capable/defence-only scale..

Possibly. I'm not really convinced there's a difference. I'd say if you can defend you can attack. It's just that whether you defend is up to the enemy's side, while whether you attack is up to your side. And the incentive is already in the game for players to make the choice not to attack if it's going to be suicide.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..oh and errr, 1 DCR at Dinant rolled in on their tracks, unfortunately their petrol-bowsers were delayed by the Luftwaffe, this created a series of pill-boxes that German's went round..

..plenty of shells, no bloody fuel..

I'm all in favor of splitting supply into its components. I don't think anyone is arguing against it (except maybe Ralph - since he'd have to do it).

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..oh and errr, 1 DCR at Dinant rolled in on their tracks, unfortunately their petrol-bowsers were delayed by the Luftwaffe, this created a series of pill-boxes that German's went round..

..plenty of shells, no bloody fuel..

I'm all in favor of splitting supply into its components. I don't think anyone is arguing against it (except maybe Ralph - since he'd have to do it).

I have two concerns.
1) Elmer
2) It has to be optional, either at the scenario, or preferably the player level.
3) Designing and playing are going to be more complicated. I don't want TOAW becoming a quartermaster game. While I know it's important, and a few individuals would find it fascinating to move gallons of fuel, loaves of bread in 22 shells around, a lot of people would find that increadibly boring.

We need to figure out how to display the information in a way that makes sense, and how to make sure that it doesn't interfere with the gameplay.

If we add the three features, and it helps two scenarios, and complicates the rest of them, was it worth it? Are players going to understand that these people can't fight because of Beans, these because of Bullets, and these because of Fuel, and that they need to do the following different things to resolve each issue?

Ralph

[Veers]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..oh and errr, 1 DCR at Dinant rolled in on their tracks, unfortunately their petrol-bowsers were delayed by the Luftwaffe, this created a series of pill-boxes that German's went round..

..plenty of shells, no bloody fuel..

I'm all in favor of splitting supply into its components. I don't think anyone is arguing against it (except maybe Ralph - since he'd have to do it).

I have two concerns.
1) Elmer
2) It has to be optional, either at the scenario, or preferably the player level.
3) Designing and playing are going to be more complicated. I don't want TOAW becoming a quartermaster game. While I know it's important, and a few individuals would find it fascinating to move gallons of fuel, loaves of bread in 22 shells around, a lot of people would find that increadibly boring.

We need to figure out how to display the information in a way that makes sense, and how to make sure that it doesn't interfere with the gameplay.

If we add the three features, and it helps two scenarios, and complicates the rest of them, was it worth it? Are players going to understand that these people can't fight because of Beans, these because of Bullets, and these because of Fuel, and that they need to do the following different things to resolve each issue?

Ralph

It may be less complex and easier to just be able to set a max distance that an SP can provide supply until. That way, if you're invading North America, you won't end up supplied by an SP in Florida, while you own nothing between the two beachheads.
Likewise, you would see troops running out of supply if they were too far away from a rail head in FitE (as, presumably, the SPs would have a max range off rail, so that supply can go on forever if there is a proper rail net, but would eventually end if there were no rails for the supply to travel on).

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Veers
It may be less complex and easier to just be able to set a max distance that an SP can provide supply until. That way, if you're invading North America, you won't end up supplied by an SP in Florida, while you own nothing between the two beachheads.
Likewise, you would see troops running out of supply if they were too far away from a rail head in FitE (as, presumably, the SPs would have a max range off rail, so that supply can go on forever if there is a proper rail net, but would eventually end if there were no rails for the supply to travel on).

We'll throw some ideas around for the next patch, and see what makes sense long-term and short-term. In the mean-time, it's fun to watch the discussion. It's been pretty civilized.

There are many other options that haven't been mentioned (possibly people didn't know they were possible) like allowing different supply levels other than the low medium and high levels, and making the supply rules follow the normal MP penalties when looking at the supply radius. These aren't the three supply types, but there are other things that might be possible with the faster processors.

Ralph

[SMK-at-work]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

3) Designing and playing are going to be more complicated. I don't want TOAW becoming a quartermaster game. While I know it's important, and a few individuals would find it fascinating to move gallons of fuel, loaves of bread in 22 shells around, a lot of people would find that increadibly boring.

We need to figure out how to display the information in a way that makes sense, and how to make sure that it doesn't interfere with the gameplay.

If we add the three features, and it helps two scenarios, and complicates the rest of them, was it worth it? Are players going to understand that these people can't fight because of Beans, these because of Bullets, and these because of Fuel, and that they need to do the following different things to resolve each issue?

I think there's a bit of argument by reduction to absurd extremes in your written words....I dont' know anyone who wants to count loaves of bread as part of a wargame!![8|]

And I agree that whatever the system is has to be "user friendly".

