Some questions about the latest patch

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Oh yeah...I suppose I didn't think of proposed changes to TOAW as something that should be kept confidential.

Come to think of it, I still don't. It seems -- witness the above -- that whatever the legitimate function of an NDA, in this case it also serves to make a change a fait accompli.

Feel free to take that up with Matrix. But I think they prefer their games to not be developed by committee.

I doubt very much that anything Matrix ever said would have prevented you from posting a list of what was going to be in the patch. In fact, considering that you posted a beta of the patch, this is a transparent falsehood.

What would actually have been the problem with discussing -- in advance of making the change -- the notion that supply units should merely extend the supply radius rather than increasing the supply delivered by a fixed percentage of the base supply level as in the past? Or the notion that they necessarily can only represent and should only represent an increase in land transportation assets?

The fact of the matter is that the definition and potential usefulness of supply units was radically altered -- and radically altered without any public discussion.

Nevertheless, had you been reading the Wishlist, you would have been aware of it. But I guess we were supposed to give you a personal notification.

You are referring to a discussion that took place three years ago -- on a thread that is fifty four pages long. Everything from submarines to strategic bombing has been on that wish list.

Yes, I think you are thinking of changing the system, you should list the changes you're considering so that people can comment.

For one, it would avoid the sort of disappointment that occurred here. If nothing else, I would have immediately inquired whether sea roads were still going to work -- and that would have saved you from what you have already admitted was an oversight.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

...New Supply, however, is intended to be a boost to realism. Supply Units have to be modeled as they now are for that reason. Anything else would be unrealistic.

One would hope any change is intended to have a positive effect on realism. The alternative would be a bit perverse.

I heartily disagree with your assertion that the new supply units are 'more realistic.'

However, leaving that aside, is there any particular reason the new adjustable supply points could not be used with the old supply system?

I don't know what alternate reality you reside in (and don't want to know), but here on Earth, there is no way to extend supply lines to infinity.

Leaving aside the Curtisism, neither of the two alternative forms of supply units 'extends supply lines to infinity.' There has to be supply in the first place for it to be enhanced.

Any other mechanism other than the one effected would have left infinite supply lines in place. There was only one correct solution.

Aside from the concept that there is only one correct solution and it is invariably your solution, what you say is both inaccurate and irrelevant. With the old system, supply extended infinitely. With your system, units remain 'supplied' to infinity as well. So what are you talking about?

Supply units have never, ever, modeled a supply source. That you may have been using them in that fashion is not TOAW's problem.

Sigh. How was I able to use them as a 'supply source'? I only wish I could have.

The objective of new supply was realism.

As already noted, I would hope that realism is always the objective. The difficulty is that you missed. Supply units do not invariably simply represent more trucks. No one -- other than yourself -- ever assumed that they did.

Obviously, we can't afford to support two supply systems. The retrograde Old Supply thing is not going to get any more development. Whether it can, nevertheless, benefit from developments of New Supply, only Ralph can say.

Ah. So as far as you know, there is no particular reason variable value supply points couldn't be offered in the old system?

One can only morbidly wonder -- behind all the smoke and thunder, just how much work would it actually entail?

[sPzAbt653]

... supply units have now been eviscerated.

What happened to the supply units ? They no longer boost supply 50% for adjacent units ?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

... supply units have now been eviscerated.

What happened to the supply units ? They no longer boost supply 50% for adjacent units ?

That's not exactly what they ever did. Once, they used to add 25% of the base supply (not to exceed 100%) for units lying within the supply radius from them. So if you had a supply radius of -- say -- four hexes, and units were out in what would normally be 25% supply country, if there was a supply unit within four hexes, they would get 50% of the base supply. It was effectively possible to as much as double supply.

All kinds of interesting applications. The supply unit goes to support the selected effort. Stationary supply units pop up at captured anchorages and airfields. No doubt others have found other uses for them.

But no more.

Curtis the infinitely wise decided that supply units were simply transport, and that as such, they should simply extend the supply net. The net effect is that supply units do little at all for units that are distant from supply sources. In other words, they are least useful precisely where they once had potentially the most dramatic impact.

Curtis the infinitely wise has not deigned to share with us the source of his revelation that they represent transport and that only. Some of us poor mortals always thought of them simply as a tool for enhancing supply where and how a designer saw fit to permit supply to be enhanced -- and indeed, it was as such that they were introduced.

A nifty design tool, which designers could make use of in all kinds of interesting ways. So much for that idea.

It would appear we had not been given the full text of the revelation. Curtis the infinitely wise uncovered it for us, though, and has ruled accordingly. So now they're basically an extension of the supply radius. And that's that.