I think we need to keep in mind that the goal is to replicate/simulate "real life" (at least I hope it is) as simply as possible - where the system has demonstrable shortcomings then the fixes should remain as simple as possible.

Eg I don't see why keeping track of ammo or fuel should make the game into a quarter-master-simulator - something liek the red/yellow/green indicators are all that's required - yuor unit is in the red for ammo.......so moving is OK, but stay out of combat for a bit.....or your unit doesn't seem to be able to move/move very far.....check the fuel state - oops - it's low, leave it where it is for a turn......

[Zort]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
I dont' know anyone who wants to count loaves of bread as part of a wargame!![8|]

Eg I don't see why keeping track of ammo or fuel should make the game into a quarter-master-simulator - something liek the red/yellow/green indicators are all that's required - yuor unit is in the red for ammo.......so moving is OK, but stay out of combat for a bit.....or your unit doesn't seem to be able to move/move very far.....check the fuel state - oops - it's low, leave it where it is for a turn......

Now just checking an indicator is fine to determine supply level but what mechanism would we use to tell the computer to send said ammo/fuel to the hurting unit? So unless the computer is going to manage supplies, we are I think back to counting loaves of bread or crates of bullets.

[SMK-at-work]

Cant' see it being too hard - units already only get a proportion of available supply IIRC - increase it for those with lower supply.

Supply is still "infinite" - ie supply sources never run out of supply regardless of how many units are drawing from them - so increasing supply to low supply units doesn't take away from others (which it really should, but IMO that's a lesser evil.....although still one that would be nice to clean up).

Supply units in larger campaigns can "direct" supply geographically, if not actually to specific units in need, and provide an extra boost to units adjacent to them I believe - even more so than HQ's - so to a limited extent you can direct supplies in this manner.

Edit:
If stockpiles weer used in the game then conceivably supply allocation for formations could be handled by a tree, where each formation is given a level somethign like minimal, adequate defence, adequate atack, surplus. Sub-formations could be given different ones if you wanted to, or by default they'd just share equally from their parent.

so if you had a particular division you wanted to give more supplies to you'd find it in the formations "tree", and give it a higher priority - this would lower supply to otehr div's in that formation by an appropriate amount too.

However I don't see this happening in any patch to TOAW III!!

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..oh and errr, 1 DCR at Dinant rolled in on their tracks, unfortunately their petrol-bowsers were delayed by the Luftwaffe, this created a series of pill-boxes that German's went round..

..plenty of shells, no bloody fuel..

I'm all in favor of splitting supply into its components. I don't think anyone is arguing against it (except maybe Ralph - since he'd have to do it).

..there i'm not in favour unless there's an opt-out button, too much micro-management..

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..oh and errr, 1 DCR at Dinant rolled in on their tracks, unfortunately their petrol-bowsers were delayed by the Luftwaffe, this created a series of pill-boxes that German's went round..

..plenty of shells, no bloody fuel..

I'm all in favor of splitting supply into its components. I don't think anyone is arguing against it (except maybe Ralph - since he'd have to do it).

I have two concerns.
1) Elmer
2) It has to be optional, either at the scenario, or preferably the player level.
3) Designing and playing are going to be more complicated. I don't want TOAW becoming a quartermaster game. While I know it's important, and a few individuals would find it fascinating to move gallons of fuel, loaves of bread in 22 shells around, a lot of people would find that increadibly boring.

We need to figure out how to display the information in a way that makes sense, and how to make sure that it doesn't interfere with the gameplay.

If we add the three features, and it helps two scenarios, and complicates the rest of them, was it worth it? Are players going to understand that these people can't fight because of Beans, these because of Bullets, and these because of Fuel, and that they need to do the following different things to resolve each issue?

Ralph

..wot 'e said..

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
I have two concerns.

Looks like three concerns, but that's ok. But just be sure we're both talking about the same thing: Component supply not Discrete supply. Component supply would be splitting the Unit supply up into its component parts - that's all. Except for the multiple (two or three) values that would have to be stored per unit - and handling their different effects on the unit, all else would more or less work the same.

1) Elmer

Does Elmer really concern himself with Unit supply % numbers, or does he concern himself with combat strength and movement allowance? If the latter, then he wouldn't know the difference.

2) It has to be optional, either at the scenario, or preferably the player level.

Sure. That's been done for plenty of things in the past. I don't see a problem.

3) Designing and playing are going to be more complicated. I don't want TOAW becoming a quartermaster game. While I know it's important, and a few individuals would find it fascinating to move gallons of fuel, loaves of bread in 22 shells around, a lot of people would find that increadibly boring.

Here's where I feel you've confused Component supply with Discrete supply. Discrete supply would involve actually moving physical tons of supplies directly to the units. (There's a case to be made for Discrete supply, too, but just for very special, extreme scenarios - CFNA, for example). Component supply would not - it would function just as supply does now. The only change would be at the unit itself.