Now why he couldn't have just left well enough alone and allowed them to continue to add 25% of the base supply level to units within their radius escapes me. After all, that's what they've always done, and if you didn't want that effect, you didn't have to put them in your scenarios. For those of us who wanted that effect, it was very handy.

Be forewarned before you protest. Curtis reacts badly to those who question the authenticity of his revelations. In fact, he becomes distinctly ill-tempered and abusive.

[sPzAbt653]

Supply Units: Increases the Supply Level in each supplied location that can trace a path no longer than the Supply Radius to the Supply unit. Additionally, Supply units multiply supply distribution to adjacent Cooperative units by 1.5.

Well, if it changed from that, that wouldn't be so nice. Especially the 1.5 part. A lot of time is spent jiggling Supply Radius, Rail Repair, Supply Level, and the number of Supply Units in order to get a scenario as proper as it can be.

When discussions revolve around possible changes or enhancements, someone always brings up the effect on existing scenarios as a reason to not consider some ideas.

This loss of 1.5 seems odd.

----------------------------------

EDIT : Nothing was done to the 1.5 multiple for adjacent units. That's still there.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Supply Units: Increases the Supply Level in each supplied location that can trace a path no longer than the Supply Radius to the Supply unit. Additionally, Supply units multiply supply distribution to adjacent Cooperative units by 1.5.

Well, if it changed from that, that wouldn't be so nice. Especially the 1.5 part. A lot of time is spent jiggling Supply Radius, Rail Repair, Supply Level, and the number of Supply Units in order to get a scenario as proper as it can be.

When discussions revolve around possible changes or enhancements, someone always brings up the effect on existing scenarios as a reason to not consider some ideas.

This loss of 1.5 seems odd.

Well, it's only lost if you use the new supply rules. Of course, the new supply rules are bundled (again for reasons that are somewhat unclear) with the variable supply points. So you can't take advantage of variable supply points either if you want to use supply units as they once were.

[sPzAbt653]

Well, it's only lost if you use the new supply rules.

Another reason not to use the New Rules unless the scenario briefing specifically states that they should be used. However, D21 was updated for the New Rules but we didn't know about this change to the supply units, which are quite important in the scenario.

The What's New says : Supply Units still have their enhanced effect: they effectively treat a location as if it were one supply radius closer to the supply point, provided that the location was within a supply radius of the supply unit.

I would think that if the 1.5 bonus was eliminated that it wouldn't say 'still have their enhanced effect' only. It should also mention the loss of 1.5. Not that that would change the effect on existing scenarios.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Oh yeah...I suppose I didn't think of proposed changes to TOAW as something that should be kept confidential.

Come to think of it, I still don't. It seems -- witness the above -- that whatever the legitimate function of an NDA, in this case it also serves to make a change a fait accompli.

Feel free to take that up with Matrix. But I think they prefer their games to not be developed by committee.

I doubt very much that anything Matrix ever said would have prevented you from posting a list of what was going to be in the patch. In fact, considering that you posted a beta of the patch, this is a transparent falsehood.

What would actually have been the problem with discussing -- in advance of making the change -- the notion that supply units should merely extend the supply radius rather than increasing the supply delivered by a fixed percentage of the base supply level as in the past? Or the notion that they necessarily can only represent and should only represent an increase in land transportation assets?

The fact of the matter is that the definition and potential usefulness of supply units was radically altered -- and radically altered without any public discussion.

Nevertheless, had you been reading the Wishlist, you would have been aware of it. But I guess we were supposed to give you a personal notification.

You are referring to a discussion that took place three years ago -- on a thread that is fifty four pages long. Everything from submarines to strategic bombing has been on that wish list.

Yes, I think you are thinking of changing the system, you should list the changes you're considering so that people can comment.

For one, it would avoid the sort of disappointment that occurred here. If nothing else, I would have immediately inquired whether sea roads were still going to work -- and that would have saved you from what you have already admitted was an oversight.

What part of "Non Disclosure Agreement" did you not understand? We can't discuss what we're doing on the board. But this item was there in the Wishlist for everyone to see.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Supply Units: Increases the Supply Level in each supplied location that can trace a path no longer than the Supply Radius to the Supply unit. Additionally, Supply units multiply supply distribution to adjacent Cooperative units by 1.5.

Well, if it changed from that, that wouldn't be so nice. Especially the 1.5 part. A lot of time is spent jiggling Supply Radius, Rail Repair, Supply Level, and the number of Supply Units in order to get a scenario as proper as it can be.

When discussions revolve around possible changes or enhancements, someone always brings up the effect on existing scenarios as a reason to not consider some ideas.

This loss of 1.5 seems odd.

Nothing was done to the 1.5 multiple for adjacent units. That's still there. And, the other effect is doing what it had done before as well: reducing the distance to the source by one supply radius.

But Old Supply extended supply to infinity. New Supply fixes that. Both regular supply and the boost from Supply Units are dependent upon the distance of the locations from the supply source - just like in the real world. Had we not done that, Supply Unit boosted supply would have extended at 25% all the way to infinity.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Supply Units: Increases the Supply Level in each supplied location that can trace a path no longer than the Supply Radius to the Supply unit. Additionally, Supply units multiply supply distribution to adjacent Cooperative units by 1.5.

Well, if it changed from that, that wouldn't be so nice. Especially the 1.5 part. A lot of time is spent jiggling Supply Radius, Rail Repair, Supply Level, and the number of Supply Units in order to get a scenario as proper as it can be.

When discussions revolve around possible changes or enhancements, someone always brings up the effect on existing scenarios as a reason to not consider some ideas.

This loss of 1.5 seems odd.

Nothing was done to the 1.5 multiple for adjacent units. That's still there.

Odd. What happened to the argument that the supply unit represents transportation assets and nothing else?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



But Old Supply extended supply to infinity. New Supply fixes that. Both regular supply and the boost from Supply Units are dependent upon the distance of the locations from the supply source - just like in the real world. Had we not done that, Supply Unit boosted supply would have extended at 25% all the way to infinity.

'Fixed' is perhaps the wrong word. Assuming designers wanted the effect in the first place, they might not have appreciated having it 'fixed.'

On the other hand, designers seeking supply units that wouldn't exert such a dramatic effect could always just...omit them?

The fact remains that supply units did offer a way for designers to dramatically manipulate the supply system. That is, in fact, why they were created.

In the name of some specious reasoning that you neither made public nor apparently even believe yourself, you unilaterally did away with them.

Why? If you don't want supply units, don't use them. There's no need to prevent the rest of us from having access to this tool as it was.

Actually, of course, in no TOAW system does supply 'extend to infinity.' It can't go past the boundaries of the map, and indeed, terrain permitting, modern armies have almost invariably managed to get supplies to any force they could physically reach in the field. Army Group A's panzers in the Caucasus were way out there, and they certainly weren't getting all the supplies they wanted, but they were getting some. Ditto for Rommel at El Alamein. These people may have charged out to eight times the usual supply radius -- but they were still getting some packages in the mail.

Now, how could we simulate that? A supply unit that always increases the supply by 25% of the base perhaps? And when it couldn't be done? Why, omit the supply unit.

But no...Curtis has decided you can get one additional step in the supply radius and that's it. Never mind what others decided would be best in the past; Curtis has fixed it.

Like you 'fixed' AA, right? You were quite sure that was fit and proper, but we've gone back to where it is now possible to scale AA to...what it was in the first place.

Before you 'fixed' it.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




Feel free to take that up with Matrix. But I think they prefer their games to not be developed by committee.

I doubt very much that anything Matrix ever said would have prevented you from posting a list of what was going to be in the patch. In fact, considering that you posted a beta of the patch, this is a transparent falsehood.

Nevertheless, had you been reading the Wishlist, you would have been aware of it. But I guess we were supposed to give you a personal notification.

You are referring to a discussion that took place three years ago -- on a thread that is fifty four pages long. Everything from submarines to strategic bombing has been on that wish list.

Yes, I think you are thinking of changing the system, you should list the changes you're considering so that people can comment.

For one, it would avoid the sort of disappointment that occurred here. If nothing else, I would have immediately inquired whether sea roads were still going to work -- and that would have saved you from what you have already admitted was an oversight.

What part of "Non Disclosure Agreement" did you not understand? We can't discuss what we're doing on the board. But this item was there in the Wishlist for everyone to see.

What part of 'bull' do you not understand? You most certainly can -- and do -- discuss proposed changes when it suits you. See what you and others indicated would be in this patch and will be in the next. Should I really drag up the posts?

And saying 'something was on the wishlist for everyone to see' is absurd. I'm supposed to comb fifty four pages looking for bad ideas I disagree with and then get your personal assurance you won't implement them?

In fact, there is no earthly reason you couldn't list the changes you were considering and invite comment. Something like that occurs all the time. 'It'll be in the next patch.' What happens to the NDA then?

You're using the NDA as a crutch to justify what was in fact an error. Inadvertently or not, you imposed several controversial changes without giving people a reasonable chance to comment. Saying it 'was in the thread' is one step up from meaningless.