If we add the three features, and it helps two scenarios, and complicates the rest of them, was it worth it? Are players going to understand that these people can't fight because of Beans, these because of Bullets, and these because of Fuel, and that they need to do the following different things to resolve each issue?

I think players would be very happy to be able to move their units without expending all their ammo, or attack with them without expending all their fuel. That's going to help just about all scenarios.

[SMK-at-work]

come to think of it, you might shift resupply values around - if an army has 3 corps and a resup value of 30, then perhaps you chould shift resup between the corps - you might have 1 that you're not intending to attack with, so you take 10% resup away from it and deliver it to one that you are intending to attack with....persumably with some time delay or other penalty so you can't just shovel supply around at the drop of a hat.....increasing it to 40 but perhaps taking a week to get that high....

[a white rabbit]

..Curtis, b*gger discrete..
 
..either i got shells/fodder or i ain't..
 
..whadd'ya want ? i take my poppoes off into the distance and feed them (they can move but not shoot) or i wait on yr rail-head, (bullets but no-eats) and can shoot but not move..
 
..this is easy in the t3 engine, s'a either/or..
 
..that's what computers do well, y/n..

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
There are many other options that haven't been mentioned (possibly people didn't know they were possible) like allowing different supply levels other than the low medium and high levels, and making the supply rules follow the normal MP penalties when looking at the supply radius. These aren't the three supply types, but there are other things that might be possible with the faster processors.

Oooh! I don't want this idea to go unnoticed. If supply levels could be made proportionate to distance in MPs from the SP that would be a huge boost in supplyline modeling. The rate of decay would still be dependent upon Supply Radius and revised by Supply Units, of course. This is another big benefit of Ralph really fixing the path finding algorithms.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..Curtis, b*gger discrete..

It would be optional. There are some problems (North Africa, amphibious invasions, island hopping campaigns, etc.) that just need the real deal instead of abstraction.

Properly done, it would be heavily automated.

[SMK-at-work]

Yep - that's why we have more computing power on our desktops than existed in the entire world in 1960!!

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Yep - that's why we have more computing power on our desktops than existed in the entire world in 1960!!

Yes, and us programmers are expected to be able to use the upcoming Quad-core processors<g>.

I still remember my first PC. 1 Mhz 8080 and 1024 Bytes of memory.

Ralph

[SMK-at-work]

Absolutely -that's why you gete paid the big bucks!!&nbsp;[;)]

You're a bit older than me in PC-land then - mine was a 286 with 512kb, preceded by an Apple IIe, and a IIe clone before that - and programming simple basic stuff on a mate'sTRS-80 before that.....ah.....if only we'd bought Microsoft shares back then!![8D]

[SMK-at-work]

bump....'cos it's come up again - tm.asp?m=1617130

[X.ray]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Since combat strength drops with unit supply % we have to deduce that the unit is firing less ammo per round.

I don't dispute this. But in order to get 50% of full effect, an artillery unit would have to still be firing a significant portion of the number of shells it would fire at full supply. Each round firing at full supply uses 10% supply, so 100% supply for ten rounds. Yet an artillery unit at the end of its supply lines (say, ten hexes of road from the nearest rail line) will receive perhaps 2% supply per turn (this % of supply is absolute, since the unit receives the same 2% whether it is on 1% or 100% supply). It would have to be firing at one fiftieth the rate of a fully-supplied battery in order to avoid depleting its supply and inevitably running out. Yet it achieves half the effect.

This is ridiculous.

Not so ridiculus. There are clearly diminishing returns for ammo expenditures. The first rounds (that catch the targets least prepared and the firers most prepared) are the most deadly. Subsequent rounds find the targets more and more covered, dispersed, and responding with counterfire. And the 2% figure is an abstraction related to raising the unit supply %. Exactly what physical supply is being delivered is not clear.

I thought running through an example would be helpful. I've attached a spreadsheet showing a possible way ammo expenditures could work (the deductions I used are just guesses, other ones would give somewhat different results).

In the spreadsheet, each item of equipment is assumed to have 1000 rounds of ammo at full supply. I assumed that each combat round deducted rounds equal to the unit supply state. So after 10 rounds, the unit is down to 1% supply, but still has 450 rounds left in its stockpile. From then, it expends something less than 10 rounds per combat round, and, even with several rounds fought per turn, this is a small enough amount that it will usualy be possible to be replaced over the interturn period. Since the unit can, therefore, never deplete its remaining stockpile while it retains supply communications, it can continue in the 1% state indefinitely.

Maybe I missed something here but I still couldn't firgure out how a unit firing less than 10 rounds per combat can still have half of the combat strength as one firing 100 rounds per combat? Do they all become trained snipers automatically when ammo reduces?[&:]