[sPzAbt653]

Nothing was done to the 1.5 multiple for adjacent units. That's still there.

Shwew !! Ok then, thanks for the clarification.

With the variable supply points, I think we can get around the other point of the distance factor by using the variable supply points. i.e., in the desert we can have some low percentage supply points at the oasis's, in deep Russia we can have low percentage supply points at forward depots. We've already put some in D21 to make up for the decrease at the extremes in order to take advantage of the new rules.

Another factor to consider in working these problems out in a scenario are the rail lines. There may not have been a rail line to an oasis deep in the desert, but in TOAW terms it nicely simulates a supply line.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Nothing was done to the 1.5 multiple for adjacent units. That's still there.

Shwew !! Ok then, thanks for the clarification.

With the variable supply points, I think we can get around the other point of the distance factor by using the variable supply points. i.e., in the desert we can have some low percentage supply points at the oasis's, in deep Russia we can have low percentage supply points at forward depots. We've already put some in D21 to make up for the decrease at the extremes in order to take advantage of the new rules.

Another factor to consider in working these problems out in a scenario are the rail lines. There may not have been a rail line to an oasis deep in the desert, but in TOAW terms it nicely simulates a supply line.

Depending on what you want, you may have to temper your joy. 1.5 times 1% is...1.5%. In other words, your supply unit isn't going to help much when you really need it.

Aside from the problems it causes in my scenarios, I still don't see why this 'improvement' was necessary.

Supply units were a tool with a powerful effect. If that effect wasn't desired, omit them. In cases where it was desired, couldn't it have occurred to Curtis that people might not appreciate having the effect reduced by fiat?

[ColinWright]

I've already said it, but I'll repeat something.

What really causes me problems is not that I have to choose between the new supply system and supply units that function in the old way. That I could live with. Maybe not like, but live with.

What bugs me is that I can't combine supply units functioning in the old way with the variable supply points. I have yet to hear why it was necessary to 'package' the variable supply points with the new supply system. Variable supply points is something I was looking forward to -- that, and the continued use of supply units.

There may be some reason this combination occurred -- but it's not apparent. Just make supply points variable in both systems; what's the problem? After all, by default they'll all be at 100 in old scenarios -- there's no backwards compatibility issue that I can see.

[Curtis Lemay]

So...

Infinite length supply lines are realistic.
NDAs are meaningless.
No one can be expected to read the wishlist.
Up is down.
Left is right.

Anything else?

Back in the real world...

Old Supply is still there for any who don't care about infinite length supply. For those who do, New Supply fixes it.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Nothing was done to the 1.5 multiple for adjacent units. That's still there.

Odd. What happened to the argument that the supply unit represents transportation assets and nothing else?

Nothing odd about it at all. The distance required to travel to the unit is reduced. Therefore a boost is received. Fully in accordance with transportation asset operations.

And "transportation assets" is the only rational way to interpret supply units. Hopefully, we can expand on that down the road by scaling their effect due to losses.

Regardless, whatever anyone wants to interpret them as, their effect would attenuate with distance from the source. There simply is no real-world effect that doesn't.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

So...

Infinite length supply lines are realistic.
NDAs are meaningless.
No one can be expected to read the wishlist.
Up is down.
Left is right.

Anything else?

Back in the real world...

Old Supply is still there for any who don't care about infinite length supply. For those who do, New Supply fixes it.

Good stuff, Curt. 'Up is down.' Left is right.' 'Back in the real world...'

Keep it up. That's what's making this forum thrive.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

And "transportation assets" is the only rational way to interpret supply units.

No...

As noted, it is simply and solely your way.

Believe it or not, this can differ from 'the only way.'

Of course, now that you've imposed your change, it is the only way.

Building a better TOAW -- that's our Curt.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Regardless, whatever anyone wants to interpret them as, their effect would attenuate with distance from the source. There simply is no real-world effect that doesn't.

Fairly comic.

I'm reminded of when you were defending your assertion that the Japanese could have and should have invaded the Hawaiian Islands.

Part of your 'argument' was (rather incredibly) that it doesn't make any difference how long supply lines are -- if they are at sea.

If the Japanese could put a given quantity of supply ashore in the Philippines, they could have put it ashore in Hawaii. Remember that, Curtis?

In any case, the fact of the matter is that supply units were a fairly abstract tool that could represent almost anything at all but in particular were intended to represent strategic focus (which is not necessarily attentuated by distance). I've already furnished some fine examples of this point.

That's how they were intended, and that's how they were often used -- until you 'fixed' them.